The 80s Were Terrible: #6

Before I came to college, little did I know that I was stepping into a world of 80s celebrationists. This general glorification of that horrible decade seems to center around a certain kind of event-- the 80s Party. I have spent three semesters in college, and there have been at least 5 different 80s parties, including 80s parties held by single dorm rooms under their own administration. I guess the girls like dressing up and the guys like the girls, but it seems that a large draw of these parties is crappy 80s music; bringing us to #6 on our countdown of terror...


Hair Bands



I swear-- if I am subjected to some random Bon Jovi outburst ONE MORE TIME I'm going to discover time travel, contruct a machine, jump back to 1977 and punch that piece of crap in the throat... hard. "Living on a Prayer" is garbage. "Shot Through The Heart" is like a swarm of bees rushing into my ear canals. "Wanted Dead or Alive" is a song with a correct answer. "You Give Love a Bad Name"? You give music a bad name. If Grog the music-creating caveman knew that his work would result in this, he would knock that rock through his skull instead of against the wall. Bon Jovi definitely isn't the end of it. Poison, White Snake, Motley Crue, Skid Row, Guns 'n Roses... ATROCIOUS. Ugh. It's bad enough when I have to hear this refuse every once in a while; how the hell did people put up with it when it was on the radio non-stop? People today complain about "Hollaback Girl" and "My Humps". Give me Gwen Stefani repeating the word shit for 4 minutes over a Poison power ballad anyday.

Even More Naomi Watts

A few days ago, I posted about the Naomi Watts celebration known as King Kong. Well, now she's going to get a second post. I think this puts her into a tie with the Red Ranger/Slavco from that VH1 reality series that I watched occasionally over the summer for "most posted about individual". Forget that I mentioned that.



Anywizzle, as I vegetated over my winter break from college, I decided that an excellent way to waste time would be to watch some of the content on the HBO Video OnDemand station that comes with my digital cable subscription (Time Warner baby!). This was a good idea until I started waking up at 3pm every afternoon; so I ended up getting through only two movies. One prominently featured Naomi Watts, and the other starred Nicole Kidman, who is pretty much the same person.

I'm going to throw this lame one-liner out there whether I actually think it's funny or not. You will never know my true feelings:

I Hearted Huckabees!

That deserves at least 3 LOLs. I can't count on anyone having seen this, but any plot summary I give would not make ANY sense. Instead, I'll only summarize Naomi Watts' role. She's Huckabees' spokesmodel (Huckabees is a department store... think Macy's), she's Jude Law's girlfriend, she wears an existential bonnet. The film, though un-summarizable, was interesting and funny.

The other movie I watched was Dogville, which had a plot that I can summarize. Nicole Kidman is some 1930s mobster's daughter that runs away out west. She ends up in tiny, poor town full of strange people. Then a bunch of weird stuff happens. Eventually she ends up with a chain around her neck. The end is semi-surprising and moderately disturbing; which is always a plus. Various sources on the internets tell me that this is an America-bashing film, but it was made by an insane foreign filmmaker; and much like any American worth his salt, I ignore all criticism of this great land. America, F--- Yeah. But seriously, I saw a Jesus thing going on more than anything. Then again, I see Jesus in a lot of things-- unfortunately not in anything I could sell on eBay or get featured on the 10pm news... yet.

I think I went into this with a point, but it's gone now.



Sidenote: I might avoid posting for a while just because that picture at the top of the page looks great.

What's In A Name?

In theory, every parent wants the best for their child. I mean, even the most neglectful parent isn't interested in being hit with a criminal negligence charge and jail time for being too lazy to keep their baby alive. That means that even the worst parents are forced to put in a good deal of effort-- and if you're gonna go through all of that, you might as well raise a good one, right? The thing is, many parents, even ones that do genuinely care about raising upstanding kids, make critical errors EARLY in the game.

They give their kids terrible names.


I touched on this previously in the Proof review, where I slammed Gwyneth Paltrow and Chris Martin for naming their kid Apple. In all seriousness, that was a stretch. Apple is a strange name, but not too terrible of one. It'll bring on some schoolyard heckling, and maybe a beating or two, but the little lady should be fine. However, there are same names that should draw some kind of monetary fine in an attempt to curb bad parenting. I can't prove this, but it just seems to me (and of course, everyone else) that certain types of names go a long way towards shaping the person that child ends up being.


1. Old, Stodgy, Obsolete Names: Abraham, Maximilian, Bartholomew

I don't care if there's a biblical origin, some kind of family history, whatever. If you name your son Phineus, he's in trouble. He's not going to get light Apple-type needling; he's going to get non-stop criticism that will invariably turn him into a cold, hardened, souless asshole. Do you want that? Bartholomew is slightly better since it's also the name of a famous cartoon character-- but that will bring its own problems. Just don't do it.

2. Old Woman Names: Mildred, Gertrude, Ida

Again, I don't care where the name comes from. You know what happens to a little girl named Gertrude? She gets treated like a Gertrude. That means like an old woman. This is not good times. No matter how many scantily-clad pictures Gerty puts up on MySpace/Facebook, she's still going to be expected to wear a bonnet and a girdle. Your daughter will not appreciate it. There's also a 75% chance she becomes an alcoholic trying to show that she's nothing like her name makes her out to be.

3. Cute Names: Brittany, Kaylee, Tammy

This seems like a good idea when you have a baby coming home and waking you up everynight, or a toddler running around breaking everything because it reminds you "hey, this thing is kind of cute... I won't strangle it yet". First of all, I do not support infanticide, so you're a horrible person. Second, you shouldn't need a cutesy name to keep yourself from murdering a small child-- again, terrible person. These names even work in high school. Isn't "Brittany" just the perfect cheerleader name? Cheerleaders run the universe, so this isn't necessarily a bad thing. The problem arises years later, when "Tammy" is trying to become a partner at a law firm, or "Kaylee" is running for senate. Worst of all, Grandma Brittany just doesn't look, feel or sound right. All grandmas should have the names listed under #2. If you're going to go this route, make sure to give a neutral middle name, so that your baby has a choice later on. Think... "Mary" or "Elizabeth".

4. Hot Names: Amber, Summer, Autumn

These names just put too much pressure on a child. Your kid is going to go through life being expected to be a bombshell, and if the cards don't fall right, she's going to have some awkward first impressions. It's also scientific fact that these names raise your child's chances of working in the sex industry 500%.

King Kong

Also known as "Naomi Watts' Closeup"



I haven't done a "review" in a long time because, frankly, they're hard to do. Thinking up new ways to say that a movie sucks is not my idea of fun, and as such, I am not achieving the flow that I need to pump out such stirring literary content. How can this be addressed? By seeing a GOOD movie. How can this be addressed even more? By seeing a GOOD movie with Naomi Watts in it. I shouldn't need to explain, but I will anyway since I am untrusting of those around me; especially the 2-4 people that read this blog. It's because she's quite the looker.

Ms. Watts' beauty would normally not be mentioned so prominently in one of my writings, as such crass subject matter is below me. In this case however, I was clearly supposed to hit on this point, since director Peter Jackson decided that I needed to sit through roughly 40 minutes of extreme closeups on her face. I suppose that's a little more artistically valid than say, a cleavage or ass shot, but it's still sketch*. The main character is already a 30ft gorilla that is incapable of verbal communication, so the looooooong silent gazes upon Naomi's impeccably constructed features were not helpful as I quested to get through the 3-hour film in a fully conscious state.

Now, I have thus far refused to watch even a second of Jackson's Lord of The Rings trilogy, so I ask: does he normally do this? Did he have the camera leer at Liv Tyler for uncomfortably long amounts of time? I need to know if he actually was crushing on Naomi, or if he's just a closeup slut, jumping from one Hollywood starlet to the next. Ok, Liv Tyler isn't exactly a starlet, but you get the idea.

My last note is that Jack Black should never attempt to do a serious role again. He's just incapable; it almost ruined the entire thing for me. It's not that he was bad, it's just that I kept having flashbacks to the guy running around in his tighty whiteys in "Orange County"... didn't help that Colin Hanks was in both flicks as well.

* - I don't use this term or it's cousin "sketchy", but I decided to write it anyway

Mark Warner Is Too Creepy-Looking to be President

I hate to steer this thing towards politics... but too bad. This is Governor Mark Warner of Virginia. Warner is shaping up to be Sen. Hillary Clinton's main competition for the Democratic nomination in the 2008 Presidential election (the one that the Democrat, whoever it is, has NO EXCUSE to lose... NONE). What makes Warner appealing? Well, he's insanely popular as a Democrat in what has been a strong Red State, he's wealthy, he's building up a war chest, and he's relatively young. Yeah, whatever.

Look, I'm going to square with you. My biggest problem with Mark Warner is that he's not Hillary Clinton. I'm on her side big-time. She went to NY under heavy fire for being a political oppertunist and a carpetbagger and has done nothing but succeed despite that. She's very popular, even in that mysterious "upstate" region that includes roughly 85% of the state geographically. Not being Hillary Clinton isn't really a problem that Warner can address. I apologize. My second problem with the governor is also one that he can't really address... Dude looks friggin' creepy.

In a perfect world, the looks of a candidate wouldn't matter. The platform presented, mastery of the issues and ability to lead would be the criteria upon which to base our votes. Well, in a perfect world a woman, black, asian, hispanic, jewish or gay person would have been president by now. Excuse me while I step away from the keyboard to laugh hysterically.

Ok, back. The point is that this world is not perfect, and contrary to popular belief, Mark Warner isn't either. John Kerry's resemblance to those talking trees in the Wizard of Oz had just as much to do with his loss as a complete failure to establish a message and snooty know-it-all image. Michael Dukakis' absurd eyebrows were just as damaging as his decision to go GI Joe in front of a camera crew. Bob Dole looked like he could barely stay awake, how the hell could he fight the terrorists and such? I fear that some of our greatest presidents wouldn't be able to make the cut today with all of the media focus. Honest Abe looked like an early prototype for Dr. Frankenstein. I'm not even sure that Teddy Roosevelt was a real person; in fact the cartoons that I see of him now sometimes bear a closer resemblance to actual humanity than real photographs. Let's not even get started on Taft.

So, when you enter that voting booth in the Democratic primaries in 2008, remember; you're going to have to see closeups of this guy's face on a regular basis for at least four years. Wouldn't you rather see this?