For the record, I used that word (grunge) while grinding my teeth. I generally dislike it, and use it more to describe a time period and geographic rock movement (RE: Seattle) than I do an actual musical genre. If Alice in Chains became popular 3 years earlier before the mainstream media coined that term they would have been a metal group. If Nirvana became popular two years earlier we’d refer to them as a punk group. If Pearl Jam became popular earlier we’d be talking about their similarity with The Who and a splash of Neil Young rather than lumping them in with Nirvana. Grunge was always a media buzz-word to create hype about the Seattle movement.

(That’s not to take anything away from what grew up out of the underground Seattle scene at that time, I just don’t consider it a musical genre).

That being said, those bands comprise some of my absolute favorite, and certainly my favorite “contemporary” (can they even be called that anymore?!) music.

Anyway, Alice in Chains (or, at least as much as you can call it Alice in Chains without Layne Staley) released an album last fall, as did Pearl Jam (and it was actually a Pearl Jam release that, months later, I still enjoy. That hasn’t really been the case since Yield over a decade ago). STP has re-united, with a new release expected this year. And the big news? On New Years Day Soundgarden has announced they will be re-uniting.

Soundgarden is, perhaps, my second favorite group from my the early 90’s, someone that perhaps didn’t affect my childhood as much as Pearl Jam or Nirvana (but they’ve age better than Nirvana has for me), but who really grew on me on high school and college. Unfortunately, by the time I had come to fully appreciate the group they had disbanded, and I never got the chance to see them live. Now hopefully that will change. The chance to see Jesus Christ Pose live is a great thing. A little worried about Chris Cornell’s vocals? Yeah, I wasn’t all that thrilled with Audioslave, and I have no idea what was up with his solo stuff, but he’s sounded good the few times I’ve heard him recently (mostly re-doing Temple of the Dog tracks with Pearl Jam).

How will Matt Cameron (original drummer of Soundgarden who has been with Pearl Jam the past 12 years)? Guess that’s a minor concern, but a small price to pay to see this group re-unite.

We need a Soundgarden/Pearl Jam combined tour. You can then throw in Temple of the Dog songs. Ask Mudhoney to open and you have a full fledged Seattle invasion.

As is probably obvious, I picked up the new Pearl Jam album (Backspacer) on September 20th, the day it came out. I withheld writing about it for a solid two+ weeks so I could get the requisite listens in, as Pearl Jam albums, particularly after Yield, have gotten progressively better the more I listen to them.

It has become en vogue for die-hard Pearl Jam fans to list some of their newer compilations as the best the band has to offer. Whether this is because of the commercial (and popular) success of Ten and Vs. or just their musical taste I’m not sure (and, for the record, I don’t generally believe there can be a “right” opinion on which is the best. Music is about taste, preference, and the emotions it invokes as much as anything). But, for me, Pearl Jam is at their best with hard, fast, Zeppelin-inspired Arena rock or when channeling their inner Neil Young with acoustic, almost folksy ballads. That’s not to say some of their more experimental efforts weren’t good, but in the end I find these two types to be Pearl Jam’s most consistently enjoyable works.

Backspacer, to me, does that. And does it well.

My opinion of Backspacer was generally favorable right from the beginning, in fact on first listen it’s probably been my favorite Pearl Jam album of the last 10 years (since 1998’s Yield).

The disc opens up with “Gonna See My Friend”, “Got Some”, and “The Fixer”, perhaps the three songs that have been pushed the hardest commercially so far (“The Fixer” being the albums first single and the basis for the Target commercial that is seemingly everywhere). None of these songs are bad, in fact they’re all quite listen-able, but none of them really hold my attention and resonate (either instrumentally or lyrically) either.

The album really picks up, for me, beginning on track 5. In fact, “Just Breathe”, “Amongst the Waves” and “Unthought Known” might be my favorite 3 consecutive song sequence since Vs. came out in 1993. This is where the diversity in Pearl Jams talent begins to shine. Of the album, these were the three that stuck out to me on first listen, and two weeks later these are the three that have been added to my all-time favorite playlist of Pearl Jam songs (“Force of Nature” may make it there as well).

Backspacer may have been more conservative than some of their previous efforts, but for the most part works, and works very well. The album has produced three songs that I’m ready to throw up against the best of the Pearl Jam library, a handful of other very good songs, and hardly a bad track in the album (“Johnny Guitar” is the only one I really skip).

Is it Ten or Vs.? No, I can’t say that it is. Then again, I don’t expect them to ever produce another album as good as those two, for a number of reasons (including Eddie Vedders voice, which whether due to age, 17+ years of heavy touring, or smoking, or any combination, I don’t think can keep tune on some of the faster songs of early Pearl Jam the way he could in his mid-twenties). Ten, Vs. (and to a lesser extent Vitalogy, which while some of the experiments didn’t work, had 5-6 of PJ’s best songs in my opinion) are two of my favorite albums of all time, from any artist. From the nostalgia factor, even if they released an album as technically wonderful as those two it might not have the same hold over me. That being said, in the second tier of Pearl Jam albums, I hold Backspacer right up there with Yield as the best of the non Ten/Vs/Vitalogy efforts. Saying an album might be the 4th/5th best a band has produced might not sound like high praise, but coming from me about Pearl Jam it is.

For the past two weeks I’ve enjoyed listening to a heck of a lot of Pearl Jam and bringing back the memories and feelings of my youth. This is perhaps the most I’ve liked Pearl Jam since my high school days, and Backspacer has added a great new piece to the collections.

The Metropolitan Fire Service (MFS) in Adelaide says it is worrying that two girls lost in a stormwater drain raised the alert on a social networking site rather than ringing triple-0.

The 10- and 12-year-old girls updated a Facebook status to say they were lost in a drain on Honeypot Road at Hackham in Adelaide’s southern suburbs on Sunday night

Of course, had this been posted on twitter, it would probably be something like:

Help!! I’m stuck in a drain. Hurt badly. I think my leg is broken. I’m not sure how much longer I can stay down here. You can find me at

There will be spolers, so if you haven’t seen these movies and don’t want to be spoiled, don’t read on. Otherwise, click Read More.

Thoughts:

I actually, more or less, liked all 5. I have some nitpicking things about each, but more or less I thought they were all good movies.

I thought Slumdog was the most realized and engaging movie. This was the one that had me the most entertained throughout, and at no point did I go “if they had just done this”, which was the only movie of the 5 to do so. Just a good, well told story. If I had to pick a best movie of the year, it would probably be it.

I thought the second best was probably Milk. Obviously, having a compelling, heart-tugging tale helps any movie, and it would have taken an absolute disastrous performance not to feel some sympathy towards the title character. But the performance was the polar opposite. This movie can be boiled down quite easily. Great real story, with real, non-manufactured emotion, + Sean Penn = great movie. My only minor complaint is I thought they would have done more with the Dan White character. Brolin was fine (although not superb, IMO), but I would have liked more airtime dedicated to his personal feelings towards Milk and the movement he represented. Was he prejudiced? Or was his action ONLY the result of his career?

Those two I thought were head and shoulders above the other 3. I thought those were “best picture” worthy movies. The other 3 I thought were “only” really good movies, and at about the same level.

Frost/Nixon I thought was the most compelling story, and the perspective of doing the Nixon saga from a series of real-life interviews was good. It had the opportunity to be boring (if you’re not already interested in the subject), but I thought it kept you engaged. I thought, at times, they went into stereotypical Nixon’isms, and almost presented him as a caricature of himself at times. I wasn’t blown away by either Michael Sheen (David Frost) or Frank Langella (Richard Nixon), although I do think Langella did a good job of showing Nixon’s shame and regret through facial expressions, without coming out and saying it.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button was, well, the most curious. This is the one I probably have the least read on. I would have to watch this again to truly judge whether this was a great movie, or just a great concept. Certainly, the concept gave an entirely new slant on a love story, and Brad Pitt did a tremendous job on playing different stages of the character, both physically and emotionally. But the thing I don’t have a read on is whether or not they sold the “I have to leave you because the kid needs a father, not a playmate” thing. To me, the entire movie hinges on whether or not Blanchett and Pitt effectively pull off the necessity of Pitt running off, and I’d have to re-watch the film to judge based on that. I also don’t think the film is necessarily deep, as it’s sometimes being labeled. It’s a gimmick, and it’s a gimmick that’s pulled off successfully, but at its heart, it’s a simple love story, and not overly profound as much as it is entertaining.

The Reader I thought was the most unrealized of the 5. I went in purposefully not being spoiled. I knew it was about Nazi Germany, but I didn’t know the plot twist. And I thought the plot twist had a heckuva lot of potential, and in the end was a good, thought provoking movie. But I couldn’t help but want more. Want more of Hanna Schmitz’s story. I wanted to know more about what she knew, what she felt about what she did, and how much remorse she felt. In the end, the focus really was on her learning to read, and the title was descriptive. Which is fine, a good story, but the more interesting parts of the story were left largely ignored. I thought they setup the revelation well, with how quiet and reserved Hannah was, but would have preferred a little more analysis of Hannah from the trial forward. I do think they successfully pulled off the heart-tugging end, with Michael’s outward disapproval of Hannah’s actions, and Hannah’s ensuing heart-break. I just thought there was more to the movie that could have been tapped, making a good film great.

I also do think The Dark Knight was at least in the class of Button, The Reader, and Frost/Nixon. But the moment the lead character put on a mask and cape, any Oscar hope was dashed. The Oscar’s reward thought-provoking stories, and great real-life retelling’s. But that’s part of the argument for The Dark Knight in my opinion. It so far exceeded the genre it’s in, that it deserved consideration. The 3 movies I enjoyed most this year were Slumdog, Milk, and The Dark Knight. It would be nice if one day the Academy could get past that. Take out the chase scene (which, coincidentally, I thought was the weakest part of the movie), and the movie really was more in the genre of Silence of the Lambs and Seven than it was Superman. It was a movie about terrorism and fear, the main two characters just happened to be wearing a cape, mask and makeup. I’m not sure it deserved to win, but it deserved to be in the running IMO.

I do think Slumdog wins (and deserves) best picture. I think Penn deserves the award for best lead actor (although I haven’t seen The Wrestler). And I’d be shocked of Ledger doesn’t win best supporting actor, and deservedly so.

Which, in and of itself is a shame. But that’s not what really irked me.

(I mean, it does. But I could have pulled a domestic violence accusation from hundreds of newspapers across the country each day, sadly).

What caught my eye is Wrigley, one of his sponsors, pulling advertisements he was in.

“Wrigley is concerned by the serious allegations made against Chris Brown,” a company spokesperson tells Us. “We believe Mr. Brown should be afforded the same due process as any citizen.

“However, we have made the decision to suspend the current advertising featuring Brown and any related marketing communications until the matter is resolved,” the statement continued.

I love PR speak. “We believe in due process. Except we’re going to go by the court of public opinion”.

Not that I disagree with their decision to pull his advertisements, but be up front about it. Don’t tell me in one breath that you believe in due process, then in the next breath tell me you’re condemning him before he’s been convicted.

Awards Shows
Can’t stand them. A bunch of people with a huge sense of entitlement. It’s the stroking of ego’s for people who constantly need their ego’s stroked, coming to these events completely aloof of the problems of the average person, in multi-thousand dollar dresses in the middle of a recession. All they can say is how this validates them and their career, as if the constant admiration they get from us “regular” people isn’t enough, nor is the millions they get per movie. For us simple folk, a nice “good job” from our boss every now and then is all we expect and desire. Amazingly, we can function without the world giving us admiration for our job well done.

You want to have an award show celebrating the good work done by people? How about putting doctors on a national stage so we can celebrate them? Or maybe police officers who are risking their lives for us every day for a mere $40k per year? Or maybe a teacher, putting in longer hours than they should, for less pay than they should, trying to make our children the best they can be?

Actually, come to think of it, that’s probably a good thing. If those jobs attracted the type of people who are out for personal acclaim and recognition, they’re probably people I wouldn’t want in those roles anyway.

While I have an interest in the films that get awards, I can do without the hoopla of the awards shows.

Wing Bowl

I’m probably the only guy in Philadelphia who doesn’t like the Wing Bowl. Actually, I don’t have a huge problem with the event. But the lead up to the event is brutal. Annoying to listen to, and distracting from real issues that should be talked about on sports talk radio, like, well…sports. During the middle of playoff push, I don’t want to hear about how many pot pie’s some fat guy can eat, or listen to a guy describe on the radio how gorgeous a girl looks. If you want to have your event, fine. But it makes for crappy radio.

There, I said it.

So I waited. Waited until the movie came out on DVD. After watching it a few times…

I still leave at the end of the movie absolutely mesmerized.

There are going to be spoilers, so in the off-chance someone hasn’t yet seen the film, I’m going to put my thoughts in the “Read More” section. If you don’t want to be spoiled, don’t click below.

I have to start this off saying I have no bias towards Batman. I never read the comics growing up. My entire exposure to Batman is the previous movies. In fact, The Dark Knight has compelled me into picking up some of the Trade Paperbacks from the late 80’s and early 90’s when they re-did the character.

Sure, there were problems with the movie. Not really problems, per se, but things that could be improved upon. I thought the first five minutes of Harvey Dent were riddled with bad dialogue, and when watching it made me worried his character was going to be a disappointment. They ended up doing the fall of Harvey Dent well, but the first part of it (particularly the court room) was weak. “If you want to kill a public servant, Mr. Maroni, I recommend you buy American. ” C’mon.

I still don’t like the Rachel Dawes character. I think Maggie Gyllenhall is a significantly better actress than Katie Holmes, but I think the character overall was just shallow and weak. I’m not particularly sad to see her go.

I would have preferred to not have Two-Face die (or, at least apparently die). I think the fall of Harvey Dent was done well, but the reign of Two-Face should have been given more time. It was rushed.

In fact, overall I think the movie should have ended about 15 minutes earlier. The Joker locked up and in jail, carrying out his final act (forcing Batman to make a decision on who to save, Rachel or Harvey), with the movie ending when Rachel is blown up and Harvey scarred. I think that would have been a powerful ending, whereas the one they had was a little prolonged and forced. That being said, I think the hospital scene was possibly the best individual scene of the movie, so I can’t complain too much.

The moral dilemma of using the sonar I thought was forced. I could have done without that part.

That being said, these are all minor grievances, and greatly outweighed by the positives.

It’s been said by a lot of critics, but this really wasn’t a superhero movie. Sure, the good guy dressed up in a cape, and the bad guy had makeup, but that’s it. There were no special powers. There This was a movie more in the mold of Seven, Reservoir Dogs, and Silence of the Lambs than it was in the mold of Spiderman and Superman. I would argue the best scenes in the movie were the scenes filled with suspense rather than action. I would classify this more as action and suspense than superhero. It is based on a comic, so it will always be compared to those other movies, but it doesn’t have many similarities.

I think Michael Caine (Alfred), Gary Oldman (Gordon) and Morgan Freeman (Lucius Fox) were all absolutely superb. Perfectly cast, and improved upon their previous performances. Eckhart (Harvey Dent) I was mixed on. I think most of the problems I had with him were based on the dialogue given to him, not his overall performance, which by the end of the movie I was won over on.

I think Bale is great as the conflicted Bruce Wayne trying to make himself appear aloof and self-centered to the public. I think his performance as Batman isn’t quite as good as it is in Bruce Wayne, although that may just be his growl that did annoy me.

And then, well, there’s the Joker.

I think his portrayal as more of a social experimenter trying to force anarchy works. I think it’s infinitely more interesting then just some mob guy trying to steal some money, a la the 1989 Joker played by Jack. It created a very compelling character that left you on the edge of your seat every scene he was in.

And, well, Ledger nailed it. I initially had some reservations about Ledger being cast in the role. Having not seen him in the role of a bad guy, and after seeing him in A Kinght’s Tale, I had a hard time picturing him as a psychopath. I was wrong.

I think the character was written and conceived well, but I also think Ledger nailed it. The facial expressions and mannerisms, the clicks and pauses in his speech, the the wandering of his eyes. Every little bit of it combined to create the perfect character. Not once did I ever look at the screen and see Heath Ledger. He was the Joker for the entire duration of the movie. Completely and utterly transformed into the character. Scary, unpredictable, and mesmerizing.

Take the well conceived character, add in the great writing of the character, and the superb performance, and you have one of the greatest villains of all time. The Joker stole every scene, left you on the edge of your seat every time he was on the screen, and completely transformed a movie that would have been “good” and “entertaining” into a classic. It was very much reminiscent of Silence of the Lambs, which would have been a good movie if not for the great villain that was created and depicted in the movie, which transformed it into a classic.

I brought up Iron Man because I see some very real similarities. Both superheros with no real powers, getting things done through technical weaponry and smarts. Both billionaire playboys compelled to do what they do because of personal tragedy. I relate Iron Man to Batman Begins. Fun, well done, but missing that something. For as exciting (and at times funny) as Iron Man was, it was just missing something. That something was a compelling villain. The difference between a well done, entertaining film and a classic.

I do think, if they do a 3rd Batman movie (and after this success, how could they not?), they were planning on having the Joker be a returning role. I do think, if they decided to, it’s still possible, especially with the amount of makeup Ledger wore, and how much he changed his voice. That being said, doing so would be skating on thin ice at this point, and have the potential for disaster. If the Joker has a role in any future Batman movies, I hope it’s more of a behind-the-scenes role than anything with major screen time.

In the end, this movie was more about the Joker than it was about Batman. He was the lead character in this film. And for a character with as much quality as the Joker, I think that’s a good thing. I questioned why they didn’t have Batman’s arch nemesis in Batman Begins, but now I’m very happy they didn’t. Having to fit in Batman’s origin story would have taken too much screen time away from the more deserving Joker.

But my lord, do they need a tech geek. It’s not like they can’t still have outlandish, completely implausible scenarios. Just use the right jargon. Or, at the very least, don’t use the wrong jargon. I’d rather have them literally make up words than use real words in completely the wrong context.

Phrases like “they sent this video to our subnet”, which was said in today’s episode, should not make it to the final release.

The fact that ICE gave Vic immunity without having talked to his commanding officer at the Barn is a glaring omission. I realize it was rushed, but that was just one phone call away. I just can’t believe the federal government would not do their due diligence in that situation.

They went through painstaking trouble to get Corrine to safety, but what about Vic’s kid with Danny? With how much effort Vic went through to fight for rights with him earlier this season, and having just lost his family, you can’t imagine he’s not going to try to get into that kids life. Since he’s not a convicted criminal, his past isn’t a matter of public record. And even if he can’t do so legally, I’d have to imagine Vic’s not going to just give up.

By Vic originally turning down the deal without Ronnie’s inclusion, the picture was painted that Vic accepted the deal because of Corrine’s arrest. I can’t imagine them putting that timeline in (Vic turning down the deal without Ronnie, Corrine getting arrested, Vic going back and doing the deal if Corrine gets immunity) if you weren’t led to believe that Corrine’s freedom was the tipping point for Vic. But did Vic have to confess his sins and throw Ronnie to the wolves in order to do so? Couldn’t he have left his immunity at the table, and simply traded the arrest of Beltran for Corrine’s immunity? The only threat to Vic and Ronnie at that point was Shane, and if Shane’s arrest became imminent, they still had time to flee.

Doesn’t an investigation of a cop (Ronnie) have to go through IAD? Does Claudette have the authority to arrest Ronnie? Don’t they need more proof against Ronnie, who’s a longtime copy with no criminal history, than the testimony of an admitted cop killer who’s testimony was used to secure his and his kids mother’s freedom? Doesn’t seem like that would hold up in court.

I’m shocked Vic and Ronnie didn’t pursue Shane harder. Shocked. Once they found him and got close, they bailed that front. Vic wouldn’t have needed immunity had they caught Shane.

I thought what they did with Shane was a good way to end it. Throughout this season Shane was being painted as a very sympathetic figure. This was a guy who was racist, who beat a teammate into a comma, and who killed a teammate to protest his own behind. After the murder/suicide, and him once again taking the life of an innocent (Jackson), and making the decision for Mora by himself, he lost any sympathy he had gained.

(I can’t imagine how hard the murder/suicide scene was for Walton Goggins, considering his real-life wife committed suicide in 2004).

Vic, after outsmarting everyone for 7 seasons, became absolutely stupid in the last 2 episodes. He should have known, from the time Ronnie dropped off the money and Shane never showed up, that Corrine was working for the cops in an effort to capture Vic. There’s NO WAY Vic doesn’t pick up on that. Then, after Shane tells him that Corrine was working for the police, he still attempts to get Olivia to tell him where his kids went, thinking he can win them back. That was the time he should have warned Ronnie and fled to Mexico. My only guess is he held out hope he could find his family and get them back in his life, or at the very least he was unwilling to close the book on that.

He won over Beltran’s trust too fast for me. That seemed implausible. I also find it difficult to believe the gangs he ripped $100k off of didn’t figure him out.

I didn’t like the Lloyd arc. I think it would have been better had Lloyd gotten the better of Dutch. We’ve seen Dutch lose his edge before when things got personal, and that would have been a shocking end for the show.

In the end, I wasn’t all that shocked by the ending. The murder/suicide was certainly profound, but everything else you could see coming (and even that, you could see it coming, although I thought the possibility of a double suicide was greater).

My biggest problem with the end was it went out of character. For 6 seasons they’ve done a great job of character development. Say what you want about Vic, and he definitely had a lot of negative you could say, but he’s always been loyal to his team and his family. The last two episodes seemed to try to paint Vic as just the villain and a sociopath, when that’s not consistent with his character the previous 6 seasons. He’s had his opportunities to sell out his team to try to save his own face. He could have tried to convince Shane to get rid of Terry so Vic didn’t need to put himself in danger. Lem posed a serious threat to Vic, yet when Lem was killed, there was no sigh of relief in Vic. No happiness. Despite Vic being more safe now, he was pissed off at the suffering his teammate went through. Even after killing Lem, Vic couldn’t bring himself to harm Shane when he had the chance (until Shane directly tried to take out Vic). Given the opportunity to make his life easier for his team, Vic’s never done that in the past. Now, we’re expected to think the past 6 seasons have been a lie and Vic has gone completely self-centered.

I think what they were trying to get at was after Corrine was arrested, Vic didn’t have any options left, and he had to chose either the mother of his kids or his friend. To me, the last two episodes weren’t showing Vic’s true colors, but showing that he had run out of options, and that his past actions had caught up to him. And that I could see as a plausible ending, as Vic almost has to chose Corrine and his kids. I could also dig Corrine betraying him, as I think Corrine betraying him and him turning on Ronnie shows just how he’s lost everything. He lost his friends, his family, his power and his respect. I just don’t think this was executed all that well. He did have other options, and he should have seen that Corrine was selling him out to the cops. He seemed to become conveniently dumb for the last two episodes, certainly not the Vic Mackey we’ve seen in the past. I guess the argument is he panicked when his family was in jeopardy, but it’s not the first time we’ve seen either the team or his family in serious jeopardy (Kav investigation in Season 5).

Also, if they did try to straight villain’ize Vic, that’s a shame, and a complete over-simplification of some of the more complex characters on TV. It’s also not fair to completely victimize Ronnie, or feel pity for Shane. They all committed these acts, and did so under their own decisions. Shane was the one who killed Lem, which set this whole chain of events into motion. Then, Ronnie was the one who kept pushing to make Shane pay for Lem when Vic didn’t want to. Had he not attempted to take Shane out, Shane would probably be in another precinct, and they’d all be free. It’s a weird twist that Vic was almost killed because of Ronnie’s vendetta, yet we’re supposed to feel that Ronnie was the one betrayed. Had the hit on Vic been successful, we’d probably feel drastically different about the 3 than we do now.

So, to me, it’s either they completely altered the Vic character they’ve been taking years to build, or they poorly executed the ending. There were definitely some great scenes in the final two episodes, and I think the ending itself was right (Vic ending up alone as the result of his actions, Ronnie taking the fall for the strike team, Shane not able to work his way out of the jam, Vic being betrayed by the one he was trying to protect and losing his family. In the end, they were all culpable, to varying degrees, and they were all punished, to varying degrees. Some who deserved less got punished more, and some who deserved more got punished less, but that’s the way life works sometimes), I just don’t think how they got there worked.

Overall though, a superb 7 seasons, and one of my favorite shows of all time. The great thing about the show was that everyone was a shade of gray. The ‘good’ cops had their character flaws, defects, and made their mistakes. The ‘bad’ cops had their honorable attributes and you could often times see a ‘why’ they did their crimes. You could see genuine concern on Vic, to his team, to his family, to citizens of Farmington and even to hookers. Some of the more complex characters on TV. Sad to see it go.