I am not a gun.

In 1999, we had fully embraced the future of animation. Toy Story and A Bug’s Life had already put Pixar on the map and Toy Story 2 was due out before y2k forced us to recreate all computer technology (or not). Because not only were fully computer-animated movies coming out (in addition to the Pixar collection, Antz was another fairly celebrated film and the first Shrek was just on the horizon), they had good stories. They had celebrity voices. They had the backing of major studios who were turning what was once known as kid’s movies into a behemoth the whole family could enjoy and pay full price admission for.

This is why a brilliant film like Brad Bird’s The Iron Giant largely gets forgotten.

A 2-D, low-budget, Warner Bros. animation feature film was never supposed to have an impact on the box office. Add in the fact that it has political overtones going back to the Cold War and the space race and the days of Sputnik and you’ve essentially gone over the heads of your target audience. So this explains why many people haven’t heard of The Iron Giant. It does not, however, explain why we love it so dearly.

Why We Love It

As is the case with any Brad Bird movie (who directed The Incredibles and Ratatouille for Pixar), he treats his audience with respect. He never talks down to his audience when telling a tale, even one as simple as a giant metal machine that falls from the sky that turns out to have a soul. Bird’s genius in story-telling is what layers the film, making it about an entire town of fully-rounded, complex characters, not just a story about a boy who pals around with a machine.

We love that Hogarth Hughes (voiced by Eli Marienthal) is not just a precocious kid, he’s also compassionate and reasonable; that Hogarth’s mom (voiced by Jennifer Aniston) is not just some wet blanket who scolds her child, she’s also a single mother trying desperately hard, and often failing, to just keep her child safe; that beatnik junkyard owner Dean (voiced by Harry Connick Jr.) isn’t just some 1950′s cliche even if he may be dressed like one.

We love that Vin Diesel voices the Giant and only says about three words in the entire movie. Likewise, Christopher McDonald’s Kent Mansley (from the Bureau of Unexplained Phenomenon) is the perfect G-man villain from the era, accusing everyone of being a Communist while still being derailed like Wily E. Coyote at every turn.

It’s silly at times, but it never loses its integrity. The action takes place in a town called “Rockwell”, yet it never relies on being Rockwellian. It’s just quaint and familiar, and it’s the type of storytelling we miss nowadays.

The Moment We Fell in Love

The scene where Hogarth has to hide the Giant in his barn, but the Giant’s hand shows up outside his kitchen window. Yep, that’s confusing to explain. It’s one of those scenes where the main character has to hide his whimsical/magical secret from his parents and is just on the brink of being discovered. I think it was in every 1980s movie or in virtually any Brendan Fraser movie from the early-to-mid 90s.

Final Thoughts

Funny, charming, dare I say heartbreaking, at times frightening, and legitimately exciting, the Iron Giant is a film you need to see even if its one you’ve never thought twice about.

Click here to read about more Movies We Love

Last week’s “The Good News”, was pretty excellent, I thought. The first half with Don in California and meeting Anna.

These episodes with Don in California have always been a good change of pace because we get to see Don sort of drop his guard.

The knowledge that Anna is dying, however, surely added a sour note to the low-pressure goings on. Then I loved the drunken scavenging and frolicking with the ladies of the night with Lane Pryce. It’s always nice when the writers get to expand on characters we don’t really know that well, and it almost always delivers. Jared Harris was funnier and definitely more charming/nervous than we’ve ever seen Lane, so it was a nice change from the stuffy British man we always see. Plus we got some good Joan-time, and I can’t fault last week’s episode for that.

But on to this week’s which was very Peggy-Pete heavy. Peggy sorta gets hit on by what appears to be a lesbian (and then confirmed before episode’s end) and even makes out with a random dude in a closet. Love the direction they’ve been taking with Peggy this season. She’s very strong and independent and the change from how she was in Season One seems to have been so subtle, but consistent that you’d think two actresses were being paid to play the same role. Elizabeth Moss shined in the episode, from getting momentarily lost in the company of a wedding ring, to her reaction to finding out Don slept with his secretary (and the accusation she receives), and finally her inner-hippy coming out to play at a concert / art exhibit.

On the other side of things was Pete Campbell finding out that he’s going to be a father. Kartheiser seemed to play the episode with real joy as Pete finds this out. We usually see Pete Campbell as this whiny, snively, do-anything-to-succeed shark but to see him be warm is a welcome change. Also nice is anytime we’re reminded about Pete and Peggy’s “love child” and that final shot of them looking at each other through the glass spoke volumes about how well this plotline is carrying over from season to season.

It’s one of the great things about Mad Men. It bugs me when people say “that show is so hard to get through because nothing happens.” A. That’s not true; stuff is always happening. B. The writers are so good at subtly building characters and not forcing plot that it appears more realistic than your average TV show. And C. Stuff like the Peggy and Pete exchange is allowed to be a BIG DEAL because they don’t constantly hit us over the head with their fractured romance all the time that it still feels fresh when we get glimpses. It’s great writing and great acting, if you want action and a complex plot, go re-watch LOST.

Finally, I’ll touch on the Don plotline. We knew he had to deal with sleeping with his secretary at some point, I’m just glad they handled it in hilarious fashion.

That’s also something I’m noticing about this season. They’re dialing down the number of plot points they need to hit in each episode. If you remember Seasons Two and Three (specifically), there was always like 4-5 plot lines that would be marginally advanced in each episode, whereas this season they seem to be doing Don’s ongoing struggle with his inner monster and then coupling that with two other characters’ plots. We’re still too close to it to see how it will eventually unfold, but for a show that has always taken its sweet time taking EVEN MORE time to develop its characters, you’d think we’d be bored.

I’m not bored. Not even close. Are you?

“Man your battle stations!”

Gotta love seeing Christmas in the mid-60s. Especially with these characters. Because when an impromptu conga line forms in the new offices of SCDP, we remember why we love this show. Yes, it’s silly, but everyone is aware that it’s silly. It sort of reminded me of last season’s third episode with Roger’s yard party where we saw Pete and Trudy cut a rug, Roger doing embarrassing black-face, and in a different scene we see Joan rock the accordion. Every once in awhile, the writers like to let these characters (and actors) loose from the drama that surrounds them to bask in a scene or two of unbridaled fun, and I give them credit for that.

From top to bottom this was a solid episode. It’s still been very Don-heavy this season, and we’ve really yet to hear from either Pete Campbell or Joan in any of these storylines, but we will. The scene with Don and his assistant Allison at the beginning was touching. I loved her reaction to reading Sally’s letter-to-Santa, even with the knowledge that she was just playfully writing to her father. It takes a character like Allison, wide-eyed and still-non-cynical, to remind us that if these characters stopped caring so much about themselves and their collective machismo, they could still be happy. With that being said, I doubt we’ll see the same Allison after she received her “bonus” by episode’s end.

The Don-Allison storyline seems to be indicative of what we’re looking at this season. In episode 1, we saw Don lose his cool with a client, get slapped by a hooker and in episode 2 we see him have sex with his assistant and give her a demeaning cash “eff you” bonus. Don usually never even likes his assistants. We’re starting to slowly see Don Draper come apart. Maybe his marriage meant more to him then we were lead to believe. In season 1, Don almost absconded with Ms. Menken and abandoned his family. In season 2, he nearly did the same by retreating to the West Coast. In season 3, his wife finally kicked him out. And so far in season 4, Don seems to be reeling from the losses of his family and stable work environment. With Don being partner at SCDP, he’s sort of become the enemy to the office, as evidenced by two straight episodes of new creative guy, Joey, making passive aggressive comments at Don’s expense. Don used to have control over his image, because Don Draper was so consciously and perfectly constructed by Dick Whitman. But now things are spiraling out of his control, and before this is over we’ll see Don truly hit rock bottom.

I won’t touch on Don’s neighbor, Phoebe (Nora Zehetner), because I bet we’ll be seeing her again, or even Freddy “Piss-Pants” Rumson’s return. Peggy’s relationship with Mark is a bit boring so far and we’ll be able to discuss that when something more entertaining happens with them…

SO LET’S TALK ABOUT GLEN! What the fedge? Who is this kid? He sorta looks like he should’ve been a character in The Sandlot, but he talks like Michael friggin’ Douglas. I remember the 10 yr. old Glen trying-to-woo-Betty storyline from season 1 and thinking “I’m okay with never seeing this kid again”–And because I felt that way, the writers knew we needed to see him again. The character himself is a wildcard, and I think only serves to further develop Sally as a character, but my God is he interesting. There’s something mysterious and crazy about Glen, and if this infatuation with Sally becomes deeper (which it seems like it will), I see a whole host of drama, as well as the potential for death, coming.

Finally, I wanted to touch on just how much I enjoy Kiernan Shipka’s evolution as Sally. When the show first started, Sally and Bobby were largely peripheral characters, serving to show that Don’s actions don’t just affect his wife but also his kids. And now, Sally (in particular) has become one of the main characters in Mad Men. I don’t mind this. Shipka is very watchable and we’re dealing with a group of writers that know how to write for children. Before it’s all said and done, I don’t know how much we’ll learn or how many adventures we’ll see of Sally, but I like the direction they’re taking by introducing Sally as a larger presence. Let’s just hope she’s more Meadow Soprano than she is AJ Soprano.

Thoughts on this week’s Mad Men?

Don Draper (Jon Hamm) comes off as a bit of a prick when he does an interview and upsets his partners at the recently founded Sterling-Cooper-Draper-Pryce ad firm, while also trying to convince a family-owned bikini shop that it’s ok to sell something sexy. At the homefront, Betty (January Jones) and Henry Francis (Christopher Stanley) are living in Don’s house temporarily.

I’ve sort of stayed away from hearing about season 4 of Mad Men this year. Last year I did a bunch more to prepare for writing for the season on FSR, and in some ways it ruined what just watching and experiencing Mad Men does for me. That being said, the reviews for this new season will be just as in-depth and I’ll try to touch on more aspects of the show than I have in years past, like the costuming and music, for example, in the week’s coming.

When we last left Don Draper and his miscreants they were standing in a hotel room, having just been fired by the newly-very-British offices of Sterling Cooper and the foundation of Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce had just been laid. Flash forward about a year since the ending of season three and SCDP owns two floors of the Time-Life building (or so they say, but it’s really only one). At first, when I saw they weren’t still operating out of a hotel room I was disappointed, but just because they have what appears to be Sterling Cooper 2.0 (but dastardly small, according to Bertram Cooper), they still aren’t a “success” and that becomes evident pretty early on when everybody seems to be getting mad at Don for still treating clients like they’re expendable.

Let’s talk about what’s also become pretty evident . . . Is Don Draper becoming a villain? Or better question: Is Dick Whitman (Draper’s real name and identity, in case you forgot) consciously creating Don Draper to be a bad man? In episode one of season four we see Don bite into Peggy Olsen (the fantastic Elizabeth Moss), alienate himself from his partners and Pete Campbell (Vincent Kartheiser), his ace salesman. On top of that, we see Don Draper getting fresh with a first date and getting slapped by a prostitute (and asking for “harder” slaps) within the span of ten minutes. Something’s changing with Don. And now that he needs to be a more visible leader, both officially and socially, it’ll be interesting to see just how long Dick Whitman’s alternate persona can last before the truth comes out publicly. What I love most is that the future of Don Draper is still very much up for grabs. He can still become the aimless drifter like he almost became in season two or we can follow him until he reaches the absolute top of his game and has nowhere to go but out the window (I’ve always hypothesized that the opening credits might be a bit more literal than metaphorical…that being said I doubt this series ends with Don Draper killing himself, but I digress).

Furthermore, this was a great episode. As a season premiere it satisfied everything we needed it to, and also stayed close to its chief and most interesting character pretty much the entire time. We’ll have time for half-baked subplots and peripheral characters later, let’s get re-acquainted with Don first. We got to see more of Betty and Henry’s awkward courtship and a great moment of tension between the two of them and Don. About the living situation:

Henry: It’s temporary.
Don: Trust me, Henry, everybody thinks this is temporary.

F*ck me, that’s good stuff. I give credit to AMC and the writers for showing an honest family breakup as well as how much it’s inevitably messing up Don and Betty’s children.

It also opened the door to some more questions that will likely get answered. Peggy seems to have fully embraced her independence, but what’s with the weird boytoy? How is Pete’s marriage to Trudy and when did he and Peggy begin working so well together? What’s going on with this new copywriter (Joey) that Peggy seems to be very flirty with? Why do the writers feel like we need three “Roger jokes” in every scene?

In traditional Mad Men style, some of these questions will be answered and we’ll anguish over the ones that aren’t, but overall t’is the storytelling we crave.

Best bit of dialogue:

Don’s accountant: How are your balls?
Don: …Come on.

What did you think of the Season Premiere of Mad Men?

That Thing You Do! (1996)

I want something peppy, something happy, something up-tempo. I want something snappy.

Synopsis:

It’s 1964 in a Pennsylvania town. The Beatles and the rest of the British invasion have taken over the pop radio waves and encouraged a lot of small rock bands to dream big. One such band is the Oneders (pronounced Wonders, but commonly as O’Needers). When drummer Guy “Skitch” Patterson (Tom Everett Scott) joins the band with Jimmy (Jonathon Schaech), Lenny (Steve Zahn), the Bass Player (Ethan Embry) and Jimmy’s doting girlfriend Faye (Liv Tyler) they inadvertently turn one of Jimmy’s slow ballads into a fast-paced pop song, and before they know it are touring the country with a hit song.

Why We Love It:

Tom Hanks writing and directing debut is one of my personal favorites. Hanks really captures the earnesty and innocence of a pre-LSD 60′s when bubblegum pop songs ruled the world. I saw this movie when I was 12 or 13 and was instantly captivated by its easy-going charm. Plus, as a young kid who hoped to be an actor/director/writer/producer one day, anything Tom Hanks put out in the prime of his career was sure to find itself in front of my smiling, anticipatory face.

Thinking back, that may actually be the reason I love That Thing You Do! as much as I do. The 90′s was Hanks’ decade. Starting with A League of Their Own (or Joe Vs. the Volcano from 1990) and ending with The Green Mile in ’99, everything the man churned out became a giant success. Three movies with Meg Ryan that showcased his charm, three Oscar nominations (which should’ve been five since Hanks was not nominated for Apollo 13 or Green Mile) and two wins (Philadelphia and Forrest Gump) and one instant animated classic that spawned a CGI revolution in Hollywood (Toy Story) were his legacy. When you stack all those in the span of 10 brief years, it’s easy to forget a movie like That Thing You Do! which had very little box office or critical success. It became the Tom Hanks movie no one talked about, so naturally I clung to it. But that was only why I first saw the movie.

Viewings 2-59 were brought on by various factors. 1. I worked at a Suncoast video store in 1999-2000 and it was in the VHS rotation everyday. 2. I briefly started writing pop music in high school and creative juices flowed especially well when that catchy tune was stuck in my head. 3. It’s great to watch when you’re drunk, for some reason, so it got some play from ’03-present day. 4. It’s on cable a lot.

5. The actors are terrific. Now, this isn’t necessarily saying the acting is terrific, but I love every performance in this film. From Everett Scott’s nerdy protagonist to Charlize Theron’s apathetic girlfriend role to Zahn’s endless supply of one-liners to Embry’s infinite bag of smiles and giggles to the only role I’ve ever enjoyed Liv Tyler playing. Every single performance in this movie is perfect. AND they get better every time you watch the flick.

That Thing You Do! is memorable because it has so many performances from actors who were just starting out and became something (Giovanni Ribisi, Theron, Liv Tyler), actors who should’ve probably been bigger than they got (Everett Scott, Schaech, Embry, and Steve Zahn to a degree), and some odd cameos thrown in for good measure (Chris Isaak, Kevin Pollack, Clint Howard, and Hanks’ wife Rita Wilson). And lest we forget the Man, who turns in a very winning performance as the band’s manager Mr. White and gives himself the coolest lines in the script (but gives the funniest lines to Steve Zahn–or maybe he improvised them, I have no idea).

6. The music is fun. I’ll always re-watch a movie if it has the added bonus of great music. It’s not a great soundtrack in a Forrest Gump or The Graduate sense, but it has personality. The opening theme is a nice head-bobbin’ track and the Wonders’ B-sides are pretty snappy as well. Every performer that the Wonders are on tour with: Diane Dane, the Chantrellines and Freddy Frederickson (all fictional artists in the “Play-Tone” catalog, a fictional label) and even Cap’n Geech and the Shrimp Shack Shooters get some play. Oscar winning composer Howard Shore adds some flavor to the score and it certainly doesn’t hurt that the title track is catchy enough and enjoyable enough that the viewer can stand a solid 5 full listens to the song in the movie (as well as countless beginnings and endings to the song throughout).

All in all, this is a lovable movie. This is “Movies We Love” not “movies that changed cinema” or “movies that provide a clearer understanding of life”.

Moment We Fell in Love

Easy: it’s the first time the band’s song gets played on the radio. The scene opens with Faye hearing the song on her portable radio (high. tech.) as she is putting stamps on envelopes she intends to mail (ha, “mail”…”stamps”). She screams and runs. She runs into the bass player outside who is shopping for military duds. They scream and run. They rush in to Guy’s family-owned appliance store. He puts it on the Hi-Fi. Screaming. Jumping. Jimmy and Lenny drive by and join the gang in full-jump-run-circle-dance-screaming mode. And the whole thing is endearing when it could’ve had every right to be annoying. It’s masterfully edited and energetic and Hanks absolutely nailed this sequence as director. It’s essentially the scene that sums up the movie best: these are simple people that play simple melodies but their enthusiasm and energy is infectious.

Final Thoughts

Ok, so I was drunk one night last year and sitting on my couch watching Encore. This happens regularly on weekends when I’m trying to find something to watch until the Cosby Show comes on at 4 AM. That Thing You Do! is on but it’s a scene I’d never seen before in any of my previous 59-73 viewings. Turns out I never knew there was a DIRECTOR’S CUT of That Thing You Do!(!) It’s about two and a half hours long and feels more like a rock and roll biopic as opposed to a fun romp through the Play-Tone galaxy. I wouldn’t recommend it to everyone, just to people who liked That Thing You Do!, because it is a bit bloated in places and is missing some of the charm. But there are fun little nuggets like finding out that Tom Hanks’ character is gay. And if you’re like me, you’ll have someone awesome get it for you as a Christmas present (from Amazon) and geek out.

Click here for more Movies We Love

Editor’s Note: Reader be warned, as the following is a hyper-aggressive vularthon between two of our most entertaining and unique voices. Send the kids out of the room, and enjoy…

In the aftermath of the release of The Book of Eli this weekend, thoughts of a post-apocalyptic world begin to fill our cinema-infused brains. In the opinion of FSR there would only be two post-apocalyptic scenarios. The real question becomes, which would you rather live through? Jorge Sosa and FSR’s resident devil’s advocate Josh Radde debate.

Opening Statement (Jorge)

Josh,

You’ve presented me with a difficult choice. Picking which would be the best post-apocalyptic scenario to actually live out is like picking one’s favorite cancer. Clearly, this debate topic was the shoe-polish-huffing-induced-delusion of one sick fuck, but I’ll be a good sport. I’ll play along, if only because I enjoy arguing circles around the mentally challenged.

It’s self-evident that life after a nuclear holocaust is preferable to a life under a zombie outbreak.

As the Mad Max trilogy shows us, the most likely threat to my survival is either gonna be bikers or Tina Turner. Bikers would be easy to dispatch, especially since the preferred method of travel in a post-nuke world is a supercharged V8 interceptor. The laws of physics dictate that in a battle between a crotch-rocket and a ’70s-era muscle car, the muscle car will win. Every. Fucking. Time.

And Tina Turner? She might have been hot shit in her day, but she’s getting old, man. I can easily take her, especially if you hang a couple Slinkies from her head to throw off her balance, and weigh her down with some ridiculously huge shoulder pads.

A less likely scenario is predicted by the Planet of the Apes series. In this case, the greatest threat would be some talking gorillas and orangutans armed with light weapons and their own feces. I deliberately left the talking chimpanzees out of the equation because the film series shows they can be easily turned to our side. Just think, Josh, in a mixed human-chimpanzee society, you might actually finally get some!

But, just to play devil’s advocate, let’s assume the worst possible post-nuclear outcome. Let’s assume the Terminator series is accurate and humans are driven underground and outgunned by sentient machines. No problem. I’ll just build myself a time machine, zip back to the 1980s, bang Linda Hamilton, and kick back in my velcro Air Kyle Reese Nikes. Suh-weet.

Make it easy on yourself, Josh. Concede victory now.

Counter Argument (Josh)

My goodness sir–

So quick with the personal attacks! According to your opening statement I am “mentally challenged,” a “sick fuck,” and a dude who can’t get laid unless my slampiece happens to be a talking simian primate — when in fact only ONE of those things is actually true. But personal attacks do not a valid argument make as witnessed by basically anything you see on Fox News (btw, you are finally home Sarah Palin…welcome). You’d rather survive nuclear holocaust? Are you high?

Surviving a zombie invasion would be far “better” for 3 main reasons:

1. You’d be one bad Mutha. Living through nuclear catastrophe would mainly just be luck. You’d have to hope you’re in the right place at the right time to get through it. Being one of the lone humans surviving a zombie takeover would mean that you are a supreme human. When everyone else was dying (or becoming zombies themselves) by the hands and spit of the living dead, you were out there takin’ chainsaws and baseball bats and anything that makes a sizable boom and clubbing those slow-walking-drool-faced fucks until their brains became wallpaper patterns. You could take on a whole new identity. You could become a badass like Woody Harrelson in Zombieland or like when Cillian Murphy goes all Die Hard at the end of 28 Days Later. You can have your Tina Turner, sally boy; I’ll go decapitate the likes of Zombie Michael Bay or Zombie Oprah (in fact, it shall be my mission).

2. Strategy. Movies like Dawn of the Dead have it all wrong. Malls are too big; too many ways in. Give me a Super Target. You’ve got your big screen TVs, Starbucks, Pizza Hut, a grocery store, stuff like bikes and axes and sporting goods and only a couple entrances to keep an eye on (plus I just don’t agree with Wal-Mart’s business philosophy). Hit up a gun shop on the way, load up on the ammo, and you’re good. Plus Target will have some sort of facemask or latex bodysuit so you can protect yourself from infection. That’s what I never get about zombie movies. THEIR BLOOD CAN INFECT YOU! WHERE A FUCKING MASK!

3. No nuclear fallout. So let’s say you survive a nuclear holocaust. Ok. As soon as you walk outside you’ll grow a useless third arm coming out of your back or eyebrows on your asshole. Plus, You’d have to re-start civilization. I don’t just mean seed-speading with all the fertile females still alive, but a nuclear holocaust will wipe out satellites, buildings, and basically the entire infrastructure of the world. But once the zombies have had their fill of brains, they’ll just die of starvation. Destroying our internet or the way we communicate with each other isn’t really their M.O. Life can exist after a zombie takeover; not so easily after nuclear devastation.

So go ahead and build your time machine. But don’t go back to 1984. Go back to January 12th, 2010 and instead of wasting my time with a bullshit argument, just stick your head down your pants and fart on your face. At least it’ll smell better.

Rebuttal (Jorge)

OK, let’s take your argument and dismantle it point-by-point. This shouldn’t take long.

“I, Josh Radde, have a laughably miniscule penis.”

Confession may be good for the soul, but that’s not germane to the discussion.

“Being one of the lone humans surviving a zombie takeover would mean that you are a supreme human.”

Uh, since your line of reasoning presumes the zombies in question are of the “slow-walking-drool-faced fuck” variety, I’d say … No. Unless your name is Al Gore or John Kerry, in which case, a slow-walking-drool-faced fuck can easily make you his bitch.

“You could take on a whole new identity.”

The same goes for a post-nuclear world, since the EMPs would wipe all digital records clean. Consider Mad Max. Before society went arse-over-tits, he was a brooding , violent fascist in tight leather pants. Afterward … uh … his pants got dustier. OK. Maybe that’s not the best example.

“Give me a Super Target.”

I agree that one could comfortably live off an abandoned Super Target’s wares for some time. Have you tried their store brand pop tarts? Manna from big-box retail heaven, I tell ya. And while a conventional nuclear assault is likely to level such structures, a neutron bomb wouldn’t have such annoying side effects.

As my personal guru — J. Frank Parnell of Repo Man fame — once effused, it “destroys people. Leaves buildings standing. Fits in a suitcase. It’s so small, no one knows it’s there until – BLAMMO! Eyes melt, skin explodes, ev-ery-body dead!”

It’s a much cleaner way to dispose of the general populace then a messy zombie outbreak. And, the residual radiation will conveniently toast all those scrumptious Target-brand pop tarts for you simultaneously. Efficient. Convenient. The Neutron Bomb. Accept no substitutes.

“As soon as you walk outside you’ll grow a useless third arm coming out of your back … “

All the better to fondle those three-breasted mutant hoes, my friend.

“… or eyebrows on your asshole.”

Feh. For someone like me who is blessed with copious body hair, I’d barely notice the difference.

“Life can exist after a zombie takeover; not so easily after nuclear devastation.”

All the cinematic evidence points to the contrary. With rare exceptions, the zombies always win. It’s a convention of the genre and everyone knows movies never lie. At least in the case of a post-nuclear scenario, I wouldn’t have to constantly watch my back because some undead motherfucker was after my brains and viscera.

Which brings me to my next point. I suspect the reason you are so hot for a zombie outbreak, Josh, is you have closeted necrophiliac tendencies. In a world full of zombies, your potential dating pool would expand exponentially by the day.

You know it. That ain’t nothing but right.

Closing Argument (Josh)

In the history of Shouting Match, I don’t think I’ve ever been as confused as I am right now. I wanna have sex with dead people? Zombies always win? Target-brand pop tarts?

Look, let’s just think about it this way: You are the last human on earth. Would you rather have the entirety of the earth’s land to yourself or at least have a mission to destroy every last zombie? I would choose the latter. At least you would have something for which to live. If the zombies DO win, the fight goes through me. Know what I’m saying? Why waste away in a state of neutron evaporation just waiting to die? What fun is that? I mean, at least Will Smith had his dog in I Am Legend.

I guess that’s the chief difference between us, sir. I want my life to mean something; you just want to sit there combing your ass-brows.

So tell us, readers, which post-apocalyptic scenario would you “prefer”.

Some years at the cineplex are just better than others. Which years those are can always be debated, hence the reason why FSR writer Paul Sileo and FSR’s resident devil’s advocate Josh Radde sat on their collective asses to hash out whether or not 2009 was particularly strong or notably weak.

Opening Statement (Josh)

Dear Paul,

Before I begin telling why 2009 was a slow year for movies, let me first say that something needs to be done about that thing growing on your face. Wow.

As an avid moviegoer and appreciator of fine things cinema, I have to admit that 2009 was very underwhelming. There were some very good movies, I admit, it just seems like nothing really sticks out. And being that this is the first year that the Academy will be nominating 10 films, I find it’s hard to even find 5 that could be worthy contenders. But I’m getting ahead of myself:

Let’s start at the beginning of 2009. What was the first movie that blew our collective skirts up and when did it actually come out? Most Americans saw Taken at the end of January, beginning of February, and that was cool. That movie made a ton of money just because the only thing it was competing against were Bride Wars, Paul Blart, and My Bloody Valentine 3D. And let’s be honest: Taken was alright. Coraline was adecent from the first half of the year, as was Hunger, I Love You, Man, and Adventureland. But none of them were pantheon-type films, just early-year fillers. I Love You, Man was funny but it was no 40 Year-Old Virgin and Adventureland was sort of an awkward Dazed and Confused-type film. Either way, nothing to get excited about.

Now I know that a lot of years start out this way, and then gain some momentum heading into the summer with studio blockbusters and indie darlings hitting the scene. However, 2009 was the worst year for Blockbusters we’ve had in awhile. Luckily, it wasn’t as bad as 2007 when Spider-Man 3, Shrek 3, and Pirates 3 all came and blew, but it was still horribly underwhelming. Wolverine, Angels and Demons, Land of the Lost, Year One, G.I. Joe, Public Enemies, Terminator: Salvation, and Transformers 2 were bloated and boring. I’d say only Up, Star Trek, and District 9 lived up to the summer blockbuster hype. In fact, most of these “event” movies were so “meh” that a movie like The Hangover almost grossed $300 million due to lack of real competition. The sixth Harry Potter movie was solid but ultimately pretty forgettable. Fast forward to the November-December event releases and it’s the same thing all over — Sherlock Holmes, New Moon, 2012, and A Christmas Carol were all pretty yawn-inducing as well. Again, due to a lack of diversity at the theaters leads to something like The Blindside making huge bank.

I dunno, maybe it’s too close to 2009 to properly judge how it’ll turn out historically, but let’s finally look at the movies that are “representing” more or less the films of 2009 (in the sense that they will take in awards, not necessarily what will be remembered). The Hurt Locker is a genuinely good, if flawed, film. Up in the Air is charming and funny and is this year’s Sideways for being the film that will be pretty unanimously liked by all groups of people. Inglourious Basterds solidifies Tarantino as an all-time great writer-director, yet is still a deeply flawed film. Precious was touching, but is a one-time-view-only type of movie. Avatar is gorgeous but sports a fatally shallow story (and an even worse execution of basic story-telling technique), therefore making it a movie that we won’t even be able to watch in 5 years because the technology will be out-dated.

So tell me why I’m wrong. I’ll even admit that I haven’t seen everything yet, so maybe there are some gems out there that will make me change my mind (like Moon or An Education or Crazy Heart). I do stand by my opinion that no movies really jump out at me that make 2009 a really stellar year for movies. So I have a question, do a select number of “pretty good” movies equate to a “great” year?

Counter Argument (Paul)

Happy New Year to you, Mr. Radde.

Now that I have been sufficiently cordial, let me take a little time out of my busy life of being ridiculously intelligent to—how do you say it?—“bring myself down to your level.” For someone who probably spent an excited twenty or thirty minutes on the phone gushing over The Squeakquel with Kevin Carr, I can see how you may think 2009 was anything less than brilliant.

You note that this will be the first year we will have ten Best Picture nominees at the Academy Awards, but this is pretty much the only thing you got correct in that entire paragraph. This is actually the first year in recent memory where it’s tough to whittle the best films of the year down into ten. Hell, trying to fit the nominees into a category of five would probably have blown enough minds in Hollywood to make it the cerebral equivalent of a Michael Bay flick. 2009 gave us some of the best animation in recent memory (Fantastic Mr. Fox, Up, Coraline), some of the best comedy in recent memory (The Hangover), and by far some of the best science fiction since you were but a zygote (District 9, Moon, Star Trek, Avatar). Couple this with films that will long be remembered as one of the best, if not the best in a few cases, from their respected directors (The Hurt Locker, Inglorious Basterds, A Serious Man, Up in the Air), then you have quite a year in film, my fuzzy-headed and obnoxiously pale friend.

But let me take a moment to focus on the area where I think 2009 saw its strongest showing: Science Fiction. Holy crap, sir, this was the year that science fiction took a major step forward in respect as a genre. You have four science fiction films that are contenders for Best Picture nominations. Four! I know even you can count that high. When is the last time that happened? Of those four, two (District 9 and Avatar) actually have a legitimate (if perhaps unlikely) shot at not only being nominated but winning. Star Trek is, dare I say it, this year’s The Dark Knight and Moon has a good chance of supplying a contender for Best Actor. And don’t forget, as I know your tiny brain tends to do, that I am only speaking about Best Picture, but that does not mean I don’t think a few of these could pick up other nominations as well (Best Screenplay?!). And let’s not forget that Avatar poised to perhaps surpass Titanic as the biggest money-maker of all time, after it hit the billion dollar mark in only seventeen days.

And though I normally don’t consider Box Office success to mean much, it can’t be overlooked that 2009 had the biggest BO of all time. Out of the top ten, four are also possible Best Picture nomination contenders. So that can also be considered a decent melding of critical and commercial opinion. This is, of course, a pretty damn rough deduction, but I will say it nonetheless.

Ultimately, you focus so much on what 2009 wasn’t that you are neglecting to consider the significance of what it was. Also, would you please kindly leave my beard out of this? It is twice the man and three times the movie critic you are.

Rebuttal (Josh)

Yeah 2009 DID have the biggest BO of all-time — but wasn’t it going to be a huge box office year anyway? Ticket prices raised ON TOP of the fact that basically every movie comes out in 3D now and you have to pay 3 extra bucks to get in. Box office argument: nullified.

Hey man, if sci-fi is your thing then I can see why 2009 was an enticing, drool-inducing year for you. Star Trek was a ton of fun, basically everything you could ask for in an action/adventure sci-fi flick. Abrams = Quality and he really delivered. Avatar, though? If you and your face-rat are three times the movie critic I am, then let’s get together for a beer sometime and you can explain what makes Avatar an Oscar-caliber flick for something other than special effects. I just can’t oblige you there my friend. District 9 is the type of film that filmmakers should try to mimic (special effects that enhance the story); Avatar is a big example of an unfortunate theme that we’ve been seeing more and more lately (special effects in place of story). The fact that Transformers 2 and Avatar are the “biggest” films from this year will only provoke more “visionary” directors to try and up the FX-ante without a legitimate storyline.

And just for shits, let’s poke some holes in the rest of your argument. My problem with The Hangover isn’t that it’s not funny, it often is, but it’s just joke-after-predictable-joke. It’s like watching an episode of “Family Guy” and if that’s your thing, sweet, just don’t hail it “best comedy in recent memory”. Comedy is about characters, not situations, and that’s all that movie was. Fantastic Mr. Fox was fun but very unfocused, Coraline was interesting but not really that creative (especially when watching its wholly uninspired 3D version), and Up was extremely charming, heartfelt, funny, and thrilling, so I give it up to Pixar for continually striving to make great entertainment, but I still lean towards 5 other Pixar movies over Up.

Look, I’m willing to concede a few things. Maybe we’re looking at it from different perspectives. You see a lot of decent-to-really-good movies in one year whereas I see a year where no films really reign (like when we had There Will Be Blood and No Country for Old Men in 2007) and none of them had people really talking about movies at your everyday functions (with the exception of Avatar where no one I know was entirely blown away by it — well, except for Neil Miller). I haven’t said it was a bad year, just underwhelming. In five years my favorite films from this year (Up, Inglourious Basterds, Up in the Air, (500) Days of Summer, Star Trek, Hunger, Hurt Locker, and Precious [in some order]) will struggle to find a place in my all-time Top 50. So, maybe my expectations were too high; maybe yours were a bit more realistic. Regardless, put this year up against any other year from the past decade and I think it gets clobbered — quality-wise.

Closing Statement (Paul)

I don’t dispute the fact that I consider my BO claim to be a bit shaky. I even said it right after making the observation. I am simply saying that it can’t be wholly ignored. Now, having Transformers 2 as the largest grossing film of the year is certainly dubious, so I will bow to you in this respect.

But let’s talk about Avatar for a moment. This is a film that stands in an interesting place in film history. Not only do we have the typical arguments made with every film about the overall quality, but we also have arguments about whether it really is a “game-changer” or not. And the intersection of these two arguments has causes quite a stir in many circles. Unfortunately, it’s all a matter of opinion (except for the visual impressiveness of the technology, can’t say I’ve seen disagreement on that from more than one person). Personally, I thought Avatar was all three: a great film, a great technical achievement, and a game-changer. Can this be scientifically proven? Of course not. But I think the criticism about Avatar’s story is an unfair one to use when discounting its effectiveness as a film overall. I’m sure you’ve heard the phrase, “There is no such thing as an original idea.” Well, there is no such thing as an original story either. All narrative has similarities and most of them can be traced back to antiquity. Is Avatar’s story the best ever told? No. Does it take a common narrative that has been told many, many times and populate it with fresh characters and an interesting coat of paint? I would say yes. When talking about its status as a “game-changer,” people like to compare it to Star Wars. And I fully agree. Is Star Wars’ story original? No. Is it fun? Hell yes. Is its tech dated? Of course. You say Avatar’s tech will be dated, and I agree to a point. But when will that be? Terminator 2’s still looks wonderful for the most part and has aged well. Many beloved science fiction movies have technology that is dated—Star Wars, Star Trek, Blade Runner, 2001, Alien, to name a few. And people love these movies, as they will also love Avatar in the future. In fact, I would go so far as to say that Avatar alone makes 2009 a significant year in film.

But, fortunately for me and not so much for you, I don’t have to hinge my argument solely on Avatar. And keep your poking to yourself. This isn’t Facebook. You criticize The Hangover as being a predictable, situation-based comedy and that real comedy is based around characters, not situations. I completely disagree. Real comedy is both—emphasis on characters and then how they react to the situations that move the story forward. The Hangover did this wonderfully. The situations were silly, but I wouldn’t call them predictable. And I felt the characters were done extremely well. They were interesting and just deep enough to give us a nice sense of characterization. Is it the best comedy I’ve seen in five years? No (that distinction goes to Death at a Funeral). But it does comedy well, and that’s more than you can say for 99% of film that describes itself as such.

Damn, I am running out of room. You really know how to irritate the loquaciousness out of me, Mr. Radde. In closing, I guess I will counter your claim that none of 2009’s movies have lasting power. Here we go. Both Up in the Air and The Hurt Locker will survive as films that are directorially significant and distinctly “2009.” The wars in the Middle East (Iraq and Afghanistan) are nothing new, but The Hurt Locker captures an aspect of them that was thrilling, harrowing, and terrifying, and the best I’ve seen. Up in the Air’s commitment to the reality of the interview scenes is significant and heartbreaking enough as it is, but being contained within a great film gives it lasting effect. You’ve heard my spiel about Avatar, but I consider District 9 to be of equal importance. As spectacular as Avatar was, District 9 is significant in its subtlety. I believe all science fiction films from now on will follow one of these two paths, and we can thank Avatar and District 9 for laying the groundwork. Lastly, I think Inglourious Basterds will stand the test of time just as Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction have. This could be Tarantino’s best, and it certainly shows a level of storytelling that we haven’t seen from him since his early work.

So there you go, my brutha from another mutha. 2009 was a significant year in film for many reasons, and I hope that you can gracefully concede defeat. Even if we may dispute the quality of the films that came out, there are enough culturally significant events tied to them to warrant my enlightened opinion. It’s been quite a year, and I look forward to its influence on filmmaking in the future (with the obvious exception of Transformers 2).

And as for that beer? Well, I would be honored, sir. But only if you’re buying.

These two fine gentlemen could chat all day about the real cinematic merit of a film like Avatar or whether or not 2009 was a good year for movies until the end of 2010. However, what really matters is what you think. Were you happy with the releases of 2009 — was it a strong or weak year for movies?

As a part of FSR’s Decade in Review I’ve been tasked with coming up a list of the most memorable, landmark performances since 2000.  Since I wanted the list to be only 10 performances I had to set out a string of criteria to follow.

1. If the performance happened before 2005, why has it stuck with us?  Likewise, if it occured after 2005, why will we remember it?

2. No impersonations — as good as Jamie Foxx and Jaoquin  Pheonix may have been in their biopics, I have to give more credit to original creations here.  You may not agree with my logic, and that’s fine, but don’t expect to see famous celebrity impersonations here.  Foxx’s performance will never be more memorable than the man himself, so why would it be a defining performance?

3. Academy Awards do not help your chance of being on this list.  For example, in ten years we won’t remember what movie Renee Zellweger won an Oscar for (Cold Mountain), but instead will be reminded that she was great in Bridget Jones’ Diary.

4. And most importantly, I have to consider what people will remember from this decade a long time down the line.  This goes beyond just “what was the BEST performance” of the decade.  That’s a different conversation.  I’m looking at predicting history.

Bill the Butcher / Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day Lewis)

DDL’s two notable performances from this decade are back-to-back probably the most interesting performances of the decade.  The two characters from Gangs of New York and There Will Be Blood, respectively, have a couple things in common.  They both are disconnected from other humans, they both are sinister and cool, and both men sport wicked mustaches.  Hands down, no one rocks a mustache better than Daniel Day Lewis and that would be enough to get him on this list alone (not really, but it does help).

Patrick Bateman (Christian Bale)

2000′s American Psycho put the Newsies actor on the fast track to stardom as an adult.  His performance has held up over time because it’s hilarious (a quality that people don’t give Bale enough credit for is his sense of humor when he’s called to do it), chilling as hell, and so much fun.  To think this role almost went to a fresh-off-of-Titanic Leonardo DiCaprio seems ludicrous once we saw Bale in this role (of course at the time we didn’t know DiCaprio was going to blossom into a truly exceptional actor).  Psycho also served as Bale’s perfect audition tape to play Bruce Wayne.  When we heard that the casting for Batman Begins had essentially come down to Bale and Joshua Jackson (God, can you imagine?), American Psycho was the difference maker.

Ron Burgundy (Will Ferrell)

Hands down one of the most memorable comedic performances of the decade came from Will Ferrell in Anchorman.  His Burgundy was a character that everybody was quoting within days and is still quoted 5 years later.  Ferrell hit every note right as Burgundy, something he’s been struggling to do (consistently) with all his original creations since.  Ron Burgundy will be remembered two decades from now the same way we remember Clark Grizwald and Ferris Bueller today.  Ferrell has had some very funny performances this decade (Frank the Tank is almost as defining as Burgundy), but his performance, plus the fact that he helped create the character on paper, put Anchorman above anything else the comedian has done.

Napoleon Dynamite (Jon Heder)

You may not agree with me here, but this just seems to make sense to me.  Name a performance that made more waves than Napoleon Dynamite did.  Maybe it’s because I was in college at the time and people were clinging to that movie as if they were the ones who had “discovered” it (kind of like how most people were with the movie Swingers in the 90′s – it instantly became the movie you felt like you needed to tell people to see).  This movie was everywhere for a long time.  Now maybe it hasn’t held up as strongly as some of the other performances on this list, but if you mention it, everyone you talk to about it will have an opinion about it.  That is what I call memorable or defining.

Chuck Noland (Tom Hanks)

Cast Away isn’t exactly a great movie, but the fact that Tom Hanks absolutely crushes it coupled with it’s ALWAYS being on basic cable makes this a performance you can’t forget.  Hanks is absolutely stellar in Cast Away, making a movie where he’s the only person on screen for over an hour a testament to how great he is.  I wrote recently about how Hanks has cooled off and stopped challenging himself, but maybe he just peaked with Cast Away.  And you know what…that’s ok.  If Hanks stopped acting today he’d still be remembered as our generation’s Jimmy Stewart.

Captain Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp)

He seemed to lose steam with the sequels, but Depp’s performance in the first Pirates of the Caribbean movie is just too fun to not include here.  His mixture of Keith Richards and Pepe Le Pew along with the fact that his performance was visibly making Disney nervous and the terrific dialogue and fun action of the first Pirates script led to the creation of a truly original and fun to watch action star.  Depp showed that he could carry a big blockbuster movie and still challenge himself as an actor.

Aileen Wuornos (Charlize Theron)

This may go slightly against my second criteria (and maybe my fourth criteria), but Monster wasn’t really a biopic in the sense that it was just telling the story of someone we knew.  Theron was still given some leeway to create an original character and she did a remarkable job.  She didn’t only change her physical appearance for the film, she showcased an entirely different level of talent that nobody knew she had.  The movie itself is not that memorable which might hurt my claim that Theron’s performance will be remembered ten years from now, but it ought to be (if that matters).

Amelie (Audrey Tautou)

As far as females go, this was probably my favorite performance by an actress of the decade.  Amelie is such a fun character and the film itself is so re-watchable and enchanting, and Tautou deserves all the credit for that.  She seems to have the whole package for this movie.  She’s funny, independent, has an untamable quality that only historically great actresses like Katherine Hepburn possess, and I look in her eyes that just makes you smile.  People will be watching Amelie for years and will fall head over heels for Tautou every time.

Randy “the Ram” Robinson (Mickey Rourke)

Will people remember The Wrestler in 10 years?  I don’t know.  But it seems like it would be unfair if they didn’t.  What Rourke does in The Wrestler is mesmerizing.  I saw the movie three times in theaters just to take in his performance (also because for one reason or another I wasn’t able to actually finish it until the third viewing) and it’s just great.  Physically demanding, vulnerable, and really very lovable, pretty much everything you could ask for in a tremendous performance and it’s there in spades with Rourke’s portrayal.

The Joker (Heath Ledger)

I almost went with his Ennis Del Mar from Brokeback Mountain, but there’s no doubt in my mind that Heath Ledger’s Joker from The Dark Knight will be the performance of the decade.  Granted, we’ll never know for sure if this performance would’ve been as memorable if Ledger were alive today, but that really has nothing to do with it.  In ten years people won’t remember as easily as we do that Ledger died before the movie was released.  That won’t stop them from loving every moment he’s on screen and waiting with baited breath for the next moment or monologue that the Joker gives.  I watched this again recently and it’s just as great as the first time.  Ledger is everything you want in a villain and has set the bar so high for comic book movies (or any kind of suspense thriller) that I wonder if it will be topped.  Ledger’s performance essentially wiped out Javier Bardem’s peformance from the year before in No Country for Old Men from this Top Ten list.  Let’s stop wondering about what could’ve been or what may have influenced us when we saw The Dark Knight — instead let’s just relish that one man did something that exceeded every expectation we all could’ve had and he’ll be remembered for generations because of it.

Honorable mentions: Javier Bardem, No Country for Old Men; Hilary Swank, Millon Dollar Baby; Clint Eastwood, Gran Torino; Ellen Page, Juno; Leonardo DiCaprio and Matt Damon, The Departed; Paul Giamatti, American Splendor; Gene Hackman, The Royal Tenenbaums; Kate Winslet, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind; Meryl Streep, Devil Wears Prada; Jason Segel, Forgetting Sarah Marshall; Steve Carell, The 40 Year-Old Virgin; countless others that I would consider “great” just not “defining.”

Synopsis: The season finale begins with Don ending his business partnership with Conrad Hilton and ends with him starting a new job somewhere else; Betty wants to go forward with divorce proceedings.

Review: Season 3 of Mad Men is now in the books. First let me discuss the season as a whole before going into the finale. There were lots of great moments in this year’s season. I loved “My Old Kentucky Home” and how much fun it was seeing Pete and Trudy dancing, Peggy getting high, and Joan playing the accordion. “Guy Walks Into an Ad Agency” was another homerun. Hilarious, well-written, and some juicy character tidbits from Joan, Don and others — essentially, what Mad Men should always be about. Though some portions of the season were without much in the way of conflict, we still took in the lives of Don Draper, his family, and his co-workers. Peggy’s independence was displayed a little more each week and was never taken to a cliche level. Although her relationship with Duck was something I don’t think anybody saw coming (or wanted). Not much happened with Pete Campbell other than the fact that he and Trudy seemed to be on the same page for much of the season. There was a little exploration into Campbell that showed us how much of a child he is inside, and he also impressed Don with his ability to find new demographics and markets. Roger came on late in the season and had some redeemable episodes. His scuffle with Don was not very well executed, but scenes where the two of them were getting along were some of my favorites. Joan showed us that she has way more potential than she’s been allowed to show. She spent most of the season sidelined by her mopey, whiny husband who she finally belted in the head with a vase after 10+ episodes of being annoying. I think what I learned most from this season is how much Joan means to the show. She’s not just the best secretary in the world and a sight for sore eyes, she’s also developed into more or less the heart of the series.

I used to think Betty was the heart of the show, but that was only because she was playing a “part” for so long. After the second season finale where she had sex with a nameless stranger, she’s been pretty much a vengeance machine this whole season. Her relationship with Henry Francis, forcing Don to take in her father, naming the new baby after her father once he died to spite Don — she’s been more of a villainous this season than a loving mother and wife. And once she found out her husband was not the man he claimed to be, all bets were off. I don’t know what happens now with Betty and Don, but I am intrigued. I think I can speak for most of the viewers when I say that her relationship with Francis has been one of the sore spots of the season. It was interesting when they were flirting, but I don’t think I ever could’ve seen him proposing marriage to her coming. Betty is a complicated woman, who wants to be treated like a princess, and she found a man who wants to cater to all her desires. This will most likely end badly. I also really loved last week’s JFK assassination episode. It really pushed our characters forward and seemed like a logical place in time for them to try and find new beginnings.

That brings us to Don and the review of tonight’s episode. Say what you will about the adultery committed on this show. Pete and Peggy, Roger and Joan, Don and (insert brunette) — they always seem to have great chemistry when they’re together. Take Don and Miss Farrell. As far as affairs go, that was about as uncomplicated as it got. I know some friends of mine that watch the show were bored by Miss Farrell, however I loved how uncomplicated their arrangement was. It seemed more realistic, at least moreso than Henry Francis proposing to another man’s wife. Even if you go beyond the out-of-wedlock coupling that happens on Mad Men, it’s still a series built around chemistry. This lives and dies with Don Draper. I think that’s why season 4 of Mad Men will see our favorite characters teaming with Don to get back to what they do best: advertising. There was very little actual work in Season 3. It seemed like Don was out of good ideas because he was pissed all the time, Pete was spread too thin with far too many accounts, and most of Peggy’s best scenes happened away from Sterling/Cooper. I feel like Sterling/Cooper/Draper/Price can be a really good thing for this show going forward. No more bitching and bickering and Don trying to make people constantly work harder for his approval. Don had to tell everyone working at the new business why he needs them, and that was a really great thing to see. This entire season all we did was watch Don Draper be pissed off and shun people. It’s better when he’s working with his co-workers and not trying to hover above them.

I think you have to say that 1963 was a bad year for Don Draper. However, I think this is where we want to see him. After they packed up their offices at Sterling/Cooper for good, Roger turns to Don and asks “How long do you think it will take us to get into an office like this again,” to which Don replies “I never saw myself working in an office like this.” What we need from this series is to see Don coming to grips with his dual life, see him being a good father and the best ad man there is, as well as inspiring the people around him. Next season will hopefully get back to what we loved about Seasons 1 and 2, and will integrate some of the sheer fun that we had with the better parts of Season 3.

You can read more of Josh Radde’s Mad Men Season 3 reviews here.

Synopsis: The Kennedy Assassination affects everyone at Sterling/Cooper and in the Draper household; Ken and Pete’s competition for Head of Accounts comes to an end; Roger’s daughter gets married.

Review: This will be pretty brief since I’ll be doing a more full “whole season” retrospective next week after the finale. The Kennedy Assassination certainly put some things into perspective for the characters. For Don, it seemed to make him feel that he needed his family in times like this. For Betty, the assassination made her question her place in life, added with the bombshell she learned about Don a couple episodes back. For Pete, it made him see just how fake everyone around him is. Roger was obviously affected because his daughter’s wedding was the next day, and it seemed to make him remember what he left behind, namely his ex-wife. It seemed to make Roger and Don come to a non-verbal understanding, which was nice.

In another way, it also helped those of us with our asses in couches. There are a couple camps of Mad Men fans — Those who watch it for the characters and the writing and those who watch waiting for “something” to “happen.” Last night’s episode seemed to cater to both, and most importantly, it worked. I was not alive back in 1963 but watching last night’s episode reminded me of 9/11 and how everyone’s perspective changed after that. This should help our characters realize that they live in a scary, unsure time. Pete may quit S/C, Betty may marry another man because her marriage to Don, she believes, is a sham. Over the last couple episodes we’ve been seeing Roger deal with the women in his life and the choices he’s made which could lead him back to Joan, whose military-bound husband could very shortly be shipping off to Vietnam. Needless to say, this was about as good a penultimate episode you could ask for. Characters have decisions to make, squabbles need closure, jobs could be gained or lost, and relationships must be salvage or not. It’s exactly where we want to be, and it makes for what’s sure to be a memorable finale.

The days of men-in-suits calling the shots are coming to an end, yet for the characters in Mad Men, there’s no way they could possibly know that yet. This should be exciting to watch.

Mad Men Airs Sunday at 10/9c on AMC

Synopsis: Betty confronts Don about his past life; Roger runs into an old flame; Don plans a getaway with Suzanne; Joan reaches out to Roger for occupational help.

Review: I suppose this week’s episode and last week’s were a solid response to my open letter to Matthew Weiner and the writer’s of Mad Men, because I’ve been absolutely captivated by the latest episodes. Last week’s episode had what we had been waiting for, Betty stumbling upon Don’s secret. This week was no letdown either. The confrontation between Don and Betty was one of the best moments in series history. Betty was hurt and powerful and for the first time, we see Don scared in front of her. It was also nice to see that he didn’t lie to her, because Lord knows he could’ve, but the audience would know better. Just a great back-and-forth which made you forget that Don’s girlfriend was waiting outside in his car the whole time. Then to see the whole family go out for trick-or-treating with the kids and having a neighbor man ask Don and Betty “Who are you supposed to be?” — good stuff. This reminded me of the finale to Sopranos Season 4 where everyone thought that someone was going to get whacked or something ludicrous would happen, and instead the writer’s gave us a realistic, scary argument between and husband and wife who have hidden so much from each other. Though Mad Men wasn’t nearly as loud or intense, it was just as suspenseful watching the two of them go at it. January Jones and Jon Hamm connected, as actors, on a level that they never have before. They weren’t just playing “house” and being passive aggressive anymore…this was real.

On the other note, it was good to have a Roger episode for once. The treatment of Roger this season has been a letdown, he’s been a peripheral character that gets a few funny lines for the most part. I believe the writer’s are distancing us from Roger so that we miss him, and next season (I think) will be more Roger-centric. It was nice to see him interacting with Annabelle, a former lover of his, and to see Roger’s dedication to the woman everyone assumes is just a trophy wife. That’s been a really underrated theme in this season, that Roger actually does care for his 20-year old wife. We got to see a little vulnerability in Roger, which is rare, and we even got a nice Roger-Joan moment which will hopefully lead to her coming back to Sterling-Cooper before the season is over.

Also, one more thing that made this episode terrific — Suzanne. I kept waiting for her to show signs of Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction, especially since her brother isn’t all that stable, but it was just heart-breaking to see her realize that she can’t be with Don anymore. She asked “Do I have to worry about my job?” with such sadness, it just hurt, and you can tell it affected Don as well. I’ve been in that situation before, where for one reason or another you get carried away in something and eventually remember that you have made commitments to people. One of the most painful things a person can ever do is stop the potential for greatness with another human being, and though that may be a bit of a stretch with regards to Don and Suzanne’s relationship, you can’t tell me that them having a phone conversation in which their relationship abruptly ends isn’t more dramatic and lasting than having her go ballistic and stalk Don’s kids or turn his pet into a stew. If Suzanne went bat-shit insane, that would be an easy way to write her out, but instead they took the route of realism, which is much more fulfilling, and really speaks volumes about what Don and Betty must overcome to be happy with each other. It has to be real; it can’t just be thrown together by writer’s for the sake of a happy ending.

Again, this was a really superb episode and showed us why Mad Men is the best show on TV. It took some time to get to the meat of the season and I, for one, can’t wait to relish in the last couple of episodes. Expect the Kennedy Assassination to really shake things up with these characters.

Mad Men Airs Sundays at 10/9c on AMC

Synopsis: Betty starts writing letters to Henry Francis; Don starts to see Conrad Hilton as a father figure; a Sterling/Cooper account makes advances towards Sal.

Review: I need to air some grievances toward Matthew Weiner and the rest of the Mad Men writing staff. I spent the first 5-6 episodes on this web site blabbering on and on about how great the writing is — how even though much isn’t “happening” it’s all a part of some larger plan and we’ll start to see some conflict rising up any moment now. I’m sad to report that I think I’ve seen the hand you’re playing this season. Essentially, Don is unhappy, Betty is unhappy, Roger is unhappy, Joan is unhappy, Pete is unhappy, and Peggy is embracing her independence after so long of being unhappy. The new British owners have made Don mad but they haven’t really done anything unreasonable. Roger has been pretty much MIA the entire season (and his feud with Don doesn’t really make sense, anyway). I miss Joan. Pete has gotten more screen time this season than last season, but at least last season his limited screen time was more packed with character-study (all he did in last night’s episode was cough, pretty much). BAH!

But what made me more angry with last night’s episode was the direction and the writing. The writer’s really dropped the ball on a few moments. When Conrad Hilton says to Don that he’s “maybe more than a son” since he doesn’t have the wealth that was bestowed upon his old children, it was the first time we saw something child-like come out of Don. He looked like a kid, glowing, in that moment (which is what made Conrad’s disappointment later in the episode so eye-opening for Don), and something about just didn’t feel right. They’ve been trying to give Don a father figure this whole season, they even had him imagining his father sitting there in a motel room at one point. It was just sloppy to have that scene in there, mixed in with Jon Hamm’s reaction shot, that for the first time I felt like this show belonged on Lifetime (but again, I will give credit to the writer’s for striking Don down because he didn’t give Conrad “the moon” — but even that was a little too silly as well).

Two people said to Don that it must be nice to get whatever you want, whenever you want it and THEN he goes out and beds the school teacher, doing what he wanted when he wanted. Come on, writers: Where’s the subtlety that I loved so much?! In the next episode, is someone going to say “it must be nice to be so independent” to Peggy and then we’ll see her at the end of the episode being lonely, pining for something more? I just wish they’d dig deeper, because that’s what we’ve come to expect. If they can’t do that, and we have to settle for this “we’re going to tease you with conflict, and then pull back” like an idiotic show like Smalliville relies on every week, then they might want to start wrapping this series up before it gets Season 3 and 4 of Six Feet Under forced.

One more thing: We know Sal is gay, but why do all of his sub-plots have to be about being gay? We understand that back in the 60′s, concealed sexuality was a big thing; I just refuse to believe that it entirely defined someone’s life. Give Sal something to do on this show other than not go all the way with another dude. We’ve seen him be confronted by 3 or 4 men, have a crush on another, and be unamused by his own wife because he can’t satisfy her heterosexual needs. There has to be more to Sal than just how distractingly gay he is!

Alright. Grievances aired. Hopefully next week Weiner will show us why he’s the best writer in television right now. Plus, don’t get me wrong, even with the setbacks we’ve seen with Season 3, Mad Men is still one of the best shows on television. It kind of reminds me of the fourth Sopranos season, lots of people were put off by it, but it was still one hell of an entertaining show.

Mad Men Airs Sundays at 10/9c on AMC

Synopsis: Don takes Betty out to Rome for a Conrad Hilton-related business trip; Pete gets involved with a nanny in his building.

Review: To be a kid again. Last night’s Mad Men seemed to be focused on the three characters that are most childlike: Sally, the actual child discovering boys after seeing how her Mommy gets dolled up; Pete Campbell, the man-child who giggles at cartoons while eating cereal on his couch; Betty, the Princess who never has to wait for a man to light her cigarrette for her. We also saw these three characters be unfulfilled in some way as well.

Betty, who lets Mr. Francis kiss her in her father’s car, has always been a Daddy’s girl — she demands to be catered to and relies on the attention of older men (her father, Francis, hell, even Don is older than Betty knows). She needs to be done up properly in an Italian beauty salon and have strangers and multi-millionaires fawn over her, and still feels inadequate. Her husband and her have to play fantasy roles in a foreign land to re-ignite things between them (on that note, it was entertaining to see them flirt with each other and wake up in a hotel bed, as if they had affairs with each other — this also made me think about what Don’s reaction would be if he found out about Betty’s other interests — would he freak out?), but that can only be momentary. The only time Betty’s let us in to her actual thoughts and feelings is when a little boy who ran away from home was able to see the sadness inside her.

Pete Campbell has always struggled to be a man’s man. He has copied Tony Curtis’ voice inflection, walks with a strut, and gazes at women because it’s what he has been trained to believe these are the things men do. Yet, we’ve only ever seen Pete comfortable when he can be by himself, giggling at the television (which was also alluded to in the first episode in season two, when everyone was watching the Jackie Kennedy tour of the White House, except for Pete, who I imagine was watching something about Cowboys and Indians). He can’t seduce a woman like a man, can’t face his wife like a man, and becomes sheepish and sunk when caught in a lie — just like a little boy whose Mother caught him holding a broken vase. He whines and pouts, but it’s not his fault, like it’s not Betty’s either.

This brings us to poor little Sally, who’s bound to have a rocky upbringing with a Princess for a Mother and a man with one foot constantly out the door as a Father. I will say that little Kiernan Shipka has really been a bright spot of season three. The writers have called for Sally to do more this season than any one person in Sterling Cooper, and the little actress has been a treat. Her consistently honest and sweet performance has helped us flesh out more of what damage Betty and Don have done to their children (although Don is better at “playing” parent than Betty is, but that may change as Sally gets older) and she has served as a small lighthouse of hope amid the blanketed ocean of crushed dreams and bad tempers that have littered this season.

It was also nice to see Joan, a woman who’s perhaps dealing with a man-child husband of her own, even if it was brief.

Do you remember the movie Stranger Than Fiction? There’s a scene where Dustin Hoffman explains to Will Ferrell the difference between comedy and tragedy and has him tally up events that would fit into either genre. The Coen Brother’s new film, A Serious Man, seems to live this debate as I can’t really tell if it’s a dark comedy depicting tragic events or a tragedy with comedic characters. Comedy and tragedy aside, you also have to ask at the end of the day if it’s even “good.”

Is it good? That’s where our debate really gets interesting. I saw this movie over a week ago and I still don’t feel qualified to give you an answer. So let’s just start at the beginning.

A Jewish husband with a glorious beard makes his way through the snow and finds his wife at home. After a brief conversation, they realize the man the husband has invited over, as payment for a good deed, has in fact already died. Yet this man knocks on their door, enters their home, and soon the Jewish wife stabs the “Dybbuk” (Yiddish word meaning a soul that has escaped from Gehenna [hell]), setting off a chain of catastrophic events.

Cut to mid-60′s suburbia. Larry Gopnik (Michael Stuhlberg) is a physics professor whose brain and chalk-laden fingers move faster than his students can keep up with. One day, in his office, a foreign student offers him money to change his mid-term from a failing grade to a passing one and leaves before Larry can return the money. It seems that from this instance forward, nothing goes right for Larry: his wife wants to leave him for an eerily calm and pretentious man; his son uses drugs while attending Hebrew school; his brother won’t let his daughter use the bathroom because he’s constantly busy draining a cyst; his neighbor doesn’t respect property lines; his tenureship at work is in jeopardy; and the damn antenna on his roof won’t capture his son’s favorite television show (to name a few things going wrong for Larry). After being crapped on so heavily by the people in his life, he needs to seek counsel from three rabbis and a lawyer, who each give him a different view on what it takes to be a Mensch.

As Larry Gopkin, Michael Stuhlberg is simply excellent. Every scene reveals another layer of Larry, and while most actors would read the Coen’s screenplay and see a man that has every right to be a whiner, Stuhlberg adds enough complexity and despair to the character that lets us feel sorry for him. Like many other Coen characters, the problems just keep piling for Larry, but unlike most of the characters in Coen-lore, Stuhlberg instills a layer of real humanity in Larry that helps us connect with him (whereas its harder to connect with “The Dude” in Big Lebowski or Ed Crane in The Man Who Wasn’t There when things go wrong for them). What makes Stuhlberg’s performance more noteworthy is that he isn’t very heavily supported. I kept waiting to see an extra layer to Richard Kind’s Arthur character or Amy Landecker’s provocative Mrs. Samsky, but it just never came. It really has equally to do with their performances as it does with the Coen’s writing. This is a character study through and through, so don’t expect to get attached to any of the characters besides Larry.

The look of the film is understandably bleak. It’s also wholly unoriginal — oh look, the suburbs suck . . . Wow. I have to fault the Coen’s for not digging deeper with the look and feel of the film. I also have to question some of the stylized choices they made. After awhile, it’s hard to distinguish between Larry’s dreams and his reality, which (don’t get me wrong) is a good thing because it plays into the dark feel that keeps settling over the film and blends the real with the surreal wonderfully. However, it also takes away from the actual danger and winks too much at itself. Again, whether the film is a comedy or a tragedy is up for debate.

I’ll also touch on the ending without spoiling it. If you were unsatisfied by the ambiguous ending of No Country for Old Men then prepare yourself for an even more abrupt ending, except worse. At least No Country gave us some explanation as to what happened. A Serious Man ends as the drama is heightened to its absolute climax, which ultimately takes away from the experience; imagine if No Country had ended with the shot of Josh Brolin jumping out his hotel window the first time he and Javier Bardem have their first fight, that’s kind of what the ending of A Serious Man is like. It doesn’t just cheat you out of seeing the good stuff, it’s also confusing because it tries to “mean” more than it actually is.

Upon seeing this movie, many people will ask “what does it mean” afterward — I had that very same conversation with a fellow critic on my way to the train. Ultimately, though, as soon as I got on the train and was by myself it dawned on me that this movie probably does have some theological significance; except, I just don’t care.

Upside: The lead performance is very strong; the humor is constant and subtle; the Coens do a nice job of weaving the real and surreal.

Downside: There is no ending; the supporting performances are a little too shallow; the film’s structure is sloppy.

On the side: This is one of the Coen’s most personal film as they, too, had experiences with Hebrew school and falling out of love with religion (hence the fact that they both married very non-Jewish women — See: Frances McDormand).

Mad Men Airs Sunday Nights at 10/9c on AMC

Synopsis: Don, Betty, and Peggy all wake up in different places and their stories are told non-linearly: Don gets frustrated with Sterling Cooper’s offer of a three-year contract; Betty gets to meet with the government advisor she met at Roger’s yard party; Peggy has to contemplate the offer she got from Duck Philips.

Review: Don Draper hates everyone. Season 3 of Mad Men has been revealing Don’s bitter contempt for his place in life. Look back to the season 1 finale and we see a Don who’s almost willing to drop everything to be with Sally Menken; season 2 saw Don traipse of to California and almost never come back; season 3 seems to be Don realizing that maybe he should’ve made either of those decisions. He’s a man that has found so much unease lately that nothing comforts him. His wife is nagging him, his friend at work has taken to butting in so Don wants to sever ties, his daughter’s school teacher has a really bizarre conversation with him at an eclipse viewing, his new business arrangement with Conrad Hilton won’t go the way he wants it and the only people that made him smile in the entire episode were a vision of his father and two hitchhikers that beat the hell out of him and steal his money.

As for the ladies’ stories there seemed to be a common thread. Romantic altercations with older men. And both kinda creeped me out. When Betty first met Henry Francis and he put his hand on her stomach it gave me chills and their meeting in a coffee shop and afterward when Betty somehow stupidly looked directly into the sun didn’t change things. There’s something very strange about Francis and he seems to know Betty’s weakness for odd men.

The whole Duck-Peggy thing is just strange. Not only did it come out of left field but it seems like it was purely strategic. I’m not sure if Peggy was aware of that or not, but it seems that Duck has seduced her to get back at Sterling Cooper. Plus, I found that plotline to be pretty poorly written — Duck says sweet things to her and offers her a great job at the same moment that Don is a major dickhead to her. A little sloppy, even though it’s consistent with the type of harsh criticism Don has been doling out all season.

As far as the story-telling, I’m not sure if I was sold on the non-linear beginning. It all involved main characters waking up in strange environments and had been the result of a choice they had made — Don leaving his home in frustration, Betty purchasing a fainting couch because she’s fascinated by another man, and Peggy waking up in a hotel suite bed with a man we don’t see at first — I’m just not entirely sure that this type of editing was required. Either way, I give the Mad Men team credit for trying something new.

Mad Men airs Sunday nights at 10/9c on AMC

Synopsis: Sterling/Cooper gets a new, young C.O.O.; Joan embarks on her last day as word of he husband’s promotion comes through; Don takes an important meeting with a hotel mogul; Sally is afraid of her new baby brother, Eugene.

Review: (Possible Spoilers ahead) First off, congratulations to Mad Men for picking up last night’s “Best Drama” and “Best Writing in a Drama” Emmy Awards for the second year in a row. I wasn’t watching them, as I generally don’t watch most awards shows, because I was actually watching the best show on TV deliver another stellar episode.

Not only was this one of the best episodes of the season, it was coupled with some of the tenderest and ridiculous moments in series history. Let’s start at S/C: Guy MacKendrick walks into the office (hence the title being something literal, and not the beginning to a joke…except in classic Mad Men style it soon became the joke) and shakes things up by announcing that he was replacing Lane Pryce and becoming the new Chief Operating Officer of S/C, and in so doing manages to disappoint everyone (he even kept Roger Sterling’s name off the re-organization chart), including Don who begins to like the idea of living life split between New York and London.

Guy’s appearance finally threw a wrench in the wheel of Sterling/Cooper this season, which had been needing a shake-up after a slow start. Now of course, Guy won’t be sticking around after the hideous John Deere accident (do think the company actually paid to sponsor this episode only to see their tractor used as a foot-chopping machine? But then again, Ken did warn it’s “extremely safe if operated correctly”…), but it did give Lane a look into what life would be like without his New York office, so it should give him a newfound appreciation for his job, remarking “I feel like I went to my own funeral and I didn’t like the eulogy,” citing Tom Sawyer. Plus, without that incident we wouldn’t have had another Roger Sterling gem: “Somewhere in this business, this has happened before” as a janitor cleans blood off Pete Campbell’s window.

Now to the tender moments I touched on before. They pretty much all involved Don, as Jon Hamm brought out Don’s ability to be sympathetic in this episode. He had some great moments with Conrad Hilton playing good business man (who turns out was the man he served the drink to at Roger’s lawn party), explaining to him that people don’t like picturing mice in their hotel rooms, even if it is an animated one. He had a truly terrific moment with Joan at the hospital and for the first time there was a palpable spark between the two — which will lead viewers and fans to comment that maybe there’s a possible affair in there, anything to keep the glorious Christina Hendricks on the show — playing good boss. Then Don goes home to console his terrified daughter who can’t come to grips with the fact that maybe her new baby brother is actually her reincarnated grandpa Gene, playing good Dad*. Simply put, Hamm is amazing. Even though I’ve recently caught Breaking Bad and seen how terrific Bryan Cranston is, Hamm is better.

That being said, the award-winning writing is what I’ll be tuning in for next week. I’m curious how they’re going to re-integrate Joan with Sterling/Cooper. There’s probably going to be a job opening considering Lois did some serious damage to both a co-worker’s foot and an office (poor Lois can’t get demoted much more than she already was). Then again, with her marriage to Greg not fulfilling her, maybe she’ll turn to some of the men at Sterling/Cooper — perhaps even making the rift between Don and Roger about more than just some petty argument about Roger’s bride. I don’t know, but I know I’m intrigued either way.

* On the note of Don playing good Dad, how terrifically awful was Betty in this episode, telling her daughter that babies “get fairies to do things for them” like buying Barbie dolls. Jesus H. that’s good writing.

Read More: Mad Men Recaps

With the release of Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs this weekend, I caught a commercial on Adult Swim the other night that said this film was either the cause of or solution to “a serious case of the munchies.” It made me hungry. What’s this? A man and woman frollicking inside jello? Oh, sooo much spaghetti! Those gummi bears look f*cking scrumptious!

I immediately got up from my couch and made a bowl of ice cream. With Heath bar crumbs. And caramel topping. Mmmm. Then I sat down and wondered, “wait, what just happened?”

It got me thinking — some action movies make you drive a little faster once you leave the theater; some dramas make you re-think your life and donate money to the Red Cross. Which movies make you hungry? I thought long and hard (on an empty stomach) and came up with five films that make me salivate.

Honey, I Shrunk the Kids

When those kids were jumping around and getting covered in Oatmeal Cream Pie, did that not look fantastic? Didn’t it change the way you looked at your Cheerios for awhile? Seeing our day-to-day foods giant-sized should’ve turned us off to them…but no, it made me ask my Mom for those little cream-filled bastards every time we went to the store.

However, that film also made me frightened by the very presence of insects. Even the nice ones.

Super Size Me

This is, I suppose, an ironic choice, because all this movie makes me want to do is choke down a Big Mac like a dude finding a piece of bread whilst stranded in the middle of the desert. In fact, I had never eaten a Big Mac or a McGriddles sandwich until after I saw Morgan Spurlock’s documentary. That’s probably why he didn’t win an Oscar — his movie did more harm than good. Even when his internal organs were failing all I could think about was french fries. Hot, crispy, amazing french fries. It also made me see the flaw in his logic. Of course your body’s going to go apeshit if you only eat McDonald’s for a month, but if I have a 10-piece nugget meal with a large fry and a Shamrock Shake every now and then it’s not going to kill me. In fact, making late-night McD’s runs with my roommate was an honest-to-God bonding experience.

Hook

This is three-fold:

1. During the scene in which the kids sit Peter down for dinner, except he can’t see the food because he isn’t using his imagination, I get hungry. The kids reactions to eating air food is so realistic that I see them ingesting it. Especially when that fat kid looks right at Robin Williams and then takes a massive bite of an invisible burger. Oh man. I just drooled on my keyboard…hope it still works. :adjtghvnl; /

2. When Peter finally does see the food, Spielberg pulls the camera back to reveal this feast upon which they are gorging, and it’s just splendid. It’s mainly just marshmallow with food coloring, but f*ck does it look great.

3. Then the food fight ensues. And food fights in any movie (like in Animal House) are always delicious. Bang-a-rang!

Willy Wonka / Charlie and the Chocolate Factory

This should’ve been a pantheon choice, because it’s probably the movie you thought of when you started reading this article. The movie is essentially about candy and how it transforms us (adults become children, children become devious pricks). So we’ll put movies about food into this one as well, like Ratatouille and Chocolat. The goals of these films is essentially to make you hungry and it usually eclipses the storyline itself. For example, the “Golden Ticket” portion of Charlie and the Chocolate Factory is great, but more than likely you’ll pop in the DVD and go to the chapter where Gene Wilder limps out of the chocolate factory and does a falling somersault.

Who else feels like a snozzberry right now?

Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle

This could’ve been in the previous one because essentially the movie is a long commercial for White Castle. Except, this movie is for weed what Willy Wonka is for candy. Only when you’re drunk or high (not that I’m promoting either, mind you…) is when you can scarf down those putrid, gross burgers. It’s also what makes the first Harold and Kumar film better than the second (aside from the fact that the jokes are funnier): the stakes are small, yet the characters perception of them is what makes the film work.

Quick story: I lived in a neighborhood of Chicago called Roscoe Village for a couple years. Within a half-mile radius were two burrito places worth visiting. When I was inebriated it became my search for the Holy Grail. I would endure Chicago winters to trek the streets for a shitty steak burrito. One time I got to a place called Tony’s (which is an weird name for a burrito place, right?) and it was 5 minutes after they had closed. My friends and I, drunk and belligerent, decided we would not go quietly into the night without a steak burrito, so we heroically stumbled to Burrito House II which was not an easy 3/4 mile voyage (and also involved cutting through numerous alleyways and backyards covertly). When we got there, the line was 10-deep and loaded with a level of douchery you only get when you go to $20-cover nightclubs. One of my buddies picked a fight, another nearly vomited on a Puerto-Rican gal, and the service was atrocious. But let me tell you one thing: That was the best goddamn burrito I have ever had.

Huffington Post put out a list similar to this one when Julie and Julia came out, which they refer to as “Food Porn Movies.” I don’t know if like that term, “Food Porn.” Those are definitely two things I like to keep separate from each other. But then again, Marlon Brando could easily give you a butter fetish if you watch Last Tango in Paris.

Actually, that’s gross.

I’m gonna go deep-fry my hand and eat it, but in the meantime tell me “What movies make you hungry?”

Mad Men Airs Sundays at 10/9c on AMC

Synopsis: Betty has the baby; Duck Philips propositions Pete and Peggy for a job; Sally causes trouble in the classroom.

Review: I don’t know really how I felt about this episode. Betty and Don essentially going through the motions of a birth was interesting; it had a very been-there-done-that feel to it that seemed more realistic than most movie or TV show births. Betty was unhappy and spent most of this episode in a drugged up state, or a “fog,” and Don stayed in the waiting room getting drunk with a first-time father. Those scenes in the waiting room were interesting, with Don’s nonchalance countering the prison guard/new Dad’s nonstop fretting. “Fear is in anticipation” — and the same thing can be said for this episode.

I for one thought that something was going to happen to the baby or to Betty. From the nurse remarking that eating pineapple was a silly thing to do to Betty’s drug dreams involving a lot of blood and her deceased mother cleaning a bleeding black man. But with Mad Men being so consistently well-written, I should’ve known that they were just throwing the audience a curveball, like they do so often. That being said, I think there was a baby death, that of the prison guard’s baby, which is why I can only assume he couldn’t make eye contact with Don (and why his wife was in the wheelchair without a baby).

Duck is back to throw some wood on the fire — as Michael Jordan would say — adding some much needed conflict to the episode. He tells Pete and Peggy that he knows about their secret relationship, and strangely neither denies it. Yet Duck underestimates the way they go about showing feelings for each other, as Pete strands Peggy with Duck at lunch. Speaking of Pete, it was nice to see that scene in the elevator between he and Hollis. At first terribly, terribly awkward and then sort of charming. Classic Pete Campbell.

Overall, I’d say its the weakest storyline we’ve had this season. They introduced new baby Eugene (which will irritate Don I’m sure) and Sally’s teacher who couldn’t help herself from drunkenly calling Don and getting a little too intimate. But seeing as how this show throws us curveballs, I bet nothing except for a little temptation comes from that relationship.

Then again, maybe that’s what Matt Weiner WANTS me to think.

Read More: Mad Men Recaps

Mad Men Airs Sunday Nights at 10/9c on AMC

Synopsis: Gene continues to bond with the Draper kids; Sal gets put in charge of directing the “Bye Bye Birdie”-themed commercial; Peggy decides to move to Manhattan and begins looking for a roommate.

Review: Time to spooj all over another installment of the best show on television. Last week’s episode was great, but this one returned to the usual Mad Men, splitting most of the scenes between Sterling Copper offices and the Draper residence.

I loved the joy on Sally’s face when Gene let her drive the car and Kitty’s terrified face when she saw her husbands true colors. Also, a lot of great humor in this episode, which makes me think of the three Mad Men seasons, this might be the funniest so far. The prank call made to Peggy was genius, the scenes between Peggy and Joan have also become some of my favorites, and Gene had some really funny lines. I also was dying during Sal’s coming-out moment, because he’s so stereotypically gay, except this is before those stereotypes were made. My girlfriend even pointed out “for Christ’s sake he even has a pinky ring!” Ha, poor Kitty.

The direction was wonderful, and it’s something I feel like I don’t talk about enough on these reviews. Michael Uppendahl directed this episode and what’s great about him is how he captures the slice of life moments, like when Sally on the floor and Don is framed in the background. The moment spoke volumes to the development of Sally, and if it were framed it would hang in my apartment. He’s also great at capturing perfect reaction shots, like when Peggy gave Don a “told-ya-so” look after the Patio cola promotion failed. Uppendahl is also directing two more episodes near the end of the season.

Spoiler alert: Gene died before the end of the episode, breaking Sally’s heart. His presence this season has really given us some great development with Sally and we’re finally seeing this little actress flex some muscle. Sally did not know the Gene that Betty and Don knew, so his death and the subsequent reaction by her parents could drive Sally into a rebellious phase. It’ll be interesting to see how Gene’s death affects the Draper women.

Mad Men Airs Sunday Nights at 10/9c on AMC

Synopsis: Peggy and Paul are staying in the office through the weekend to work out a new campaign for Bacardi. Joan and her husband are throwing a party for her husband’s co-workers, while most of the Sterling Cooper gang is at Roger and Jane’s for a Kentucky Derby garden party. Grandpa Gene is missing $5.

Review: You can tell a great show is great by how they spend “off” episodes. Nothing that happened in last night’s “Mad Men” was Earth-shattering or really very consequential. And that’s fine. Some shows try to make drama where drama has no business. “24″ is a show that always needs to be moving forward, so instead of building tighter relationships between it’s core characters, they usually throw some curveball like season one’s “Terri gets amnesia” plotline or this past season’s “the Presiden’t daughter is a schemer” situation. Some shows have been killed by trying to force the drama. “Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip” may have been killed by bad ratings, but the whole “Tom’s brother being held captive” plotline ON TOP of the “Amanda Peat’s character is having birth-problems” saga was just too much. Even the best under-stated show on TV, “Friday Night Lights,” almost killed itself with an uneven and overdramatic self-defense-murder-cover-up plotline between Landry and Tyra.

But “Mad Men” handled an “off” episode like no other series I’ve ever seen, safe for “The Sopranos” (see: “The Pine Barrens).

Last night’s episode was all about the characters and reconnecting us with them. We see Roger sing in blackface, Paul sings because he is dared, Joan becomes the sexiest woman to ever play the accordian, Peggy smokes a doob, Betty gets hit on by an old man, Jane gets drunk, Don does some sweet bartending, Sally and Gene’s relationship grows, and Pete and Trudy do the Charleston. Oh, and did I mention Roger sings in blackface. What the f*ck is going on?

This was hands-down one of the funniest “Mad Men” episodes I’ve ever seen. Peggy’s one-liners were hilarious, the look on Pete and Trudy’s faces while dancing was amazing (as were Harry and his wife’s reactions), and c’mon, Roger “Blackface” Sterling never disappoints.

However, the episode was also full of some very nice character moments: Joan finding out her husband had a career-altering accident during surgery; Sally stealing Gene’s money and the guilt and fear she felt afterward; Don and Roger arguing at the party; Peggy’s sensational monologue to her lonely secretary; and Don’s slooow walk and tender embrace with his wife at the end of the episode. In other words, episodes like these are what we hope for when there’s not much going on with the “plot.” Sure, we’ll get a return to conflict next week, but for right now, stop and revel in just how good this episode was.

Good TV shows thrive on being technically sound, well acted, and cleverly written. Great TV shows have all those qualities yet also know that sometimes less is everything.

What did you think of this week’s episode of Mad Men?