Britt's On

I am JUST about at the end of the road when it comes to rewatching all of the original Degrassi episodes with my two best friends. We started this journey in the fall and it’s taken us about six months to get through about 60 episodes of the show – we’re just two away plus the crazy ‘Schools Out’ movie from being finis!

I have to say, I’m super keen on rewatching the new series now as well, as even that’s a decade (!) old. I watched the first six seasons as they aired, although CTV has been so thankless with scheduling it I lost track of it for seasons 7 and 8…until I watched the Degrassi goes to Hollywood movie last summer which inspired me to pick up said ‘lost seasons’ and watch them in time for S9, which is on hiatus right now till…sometime soon.

Anyway there are a handful of episodes left for this year. It’s been a decent season, although some of the storylines were pretty nonsensical (I’m looking at you KC) and the four new characters are probably some of the worst new ones ever introduced on the show. Declan is sort of the classy version of Peter that was supposed to exist but never did (as evidenced by the premiere). Fiona was accurately cast as a beard for Riley – as her character is nothing more than a beard for an actual character…they have yet to make me care about her. Jenna is hyper-annoying, although she provided a good, realistic foil to KC & Clare’s blah relationship. And new guy / random cousin of Chantay, Dave, is supposed to be the new comic relief a la Toby & JT, but he’s just random right now.

Anyway now they’ve announced the Degrassi NYC movie and the crazy giant S10 of the series will be airing on MuchMusic this summer as a daily ‘soap opera’ of sorts. I’m not sure how I feel about that. In my opinion, based on watching the last 3 seasons in rapid succession, CTV should have moved to doing an hour-long program on a weekly basis, since most episodes were two-parters anyway. I imagine the format of the show (A storyline, B storyline, and C storyline for comic relief / continuity if it’s a two-parter) will change dramatically if they’re moving to a daily show.

I also worry that they’ll expand the cast that much more and bring on more thankless characters and pollute the story. One of the strengths of the show is the natural evolution of shifting lead characters as the core original cast grew up and moved on, and I’d hate for them to lose that by opening up the cast.

I recently read several interviews from the original, ORIGINAL Degrassi saying they did indeed opt to stop the series after 5 seasons because they felt like they’d done every serious issue they wanted to cover. If Degrassi moves to a daily soap opera digest, that focus on a specific issue per episode will likely devolve. On the flip side, it will also lead to less ambiguity at the end of each episode – a hallmark of the show is to put their characters through insaneeeee trials only to end things without much follow-up (although they’ve made an effort to improve things in that regard during recent seasons).

Overall I think it was perhaps a wise move to do a soap opera style for the summer, perhaps to catch some bored teenage minds and entice them to watch during the rest of the year. Plus I myself can’t get enough of the show – I grew up with the original series (in reruns granted) and was a few years older than the kids when they started the new series, but loved it all the same. I just hope this move to MuchMusic / shift to daily drama (for six weeks anyway) doesn’t bust up the series in a bad, bad way.

- Britt’s On

I feel like I haven’t added new shows to my repertoire in awhile, not since Mad Men really. That is, until recently, when three new shows have earned PVR status in my life.

I don’t suppose I’ve ever explicitly stated what all I watch. The answer is a lot, across a relatively broad range of genres. I don’t think any show that I watch puts me on an island – at least one friend or family member watches what I watch. Actually there is one show I can think of I’m currently (sadly) alone in watching. But for my own “I used to watch THAT?” pleasure in a decade or so, is my current weekly TV roster. Keeping in mind MANY of these shows aren’t on at the same time, so I’m not logging 50 hours of TV per week.

MONDAY (CW Night!)
Life Unexpected – this is one of the few new shows I’ve added and have consistently enjoyed to date. The show has its kinks that I needs to work out…Bug and Tasha are annoying, Lux needs to stop acting like a spoiled brat and make some more friends (or nemeses) at school, and they need to give Ryan an emotional outlet to vent to as currently we just seem him angry with no follow-up, which his unfair when every other character has that go to person to talk with.

It’s very funny, gives light to the challenges of being in the public eye (which my bf in the radio industry appreciates), and features some pretty interesting, flawed characters that I’m still undecided about. My sister watches this show and is also enjoying it…I hope CW gives it a second season where they can regroup (having shot the majority of the show before it aired as far as I know) and fix some of the problems.

Gossip Girl – I’m actually enjoying S3 as they can officially drop most trappings that held the show back for S1 & S2 (namely: school). With only half of the core cast in school, and a flexible college schedule at that, their traipsing about town feels slightly more realistic. Plus Blair & Chuck! What I don’t love? The fact that the show is still a constant merry-go-round of relationships, and I’m NOT a fan of the current shipper pairings of Dan & Vanessa and Nate & Serena. Plus get a new format for your episodes, not every single one needs to hinge on X random society event. Seriously. My sister and boyfriend also ‘live’ watch this with me, while a couple of friends are catching up on DVD and love the show (it’s no OC).

One Tree Hill – it seems the CW is shuffling their two Monday anchors around the arrival of Life Unexpected. I’ve generally hated this season of OTH – it feels like they’ve stuffed new characters down our throats while cutting the existing ones off at the knees with some of the most boring, hemming and hawing but everything always turns out storylines of all time. Quinn needs to disappear, and Taylor isn’t winning me over either. Plus I don’t want them to dredge the lovely actress that plays Clay’s dead wife / dead wife doppelganger through the mud for the next while, only for him to stay with Quinn. I never thought I’d say it, but bring back Peyton & Lucas, stat! At present I think I have two friends that still watch it, but both were hesitant last I spoke to them about it whether or not they’d continue onwards.

TUESDAY
Lost – Bless this show. It came into my life in late 2008 and provided a month and a half of DVD delirium as I moved into my new house and had no money. Season 5 was disappointing but I’m enjoying unlocking the riddles at last this season, and I’m holding my breath for an explosive (?) finale. I’ll be sad to see it go, but excited to own it on DVD for friends and family members to enjoy and theorize about. Countless friends of mine watch and love it – although some are (understandably) at the end of their ropes with it.

Parenthood – I just added this one as well. My sister and I watched the first two episodes last weekend and I think it has potential. It’s not as funny as some of the other family dramedies out there (yet) but it elicited a few giggles and bits of thoughtfulness. Trippy to see Lauren Graham as someone other than Lorelai, and the girl that played Patty on American Dreams seemingly slightly older and fast forwarded to the new millennium only to still be a lot like Patty of yesteryear. I’ll give it a few more episodes before I fully commit one way or the other.

WEDNESDAY
America’s Next Top Model - …is…ridiculous. Still I like they’re doing another NYC season and I can’t not watch this trainwreck of a show. I used to like and respect it a lot more (as did my bevy of friends that have since abandoned it) but I’ve still got the odd friend (plus my mom and sister) who watch it.

THURSDAY
Survivor – I am loving Heroes vs. Villains right now. It’s missing a certain something still, perhaps it’s just been such a long time since we had a full all star cast, and I want some more h-core strategy, but revisiting these crazy characters and having some surprising new faves to cheer for has already made this season a worthy watch. My parents are avid watchers, and finally one of my friends has jumped back on the Survivor wagon for me to gossip with.

The Office – This show has jumped the shark, and I acknowledge that. I like the Andy/Erin romance but feel it’s an awkward rehash of Pam/Jim that’s being played for laughs more than sentiment so far. Speaking of Pam, they’ve made her into a shrill, irritating wife-y…which is disappointing. I DO appreciate that the show has followed a natural progression for the paper company (re: bankruptcy and buyout) and am enjoying the return to some more office-y antics as of late, like last week’s “leads” episode, but I think the time has just about come for Dunder Mifflin to shut its doors for good.

Flashforward – Well this just came back and I’m happy about it. I agree with the criticism that the show lacks the emotional resonance of ‘Lost’ (which it’s trying to both emulate and replace) but I think anyone that is a fan of Lost would appreciate that they are giving us answers on rapid-fire, but still leaving opportunities for many, many questions (take note Lost). This is the only show on my list that no one else seems to watch sadly.

FRIDAY
What Not To Wear – I’m enjoying the latest round of tweaks to the show’s format, although I do wish they’d do some more of their spectacular specials like going to Paris (or hey, Canada?) instead of being in NYC all the time. I enjoy new hairstylist Ted and the show is great to just throw on during a lazy Sunday when I’m folding laundry or doing my nails. As such I have a backlog of 4+ episodes on my PVR at any given time. My sis is obsessed with this show.

SATURDAY
Project Runway – I generally like this season, at least quite a bit more than least season’s snoozefest. Canada is several weeks behind the US so any commentary on the show will seem dated. The continually come up with interesting challenges though – I personally enjoyed this season’s children’s wear competition. I am sad that dreamy Jesse Lenoir is gone though. My mom watches this, although I haven’t chatted to her about this season yet.

Models of the Runway – I watch approximately five minutes of this show. It’s totally pointless other than to see the interesting way the designers are flipping up their models this season. For the last few years the model selection has been bo-ring, but something seems to have inspired them to swap things up a bit more this season. There’s been no “mothereffing walk-off” drama yet, but it’s nice to identify the girls by name for once.

SNL – Ugh what a terrible, terrible season. Reading the recaps on About.com has served to enforce this. There is no originality, no life to the sketches or the actors. Lorne Michaels needs to do a serious rethink in terms of who has hired as writers and as performers because the show is just drab. How many times have we seen the vintage sportscasting bit? What up with that? Call it the season of repeats…I’m bored.

SUNDAY
Degrassi TNG – Apparently I have a lot of shows on Sunday, however no more than 2 have been on at the same time so far. I heart Degrassi. I miss the stronger integration of the old school cast that came in the earlier seasons, and I miss a lot of the original cast, but the new cast has its strengths and interests for me as well. I also like to wave a little Canadian flag of pride as this show continues to flourish beyond our borders.

Desperate Housewives – I’ve ranted about this show too many times to count now. It’s become a parody of itself really, increasingly soapy instead of satirical with throwaway storylines and recurring characters. And yet it has one of the strongest consistent followings on television. Go figure. I haven’t been able to tear myself away, although the fact this show builds up a backlog of episodes a la WNTW is disturbing.

Amazing Race – This season so far has kind of…sucked? There isn’t really anyone to cheer for other than the magical cowboys, but I don’t feel a strong attachment, nor am I realllllly rooting for them. Magic hippies? Yes. Magic cowboys? Not so much. Annoying reality-show types making a return to reality television? Meh. Plus the boyfriend’s TAR pool pick (Dan and gay Jordan) are pretty disappointing.

Life – I just taped the first instalment of this last night. We’ll see if it’s worthy of my continued viewing. I anticipate…yes?

That’s all. A boring post! Still to come? The fourth seasons of FNL and Mad Men.

- Britt’s On

I haven’t written in this blog for a little while because what else is there to write about after you’ve attended the Academy Awards? Kidding! But in general, that was a totally amazing and awesome experience, and one I’d surely like to relive by luck of the Academy lottery in the future. Since no one reads this blog, I won’t get into the nitty gritty of the event, but I will comment a bit on general observations about it.

- The Academy takes incredibly good care of their bleacher creatures, I guess to make up for the fact you sit and roast in the sun at times, get splashed on by rain during freak five-minute storms, and have butt cramps that would rival any sort of PMS by the end of your 12-hour day. They gave us goodie bags, endless food, and invited us to an after party at the El Capitan theatre for more food and goodies and fun – and to watch the big show on the big screen.

- The two main questions I get asked are: A) What did you wear? and B) Where were you sitting in the Kodak theatre? The answers are A) it was the bleachers, so nothing fancy. As I told our national broadcaster that did a phone call radio interview with me the morning after, I wore a Le Chateau sweater dress to represent Canada, stay warm (almost too warm), and be colourful enough that my family would see me. B) The fans don’t go to the Kodak Theatre. Let me put it this way – we would scream too much, and this ain’t the MTV awards, and beyond that, for every single celebrity, there are about 100 ‘nobodies’ (at least faceless stars in their own right) that walk the carpet. There isn’t ROOM for us fans, period.

- The young stars were the hardest to photograph and get attention from. In fact the younger they were, the more spry they were at hurdling past our section of the red carpet (the arrivals area as opposed to the media tent). Anna Kendrick earned low grades from our section for not lifting her head or waving or anything when the carpet was empty and she arrived quite early.

- The older stars and the ones you’d expect to be more charismatic lived up to their name. They would walk right up to us (or in Clooney’s case, hop a velvet rope to do the boy band super fan hand grabbing thing), ask us how we were, say thanks, tell us to have an awesome time, and generally just be nice. The middle aged stars who’ve done the carpet walk several times were in between – they would give us a few obligatory waves but wouldn’t venture over for some true fan adoration (save for Clooney). Guess they don’t feel obsolete enough yet?

- Little known fact: the ‘live from the red carpet’ shows are likely almost never live. In particular the little half hour of stitched together red carpet segments that airs RIGHT before the show. Sherri Shepard was the host of it in our area, and did the majority of interviews that ran on that network’s feed (I saw it and myself on TV). Watching the red carpet special it’s not hard to tell that it’s edited together if you were there…our area noticeably fills up and thins out as the ‘afternoon’ goes on, but in reality it was empty – bursting at the seams – empty. Cameron Diaz was a late straggler so the carpet was empty, yet they slotted her interview in before Taylor Lautner when the carpet is noticeably fuller. Super weird but not surprising – the stars had basically stopped arriving by 5:15 PM (or was it 4:15…I can’t remember) but we were trapped in the bleachers till 5:40-ish. The red carpet special must have run somewhere in there, I presume 5:30 to 6:00 so when we settled into the El Capitan we just missed the beginning of Neil Patrick Harris’ musical number. OR…they put it on time delay for us. I haven’t figured that part out yet.

- Another weird fact. Those day after, the red carpet photos are totally rejigged. That shouldn’t be a surprise either, but it is when you’ve seen the dresses in person and taken the photos and open up the People magazine Oscar special only to see the saturation turned way up on Rachel McAdam’s dusty watercolour dress and the saturation completely edited on Sandra Bullock’s scary hot pink lipstick.

- For the record, the red carpet was a pretty consistent fashion ‘do’. Zoe Saldana and Charlize Theron earned the most consistent ‘don’ts of the night, and I agree with that with sadly, Sarah Jessica Parker also on that list. Zoe’s dress just overwhelmed her (TINY) frame and immediately drew “Errrs” from our section. Charlize was barely spottable but upon seeing photos I immediately recoiled. Her make-up was horrible, her dress was horrible, it was just no. Sarah’s dress was just unflattering and I’m not a fan of her severe, mega-bun hairstyle that she pulls out sometimes. SJP is very much someone that is made stunning or stupefied by her hair.

- In terms of best dressed? Maggie Gyllenhaal looked absolutely radiant, despite the negative commentary on her dress. Rachel McAdams also looked gorgeous and although I momentarily flip flopped on her dress I ended up giving it top marks. Cameron Diaz I think had the most immediate impact on the red carpet of being like ‘WOW’ – she looked awesome. It helped that the carpet was empty when we saw her. Sandra also made an immediate wow statement, although reviews have been mixed. She looked good but could have looked better, right?

I think that’s all to comment on. The Red Carpet is an insane and magical place and seeing the huge flux of people and the work that goes into the event was impressive. Like I said, if you can ever find your way onto the carpet, DO IT.

My thoughts on the ceremony? I won my family’s point-based Oscar pool without winning Best Picture (I have mixed feelings on Avatar and Hurt Locker, and believe Inglorious Basterds should have won), so it wasn’t a particularly surprise-laden ceremony. I liked the opening, thought Alec and Steve made for a good duo for the WASP-y middle aged person that is the Academy’s bread & butter these days, and enjoyed the quicker pace of the ceremony altogether. I liked that they still tried to inject some life into the lesser-cared-about categories through their little vignettes and the decision to continue with the stars talking to the stars worked well for best actor & actress, if not better than last year, because they picked people who had a personal relationship with them and not just past winners to induct them into the Academy fold (or at least one of them). That being said, the quality of the speeches kind of depended on who was speaking – Sandra’s speaker was pretty weak, considering she was the winner.

It wasn’t a standout Oscars by any means, minus the ten best picture thing (of which I am actually a fan for the record), but it represented a good continual progression of the show from being stuffy, overlong, and a simple show of award/winner/speech/award/winner/speech.

Till next time,

Britt’s On

I am in love with Lost again. I mean…yes the show isn’t as good as the first three (in particular the first two) mega seasons of mystery, but it’s come back from the fourth and fifth season slumps in just a few short episodes. The flash sideways feature is a nice twist on the flash forward, and allows us to somewhat envision what we never envisioned before – life after Flight 815, with a twist of course.

Is there still way too much shiz going on and way too many answers resulting in more questions? Sure! Is Josh Holloway still an overdramatic sour puss of an actor? Sadly yes! Is the return of familiar faces in unfamiliar ways awesome? Definitely! I’m giddy with excitement at obsessing over Lostpedia again and sharing theories (although right now I have few, compared to last season’s dead giveways re: Ellie and Daniel, Miles and Pierre, etc.). I also had a fun time checking out Lost gear available on the interwebs, and I’m more than a little tempted to purchase a piece of Dharma clothing (perhaps the lab coat for a warm Halloween costume) for myself.

Meanwhile though, I still find myself harkening back to just over a year ago when the boyfriend and I took on the very ambitious task of watching the first four seasons in about a month and a half prior to the fifth season debut. Overall, Lost is a better show to watch on DVD, plain and simple. While getting wrapped up in the theories while watching it in present time is great, frustrating, fun, it’s also very hard to follow the show from week to week – especially as they take us back through five long seasons of mythology (don’t forget, the show premiered in 2003…it’s been awhile). For example, this last episode, the woman interviewing Locke played a ‘fake’ psychic in an earlier flashback…I can’t even remember who the psychic was working with, but like…who catches that?

On the flip side, I can see that with the show ending, the conclusion of what is the island will be revealed and thus – much like with The Sopranos – people won’t jump at watching it. Still, I’m interested in purchasing the DVD set for myself down the road so I can relive the magic and pick up the clues and try to puzzle out the answers to things that aren’t answered this year. I’m hoping the creators consider putting some almanac out when all is said and done, much like how Harry Potter fans are eagerly awaiting the Harry Potter encyclopaedia, to answer the final questions.

Here’s the thing though, I’m not holding my breath for some amazing finish that wraps things up fully. There is no logical explanation for Lost, as the show continued to expound upon as the seasons went on. The leaders aren’t the leaders. There is a blurry line between good and bad. Destiny is both real and imagined.

Ultimately I think the creators maybe bit off more than they could chew, particularly with the JJ effect of his vision being distorted upon leaving for his next project. It’s impossible to keep up the level of mystery the first two seasons presented us with, so they tried to do it by bringing in more mysteries and groups of people with their own mystery (the tailies, the boat people, the others, Dharma, the Ajira folks, the temple others, etc.). What we have is a too wide cast when we really care about the core and fringe (like Rose and Bernard) 815 characters.

But I’m still happy to be on the Lost train. For now anyway.

Till later,

Britt’s On

Let me just say this: The Olympics are one of the greatest reality shows of all time. I’ve loved watching days 1 through 4, and I’m generally proud of Canada’s effort (and colour scheme) for this event…aside from the weather and luge incident. Every event is breathtaking, every medal is up for grabs, favourites will fall, twists will happen, conspirators will oust others. It’s great. It’s equally great that CTV has gone bananas for the Olympics and is airing every event in one way or another...although it makes catching up on my regular programming tough.
Moving on, I have had time to watch a few things in the last week, including the always addictively horrible Toddlers & Tiaras, the always addictive frustrating Lost, and the perennial favourites The Amazing Race and Survivor, both of which kicked off new seasons this week.

Survivor’s 20th instalment, Heroes vs. Villains promises to be one of the best seasons, perhaps the best all star season ever – at least by premise. There are a few notable faces missing and two questionable female choices in terms of bringing back ‘characters’, but the first episode so far has lived up to its hype. There were tons of great sound bytes and interactions, and the 1 to 1 victories for the heroes and the villains made for a great swing of power. I’m not in the minority when I say the villains tribe is more interesting (and sort of who I’m rooting for), but there are a few heroes I’ve got my fingers crossed for (I have a major love for James and JT…the two of them in one season is almost too much). I’m also not in the minority when I say Russell’s boasting fell a little flat next to the other competitors past history and prowess, and Parvati’s immediate assessment of his character (although she did seem a tad too informed).

Moving on to TAR. I’m very disappointed that the ads pitched this season as a high-def one, based on the high-def ads – why can’t we do hi-def TAR? How can this billion-time-emmy-award-winning show not broadcast in hi-def? Seriously! I’m a big fan of the bitchy network of blogs (although I long ago gave up on Big Brother after Janelle failed to win two seasons), and that link will take you to her assessment of the first ep of TAR. I didn’t watch BB but the two BB contestants seem like morons, and her assessment that they cast the biggest idiots on the planet to join them was awesome. The boyfriend has the single/gay brother duo as his team so by default we’re sort of cheering for the lost paintbrush boys, and I am secretly cheering for team miss teen ‘such as the Iraq’ to show the calibre of education it takes to win this show is very low indeed. I don’t have high hopes for them, and I’m pretty certain team BB won’t take it based on rumblings.

Anyway, I am excited to watch the moron parade play out, am uber excited to watch Survivor evolve among the first episode character refresher, and am hoping Lost will finally answer some of my damn questions. Oh yeah, and let the Olympic torch shine for another week and a half!

Till next time,

Britt’s On

I recently finished Dave Cullen’s incredible, agonizing book ‘Columbine’ and it got me thinking (and crying), namely about the nature of tragedy in the media. Where do we draw the line on profiting off the misfortune of others?

This came to mind specifically with Columbine because in one of the ‘basement tapes’ with the killers confessing all, the discussed who they would want to helm a movie adaptation of the attack. Spielberg and Tarantino were tossed around as names. In actuality the attack they had been planning was much larger – it would have been the largest terrorist attack in America, up until 9/11 anyway. So perhaps there would have been a movie.

But where do we draw the line? I sincerely doubt anyone will ever make a movie on Columbine, because it would essentially be giving into the killers wishes – to be famous for mass destruction. But then, with the actual world’s largest terrorist attack – 9/11 – we’ve had several movies come out and fare not horribly (United 93, World Trade Centre). They aren’t commercial runaways because it’s just too painful to process, or they focus more on the action and heroics over the facts…but they’re out there, and within a short time frame of the attacks. Conversely another large, infamous bombing – Oklahoma – has never had a film made about it to my knowledge.

I suppose the argument could be made that the 9/11 films focus on heroics while making a movie about a story where there really only is a villain wouldn’t fare well. Case in point – Karla, the ill-fated movie on one half of the infamous ‘school girl killers’, starring Laura Prepon as Karla Homolka, was considered so tasteless it basically got shut down before it was released. I believe the families saw it though, and I remember seeing ad for it in the papers once.

But again, let’s move back over to Monster, the film Charlize Theron won best actress for portraying a mass murdered. There were no heroics, maybe a bit of sympathy cast for Aileen (played by Theron) as a prostitute who’s life is endangered when she takes her first stab at murder. Somehow this movie was marketable. As are several other true crime / tragedy films – Natural Born Killers was shorthand for the Columbine killers’ plans, they often wrote about “NBK” coming soon.

We’ve also got Bowling for Columbine, one of the world’s most successful documentaries of all time. The movie wasn’t just about the incident, it was really about larger issues of violence and gun control in America, but it certainly was boosted by the national attention to the attacks (that are still prominent today). Certainly though, I can’t imagine a re-enactment of the attacks will happen ever…I get chills and lightheaded from just thinking about that book.

So circling back, the book. There are many books written on tragedies. In the case of Columbine, they are successful almanacs when it comes to debunking myths and setting the story straight (which Cullen, as a journalist guilty of many of the media-proliferated myths, admirably does). The book is Cullen’s opus, ten years of exhaustive research compiled into one, solid, readable (yet painful) tome that tries to find answers in a thankless situation. I say, Cullen deserves the hefty pay cheque that will likely come from the sales of this book. But I also wince and realize that the psychotic, messiah complexes of the killers would be tickled at the idea that a guy spent a decade to write a book about them (and even then probably didn’t get it ‘entirely right’) and their senseless acts.

Having a book written, vetted, and fact checked means the truth is out there – which is great. But the concept that select individuals are profiting off of tragedies bothers me, not so much in that it’s insulting to the victims, but that it’s giving credence to the initiators that spawned these acts of terror.

That’s a hard one to swallow.

- Britt’s On

There's a cool slideshow on Entertainment Weekly today about Oscar snubs you can't believe this year.

I'm mostly up there in the (500) Days of Summer category. Not a single nomination? Not even screenwriting? Seriously? That's all kinds of brutal. Ultimately the ten-picture thing makes it a bit exciting this year...not so much in the sense that the squeakers are going to actually win, but it does make a case for fan-based campaigns to influence things in that way.

Let's see where my picks stacked up against what was actually nominated:

Avatar - 95%
Duh, especially after the Golden Globes big wins. Probably in the top 3 to take the cake at this year's Oscars. I feel like Lost...it's a question of 'faith' (a heart-pounding story like The Hurt Locker) vs. 'science' (for the technical wizardry of Avatar).

The Hurt Locker - 100%
Another duh, and also in the top 3 to take the top honours. I liked this movie and it brought home the Iraq war like nothing I'd ever seen, but I'm not sure it was as spellbinding (or rewatchable) as winners in past years.

Inglourious Basterds - 80%
And thank god for that or I would have been livid. Having seen most of the top 10 at this point, I would have been super choked if this film had been left it. MY pick for best of 2009.

Precious - 100%
This film has lost a lot of its early steam, but it might win Best Picture to avoid an Avatar / Hurt Locker upset. It will likely fare best in the Supporting Actress category for Mo'nique again.

Up In The Air - 100%
Another no-brainer, although like Precious, it has lost a lot of its early awards-season prestige for just being labeled a good movie. Hurt Locker and Avatar have really taken centre stage.

(500) Days of Summer - 60%
In my opinion, the biggest snub of the Top 10. It was a critics and fan favourite (although slightly more obscure than other nominated tripe), and unlike virtually every film nominated this year, completely and totally rewatchable, if not more enjoyable upon repeated viewings. WTF OSCARS.

The Hangover - 0%
Someone in the EW slideshow named this as an upset (after winning the GG, I guess), but I'm not surprised. This movie wasn't even that good people. Seriously.

It's Complicated - 10%
Another non-surprise that basically squeaked into the Golden Globes on pre-movie hype and expectations (similar to 'Nine').

Julie & Julia - 75%
I'm most surprised by J&J and (500)'s exclusions. I guess the Julie part of the movie was really that unlikable. Critics have noted that giving the Blindside a best picture nomination has given Sandra Bullock an edge in the Best Actress department. I'm not sold either way.

Nine - 40%
After the continual panning of this musical, there was no way Oscar could save it from its doomed Golden Globes performance.

So two of my 'likely' top six didn't make it. What are the remaining movies that did then?

The Blindside - 60%
I noted that this movie had the lowest tomato rating of the potential Best Picture nods, and it's something many critics have pointed to in perhaps the biggest upset of the nomination season. It's the Academy's equivalent of throwing the audience a Hangover-ish bone I guess...it's also one of two movies I haven't seen because I really didn't think it would get nominated. I'm blaming the Blindside for ousting (500) Days as I gave them both a 60% chance of getting in.

District 9 - N/A
I didn't even consider District 9. Granted I liked this movie, it had a ton of positive coverage this summer, and I'm happy to see it on the list, but it just never occurred to me this would be the audience bone for the dudes (I would have tapped Star Trek perhaps). It takes a bit of shine off of Avatar's alien / Sci Fi lustre in the category, which I appreciate. I'm not anti-Avatar, but technical wizardry does not a best picture make (at least not alone).

An Education - 60%
I'm surprised this made it when all was said and done. There are really, really great performances in this movie, but it's such a small film compared to all the other nominees - in terms of visibility, box office take, star power, and plot. I would have rather seen (500) Days here but I think it's more deserving than The Blindside or Julie & Julia.

A Serious Man - N/A
Another movie I didn't give a thought to. Of the two 'man' movies I've heard much more about "A Single Man" than this one. My parents saw it just before noms came out and were unimpressed - apparently it's a very insider film in terms of Jewish culture. I'm not actually looking forward to watching this AT ALL, so thanks Academy, for continuing to kiss the Coen Brothers' butts and making me shill out money to see this at the cheap seats. I've heard it's underwhelming.

Up - N/A
I didn't think about this one either because it lacked the same level of fervor around it as Wall-e did last year. That being said, I'm very happy that being a best picture nom doesn't eliminate this fantastic film from taking home Best Animated Film. Cause it deserves that one at least. I'm not sure it's peak Pixar (I ranked it at #9 on my top 10 rankings), but Pixar slightly off-peak is better than 99.9% of movies hope to be.


Other snubs I'm *right there* with the angered fans out there? Emily Blunt in 'The Young Victoria' is classic Oscar fare. Helen Mirren's role is so invisible it's insanity that Blunt didn't nab that final spot on decorum alone. I know Christoph Waltz is (deserved) Aces, but his costars also deserved some nods in the supporting categories. I also wished 'The Messenger' made it to Best Picture status because it'd be more likely to actually appear on our screens here and I really, really want to see that one. Sigh.

I'm done dwelling on the nominees for now. I'm two films away from completing my Oscar route and many posts from determining who will win. Right Avatar has the momentum post-Globes, but Hurt Locker is on DVD and might snag a larger viewing audience in the coming weeks. Plus don't forget other top contenders Precious, Inglourious (FTW), and Up In The Air!

- B

I wasn’t looking forward to last night’s Grammy awards. I’m not a fan of awards shows that stack musical interludes and honorary awards in front of actually giving away awards – and the Grammy’s are notorious for that, putting together extremely obscure pairings for what they call ‘once in a lifetime’ and I call ‘stupid’. However, I obliged the boyfriend last night and watched the entire thing from start to finish. I will point out that when we caught up with our PVR, I made him watch a TLC program on the world’s tiniest girl (about the size of a cat if you can imagine, and she’s two). We managed to watch that whole program between catching up with the Grammy’s and were still done watching them at about 10:35.

Anyway to my surprise, last night was a good show. I thought I’d maybe touch on several of the performances – ones that I feel qualified to comment on for one reason or another – and give my grades to the winners and losers of the night.

Lady Gaga – kicked things off with a bang as per usual, but also as per usual? Gaga was at her best when vamping on the piano with Elton John, stripped away from the hysterics of her OTT dance-y number, complete with Gaga mannequins and flashy MC. I’m a little surprised Ga didn’t get to grab an award on stage.
Grade: B+

Pink – easily one of the best performances of the night. Glitter in the Air is one of my fave tracks off Pink’s last album, and she sang it perfectly with some genuine emotion (did you SEE Keith Urban tearing up when he went to present the next award)? Add to that a breathtaking acrobatic performance where she STILL managed to sound awesome and you’ve got a winner. I respect Pink, as she’s really just kept on doing her own thing from when she first showed up on the scene to today, and she’s still popular. She’s not #1, but she’s continually out there.
Grade: A+

Beyonce – tied for best performance with Pink. “If I Was A Boy” has/had the potential to be a really boring power ballad, but Beyonce’s utilitarian interpretation had her rocking the crowds, putting a big smile on her hubby’s face, and showcased her voice without too many intense vocal gymnastics. Add to that the inspired ‘Oughta Know’ interlude (go Canada go) and you’ve got a stellar, unexpectedly awesome performance.
Grade: A+

Michael Jackson Tribute – despite a relatively ragtag band of performers – Celine Dion, Jennifer Hudson, Usher, Carrie Underwood, and Smokey Robinson – they did a really solid job of delivering this tune along with Michael’s angelic vocals. The 3D didn’t quite work (we had on non-Grammy-sanctioned glasses that came with our copy of Coraline), and it mostly resulted in guffaws as the boy and I laughed at the starlets wearing their specs, but it was a nice effort. I felt like Carrie Underwood was kind of the weakest here, surprisingly, but loved her realistic, extension-free hair.
Grade: A-

Black Eyed Peas – Imma Be isn’t my fave song off The E.N.D. but it did lend itself well to the build-up in this futuristic blast of a performance. Plus there is NO WAY to not bop your head and enjoy ‘I Gotta Feeling’ – it would have worked well as a show closer in my opinion, although the ‘good night’ would have been over by then I suppose.
Grade: A

Lil Wayne / Drake / Eminem – Probably the best of the ‘true’ hip hop / R&B performances of the night, although the lyrics were more muddled than the clear cut sound of the actual track. I commented, in regards to Gaga and Drake, those two are living the dream. A couple of years ago they were just doing their thing in a NYC club and ‘wheelchair’ respectively, and now they’re performing with legends in their genres on the Grammy stages. Drake looked a little too happy to be hardcore, but his performance was great – it was good to see Eminem in a positive, supporting role. Perhaps they bonded over their similar struggle against expectations vs. reality (Degrassi Star? Vs. Talented!).
Grade: B+

Taylor Swift (w/Stevie Nicks) – Taylor’s weakness is her live performing, but what she lacks in vocal power she makes up for in charm and energy. The Stevie Nicks middle duet was the most painful part, while the countrified version of ‘You Belong With Me’ was a highlight – imagine, Taylor Swift singing pure country?
Grade: B

Green Day (w/musical guests) – I had no idea Green Day was putting together a musical of ‘American Idiot’ but I am tickled pink at the idea. So is the rest of America I bet, after the brilliant PR move of having cast members from the musical rock out with the band. For the rest of the show, we both commented on how every musical group would be clamouring for their own stage show now. The performance lacked the bells and whistles of others, but it was still solid.
Grade: B+

Bon Jovi – The little three-song condensed set the guys played went on an upward slope, from the weak opening by Richie Sambora through to the fan-selected ‘Livin on a Prayer’. Yet BJ seemed a little, dare I say it, bored? Their energy level wasn’t nearly as high as some of the others last night.
Grade: C+

Maxwell – Apparently this guy is famous down in the US of A. I don’t know him. He had a nice voice but his performance was standard power ballad stuff, which Beyonce managed to overcome…Maxwell did not, and thus I skipped this one.
Grade: C

Jamie Foxx – Another performance I skipped about half of. Foxx’s vocals were buried in auto-tune and there wasn’t really anything special (enter hoochie girls after the operatic debut), unlike the stripped down Eminem/Wayne/Drake performance later that evening.
Grade: C-

Lady Antebellum – The boyfriend is a big fan of these folks, having partied all night with them last time they were in town. There wasn’t anything flashy about their performance, nor did they have any surprise special guests…and it was nice. I’m not super familiar with them, but they are solid performers / songwriters.
Grade: B

There were a few other random performances in there. Zac Brown Band who stole the best new artist award from MGMT – I don’t really have much to say on them. The old person David Foster-helmed soul performance which was pretty snore-y. Dave Matthews band was okay but a little ‘much’. You can do a lot without needing a full jamboree on stage. Jeff Beck and Imelda May started out enchanting but failed to live up to the star power that dominated the stage that night.

Overall though, glad I watched it. Pink and Beyonce were definitely the ladies that rocked the stage, but it was Taylor’s fairy tale and continually surprised gushing that captured our hearts.

- Britt’s On

I'll preface by saying this is a One Tree Hill post...kind of. At least, that's the source of inspiration.

I've noticed a trend over the years of shows going to seed when a new, random character is introduced that doesn't quite jibe with the show's original vibe. This is perhaps observed as early as the 1970s with shows that introduced the mysterious child character - usually an obscure cousin (I'm looking at you Brady Bunch).

But this trend STILL continues to this day. And One Tree Hill is horrendously, but not unforgivably, guilty of it. I will straight up say, I'm embarrassed to say I watch this show (never mind the phrase 'still watch this show'), I have been since it first debuted. My sister and I used to turn to one another and ask "WHY are we still watching this crap?" The original answer was the character of Lucas Scott played by Chad Michael Murray, our teen dream love from Dawson's Creek and Gilmore Girls. But alas, Lucas was no Tristan or Charlie - he was a whiny, self-absorbed, squinty zero.

And yet...we watched. And the show did hit a peak in seasons 3 & 4, before beginning a slow descent in the 'fast forward' seasons. To recap, the first four seasons are set in grades 11 & 12 - rather than pull a mystery grade out of thin air a la the OC, each grade was divided into two seasons. Season 5 saw the characters (thankfully) fast-forwarded through the college years, picking up 4 years and 6 months after graduation. Lo and behold, everything was sorta kinda peachy keen in the OTH's world, plus Jamie (Naley's love child in S4) was a cute pick-me-up in a non-random-child way (at first). Season 5 was actually kind of good, offering lots of 'Where are they now?' surprises and Easter eggs for the loyal fans, and introducing some interesting characters including Brooke's mama.

The beginning of season 6 was a big fat pile of OMGWTFBBQ, but in a good dramatic tension way...but that started to unravel as well. I'll point out that the character of 'Sam', Brooke's adopted-ish teeny-bopper, was an example of the way introducing a new young un is a BAD idea, especially considering that Sam resembled an actual teen next to these adults who played teens in the previous season. At the end of Season 6, Lucas and Peyton, two of the show's core core core characters (despite them being amongst my most hated) were unceremoniously dumped. I never thought I'd say it, but the gap has NOT been filled.

Instead, we got introduced to a pairing of new key characters, meant to replace ultimate couple Leyton. One of Haley's miscellaneous sisters, Quinn, she of the perfect marriage and inexplicable photography career, arrives out of nowhere to crash at the Scott mansion. And Nathan is back on his game with a handsome devil of an agent, Clay, at his side.

Now...I love Clay, I do.



The show has done a decent job of integrating him into the cast, although it's a far cry from brotherly camaraderie that was really starting to feel real between Lucas and Nate over the last few seasons. Plus I LOVED his back story episode(s), where we were introduced to a mysteriously awesome, charming chick in his life only to find out she was his WIFE that died randomly of a heart disorder. Brutal as I'd much rather see the actress that played Sarah be alive and well than well...

Quinn.


Other than having a nice hair colour, I can't STAND this chick. It's partially the show's fault for forcing the point that 'QUINN IS A GOOD PERSON LOVE HER AND HER SUNNY WANDERLUST!' down our throats to the point where I wish she'd walk into the ocean she so greatly fears and get drowned by Dan Scott. Her back story about her newly-loveless marriage to David made me unsympathetic to her cause (vs. Clay), and basically nothing she's done on this show has convinced me she's nothing but a spoiled, whiny brat. Perhaps she's the new Lucas then. In slight fairness, the casting department cast the biggest oaf of a husband they could find, but I STILLLLLL found him more endearing than Quinn. Also, although the term 'career' can be used loosely for most of our cast, she takes it to a new level, bunking in her sister's manse and randomly snapping people on the beach while cozying up to Clay.

So the show has decided to put a ton of focus on these two. Which pretty much makes me want to gag - I could handle them apart in small doses and their interactions with everyone else, but as a couple and their supremely unrealistic cheesmo conversations, including Clay's declaration at the mid-season break, are pretty much the WORST things to happen to this show, ever.

I get that you can't have a show (really) around 3 core characters - but I miss my Hayley/Nathan/Brooke face time. Instead we have the three of them constantly having to prop up these new additions to the show, and then some. Julian was interesting last season but now he's an inexplicable, unreadable knob a la cheating Lucas in early years. Alex can provide intermittent bouts of funny but as a sympathetic foil I find her irritating - just let her make her $*#(@&$( movie, be redeemed, and ideally leave town with Julian in her pocket. No one is good enough for Brooke (still / yet). Millicent had a fun run as an Alex wannabe but in general she's downerville, and I'm over her and Mouth's less-than-ideal relationship. Alexander Coin = snore and not good-looking enough for Mme. Brooke.

Ugh. I can't dwell on this show any longer other to say that I'm pretty sure the creator has been developing a music label-centred show for another network, and I think it's hurt a show that straddles the line between brutal and watchable.

So I meant for this post to be more about a number of shows that have fallen prey to the new core character problem, but I'll just leave you with this example. Season 3 of the OC was no picnic. Marissa was elsewhere with a cast of losers, Summer and Seth were on their own educational wavelength, and the one likable character introduced all season - Sadie - was unceremoniously tossed. But let me tell you why this season REALLY sucked, and who singlehandedly led to the demise of what could have been the best teen soap of all time had it kept up Season 1's momentum.

Taylor Townsend (played by Autumn Reeser)


Originally serving as a foil to our blissfully happy (in episode 1) couples Marissa & Ryan and Seth & Summer, Taylor tried to take down Summer in the college department, woo Seth in the comics department, and evict Marissa and Ryan from school. Predictably or not, by mid-season she was suddenly their sad little fifth wheel.

The main reason why I blame the demise of the show on Taylor (as early as S3)? The humour that they attached to a character like Taylor was COMPLETELY different than the vibe of the show. Consider the season 1 episode where Summer is randomly dating some funny dude who in fact, Seth and Sandy identify as not funny, but 'BIG'. Taylor is the female, camp equivalent. The show suddenly became about slapstick pratfalls and cheesy mean girl showdowns - but without the bite, irony, wit, or quirkiness of the earlier seasons. The show asked us to worship this completely ridiculous character with a penchant for older men in pastels and Yakuza films - there's Seth Cohen nerdy hip, and then there's Taylor's obnoxious cutesy psychoticness. BLAH!

Beyond that, the show really soured for me after Marissa's death (well, me and the world I guess). A friend and I had a long chat the night after the finale, and he pointed out that things might not be all bad. I tried to see the light and pointed out that, having enjoyed Sadie of S3, he was right - I was super excited to see Ryan: the college years and him finding a new Marissa type. But no. Instead the show decided to be pitifully lazy, continue the random not-funny brand of funny, and make TAYLOR - mortal enemy of Ryan in the first half of season 3 and barely on his radar in the latter half - Ryan's LOVE INTEREST? I DONT THINK SO. And yet it was so.

There are many things that could have saved the OC from an early death - not having the mysterious 'gap year' where they repeated grade 11, Mischa Barton getting her drunk ass to set on a more regular basis, the horrible Kirsten-out-of-rehab plot not being so entirely random...and so on. But really, I'm pinning this one on campy Taylor. Did I mention season 4 totally failed in the bringing a random child onto the scene? Yeah, I'm looking at you Katelin.

To the TV I go!

Britt's On

I really wasn't planning to post after yesterday's epic Survivor post, but here I am.

Incidentally for some GREAT insight and analyses of each character, backed up by real-life observations, check out Dalton Ross' columns on Entertainment Weekly that are being posted daily in the lead-up to the show. Oh EW, how I heart thee. Even your website is wicked. Sadly it looks like one of my early picks might be bested by a physical injury...or perhaps Dalton's just teasing.

Anyway back to why I'm posting. I decided to review the best/worst dresses lists for this Saturday's Screen Actors Guild Awards. Typically no one really cares about the SAGs, although as part of the illustrious 'road to the Oscars' people are putting more emphasis on every little hop, skip, and jump to the Academy Awards. And thus, the dresses.

I think the SAGs in general accounted for a better dressed bunch than the GG's, something I can only chalk up to people trying to go for it on the much higher profile GG's and feeling like they simply have to look 'nice' at the SAGs.

However in my more in-depth paying-attention-to-dresses run up to the Oscars, it seems that everyone is a critic, and everyone has criteria for what makes or breaks someone on either list.



Consider for example, Christina Hendricks (Mad Men's 'Joan') at the GG's. I LOVE this girl, especially for wearing Project Runway wunderkid Christian Siriano's custom-made dress. This picture actually does it more justice than both TV and other photos I've seen, yet the critics seemed wholly divided between awarding her a thumbs up or a thumbs down. I can see both sides - on one hand, her curves are out of control and this dress kind of emphasizes them through it's fleshy colour and it's wobbly waves. On the other hand, typically speaking Christina doesn't rock the red carpet (it's hard to find modern-day clothes that work with her rockin bod) and I think this dress was more successful than her usual outings.

In contrast, Christina is getting better vibes for this much 'safer' ensemble worn at this weekend's SAGs:



To me, red is underwhelming on a redhead, particularly one with as much flair as Christina.

She's a bit of a specialty in Hollywood, at least in terms of Old Hollywood glamour, class, and curves on the red carpet. So what makes for a guaranteed best dress spot? Here's what I can gather.

The best dressed are:
- Put together from head to toe: the hair, make-up, shoes, accessories, and most importantly the dress work together, not against one another. If one of these things is jarringly bad (like Emily Blunt's poor make-up at the GG's) it may knock you out of the running.

- More often than not, they aren't 'safe'. Black dresses rarely simultaneously top all best dressed lists, because too many people will deem them 'safe'.


- At the same time, the 'risk takers' can't be too risky. If the print is too wacky, if the features of the dress are too bizarre (like Drew Barrymore's wacky crystal anemones at the GG's), if the style is too unfamiliar (like Nicole Kidman's boho chic look at this year's SAGs), you will be deemed badly dressed, with the dress wearing you.

- The dress / look must be 'age appropriate'. This means if you're young, you can't be in something too fussy, and if you're old, you can't be in something too raunchy.


- The dress must cover and conceal well, while still showing an appropriate amount of skin. There are countless examples of where this rule bedevils some of them at the GGs - Annalynne McCord, Felicity Huffman, Mariah Carey, and even Marion Cotillard's hint of a slip were all cause for chatter.

- The gown must also be flattering - ideally. There needs to be some feature that either showcases a jealous-rage-inducing body part (like Jennifer Aniston's 'to there' slit at the GGs, not that I'm condoning basic black)

- And a cardinal, but inescapable rule. Your dress may NEVER incite predictable comparisons like "This wouldn't look out of place in a Hollywood wedding bridal party" (Fergie at the GG's) or "This dress will be the flying off the shelves for prom - because it already LOOKS like a prom dress" (Jenna Fischer at the SAGs). Thus, the oft-worst-dressed gals will try and slink by in simple, slightly adorned dresses, and be labeled worse than safe - pedestrian. Shudder.

There are a few dresses, and a few awards shows that break convention. Hillary Swank's fugly navy blue nun dress the year she won for Million Dollar Baby is an example - it was a TOTAL snoozefest on the red carpet, and while normally that dress would be cause for subtly passing Hillary Rachel Zoe's business card, it was interesting enough to make us all do a double take and consider that maybe just maybe it had some sex appeal and style after all.

Another example of defying all laws are the show stoppers, like J Lo's infamous Versace green dress, or Halle Berry's boobular flower-pastie dress (I'm being crass, it was no Lil Kim debacle, but it certainly wouldn't have worked for anyone else who wasn't winning that night). If you have the attitude, momentum, and popularity behind you, almost anything is possible on 'your' night.


For the record, who do I often count on for red carpet magic? Diane Kruger has really be working the carpet in the last while, to the point where she almost has me convinced her confectionery pink GG gown is fab (her mustard yellow dress from the SAGs truly IS fab, although a total take-off of Michelle Williams at the Oscars circa Brokeback Mountain).


Beyond that, Reese Witherspoon and Kate Winslet can generally be counted on for flattering, fashion-forward looks that embody all of the good things a 'best dress' asks for, even if they veer slightly into 'safe' territory a little too often.

Other than that Hollywood is a total crapshoot on the red carpet. I have no respect for Jennifer Aniston's entirely black/cream/navy wardrobe, and it makes me sad to see Jenna Fischer and Mandy Moore continually not get it right.

Penelope Cruz generally does a solid job, but her style just isn't for me, and I can't put my finger on it. Perhaps it's the ease with which she carries everything off, the fact she spots dresses and bides her time for years before she wears them. I don't know.

What I DO know is I'll be watching the Oscar red carpet (hopefully NOT under an umbrella) like a hawk, and making my picks right then and there.

Till later,

Britt's On