"'Vanity Fair’s' thug life Tiger Woods is unbelievable."

By Jason Tanamor

Tiger Woods is on the cover of the current issue of “Vanity Fair.” On the cover, and I have yet to read the story and really don’t care at this point, Woods is shirtless wearing a hat and flexing his kind-of muscles.



However, instead of portraying him as the bad boy that he believes he is by humping and dumping a slew of mediocre looking women in which he seemingly fell in love with, I am only reminded of comedian and actor Jamie Kennedy’s portrayal of a thug life rapper in “Malibu’s Most Wanted.”





The reality is that Tiger Woods is a superstar athlete. Had he not been this, he’d be nothing more than a nerd who would have trouble getting dates. He’s not really handsome, he wouldn’t have this money, and people wouldn’t demand Tiger such as they do now. Imagine having Tiger Woods, unsuccessful Tiger Woods, behind you at the grocery store as you check out. He holds his TV dinners and case of pop and asks you out. You’d die laughing.

What do you think?



BYLINE:

Jason Tanamor is the Editor of Zoiks! Online. He is also the author of the novels, "Hello Lesbian!" and "Anonymous." Email Jason at jason@zoiksonline.com.

"Gerard Butler's career goes south in the awful, dirty mess 'Gamer.'" – DVD Review.

By Sean Patrick Kernan

I was under the impression that actor Gerard Butler's career was going really well. That clearly is not the case after watching his new movie “Gamer.” If Mr. Butler has to pick up a role that Jason Statham obviously passed on, things cannot be going that well. Ok, admittedly, I cannot prove that Mr. Statham passed on “Gamer.”

However, the movie does come from the “Crank” team of directors, Mark Neveldine and Bryan Taylor.



Not to mention the fact that the role is pitched to Statham's vibe of brain free, bloody grit. “Gamer” just seems like Jason Statham's kind of movie. Gerard Butler picks up the role and one cannot escape the idea of a not so bad actor picking up another actor's scraps. What a shame.

“Gamer” is a dopey sci-fi actioner that thrusts its audience into the midst of a story in progress. In some not so distant future interactive gaming has evolved to an inhumane level. Real men and women are being incorporated into the gaming world through technology created by Ken Castle (Michael C. Hall). Castle is a malevolent version of Bill Gates.

Castle’s brain controlling technology allows gamers to control real people. His first breakthrough game, Society, allowed the gamer to live out debauched fantasies through real people. Castle's major breakthrough however is called Slayers, a game where death row inmates run about shooting at other death row inmates. If one inmate survives 30 battles he or she can be set free.

The star of Slayers is Kable (Butler). He has survived 27 battles when we meet him. Kable's real name is Tillman and he is surviving so that he can be reunited with his wife and daughter. Kable is controlled by a teenager named Simon (Logan Lerman) and when Simon is approached by a group opposed to Castle, Kable may find his way to escape.



I have brought some order to this story through my description of the plot but trust me when I tell you that the movie itself is much more of a mess than I let on. As with their two “Crank” movies, directors Neveldine and Taylor have little care for telling a story. The interests of these two low watt auteurs is playing with violent toys and reveling in human destruction.

Neveldine and Taylor have a low opinion of humanity and choose to appeal only to the base impulses. This cynical approach is expressed through misogynist imagery and hardcore violence. Women are treated as victims and sex objects and violence is exploited and glorified in a fashion that makes you worry for the director's private lives.

Movies like “Gamer” and both of the “Crank” films are like a psychological profile of the people who created them. What they show are a pair of adults who act out like teenagers. The unrestrained id, the out of control ego and finally the plain and simple immaturity of these films makes you wonder if regular therapy sessions would be a better use of time than filmmaking for Neveldine and Taylor.

Not only is “Gamer” ugly, immature and cynical, it's also derivative. Take a dash of “Running Man” cross it with “Death Race” and you get the bare bones of “Gamer.” Place big dumb action star in an inescapably violent future state and have him fight his way out; been there, done that. Finally, have big dumb action guy bring down the bad guy.

Whether Butler's Kable is successful in stopping the evil Bill Gates guy, I will leave you to discover should you choose to endure “Gamer.” It doesn't really matter whether he succeeds or not. It doesn't improve the awful, dirty mess that is “Gamer.” Really, nothing could.

BYLINE:

Sean Patrick Kernan is a film critic. Check him out at: http://www.myspace.com/number1ramjamfan. Email Sean at sean@zoiksonline.com.

"Golden Globe Awards: Fashion Review."

By Bry Schulz

I love awards show season. There are so many reasons to love it, really. You get to see people being themselves as opposed to seeing them as characters on film or TV. And of course every awards show has a red carpet. I, like most women, have a faint pang of desire to become a fashion designer. I will never fulfill that dream due to a complete lack of knowledge and drive, but I can sure as hell talk about it. I don't have to know how to sew it to know when it sucks. And frankly a lot of the dresses last night sucked. It made me a little angry too. What a way to kick off awards show season (I'm looking at you Drew Barrymore). Be warned I don't do men... in my fashion reviews. A tux is a tux is a tux. But a dress is a different story all together. Let us look at last nights fashion shall we?!



Julia Roberts: Grade D-



This dress disappointed me in a big way. I mean a black, long sleeve, wrap dress? Really? That's what you are going to wear? You are aware you're Julia Roberts right? I could wear this dress to a wedding or a business meeting for the love of Erin Brockovich! I think you can get one of these in several colors at Target. I don't get it. Why, when you have a choice of dresses as far as the eye can see, would you pick this dress? I know designers would die to dress this woman. So what is it with this dress choice? I'm just upset. I should move on before I get angrier.

Ginnifer Goodwin: Grade B-



I think Ginnifer looks cute in this little blue dress. I am a fan of the A-symmetrical neck line as well as the color and the length. She reminds me of a woodland sprite or a fairy or someone who can grant me a few wishes. I love her pixie hair cut. That's not an easy hair cut to have, I know because I've had it and sworn never to return. But the whole ensemble, including the shoes work for me. Sometimes that type of a skirt will make a lady look like a hippo but Ginnifer does not! I'm not overwhelmed by the awesomeness but it's a good choice for her. She looked great.

Marion Cotillard: Grade C



This gal has never really been one of my favorites on the red carpet. She had that fish scale atrocity at the Oscars last year. I just don't remember Marion Cotillard looking all that fantastic to me. She doesn't look like complete trash either but I have to ask what's with the lacy legging thing? I saw her live on the red carpet before the show and I thought she had accidentally exposed her Spanx or something! Turns out that's actually part of her dress. WTF? Paging Madonna circa 1992... take your pointy boobs and your lacy spandex and high-tail it to the nearest roller rink will ya?! I don't even know why I'm giving this dress a C. I hate it more and more as I'm typing. Her hair doesn't suck though. And I don't totally hate the color of the dress. But the pointy boobs and the lacy surprise on her leg... again, WTF?

Anna Kendrick: Grade B+



I have to say I really like this dress. I think she looks great in it and I can tell she feels good in it too. That has so much to do with it, when the person feels good in a dress you can see it in their eyes. Anna looks confident and happy. I like the one shoulder. I love that it's kind of 3 dimensional with the ruffle. Some might argue that the ruffle is yucky but I think it works for this dress. I mean imagine the dress without the ruffle and it's just a flat strap on the side.... (I'm giving you time to imagine, go on...) It's a totally different dress. And it's not a red carpet dress with out the awesomeness of the ruffle. I also enjoy the pattern. Too bad she didn't win the award, but still she looked great!

Kate Winslet: Grade C+



I was "underwhelmed" by this dress, to steal a phrase from Michael Kors. I can't say she doesn't look wonderful because I'd be lying. Kate looks beautiful and I do like her up-do. But the dress just didn't do much for me. I would have liked it to be a different color maybe. I feel bored when I look at it. I just want to yell NEXT. So I think I'll move on.

Vera Farmiga: Grade C



When I saw her on the red carpet I just kind of went "Ehh." Like that little shrug of the shoulders you give when someone asks if you want to watch a certain movie and you're like "Ehh, whatever, if that's what you really want to make me suffer through for an hour and a half." Maybe it didn't photograph well. I'm just yawning at it. Again: NEXT!

Penelope Cruz: Grade B+



Of all the dresses I saw last night this one is at the top for me. It's vintage, I remember her saying that. I "think" she said "Vintage Versace" but I can't be sure. (I'm pregnant and my brain is not functioning at full force these days.) Regardless of who the hell made the dress I like it. When I watch the red carpet shows I always like to play a game like I'm shopping and I get to pick one of the dresses I see. I think this is the one I would pick. I think the lace on top is pretty. When you saw it on TV it was actually horizontally striped with different textures of black. And then the bottom is a beautiful mermaid train. I think it makes her body look FAB! (that's a B there not a T, mind you.) I really liked Penelope's hair too. I saw her a few times during the show last night and every time I thought to myself "I wish my hair was long and pretty like hers." I'm starting to think I've said too much. I am really gushing here. Let's move on before it gets worse.

Emily Blunt: Grade B-



She gets a B MINUS because of the look of death on her face. Her make-up and hair were horrid! I did not see her live on the red carpet. I did see her during the Golden Globes show and when I saw her I actually kind of gasped. You shouldn't make people gasp. The dress is not that bad, I actually kind of like it, but I'm so stunned by her mug that I can't get past it. It's almost like I can't even accept the fact that she's wearing a $30,000 gown. (I'm guessing on the cost there, but I'm sure I'm not far off!) I don't want to hate on Emily Blunt because she seems nice and I really don't know her very well (sarcasm, I know none of these people). But I can't lie. Her make-up and hair is messing with my mood.

Kate Hudson: Grade B



A few ladies wore white last night. Kristin Bell also wore a cool white dress but because I could not find a picture of her I will speak of it no more. Kate on the other hand I obviously could get a picture of and I will stop rambling and get on with the reviewing. Okay. So I like this dress. Sort of. I wish it hadn't been raining so she could drop the train. I feel like I'm not getting the whole vibe correctly. I think she chose a good color, she looks great in white. I'd like to know why she's making this face but I fear I'll never know. I thought her earrings were cool. I saw them on the red carpet show and they're like tassels. I should hate tassel earrings but I didn't hate them when I saw them. I like the bust of the dress, I think it's very feminine. I think her shoes are gross. Yes, gross. They're stripper shoes. I saw them in a different picture and they're like stilts. But the dress and the hair and the earrings made me feel good about... something.

Drew Barrymore: Grade F



This dress looks like it has cancer. Someone help Drew Barrymore, she's got tumors on her dress. What the hell is on her hip? It looks like it could have a zipper and you could stow away your chap stick and a few tissues inside it. The top "thing" on her shoulder freaked me out when she was accepting her award. It kept bouncing and twitching while she spoke and got emotional. I was distracted by it. And I expected it to light up in different colors and detach itself and that you could buy it if you went to see Beauty and the Beast On Ice. The color of the dress also sucks. And knowing that you have curly or even wavy hair should tell you NOT to slick back your hair during a down pour. It was raining out and I distinctly remember people saying it had been raining all day. I think if you wake up that morning and see rain you say "We need to re-think my hairstyle for today." But why would a person wearing this dress think about her hair? I'm sorry Drew but really?!

Diane Kruger: Grade D+



What do you call this color? I'm just going to call it pink. I'm giving this dress a better grade than Drew's because it's tumor-less. I also think I might like this dress in another color. Navy blue perhaps? Diane Kruger tends to take risks and I have to admire her for that. Most of the dresses last night made me yawn and this one did not. This woke me up. I really don't have any trouble with the style, the length, the cut of the neckline, the poofy sleeves, I'm good with all of it. I really can't give it better than a D+ though, because of the pink. I feel like she walked into whatever room it is that they dye the shoes at Payless. Which makes me wonder what her shoes looked like? I didn't see them. I was too blinded.

Cameron Diaz: Grade B



I'd be happy giving her a worse grade because I personally can't stand her but I have to be fair to the dress. Red looks pretty good on her, I have to admit. I'm a tad bored by the neck line scoopy-ness. But it makes her look tall and lean and beautiful. I give it a solid B for lack of tumors, stripper shoes, scary hair and make-up and odd color choice.

Sandra Bullock: Grade B+



I wonder why the bottom has to be see-thru. You could really tell when she went up to accept her award during the show. You can see her leg! I love the color and everything else about it but it's like the inside lining of the dress was taken from her. Maybe by force? Maybe Jesse James’ ex-wife the porn star came over and ripped it? That sounds like porn star behavior. In which case I would have to upgrade my grade to an A just to spite the porn star. But I think it's safe to say I made all that up and nothing of the sort occurred. She just picked an ugly dress. Don't worry, as this article proves, it happens to a lot of people. I am LOVING the hair though. Loving it! And the top of the dress is fab!

Fergie: Grade C



I hate Fergie. I want to give her a Z for this but that would be unfair to the dress because it does not suck at a Z level. It's a pretty color and looks great with her dark hair. The waist looks neat with the weaving and I like the length. It pains me to say such positive things about this woman but I can't lie. It is a little bridesmaid-y though! Zing, I got one in!!!

Jennifer Garner: Grade B+



She gets one of the highest grades of the day from me. Partly because the dress is gorgeous, partly because she's had two kids and has that body. I think the neck line is cool the way the shoulders are different. The pattern is cool and the train is fab! Her hair looked kind of whimsical too. I saw a better view of it during the show. Overall she just looked very nice. Where was old Benny Boo? Just curious.

Jennifer Aniston: Grade C



Uh, whatever. I'm so tired of you Jennifer Aniston. You always have the same hair color, the same length and it's down. What, you chose a black dress? I'm shocked! I'm amazed at the absolute lack of risk taking happening with you! NOT. I just told a "not joke" during a fashion review. This is a proud moment.

Carey Mulligan: Grade B+



All I really know about this girl is that she's dating Shia Labeouf and they are currently (or were really recently) filming the sequel to "Wall Street." She was nominated for a totally different movie, of which I'm not sure. Regardless of all that and my apparent lack of knowledge about Miss Mulligan I have to say she looked really pretty. Again, for a girl with short hair she managed to pull it off. She had the cutest little sparkly (probably filled with diamonds) head band on her head. Her dress is pretty. There is a lot of detail in the dress, though you can't see it as well in the photo. I love the train. It looks like it's falling down though. She needs a better bra or something. I feel like there’s a ton of unused space between her neck and the bust of the dress. A necklace would have helped. Or maybe sell ad space there. I can see it now, a huge jeweled necklace that says "Your Ad Here."

In summation I was a little bored with the fashion at this year’s Golden Globes. I didn't even give anyone an A grade! It is hard for me to pick a winner from this pool of ho-hum-ers. But I will because I must.

Best Dressed: Penelope Cruz - head to toe she looked the part of a red carpet star.
Worst Dressed: Drew Barrymore - this was an obvious choice for me.

Now on to Screen Actors Guild Awards. Bring on the fashion. Let's hope they dress themselves (or their stylists dress them) better this time.

BYLINE:

Bry Schulz is a writer, photographer, and mother who really hates squash. Not necessarily the game but definitely the vegetable. Email Bry at bry@zoiksonline.com.

"Ricky Gervais doesn’t hold back as host of the Golden Globes."

By Bry Schulz

The Golden Globe Awards were their typical fun self last night. This is always the awards show where people starve themselves until they sit down at their tables and then start tossing back the champagne. What a good combo! I'm speculating this has something to do with the fact that the Globes usually have better acceptance speeches than the other "formal" awards shows. I mean if I were drinking on an empty stomach I'd have a lot of enlightening things to say too. And that's part of the Globes charm, it's a little tipsy.



The night started off on a good note with new host Ricky Gervais filling the position. Ricky didn't hold back and as a viewer I appreciated that a lot in the form of LAUGHING. I did not hear as much laughter coming from the audience. I am curious if there was laughing and I did not hear it or if the Hollywood types in the audience were uncomfortable by Ricky's humor. Whatever the case it was fine for me. The best Ricky moment of the night came in the form of his Mel Gibson introduction. At the podium Ricky was holding a glass of beer and said "I like to drink as much as the next man. Unless the next man is... (pause)... Mel Gibson!" And he held out his arm like a Barker Beauty to show Mel's entrance to the stage. Mel took it in stride, which was great because that could have been a tough moment. I laughed my butt off though. Mel's personal struggles with drinking withstanding, that was just funny.

The night’s winners did not disappoint either. The night’s first award went to Mo'Nique for Supporting Actress, which she won because of her role in the movie "Precious,” based on the novel 'Push' by Sapphire. The moment Mo'Nique won was a beautiful one. She accepted her award with grace and she made me tear up a little. I have not seen "Precious" but I do know the premise of the movie and it seems a very well deserved win for her. Other winners included Christoph Waltz for Supporting Actor which he won for his role in "Inglourious Basterds." The awards for Actor and Actress in a Musical or Comedy went to Robert Downey Jr. and Meryl Streep respectively. Downey won for his role in "Sherlock Holmes" and gave a very funny acceptance speech where he primarily thanked himself. Streep won for "Julie & Julia" and her speech, which is usually hysterical, wasn't as funny as normal and I was kind of bummed.



The winning continued with Jeff Bridges (“Crazy Heart”) and Sandra Bullock (“The Blind Side”) winning for Best Actor and Actress in a drama. Jeff Bridges received a standing ovation from the room, which was a really cool moment. It was a room of people paying respect to one of the longest working dramatic actors of our time, who rarely gets the recognition he deserves. Bullock gave a grateful speech, the end of which had one of my favorite moments of the evening. She said to her husband, Jesse James, "It's no wonder my movies got better after meeting you because I finally know what it is for someone to have my back." (Insert "awes" here).

As far as winners in television go there were some very well deserved. A visibly frail Michael C. Hall accepted the award for Actor in a Drama Series for his lead role in “Dexter.” Hall recently announced his battle with Hodgkin’s lymphoma, though he is said to be in remission now. He was wearing a knit cap, evidence of his struggles but gave a grateful speech and I was so glad to see him win. This was Hall's third nomination and being a big fan of the show "Dexter" I was proud he won. Other winners for their roles in television included Julianna Margulies (“The Good Wife”) for Actress in a Drama Series. Actor and Actress in a Musical or Comedy went to Alec Baldwin (“30 Rock”) and Toni Collette (“United States of Tara”). Drew Barrymore (“Grey Gardens”) finally won an award; she always seems overlooked. She won for Actress in a Miniseries or Movie. In Drew's speech she said she had been in that room since she was 7-years-old. It's easy to forget she's been around as long as she has. Actor in a Miniseries or Movie went to Kevin Bacon (“Taking Chance”). For Supporting Actor in a Series, Miniseries or Movie John Lithgow won for his role last season on "Dexter." He amusingly referred to enjoying the last 6 months of being able to freak people out. (He played a serial killer). Supporting Actress in a Series, Miniseries or Movie went to Chloe Sevigny (“Big Love”).

The big television awards of the night went to Drew Barrymore's "Grey Gardens" for Miniseries or Movie, "Glee" won for Series, Musical or Comedy, and "Mad Men" won for Series Drama. In movies "Up" won for best Animated Film, "The White Ribbon" for Foreign Language, and "The Hangover" won for best Musical or Comedy. I have to interject that recognizing comedy is one of the many reasons I tend to prefer the Globes to the Oscars. Why don't they think funny people can act? I digress. "Avatar" won for best Picture, Drama. I found that to be surprising. Usually big movies like that do not get recognized at awards shows like this. I think the amazing technology James Cameron used to create this film couldn't be ignored. Speaking of James Cameron he won for Director, a big honor. And lastly the famed Cecil B. DeMille Lifetime Achievement Award went to a very deserving Martin Scorsese. Leonardo Dicaprio and Robert De Niro gave the award to Scorsese and both gave a great introduction to the legendary director. Scorsese himself made a great speech about what drives him as a director.

The night was a great glimpse into the world of movies and television. Most of us do not work in that glamorous industry. I always find it intriguing to see actors and actresses in their own skin and putting their own personalities in front of us when they make their speeches. I like the Golden Globe Awards for so many reasons too. It's one of the few "Big Deal" awards shows that recognize actors and actresses in television. I don't think those people are any less skilled than film actors. I like the Globes because they don't bore us with a zillion technical awards we couldn't care less about. And, of course, people get drunk and say stupid shit. Hey, they ARE just like us!

BYLINE:

Bry Schulz is a writer, photographer, and mother who really hates squash. Not necessarily the game but definitely the vegetable. Email Bry at bry@zoiksonline.com.

"NBC inadvertently sets up late night to be great again with Leno, Conan, Kimmel and Letterman line-up."

By Jason Tanamor

It’s finally here. The four horsemen of late night TV may finally get to go head to head to head to chin against each other. With Leno heading back to the “Tonight Show” and Conan maybe (probably) going to Fox, viewers haven’t seen a feud like this since Letterman and Leno fought for the “Tonight Show.”



Although it helped with Team Coco putting out a statement blasting NBC and all of the hosts jabbing the late night debacle on their own shows, what NBC is setting up for the near future could be classic.

There is no dispute that Johnny Carson is the true king of late night, but who did he really have to go up against? There wasn’t a pool of candidates like Leno, Letterman, Conan and Kimmel since the first season of “Survivor.” Well, not really but at the time of this writing, a story about “Survivor” came onto the web.



All four hosts have seen great success on late night. And that’s hard to do. The fifth person to achieve late night prince status was Arsenio Hall. I mean look at the line-up: Chevy Chase, Magic Johnson, Pat Sajak, Mo’Nique, Wanda Sykes, and Craig Kilborn. All of these people have talent, save for Kilborn who is nothing more than a pretentious jackass, and none of them could make a dent in market share.

I used to believe that late night TV had a formula for success, almost like Carlton Sheets and buying houses with no money down (again, not really but there was an infomercial). Add a funny monologue, some comedy skits, and mediocre guests with movies and animals, throw in a comedian or band to close the show, and you had ratings. But that’s not true at all.

Leno, Conan, Letterman and Kimmel have all shown that it takes a little bit more to be a hit. So, whatever people think about NBC and how it handled the situation, you can not deny that the network has set up late night TV to be the best time slot in history.

BYLINE:

Jason Tanamor is the Editor of Zoiks! Online. He is also the author of the novels, "Hello Lesbian!" and "Anonymous." Email Jason at jason@zoiksonline.com.

"Jackie Chan makes 'The Spy Next Door' briskly paced, breezy and goofy and over before you really tire of its idiot plot." – Movie Review

By Sean Patrick Kernan

It is far too easy to rip a movie like “The Spy Next Door.” The plot is dimwitted and derivative, star Jackie Chan has far too little mastery of the English language to be given this many lines and the supporting cast is a minefield of overacting and over-arching cuteness. Way too easy.

The harder thing to do is admit that despite all the garbage in “The Spy Next Door,” there are a few modest pleasures and even a couple of smiles to be had.



“The Spy Next Door” is an accidental re-imagining of Vin Diesel's Disney flick “The Pacifier.” Take the world's greatest super-spy and leave him in charge of some precocious pre-teens and wait for wacky stuff to happen. The only difference is where Diesel seems terribly uncomfortable; Jackie Chan seems right at home playing with the kids.

Chan is secret agent Bob Ho, a spy on loan to the CIA from Chinese Intelligence. He is tracking a Russian bad guy named Poldark (Magnus Scheving) and his evil gal, Creel (Katherine Boecher) as they seek to destroy the world supply of oil. Helping Bob are a pair of CIA agents, Glaze (George Lopez) and Colton (Billy Ray Cyrus).

Meanwhile, Bob is looking to wrap up his spy career so that he can marry his next door neighbor Gillian (Amber Valletta) who does not know that Bob is really a spy. Even bigger than that obstacle however is getting in good with Gillian's three kids. Farren (Madeline Carroll) is a severely moody oldest daughter who nastily calls her mom Gillian. Ian (Will Shadley) is the middle child and a power nerd who, though only 9, reads physics for fun. And finally 4 year Nora (Alina Foley) who is convinced that Bob is what Ian calls a ‘cyborg.’ Together the siblings look to get rid of boring Bob before he can marry mommy.



Yes, the plot is exceedingly dopey and condescendingly simple. But, you know that when you buy the ticket. Given that knowledge going in makes it easier to appreciate the few charms that “The Spy Next Door” has. Jackie Chan is now 50 years old and years of daring stunt work have taken their toll. Nevertheless, Chan gives it a go in “The Spy Next Door” and his brand of martial arts crossed with Buster Keaton style slapstick hasn't been this much fun in a while.

The kids in kid’s movies can be terribly irritating, either too precious or too grating. They are at times both in “The Spy Next Door.” That said each of the child actors has a good moment or two, especially young Alina Foley. It's cheating to have a sweet little four year old whisper 'I love you Bob' as he sings her to sleep with a Chinese lullaby, but it's hard to deny how cute the scene is.

“The Spy Next Door” is not 'cinema.' This is not a great movie but it never pretends to be. “The Spy Next Door” is briskly paced, breezy and goofy and over before you really tire of its idiot plot. By the lowered standards of kid’s entertainment this qualifies as something I can recommend. Kids won't be harmed by it and mom and dad may actually stay awake during it. What more can you ask.

BYLINE:

Sean Patrick Kernan is a film critic. Check him out at: http://www.myspace.com/number1ramjamfan.

"Next week’s New Orleans Saints and Minnesota Vikings game looks to be the best in years."

By Jonathan Schlosser

Another week of bad playoff football, unless you love the winning teams (to their credit, the Jets-Chargers game was very exciting, in a mirror of last week), but another week when I’m just getting more and more excited for what’s coming. Because the powerhouse teams that are winning these games by so much - the Colts, the Vikings, and the Saints all put together crushing victories - are eventually going to meet. Are eventually going to come into the same stadium and play against each other and it’s going to be like watching two tidal waves come together in the middle of the Pacific at a hundred miles an hour.



Now, I don’t mean to disrespect the Colts or the Jets. These are great teams with super-talented players who are going to fight it out in what could be a great game; it’s just more iffy. Sanchez might have a clunker of a game and, if he does, there’s no way the Jets can stay with the Colts. So I do think it has the potential to be very good; I just think the Saints and the Vikings are going to meet in that dome in New Orleans and put on one of the best shows in recent memory.

The Saints, behind Drew Brees, have been putting up Madden-like numbers all year; they have the ability to make a big play with each snap. They spread the ball around to fast receivers who can all break it for a score, which just overloads the coverage schemes for the defense. Reggie Bush had one of the best games of his life - maybe his best since USC - against the Cardinals. He may not be an every-down back, but the Saints have plenty of those and Bush is electric catching out of the backfield or returning punts. And the Saints defense, don’t forget, was the third-ranked unit this year. They have Sharper in that scheme and they score a fair amount of points themselves.



The Vikings made their case for the gunfight when they played against the Cowboys. Their defense was in top form, crushing the Cowboy’s offensive line. They sacked Romo six times. They caused three fumbles, two that they took away. They got an interception. And, always the most important, they only gave up three points to the Dallas Cowboys in Texas. Romo never had time and you could see that it got in his head from the way he was yelling at his linemen.

That in itself would make for a good game. A powerful defense against a high-scoring offense. We had it in the Super Bowl in 2007 when the Giants met the Patriots, and it was the best Super Bowl in a long time. But the Vikings, as I’m sure no one has forgotten, have Brett Favre.

The Vikings went for it on fourth and three with two minutes left in the fourth. It was a situation in which they should have either run the ball or kicked a field goal. But they dropped Favre back and threw it into the end zone and Shiancoe made a diving catch for the score. Some people were mad, on the post-game show. They said it was running up the score; they said it was classless. I said it was this:

“Hey, Drew Brees. Here we come.”

They want the Saints to know they can score. And score a lot. Brett Favre has experience and talent and he’s having the (arguably) best year of his life. His quarterback rating against the Cowboys, who were playing pretty good defense here at the end of the year, was a 134.4. He’s been dominant and mistake-free and he’s making the Vikings offense look just as potent as the Saints. They’re setting it up to say that, if it turns into a shoot-out, they can run with the best of them.

I don’t know who is going to win. It’s one of those match-ups in which no one can know. But here’s the thing: if the Vikings’ defense can play like they did today, the Vikings will win. If they can force some turnovers and get Drew Brees off the field and keep Adrian Peterson and Brett Favre on the field, they will win. They will advance to the Super Bowl and give the old man one last shot at it before he retires for real.

But no matter what, it’s quite possibly going to be the best game of the year. Get ready.

BYLINE:

Jonathan Schlosser is a writer and part-time library worker. He has published some short fiction and is working on finding a publisher for his novel. He has a B.A. in Writing, which means that, for a living, he is allowed to put away books at the library. He is also allowed to tell parents to tell their children to be quiet. He lives in Grand Rapids, MI. Email Jonathan at jonathan@zoiksonline.com.

"'The Book of Eli' is gritty, bloody, tense and faithful all in one terrific movie." – Movie Review.

By Sean Patrick Kernan

I would characterize myself as an agnostic. I don't believe in a higher power but I am open to the idea that I myself am not all-knowing. How does my lack of faith inform my criticism? It doesn't really. The fact is Hollywood gives so little consideration to religion that it rarely comes up in a review.

The new post-apocalyptic thriller “The Book of Eli” is, arguably, the most religious and faithful movie I have seen since I have been a critic. Rarely has religion been so unquestioningly treated in a movie and in of all places, a big budget, ultra-violent, Denzel Washington thriller.



In “The Book of Eli” Denzel Washington plays the Eli of the title. Sometime in the distant future the world is a wasteland and Eli is simply walking. He knows where he is headed, west, but what he intends to find at the end of his journey, even he doesn't know. Eli is protecting a book that he is convinced can save what is left of humanity.

Eli's travels take him through the tiny, barely civilized fiefdom of a man named Carnegie (Gary Oldman). Having discovered a rare source of clean water, Carnegie has used it as a way to create a small kingdom that he protects with roving gangs of motorcycle riding henchmen.

The henchmen are searching for a book that Carnegie is desperate to get his hands on and wouldn't you know it, it's the same book that Eli is desperate to carry west. These two were destined to meet and fight and surely one or both of them will die. Standing between the two is Carnegie's daughter Solara (Mila Kunis) who is drawn to Eli's quiet purpose driven life but also wants to protect her mother (Jennifer Beals) from her father's violent tendencies. She joins up with Eli in hope that he will teach her the fighting skill he uses to protect the book.



Directed by the brilliant brother duo Albert and Allen Hughes, “The Book of Eli” is gritty yet stylish in its post-apocalypse. The Hughes Brothers are masters of atmosphere and tense showdowns and when Denzel backs up under a shadowy overpass to fight off some cannibalistic bad guys, the flash of his super-cool sword cutting body after body is an awesome sight.

Denzel Washington is perfectly cast as Eli, a man of devout faith who prays nightly and knows the bible by heart. In this future the bible has been all but destroyed and Eli is a last man of faith. Carnegie too seems a man of faith but is really a charlatan who hopes to use faith as Roman Emperors did to control a weak minded populace. This tension drives the conflict as does the book Eli is carrying is a classic MacGuffin with a strong pay off.

Though I am not a believer, religion in movies doesn't bother me. In fact, I am more often irritated with movies that pretend religion doesn't exist. Characters in horror films rarely seem to pray when faced with certain death. Sci-fi too often belittles the millions of people of faith in favor of technology as a pseudo-religion.

It is terribly unrealistic for movies to ignore the millions of earnest believers who attend dutifully to their faith. “The Book of Eli” is the rare movie that takes religion and faith deathly seriously and while the hardcore violence may not exactly be Christ-like, it is in service of a character who is serious about his faith in God.

“The Book of Eli” is an intense and violent but also devout and earnest about Eli's faith. Religious folk may be turned off by the grit and violence but they will no doubt appreciate the Hughes Brothers straight forward portrayal of Eli as a solemn, faithful soldier in service of God.

If the God stuff makes you uncomfortable, you can still appreciate the very cool ways in which the Hughes Brothers frame Denzel Washington slicing and dicing bad guys. Whether it's the stellar overpass scene or a Tarantino-esque bar fight scene, The Hughes Brother and Denzel know how to get their violence on.

“The Book of Eli” is gritty, bloody, tense and faithful all in one terrific movie.

BYLINE:

Sean Patrick Kernan is a film critic. Check him out at: http://www.myspace.com/number1ramjamfan.

"Nicolas Cage is brilliant in 'Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans.'" – Movie Review.

By Sean Patrick Kernan

As detective Terrence McDonagh surveys the bloody scene before him, three dead gangsters, a terror shoots through his drug addled mind: "Shoot him again" he shouts. "Why?" says one of his thug co-horts. "Because, his soul's still dancing." The camera pans the scene passing over the dead body of some fat Italian gangster and pausing on what only McDonagh can see, that same gangster's lithe, balletic soul spinning wildly in a break-dance before one final gunshot drops the soul to the floor.



This scene is indicative of what you will get in Werner Herzog blazingly unconventional re-imagining of Abel Ferrara's darkly comic drama “Bad Lieutenant.” If this scene intrigues you wait till you see what else Herzog has up his sleeve. “Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans” is a head trip, dark, violent comedy that features yet another comeback performance by Nicolas Cage.

Terence McDonagh wasn't a great cop before he got hooked on drugs. As we meet him, Terence and his partner Stevie (Val Kilmer) are two of the last guys out of the precinct as the waters of Katrina are rising. Finding one last prisoner trapped in a cell, Terence and Stevie begin making wagers on how long it will take for the prisoner to drown. Eventually, Terence decides to rescue the guy but not without consequence.

The rescue injured Terence's back leaving him slumped on one side of his body and in constant pain. Terence deals with the pain through a steady stream of hardcore drugs. Cocaine keeps him going but also fuels his dark side. Post accident, Terence patrols the dark corners of a New Orleans that, post-Katrina, is a sort of Sodom before the rapture place. In a scene of ugly humor turning to near horror, Terence rousts a couple coming out of a nightclub and, well, I will leave you to discover what happens next.



In his private life Terence is in love with a high class prostitute named Frankie (Eva Mendes). She is also hooked on cocaine and the two fuel each other’s addiction by turning drugs into the fuel of their sex life.

The plot of “Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans” kicks in with a murder of a drug dealing family from Africa in one of the most violent neighborhoods in New Orleans. The cops quickly figure out that the biggest deal in town is the most likely killer but catching him will take Terence to even stranger and more drugged out places.

Director Werner Herzog is not so much concerned with the twists and turns of a murder plot as he is with giving Nicolas Cage a stage on which to exhibit the talent we all knew was there from his Oscar winning turn in “Leaving Las Vegas.” Detective McDonagh is the other side of the coin from Ben in “Leaving Las Vegas,” if the other side of the coin were dirtier and with an even more pronounced death wish.

Yes, the usual Cage histrionics are on display. His hyper-kinetic babbling, his wild haired, wild eyed look, but, this time, it works because the character and the context given by William Finkelstein's excellent script and Werner Herzog's director are the perfect fuel for Cage's antics.

Wildly violent, darkly humorous and directed with freewheeling relish and great skill, “Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans” pays tribute to the disturbing original film while giving the material his own black comic spin. The film also returns Nicolas Cage to Oscar winning form and that is just part of what makes “Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans” brilliant.

BYLINE:

Sean Patrick Kernan is a film critic. Check him out at: http://www.myspace.com/number1ramjamfan.

"Conan’s getting screwed."

By Jason Tanamor

Friend of Zoiks! Online sent this original video to us. See Rango Stirr’s video regarding the late night NBC circus involving Conan O’Brien and Jay Leno.





BYLINE:

Jason Tanamor is the Editor of Zoiks! Online. He is also the author of the novels, "Hello Lesbian!" and "Anonymous." Email Jason at jason@zoiksonline.com.

"NBC feeling curse of Johnny Carson in Leno and Conan mess."

By Sean Leary

Some time ago, the rightful heir for Johnny Carson's “Tonight Show” throne, David Letterman, was screwed over by NBC and Jay Leno.

Of course, he was screwed over after NBC had already been screwing Johnny by trying to force him to retire early.

If NBC had just let Johnny leave on his own terms instead of pushing him out, things could've gone smoothly. They could've had Dave AND Jay AND Conan, and they could've eased them all into comfortable spots and everyone could've been happy and made a lot of money.



But that's not how they wanted to play it.

Nope, they forced out Carson to accommodate Leno, and shoved away Letterman, again to accommodate Leno, and now the curse of Carson, the karma of those decisions, is finally biting them in the ass.

Back in the day, after Johnny retired, Letterman, wounded, went on to success at CBS, but “The Tonight Show,” despite good ratings, was never the same.

NBC would've been much better off realizing that, after letting Johnny go out on his own terms, hiring Dave to take over Johnny's chair, and giving Leno the hour after Dave. They would've had an unbeatable combo. Especially if they'd added Conan after Jay for the late-late night shift.

Instead, they went with Jay.

Ratings were good, but most critics agreed Leno had really toned down the edge that made him hilarious as a guest on Letterman, and pretty much everyone agreed that nobody really could replace Johnny.

So here comes Conan O'Brien.

He gets the “Tonight” gig, Leno gets pushed out for really no good reason other than NBC making a bad decision (reminiscent of the Letterman screw-up), and now, now that NBC is trying to switch them back in yet another boneheaded move, Conan is saying he's gonna jet NBC, leaving the Peacock eating a crap sandwich.



Leno will go back to “Tonight” wounded, Conan will go to Fox. Best case scenario for NBC is that the MOR comes back to Leno and Conan ends up a fringe player.

But regardless, NBC is severely wounded by this. It's a PR nightmare, it makes them look insensitive to their talent, and it gives their ratings and revenue and hit and essentially makes their execs look like a bunch of boobs. Which is what they are for making the bad moves that led to this mess.

And in the meantime, Letterman gets to laugh his butt off at karma finally kicking the peacock in the butt.

And all this could've been avoided if NBC had just shown due respect to hierarchy. Dave was the heir apparent to Johnny.

Everyone respected Johnny. Whatever Johnny said should've had a huge bearing on how things went down.

And if Johnny tabbed Dave to take over, with Jay and Conan falling in behind, the three comedians would've tipped their cap to Johnny. If NBC would've let that happen. Which they should've.

Instead, ego took over. NBC thought it was they, rather than Johnny Carson, who made “The Tonight Show.”

Well, now they've made it a mess.

And somewhere, Johnny is having the last laugh.

BYLINE:

Sean Leary's recent and current projects include the alt-rock "Spinal Tap" comedy film "Your Favorite Band" (www.yourfavoritebandthefilm.com), the award-winning short story collection "Every Number Is Lucky To Someone" (available in bookstores nationwide and on Amazon.com) and his website: www.getyourgoodnews.com.

"Peter Jackson’s 'The Lovely Bones' is one of the most daring and original films in years." – Movie Review.

By Sean Patrick Kernan

I have a general detachment from emotion. It's a guard against a young child version of me who was too invested in his emotions and was known to burst into tears at unfortunate moments. Other kids reactions to my outbursts drove me inward to the man I am today. I am not cold hearted, just well controlled, guarded. Peter Jackson's “The Lovely Bones” is the rare film that broke through my guards and tapped the well of that emotional young man I was.



The story of Susie Salmon (Oscar nominee Saorise Ronan, “Atonement”) begins with her narration explaining first her name is Salmon, like the fish communicating her innocence, eager to please nature answering a question no one asked. She then stops you in your tracks with a matter of fact statement: "I was 14 years old when I was murdered on December 6th 1973.

From that moment on “The Lovely Bones” unfolds a story of murder, sadness and heartbreaking purity. After revealing her murderer as a neighbor named George Harvey (Stanley Tucci) Susie narrates her story from a place called The In-Between, a place between heaven and earth constructed from Susie's imagination.

Peter Jackson animates Susie's heaven with artistry absent from even his “Lord of the Rings” movies. For the first time in his career Jackson makes use of film tech to deepen his subject, not merely to animate it. The stunning landscapes of Susie's In-Between are eye popping and reveal aspects of her nature, her innocence, her longings and unfulfilled desires. A crumbling gazebo holds a particular emotional attachment that I will leave you to discover.

From her In-Between Susie watches how her death impacts her family. Her father Jack becomes so consumed with catching her killer that he barely notices his wife Abigail (Rachel Weisz) is drifting away. It's not until her cab leaves for the airport that Jack realizes she is gone.

Susie also watches her killer, George Harvey. He has a past filled with other murders but for some reason Susie's murder has a particular hold on his conscience. He spends hours alone seeming to re-live each moment, moments thankfully unseen by us in the audience. The choice to leave the cruel details to our imagination is a controversial one; the book by Alice Sebold went into obsessive detail.



For me, leaving Susie's suffering to the imagination was the right call; I doubt that I could have endured watching the effervescent Ms. Ronan suffering as described in the book. We are given enough detail to construct the horror for ourselves and that is more than enough.

Transformed by make-up Stanley Tucci crafts a killer of remarkable repugnance. Today, George Harvey would be the poster boy for creepy. He looks like the picture of someone who murders children. A mumbling, ill at-ease creep, George Harvey sets off alarm bells for his simple lack of social skills. In the 1973 of the film however, he's just a slightly off shut-in, on the surface.

Once he becomes suspect number one, for Jack and daughter Lindsey (Rose McIver) who joins her dad's obsessive crusade, the film takes on a pseudo murder mystery feel that enlivens the middle portion of the film. We know he did it, they think he did it and we become desperately involved in trying to will the characters to the clues we know are there.

This clever bit of populist narrative is just one of Peter Jackson's wise choices. Jackson has made an art film, crossed it with a thriller and topped it all with a deeply emotional story of coming of age. It's almost too much for one film to hold, changing scenes as this does from Susie's gorgeous art-scape to George Harvey's dark chambers to the Salmon house consumed by grief and the urgent search for justice.

Only a director as bold and daring as Peter Jackson could pull off such a trick. His experience with the “Lord of the Rings” informs a good deal of “The Lovely Bones.” In LOTR Jackson used technology as a construction device. In “The Lovely Bones” that construction device becomes a painters brush and the technology melts into the subconscious aiding as much in storytelling as in craftsmanship.

Unlike George Lucas or James Cameron for whom CGI remains a carpenter’s tool, Jackson sees technology in “The Lovely Bones” as something to be woven into the fabric of storytelling. Susie's In-Between is never merely a place; it's the state of her soul where her imagination and desires take a physical hold.

Technology, story and character unite in “The Lovely Bones” to create a deeply emotional experience that transports you into the sadness of a little girl gone before her time. An examination of grief, unfulfilled desires, love and death, “The Lovely Bones” is one of the most daring and original works in years and one of the best films of the last year.

BYLINE:

Sean Patrick Kernan is a film critic. Check him out at: http://www.myspace.com/number1ramjamfan.

"Getting intimate with the airport security officer. Thank you Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab."

By Melvin Durai

Don’t you just hate terrorists? Even when they fail, they make life difficult for us.

Back in December 2001, just three months after 9/11, Richard Reid, a passenger on an American Airlines flight, tried to ignite explosives hidden in his shoes. Fortunately for everyone on board, Reid’s shoe size was considerably higher than his IQ. He brought attention to himself, was subdued by passengers and is currently serving a life sentence at a maximum security prison in Colorado, the only prisoner in America required to wear plastic see-through shoes.



Thanks to the shoe bomber, many passengers were asked to remove their shoes as they passed through airport security and, as you can imagine, some of them made quite a stink. And others made a stink about the stink. As for me, I found myself cursing the shoe bomber in several languages, thanks to the book “The Rough Guide to World Cursing.”

Me: $#@& shoe bomber! If it weren’t for him, I’d be able to travel without showing everyone the hole in my sock.

Security officer: “That’s a big hole. Do you mind if I look inside it?”

Millions of people removed their shoes over the last decade and not a single bomb was found, though a Kentucky man did knock several people out with the fumes from his feet.

Fast forward to December 2009 and we had another case of a failed bombing attempt aboard a plane. This time, the alleged terrorist, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, a 23-year-old passenger on a Northwest Airlines flight, concealed the explosives in his underwear. I say “alleged terrorist” because his lawyer will likely contend that he wasn’t trying to blow up the plane – he was merely trying to give himself a sex change operation.

Fortunately, the explosives in his underwear failed to detonate, producing only flames and popping sounds, prompting one Christian on the plane to wonder if this was truly a miracle from God, a slightly different version of the “burning bush.”

Needless to say, many travelers were concerned that they would now need to remove their underwear at the security checkpoint. But a top U.S. security official put them at ease, saying, “We respect the rights of passengers and will not ask them to remove any undergarments. We will just use scanners to see right through them.”



The underwear bomber was not paid by the company that makes full-body scanners, but considering how much they’ve benefited from his actions, the least they could do is send him a new pair of underwear.

I’m not keen on someone using a scanner to look through my clothes, but since terrorism is such a big concern these days, I have no objection to scanners being used on everyone else on the plane. Especially the ones who seem a little too well-endowed. Yes, I’m talking about you, Miss Aspiring Model.

Thankfully, we have the option of getting a pat-down instead of a full-body scan. And if the security officer happens to be particularly attractive, we may be inclined to get a full-body pat-down.

If you think these security measures go too far, just wait until a terrorist hides explosives in one of his orifices. The full-body scan will seem mild compared to the ROP (random orifice probe). So don’t laugh when your Indian friend, who works at the airport, says, “Goodbye. I’m off to my orifice job.” It could mean that security has been tightened further.

Security officer: “Sorry for the intrusion, sir. Just want to make sure you have nothing in there.”

Me: “What would I be hiding in there?”

Officer: “That’s what I’m going to find out. Hmmm … I see some wax, but no wick.”

Me: “That’s ear wax, you idiot!”

Officer: “Yeah, sure. That’s what they all say. I’m going to have to take a sample and test it, just to make sure. It will only take three hours.”

Me: “Three hours? What am I going to do in the meantime?”

Officer: “Well, you could go shopping for a new pair of socks.”

BYLINE:

Melvin Durai is a Manitoba-based writer and humorist. A native of India, he grew up in Zambia and has lived in North America since the early 1980s. Read his humor blog at http://www.Nshima.com.

"I’m with COCO; Mr. Conan O’Brien if you’re for Leno."

By Bob Zerull

Users of Facebook may have noticed a new group called “I’m with COCO.” The Facebook group was created by Mike Mitchell in support of Conan O’Brien. As many of you know NBC had done it again. Remember when Johnny Carson retired from the “The Tonight Show?” Remember all the drama that went a long with that? The job should have been David Letterman’s, but instead they gave the show to Jay Leno. NBC wanted to avoid all of that drama when Leno finally left by promising Conan O’Brien “The Tonight Show” back in 2004.



Jay Leno is probably the nicest most professional guy in show business. He never seemed to take anything personally and was always the consummate professional. When Conan was promised “The Tonight Show” he went with it. When it came time for Conan to take over Jay realized he still loved doing the show. NBC wanted to keep him and give him a shot at primetime. This move was very profitable for NBC. The problem was it was ruining the local affiliates. Leno’s ratings in primetime were terrible leading into the local news. Nobody was watching their local news on NBC which also hurt “The Tonight Show’s” ratings.

NBC’s solution was to move Leno’s show to 11:35 PM, pushing Conan’s “The Tonight Show” and Jimmy Fallon’s “Late Night” back a half hour. Leno said yes, but Conan said he “cannot participate in what (he) honestly believe(s) is (‘The Tonight Show’s’) destruction.” I think Conan made the right move. While DVR is becoming more and more popular, the one thing that seems to rise above that would be late night television, whether it is “The Late Show with David Letterman” or “The Tonight Show.” Nobody DVR’s local news (unless they’re on the news). After the local news you either go to bed or watch one of the late night programs.



Leno will probably win in ratings, but I’m supporting Conan O’Brien. NBC should have either let Conan go back in 2004 or stuck by their word in giving him “The Tonight Show.” They moved him from New York to California and gave him a whole seven months to establish himself as the new voice in late night. I don’t feel bad for Conan, he doesn’t want us to, but that doesn’t make it right. Think about how good late night TV is going to be. You’re going to have Letterman, Leno, O’Brien and even Jimmy Kimmel all on at the same time, not to mention Steven Colbert over on Comedy Central.

Next time you get on Facebook, join the group “I’m With COCO” and give O’Brien the support he deserves. Not only that, actually support COCO wherever he goes. Show NBC that they made the wrong move. Leno may win the ratings, but winning in the ratings won’t necessarily make it the right move. At some point Leno is going to call it quits, Letterman too and who’s going to be left? That’s right, COCO. It’s not going to matter who you bring in to replace Leno and Letterman; it’s going to take time for anybody to build an audience and show. It’s going to be weird in 10 years or so when Fox (provided Conan goes there) and ABC (with Jimmy Kimmel) are the leading stations in late night television.

BYLINE:

Bob Zerull is the Managing Editor of Zoiks! Online. He writes pop culture commentary, does interviews with bands, and reviews music and stand-up concerts. He also administers Zoiks! Online's Facebook page. Follow Bob on twitter at bzerull.

"'Twilight's' Robert Pattinson: Smokin' hot."

By Bry Schulz

It's been so long since we've had any new pics of Robert Pattinson. It makes you a little sad inside doesn't it? Even pics with his lady love Kristen Stewart make me smile. (I'm not a hater of K.Stew). But they've been in hiding since the release of “New Moon.” Who can blame them though? I can't. Regardless of all that hullabaloo I still want to see R.Patz even if I do feel sorry for his situation as being the most stalked human on earth.



Happily I can report that new photos of the one and only Edward Cullen have surfaced. I first stumbled upon these photos when making my daily trip to www.perezhilton.com but decided to dig deeper. Perez only has 3 pics on his site and I was thirsting for more. I found several at a site I've never visited before called robertpattinsonwho.com. (I will include links to all the photos I've found, sit tight).



(Courtesy of Wonderland Magazine)

The new photos are of a sexy and suited Rob. In some shots he's smoking a cigarette; in all he's looking fine! (I say that w/ my best Salt n' Pepa accent). His hair is looking less gelled than usual and it's very "Beatle"-esque. What's up with that look? I can't decide if I like it or not. I'm busy trying to keep my mouth closed at the sight of him, so I must not totally hate the hair cut. The other thing that both sites, Perez's and this "Who" person, note that these photos are "outtakes" of a photo shoot for Wonderland Magazine. I know very little about that magazine beside the fact that it's very quirky and I remember Michelle Williams has been on the cover and so was Sienna Miller in a black wig looking very un-Sienna. Who cares what that magazine's about. God bless them for getting Rob Pattinson to do a photo shoot for them!

What do you think of these pics? Are you into the hair? Check out the pics at the links below.

http://robertpattinsonwho.com/?p=6591

http://perezhilton.com/2010-01-13-r-patz-will-give-you-cancer



BYLINE:

Bry Schulz is a writer, photographer, and mother who really hates squash. Not necessarily the game but definitely the vegetable. Email Bry at bry@zoiksonline.com.

"Rush, System of a Down and 'Behind the Music' news."

By Bob Zerull

I just did my daily search over at www.blabbermouth.net and came across a handful of interesting stories that I thought I’d share with you. The Canadian Progressive Rock band Rush may have new music on the way. System of a Down may or may not be coming back soon and VH1 is bringing back the popular program “Behind the Music.”



RUSH:

Rush drummer Neil Peart has announced via the The Canadian Press that new music from Rush may be on the way, but that it probably won’t be in the traditional form of an album. With the exception of a few of us, nobody is buying albums any more. We’ve heard bands like Metallica, Rob Zombie and Megadeth, to name a few, mention that the traditional album may already be dead and that their next efforts will probably not albums.

Now you can add Rush to the mix. Peart went onto say that he’s already writing lyrics for a new project. I think it’s pretty cool for Rush to be the band that starts this trend, especially since they’re one of those bands that made great albums flow together beginning to end, with great art work and concepts. So look for new Rush music soon.



Twitter = Reunion News?

Is Twitter the new news breaking site, or is it just a place for rumors to get started? January 12th System of a Down bassist Shavo Odadjian asked on his twitter page “are u guys ready for System?” System of a Down fans got excited about the potential comeback of System of a Down. Just two days later via twitter Shavo wrote "About my 'are u guys ready for System?'... I'm not sayin we are back but, if so, U guys ready? Sorry for gettin u guys amped. I'm just seeing."

In more concrete/impressive reunion news, Soundgarden will be reuniting in 2010. Chris Cornell via his twitter page has announced that “The 12 year break up is over & school is back in session.” Cornell also provided a link to the following website: http://www.soundgardenworld.com/.

VH1’s “Behind the Music."

The popular VH1 show “Behind the Music” is back and is revisiting past episodes. Metallica, Motley Crue, Judas Priest and Def Leppard are among the bands included in the reboot of the popular TV show. VH1 Classic will air 8 new half hour episodes that will pick up where the original episodes left off. New episodes will begin airing on February 6th at 9 pm eastern time.

BYLINE:

Bob Zerull is the Managing Editor of Zoiks! Online. He writes pop culture commentary, does interviews with bands, and reviews music and stand-up concerts. He also administers Zoiks! Online's Facebook page. Follow Bob on twitter at bzerull.

"Sam Rockwell’s 'Moon' is nothing like M. Night Shyamalan’s thrillers." – Movie Review.

By Sean Patrick Kernan

While the obvious influence of Stanley Kubrick's “2001” is a worthy subject in relation to the sci-fi flick “Moon,” the film has an unspoken subject that I find much more interesting. In the ways in which the plot machine of “Moon” plays out, without what one might expect, it acts as an anti-thriller.



“Moon” sets up a very particular idea that invites a kind of M. Night Shyamalan style twist and then goes about avoiding it all cost. In doing so the film attempts a cooler than thou attitude toward Shyamalan's populist twisty thrillers and “Moon” comes off pretentious for the effort.

“Moon” stars Sam Rockwell as Sam Bell, the lone worker on a base on the dark side of the moon. Sam is a handy man for a self contained machine that harvests Helium 3 from the moon surface. If something breaks down ol' Sammy runs out and fixes it right up. Sam is near the end of what is supposed to be a three year contract and looks forward to returning to earth and the wife and child he left behind.



Why Sam left a budding family back on earth for an empty shell on the moon for three years is one of the intriguing questions that Director Duncan Jones and writer Nathan Parker pose in setting up what one might quite fairly assume is a major twist to come. Whether that twist arrives or not is honestly debatable.

The storytelling style of “Moon” is muted to the point of whispering. Kevin Spacey gives voice to the Hal-esque computer Gerty, somehow not a cool acronym, and his soothing tone matches the overall tone of “Moon,” a movie that is quiet with a purpose. The quiet is meant as a near silent rebuke to the noise of almost all modern science fiction and while one can appreciate the gesture, “Moon” grows so quiet at points that one longs for Bruce Willis to fly by on asteroid and liven things up.

The thriller aspect of “Moon,” which kicks in with the introduction of a second Sam Bell in the space station, is played as a knock on the twisty thrills of M. Night Shyamalan. The two Sam's begin a simultaneous search for answers and the audience is led to believe a major revelation or twist is in the offing. I don't mind having my expectations upended but what does happen should be better than what I predicted or hoped for.

The ungainly confused ending of “Moon,” some would call it open ended but they are only justifying enjoying it, fails to critique Shyamalan's admittedly stale twist endings and especially fails to top them. For all of Shyamalan's failures his jolty endings to “The Sixth Sense” and “Signs” remain classic shockers. If you want to take them on you'd better damn well have a better idea. “Moon,” sadly, does not.

BYLINE:

Sean Patrick Kernan is a film critic. Check him out at: http://www.myspace.com/number1ramjamfan.

"'American Idol' is done. D-O-N-E."

By Sean Leary

Enjoy the second-to-last season of “American Idol.”

And, I should say, the last good season of the show.

Because once Simon Cowell leaves, “Idol” turns into “Star Search.” It's “X-Files” without Mulder and Scully, “Happy Days” without Richie, “The Dukes of Hazzard” without Bo and Luke.

Simon Cowell IS “American Idol.”

Sorry, Fox, co-hosts and various contestants, but it's true.



The reason this show has become successful is because everyone watches to see what Simon says. Especially during the early “let's trot out the major league failures!” shows where all the people who don't have a chance in hell - many of whom tried out on a dare, to get publicity or because producers offered them a warm meal - are showcased to be torn apart.

Yes, William Hung, I'm talkin' 'bout you.

Simon is easily the most compelling character on the show. And since you've got to have a compelling returning character to make a show work, you could say rightfully so that he's the reason the show has succeeded.

Yeah, there have been contestants worth watching, but for the most part there haven't been a lot of huge, lengthy careers launched by “Idol.” Most of the winners have fizzled out quickly after their initial fame bump. In fact, more runners-up have gone on to greater success than any of the winners.

What that says to me is that viewers are more caught up in the horse race aspect of the contestants. They pick their faves the same way anyone making an infrequent trip to the track might, then root for them to win because they have a fleeting emotional investment in their success. But beyond that, there's no real attachment.

When the only people you can think of over all these years who have had long, successful careers off the show are Kelly Clarkson, Carrie Underwood and Daughtry, you know you're in trouble. Not because of any indictment on their talent, but because that's only THREE people. Out of how many hundreds who have been finalists?

In reality, there's only one person who has been a breakout star from the show. Only one person who has had lengthy, sustained fame from it.

Simon Cowell.

He's the star.



He'll have a long career.

Paula is two years and three reality shows away from a return to oblivion.

Randy and Kara are one cancelation away.

And that cancelation will happen after next season.

Here's how it's gonna go down:

This season will be its usual big self, with Simon bowing out at the end of the year.

Next year they'll try to bring in some other tart British judge like Nigel Lithgow or someone like that. Basically a Scrappy Doo to Simon's Scooby.

Ratings will start off decently and the ass-kissy half of the entertainment media will write stories about “Idol” “still having it!” and other bullshit lies that are basically being planted by Fox producers.

Then about three or four weeks in, the ratings will start to slide. Another network will smell blood and will put a hot show up against “Idol” and it'll start to beat it up and eventually put it out of its misery.

By the end of the year, “Idol” ratings will be in that middling ground that isn't terrible but is far below what they're used to.

And, at that point, once the season is over, Fox will cancel “Idol.”

In the meantime, Simon will have gone on, with Paula and another guy to fill Randy's spot - which shouldn't be difficult since Randy is basically interchangable with any other music industry Al Roker - and will have a hit with the show “X Factor,” which will be the new “American Idol.”

And Fox execs, formerly full of hubris, will look and feel like douchebags for not rewarding the person who REALLY made “Idol” what it was, and who made them all millions of dollars.

Simon Cowell.

So, “Idol” fans, enjoy this year. It's the last one that'll be worth enjoying.

And get ready to jump ship to “X Factor.”

BYLINE:

Sean Leary's recent and current projects include the alt-rock "Spinal Tap" comedy film "Your Favorite Band" (www.yourfavoritebandthefilm.com), the award-winning short story collection "Every Number Is Lucky To Someone" (available in bookstores nationwide and on Amazon.com) and his website: www.getyourgoodnews.com.

"Tina Fey hosting 'The Tonight Show?'"

By Jason Tanamor

With NBC trying to stray away from drama on primetime by showcasing “The Jay Leno Show,” the fledging, and apparently confused, network has actually seen more drama than an episode of “Law & Order.”



“The Jay Leno Show’s” low ratings are causing a stir in the late night line-up. Apparently, NBC wants to move Leno to his old spot at 11:35PM, but for only a half hour. NBC wants to then push Conan and Jimmy Fallon back a half hour, starting Conan at 12:05AM respectively.

I guess this time around NBC wants to try and increase its ratings by putting Leno in front of Conan – again.



However, Conan is not having it. In a statement (and I’m paraphrasing), the current “Tonight Show” host said, “Fuck this.” Actually, Conan said that he would not follow Jay at 12:05.

Since NBC can’t figure this out. Let me try.

What I think should happen is this: Move Leno back to the “Tonight Show,” releasing Conan from his contract. If Conan wants to go to FOX, then let him. If he loses to Leno in the ratings, NBC makes the right call. Keep Leno on for 10 more years, and since the network owns Tina Fey for “30 Rock,” recruit Fey to host the “Tonight Show.” Fey is a proven commodity with her success as head writer for SNL and now “30 Rock.” Keep Fallon at his time slot, and Carson Daly at his spot. (For an idea about Daly, see the story Bob Zerull did here.)

By doing this, late night would see a great competition among four great talents – Leno, Letterman, Conan, and Kimmel.



BYLINE:

Jason Tanamor is the Editor of Zoiks! Online. He is also the author of the novels, "Hello Lesbian!" and "Anonymous." Email Jason at jason@zoiksonline.com.

"'Twilight's' Kristen Stewart up for major award."

By Bry Schulz

BBC News (that's a British news channel!) is reporting that “Twilight” star Kristen Stewart has been nominated for the BAFTA Rising Star award. Those not familiar with the UK's BAFTA Awards will be interested to know that this is the equivalent to the Academy Awards here in America.



The BAFTAs generally come out with their nominations a few weeks before the Oscars and many look to those nominations to see what might be hot at this year’s Oscars. Though some tastes obviously differ between our two countries, as I'm sure Kristen will find herself snubbed or more accurately, just not nominated by the Oscars this year. Pop culture doesn't find itself prevalent in the Oscars much, hence their lack-luster ratings from recent years.



Back to the point: I am excited for Kristen. As a self admitted Twi-Hard I'll be pulling for Bella Swan (aka K.Stew). I hope she goes and gets all glammed up. It'd be even better if she had a British hottie on her arm (in the form of her rumored, but obvious, real life love Robert Pattinson). I've heard that the Academy Awards this year might premier footage from the next “Twilight” movie “Eclipse.” And to do so Rob, Kristen and Taylor may be on hand to show it on Oscar night, (reaching for those ratings aren't we Mr. Oscar?). Again, I can't wait to see Kristen (with Rob near by) dressed up and having fun. That girl looks too depressed sometimes. But I can't hate on her too much. I'm too deeply addicted to all things “Twilight” to permit myself!



BYLINE:

Bry Schulz is a writer, photographer, and mother who really hates squash. Not necessarily the game but definitely the vegetable. Email Bry at bry@zoiksonline.com.