A Case of the.... Smallville - Episode 8-6

I’ve been raving about two things this season: The interactions between Clark and Lois, and Clark Kent in a suit. This episode lacked both. So how did it up hold?

Surprisingly well, to be honest.

http://primetimepulse.com/2008/10/24/smallville-episode-8-6-review/

Read more!

A Case of the.... Prison Break - Episode 4-8

I’m sure most people will consider this past week’s episode of Prison Break the weakest of the season – and perhaps it has been – but I felt it was a perfectly acceptable “plot advancement” episode. Sure, there was a shootout and a moderately important character died, but even so, this wasn’t the most exhilarating episode of the year.

And that’s okay.

http://primetimepulse.com/2008/10/22/prison-break-episode-4-7-review/

Read more!

Top Ten Cases: TV's greatest bromances

Enjoy yet another video edition of Top Ten Cases, this time taking a look at television's greatest "bromances" (and for those of you wondering, I put this list together before TV Guide did -- to tell you the truth, I still haven't looked at their version yet). Anyway, since YouTube has strict, um, restrictions about video lengths, I had to divide this up into two parts. ENJOY!

Update: These videos have now been replaced with versions that are in MUCH better quality. ENJOY!

Part 1:



Part 2:



And, as promised, that Doug Ross/Mark Greene scene:

Read more!

You have GOT to be kidding me....

As if the past few days wasn't bad enough, on my way home today I get pulled over and receive a ticket for tailgating. Tailgating!

Now, let me make one thing clear: I do not, in any way, condone reckless driving. I think that whole Nick Hogan fiasco shows that. But driving "too close" to somebody when you're going, like, 20 miles per hour? Basically, the guy in front of me was going, like, 15 to 20 miles per hour under the speed limit (and no, that's not an exaggeration). I was close, but I did not think at a dangerous level. Then when it turned into two lanes, I got in the second lane and passed him. I didn't cut him off, I didn't burn rubber, and I didn't exceed the speed limit (I will note, however, that the cop seemed like a fair enough guy, and certainly wasn't an asshole).

Honestly, I don't even mind the fine or court appearance, it's the points that kill you. And tailgating is -- GET THIS -- FIVE POINTS. By the way, failure to stop at a traffic light? That would only be two points. Yes, driving close to somebody going 20 miles per hour is 5 points. Bursting through a red light is less than half that. Even passing through a "No Passing" zone is 4 points. That's breaking the ONE RULE that the sign commands.

Other offenses less evil than tailgating:

• Leaving the scene of an accident (no injuries): Two points
• Going through a Stop sign: Two points
• RACING THROUGH A SAFETY ZONE: Sounds dangerous, right? Yeah, only two points.
• Improper driving on a sidewalk (yes, a sidewalk): Two points.

Yes, I will be challenging this ticket. But it's a really stressful and emotional burden that I really don't need. Suffice to say, I'm not in a good mood.

Ugh. Anyway, here's your Heroes review:

http://primetimepulse.com/2008/10/21/heroes-episode-3-6-review/

Read more!

Your assistance, please

I won't bore you with the inner workings of my personal life, but the past few days have been pretty emotionally exhausting. But, my dear Case Workers, you can help get my mind off of everything and cheer me up as well!

So a few months ago on Smackdown, Edge was wearing a pretty kick ass t-shirt that I can't seem to identify. I know he usually wears brands like Affliction, Ed Hardy, Obey, Salvation, and the like, but I haven't been able to find it anywhere. It looks like a masked wrestler standing in front of red bolts of lightning. Here are some pictures of the shirt I'm talking about:

Does anybody know where I can find this shirt? Or what company manufactures it? Any assistance would be greatly appreciated.

Read more!

The rise and fall of Joe the Plumber

When discussing the third Presidential debate with a friend of mine, I had jokingly said, "I'm just wondering who the hell Joe the Plumber is...." I had missed the beginning of the debate, and had assumed that Joe the Plumber was some hypothetical character, like "Joe Six Pack." I actually got a kick out of the fact that by the end of the debate, both candidates were referring to this "Joe the Plumber," literally making him the centerpiece of each point they were attempting to make.

Of course, as we all know now, Joe the Plumber is a very real person. And after a day or so of becoming a celebrity, he learned that being a celebrity comes with a hefty price.

As it turns out, Joe the Plumber isn't actually a licensed plumber, working in a county that requires a license to....plumb. His name is Sam, and not Joe. And despite his complaints about how much taxes he will have to pay, it turns out he actually owes thousands of dollars in back taxes.

While his actions are inexcusable, I can see what people mean when they talk about the liberal media. This reminds me of your typical legal drama, where the defense or prosecution realizes the other side has a witness that could threaten their case, so they go out of their way to discredit the person's reputation, hoping that the jury will disregard the witness' statements as a result, no matter what the person says.

If Joe (Sam) the (Unlicensed) Plumber owes money to the government, he should have to pay it in full, as well as the typical penalty. If the county requires all plumbers to have a license, he should have to receive one before he does any more work. That being said, I do think he made some strong points. While I don't consider myself a member of either political party -- and, as I've noted a million times before, I think the whole two party system does more bad than good -- I often refer to myself as socially liberal and fiscally conservative. As a result, I tend to agree with the "taxes are a necessary evil" argument than the one that tells me that "taxes are a patriotic duty."

I think Joe's comments pointed out some of the disadvantages of Obama's proposed plan, and with a face to connect with, I think a lot of the general public realized it for the first time. I just think it's too bad that the media feels it more necessary to destroy this guy's reputation than to focus on the issues.

Read more!

A Case of the.... Smallville - Episode 8-5

Every couple of years, Smallville seems to get their Saw kick, where they put a character into a dire situation that looks like it was lifted directly from one of the Saw scripts (you’ll recall this happened a couple of years ago with Lionel and Martha). That observation aside, I found it to be a really enjoyable episode.

http://primetimepulse.com/2008/10/17/smallville-episode-8-5-review/

Read more!

From the inbox: Heroes plot holes

One of my long-time PrimeTimePulse readers, Dan, sent me the following:

I'm glad you pointed out the two plot holes concerning Peter, but there are more. I'm not even enjoying this season anymore. Here's what's bothering me:

• Claire supposedly changed because Sylar attacked her, but she was already changed before Peter went back in time and allowed Sylar to find her
• All Noah has to do to kill Sylar is have the Haitian around and shoot him. That's how Future Peter died.
• Do people's powers work in Level 5? Peter's do and Sylar healed his neck, but then why can't he use his powers to break out?
• Sylar has telekinesis. He could have moved himself, Claire, and Noah away from the vortex.
• Sylar has super hearing. He would have heard that Noah was trying to get the vortex guy to kill him.

Since I have been singing the praises of this season, I do feel a certain obligation to at least attempt to explain some of these abnormalities. I should first note, however, that I am far more lenient with a show like Heroes when it comes to apparent plot holes. Much like Lost, in Heroes we are provided with information, but won't receive the explanation until long after. As a result, I tend to give them the benefit of doubt, taking more of a "wait and see" approach.

Also, regarding the two plot holes concerning Peter, I assume Dan is referring to my latest Heroes column, in which I wondered why Peter has Sylar's hunger, since he already (a) naturally absorbs people's abilities (so it can't be about "power") and (b) can read people's thoughts (so it can't be about "knowledge").

Okay, lets take this point-by-point...

I have to credit Dan for catching the apparent Sylar/Claire/Peter inconsistencies, which I'm almost ashamed to admit I completely missed. In the opening episode of the season, we learned that four years in the future, Claire had "changed" and is evidently a "villain." This prompts Peter to go back in time, which indirectly leads to Claire staying home one afternoon, allowing Sylar to violate her and take her ability. I WOULD defend this particular point by saying that in that particular future, Claire had changed because she and those like her had become guinea pigs due to Nathan "outing" everybody. But her "I'm different, I'm special" comment most certainly alluded to the exact line Sylar uttered after attacking Claire. So, clearly, the Sylar attack is what prompted her change. Therefore, the only real explanation I can offer is that the exchange between Sylar and Claire inevitably would have happened, but Peter's actions forced it to happen sooner rather than later.

This does lead me to another problem that I had not previously recognized, however. Angela Petrelli repeatedly chastised Future Peter for what he had done, insinuating that he had severely altered the future. Yet, when Future and Present Peter(s) go into the future, Future Peter seems awfully comfortable and knowledgeable. It seems pretty clear that this was more or less the same future that he had left.

I too took note of the fact that HRG really only needs the Haitian to be in the area in order for him to kill Sylar (hell, HRG explained his intent to kill Sylar to the Haitain....when they were only feet away from Sylar). My best guess is that HRG wants to make it look like an accident. Perhaps his plan is to kill Sylar, run away with his family, and be done with this Company business once and for all. But he knows that if he kills Sylar execution style, he'll always have the Company (and perhaps more specifically, Angela Petrelli) on his (and his family's) tail.

Regarding Level 5, I think it's clear that people's abilities do work there, but I'm sorta under the impression that their abilities are restricted within their cell. We've seen numerous characters use their abilities within their cell, and outside the cell, yet they never escape (and the powers that be stare down at them from the window with an awful lot of confidence). In instances with Peter and Sylar, we've also learned that they have to be injected with some sort of IV in order to prohibit their abilities. I would assume that the electromagnetic barrier that Elle short circuited in the premiere creates a force field of some sort.

While it would have been nice to at least have a character bring up the fact that Sylar should try to use his abilities to save them from the vortex, I'm actually quite willing to forgive them for this. Sylar was busy trying not to get sucked into the vortex himself, so I think it's natural that he wouldn't have the wherewithal to use his telekinesis. Actually, I'm not quite sure what telekinesis would have done in that scenario: It's not as if it gives him the ability of physical teleportion. I suppose he would have been able to protect HRG and Claire, to an extent, but how about himself? Telekinesis doesn't give him the ability of flight. And from what we've seen of Sylar's ability, he must physically use his hands to guide whatever he's trying to move. That would have been exceptionally difficult when he was trying to save himself from getting sucked into a powerful vortex.

The show has been extremely vague, at best, when explaining whether or not Sylar retained all of his original abilities after he took the vaccine in last season's finale. Thus far, we've really only seen him use telekinesis and the abilities that he's acquired since then. That being said, I'm not entirely convinced that Sylar DIDN'T use his super hearing when HRG was talking to the vortex guy. No, we didn't physically see him hearing it, but he was clearly reacting to the exchange. And then later in the car, he was VERY knowledgeable about the discussion that took place. And for some reason I don't see either HRG or Claire offering up the information that HRG had tried to kill him. I suspect that the writers simply decided not to include the "overhearing" effect in order to make the scene more suspenseful.

Admittedly, some of these explanations may be flawed. And in some cases, the writers really should have taken the time and care to explain certain apparent inconsistencies. But, again, overall I tend to wait and give them a few episodes to see if they offer an explanation. Do any visitors have issues or suggestions for these alleged plot holes?

Read more!

To help with your informed decision

For a guy who hates discussing politics, I've sure been writing a lot of politically-charged blog posts.

Anyway, for anybody who watched the final debate last night (starring "Joe the Plumber"!), I encourage you to read out this "Fact Check" section on CNN.com. This page basically takes all of the accusations that were thrown and provides factual evidence to determine if the comment was true, false, or misleading.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/category/fact-check/

Have a nice day.

Read more!

Case in point....

Yesterday I wrote what I consider to be a politically impartial post about how I'm disgusted with these young celebrities filming videos that appear to encourage young voters to blindly vote for Barack Obama. I insisted that this wasn't a political stance, and that I would have felt this way no matter which candidate the flames were directed at. I also boldly stated that I would have felt the same way even if the love of my life, Rachel Bilson, was involved in the video.

Well, it's not Rachel Bilson, but another one of my crushes, Hayden Panettiere, recently filmed a PSA-like video, sarcastically encouraging people to vote for John McCain. Here's the video:

See more Hayden Panettiere videos at Funny or Die

I'll say this: I find this slightly less offensive than the previous video I posted, because she did, at the very least, ATTEMPT to provide reasons why people shouldn't vote for him. They were stupid reasons, but at least she tried. And the "nobody fucks with McCain" with a big smile on her face was pretty funny.

But, again, overall it was a moronic video. I am SO not a fan of this ultra PC, super sensitive society we live in, but what the hell was up with the age discrimination. She so boldly tells people not to vote for McCain "because he's old." I don't doubt that the comment had its tongue firmly in its cheek, but can you imagine the outcry if somebody had said -- even jokingly -- "don't vote for Obama, because he's black"??? And considering the fact that her boyfriend is, like, 12 years her senior, her anti-old comments seem especially misplaced.

I especially hate her "a vote for John McCain is a vote AGAINST change" argument. What does that even mean? McCain will get us in another war, you say? Nice of you to completely disregard that people in Obama's very party criticized him for the comments he made last year about taking military action in Pakistan.

And what was the deal with her comment about McCain allegedly having an affair with a lobbyist? To suggest that McCain has an unsavory relationship with lobbyists is no better than accusing Obama of being associated with terrorists. And if we want to get personal, how about we talk about Hayden's dad supposedly beating up on her mom? No good?

Again, this isn't a John McCain/Barack Obama thing. This isn't even about celebrity endorsements (again, they have every right to express their opinions). This is about asinine, shallow videos that contain no information whatsoever, and celebrities using their influence to encourage impressionable (and mostly uninformed) young voters to support their candidate. And they're not even bothering to do it with concrete and substantial data. I find that insulting. And, considering that it probably works, pretty tragic.


In fact, there is an article on CNN.com that discusses the false accusations that are smeared all over the Internet. I encourage everybody to read it:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/15/internet.rumors/index.html

Read more!