This may be the last blog I write here on TV.com. Apparently, they're shutting down the blog feature.

This sucks out loud. I write blogs far more than visit the forums. And, if Community gets cancelled next season and Fringe definitely ending next season, there really will be no need for me to continue coming here!

I hate that. I've made some good friends here. And I have fun writing my movie reviews. Since this actually is the only place I can write my movie reviews.

This really sucks.

Kat

I watched this show last night, because I really like Eric McCormack.

It's OK. The premise is that Eric McCormack's character, who is a college professor with the specialty of neurological forensics, helps detectives on cases (particular one detective played by Rachel Leigh Cook, a former student of his). But McCormack's character is schizophrenic.

Here's the thing--I have "A Beautiful Mind," so all the twists for me were telegraphed. I knew that his friend, Natalie, was a hallucination from the moment I saw her. Something about their first conversation and that they should have gone out on a date in grad school, screamed it for me. Their very next conversation, about how he can never connect with anyone intimately practically waved flags around and jumped up and down while yelling "This is a hallucination!" Sure enough, the friend isn't real.

I think it has potential, and I like Eric McCormack (as I said) so I'll keep watching it. But, there seems to be a lot of these procedurals that have a quirky, eccentric lead solving mysteries. House, Psych, The Mentalist--just a couple I can think of off the top of my head. Heck, Castle sometimes ventures in that direction.

Kat

Tigerdude22 posted a review of The Amazing Spider-Man and now it's my turn. I'll have some minor spoilers, but if you've seen 2002's "Spider-Man," you should know what's going on.

I'm going to dispense telling you the plot. It's an origin story. How Peter Parker became Spider-Man. Of course, we all know how he got the powers--he was bit by a genetic enhanced spider, but this is about how he became Spider-Man.

In this movie, Peter is a senior in high school. While there's a shot of the Daily Bugle (the newspaper that Peter works for as a freelance photographer), it's about his first, say, year of having powers. Mary Jane Watson is no where to be seen, which is fine by me. I tend to like Gwen Stacey better (and yes, I am a geek.)

Andrew Garfield plays Peter Parker/Spider-Man. And, he's pretty good in the role. Except for one scene, you wouldn't be able to tell he's British. (In one scene, I caught his British accent.) He's a lot less angsty than Tobey Maguire's Peter Parker/Spider-Man was. There are moments of humor in this movie, like Garfield's Peter having fun with his powers (not just the swinging). There's a great scene when he first got his powers where he humiliates the high school bully, Flash. Also a very funny sequence where Peter first gets his powers and doesn't know his own strength (yes, I want to crush my alarm clock like that as well.)

Rhys Ifan was pretty good as Dr. Curt Connors/The Lizard. I think he needed a little more... something. I can't quite figure out what though.

Sally Field and Martin Sheen were very good as Aunt May and Uncle Ben. In fact, Martin Sheen was, in a word, AWESOME! Love him. (A little trivia: this is the second role that Martin Sheen and Cliff Robertson has shared. The first is John F. Kennedy.)

Stan Lee had his usual cameo, and the scene that he has his cameo in is hilarious. The whole theater was laughing. You'll enjoy it too.

Denis Leary plays Gwen Stacey's father, Captain George Stacey, NYPD. Between him and Andrew Garfield, it's a snark-fest! Which I love.

This movie isn't nearly as good as The Avengers earlier this summer. I do think it's better than the 2002's Spider-Man, though. It's not as good as Spider-Man 2. It's light years better than Spider-Man 3 (didn't like the third one.) But, I do think Andrew Garfield makes a better Peter Parker/Spider-Man than Tobey Maguire.

I liked it.

All right. See you later.

Kat

I went to see People Like Us today.

If I tell you the plot, I'll be giving away most of the movie. But, I did put a spoiler warning up.

It's about a guy, Sam (Chris Pine), who finds out his father, a famous record producer, has died after a long bout with cancer. He and his father never got along, so he hesitates to go home. Especially, since he has a problem that needs to be dealt with right now at work (he needs to make a deal or else he will lose his job and may be arrested if he doesn't do this.)

To make things worse, he discovers that the $150,000 his father left actually goes to a half-sister, Frankie (Elizabeth Banks), that he never knew even existed. Initially, he plans on keeping the money, but he wants to find this lost sister.

So, the two siblings meet. He knows she's his sister, but she doesn't know they're related. The two start a friendship, particularly led by her troubled 11-year-old son.

This isn't the best movie in the world, but I'm quickly finding that I like Chris Pine. I loved him as Kirk in the Star Trek reboot. And while he's playing a very similar cocky character, he's still entertaining to watch. Elizabeth Banks is very good as Frankie, who is just trying to live her life and take care of her son.

(And, whoever the casting director for this movie was was a genius. Chris Pine and Elizabeth Banks look like they could be siblings. They even had the same color of eyes! Someone had to be wearing contacts. It's not that I always pay attention to that, but in this movie, it was hard to escape the close-ups where particular attention was made to their eyes. Yet, no one mentioned that they have the same eyes! I like blue eyes. I have blue eyes. But it's difficult to match blue eyes. My color of blue eyes is certainly not Chris Pine's color, for example. Blue eyes have different shades. It's easier to match brown eyes.)

Michelle Pfeiffer plays Sam's mother, Lillian. She's also very good in it.

The acting was terrific. However, it got to just be long. I kept wondering when it would end. It's good. It's a good movie, don't get me wrong. But, it's just kind of a long, talky movie. It's not exactly a summer movie.

However, as hot as it's been, sitting in a nice, cool theater watching this movie would be a good way to spend an afternoon. Would it be something I'd get in my collection? Probably not. But, I'm glad I saw it.

Till next time.

Kat

Two review blogs for the price of one! And, I have to admit: Next to Juno and the Paycock, Jamaica Inn looked like a masterpiece. And I'll post the movie I'm talking about that's even worse than these two--all by Alfred Hitchcock--very soon.

Next is 1930's Juno and the Paycock (released as The Shame of Mary Boyle). I got to be honest here: I hated this movie. There's another one coming up on the Alfred Hitchcock collection that I hated as much I did this one and, sadly, they're on the same disc.

Hateful movie. It has 4.8 stars on IMDb, and I think it's been generous.

It's another play that was turned into a movie, and looking over this set, Hitchcock seemed bored with getting the assignments of turning plays into movies. He's not having fun with this movie, and neither do we.

The movie features Irish actors that are, frankly, incomprehensible. The poor sound in this movie doesn't help anyone understand anything that's being said. It's about an impoverished family during the Dublin uprising. The father is lazy, and his wife, Juno, is a hard working woman who loves her two children. The father gets a huge inheritance, and the family start living the wealthy life. Then, he finds out that the inheritance doesn't exist.

Further shame comes when their oldest child, Mary, gets pregnant, and she's unmarried. The father kicks her out, and Juno goes with her daughter. The son is arrested and sentenced to death for participating in the Dublin uprising.

The whole movie is just a mess. It's unwatchable. The only two characters in this movie who are decent are Juno and Mary.

But, do yourself a favor and miss this one. Alfred Hitchcock would concur. He told Francois Truffaut that this movie has "nothing to do with cinema."

Next:

This is the last Alfred Hitchcock movie that he made before moving to Hollywood. And he did not go out with a bang. But, rather, he went out with a half-hearted whimper.

This is 1939's Jamaica Inn (6.3 stars), starring Charles Laughton and Maureen O'Hara. I love Maureen O'Hara and was excited to see her in a Hitchcock movie. Instead, I got a weak costume drama that Hitchcock was never able to find his footing in (He also attempted costume dramas with Waltzes from Vienna, which I haven't seen, but it doesn't have a lot of love, and Under Capricorn, which has its moments but is mostly a mark of a director who can't quite get a handle on the costume drama.)

Hitchcock said this movie was an absurd thing to undertake, and he's correct. The movie feels like he's just killing time until his contract is up and he can get out to Hollywood to really make his mark. This movie is included in the Harry Medved and Randy Lowell book The Fifty Worst Films of All Time (and How They Got That Way).

This movie is about an orphan, Mary (O'Hara) who comes to live with her aunt (Marie Ney) and uncle (Leslie Banks) on the Cornwall Coast. Her uncle Joss is the leader of a band of thieves who lure ships off course, kill the crews, and plunder the cargo. When Mary saves the newest member of the band (Robert Newton) from being lynched, the two seek asylum from the local justice of the peace (Laughton, who is the only one watchable in this movie). However, things aren't what they seem: the saved member of the band is actually a Royal Navy lieutenant who is seeking to uncover the mastermind behind the gang, and Pengallan (Laughton) is the mastermind behind the operation.

Hitchcock and Laughton didn't get along during filming. Hitchcock said that he felt caught between Laughton and Laughton's business partners. Hitchcock complained that he didn't so much direct the film as he did referee it.

There is really only one interesting character in this movie: Charles Laughton's character. There is only one moving moment in this movie: when the band of thieves is captured and sentenced to be hung, a 17 year old boy is among those arrested. His wrists are too slender for the handcuffs, so he has to be tied with rope. At first, he protests: he wants to chains like his partners. He says, "Why can't I be handcuffed like the rest? I'm going to be hanged like the rest." Then, he realizes what he said and starts to cry, saying "I'm going to die! I don't want to die. I'm only 17!" It's pretty sad, and it's pretty much the only redeeming moment of this otherwise painful-to-watch movie.

Till next time.

Kat

As a kid, the one show that my parents had to watch (and the only show that I was allowed to stay up late and watch) was Dallas. Dallas was also the only show that my parents would tape if we had to go somewhere on Friday nights (like a basketball game.)

I loved that show. Who couldn't love to hate J. R.? What an awesome character.

I'm actually surprised that it ended in 1991. It seems like it went longer. I would have been 12 or 13 when it ended (probably 12), but it is such a big part of my childhood that I could have sworn it lasted until my teenaged years.

Dallas created the end-of-season cliffhanger, the kind that completely drives us batty today. Mom doesn't believe me, but I swear I remember the "Who Shot J.R." phenomenon. I would have been 3 years old at the time. I don't remember that story arc (I know it was Kristen who shot him), but I swear I remember everyone talking about it.

Patrick Duffy, who played (plays) Bobby Ewing, pointed out in a recent interview that when that cliffhanger aired, there were all of 4 channels on TV. Now, there are half a million. We will never have a watercooler show like that again.

But, I haven't thought about Dallas for years. It ended. We watched the series finale. We watched the two TV movies that aired (which apparently aren't canon anymore.) We watched the reunion show. But, that's been 10-15 years. (Longer for the series finale.)

I first started hearing various reports that producers were trying to bring back Dallas...why? It was an '80s phenomenon, but it should be left in the '80s. Right? After all, no one could ever come close to playing J. R. Ewing than Larry Hagman. And don't get me started on hearing that John Travolta was going to play him in that feature film that got scrapped (thank God.)

But, then, I heard that they decided on having TV series reboot. A sort of "Next Generation" with some of the original cast coming back--Larry Hagman, Patrick Duffy, and Linda Grey (SueEllen Ewing). OK, I'll check it out. If only to see them again.

I freakin' LOVED the pilot and the second episode! I applauded when I heard that awesome theme song and saw those cool credits that I always loved--the juxtaposition between rural, ranch, oil drills life and life in metropolitan Dallas Texas. Now, if they will put in the cast pictures in the opening credits, I would love these credits even more!

Now, I'm too young to remember a lot of the story lines that the original show had, so I think this reboot wisely pared off the complex Ewing family tree. That doesn't mean half brothers and dead cousins and that kind of stuff won't be appearing. It is, after all, a soap opera. But, I kept hearing "Didn't they forget this son of J. R.'s? Bobby has another son as well..." I don't remember them.

I also didn't understand a lot of the story lines in the original show. I was 12 when it ended. So, this new show, as cheesy and as guilty-pleasury as it is, is perfect.

It's not the best show, by any means. It'll be a fun guilty pleasure. But, judging from the ratings, a lot of people are either nostalgic for a cheese-tastic '80s reboot or just tired of stupid reality shows and want something that's fairly watchable and scripted. It premiered on TNT, which is cable. And it pulled in some 7 million viewers. Some shows on network channels would kill for those kind of ratings.

It was awesome to see Larry Hagman, Patrick Duffy, and Linda Grey again. All three fell right into step again. While I fully expect these original starts to end up fading away in favor of the younger generation, it was nice to see them again. Bobby Ewing has now taking up Jock Ewing's old position as the patriarch of the family, and except for gray hair, Patrick Duffy looks like he just walked off the set of the original Dallas (in fact, it was funny when Charlene Tilton, who plays Lucy Ewing, Bobby and J. R.'s niece, showed up and called Bobby "Uncle Bobby." She looks older than him!) Linda Gray looks unbelievably good! That is one good plastic surgeon she has.

And, of course, who couldn't love Larry Hagman? J. R. is now more of a supporting role than the main character. But, J. R. is still a magnificent bastard. Larry Hagman hasn't lost a step in playing him. But, I fully anticipate J. R. will be supporting. While Larry Hagman hasn't lost a step in playing the role, his health problems and his advanced age (he's 81) will prevent him from doing a lot of things.

I did like the two actors playing J. R. and Bobby's sons, John Ross and Christopher. John Ross needed to be smacked, which was fine. And he needs to learn that no one can out-manipulate J. R. And, I'm hoping that Christopher won't be quite as goody-goody as he's appearing now. But, I'm interested in them.

The bad thing: the younger actresses. I've heard of Jordana Brewster, but I honestly can't think of what she's been in. She plays John Ross' girlfriend... I think? And that's kind of the problem. The two girls are virtually identical, right now. I've heard it's because they're both brunettes, but on the original Dallas, Linda Gray and Victoria Principal were both brunettes and you could tell them apart.

But, let's hope that this new show continues in the right direction. Because I'm hoping it'll be my Wednesday night guilty pleasure, at least for a while.

(Got to love those opening credits!)

Kat

Second Python movie. And it's the most controversial. (Although, I really hate the last Python movie, but I'll get to it soon.)

This is 1979's (Monty Python's) Life of Brian (8.2 stars, #166 on IMDb's Top 250 List). It, of course, stars the members of Monty Python: Graham Chapman, John Cleese, Terry Gilliam, Eric Idle, Terry Jones, and Michael Palin. You can also spot George Harrison in it, who has one line in it (I'll get to the reason why George Harrison has a cameo).

The plot of this movie is the most coherent and solid of all the Python movies. Holy Grail was a series of sketches, although the thread all the way through the sketches is "the search for the Holy Grail." Meaning of Life, which I think sucks, is just bizarre sketches that vaguely show man's journey through life (when I get to it, I'll talk about the sketches in it that I actually enjoy).

This movie is not for everyone. I think I would recommend Holy Grail for everyone, but this one I'd have to pick and choose. See, it's about Brian (Chapman), a young man living in Judea in 33 AD. He joins up with one of the Zionist groups who want to overthrow the Roman occupation. After getting in trouble with the Roman authorities, Brian is mistaken to be the Messiah and ends up getting crucified with a whole bunch of people (where they all sing "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life" while being crucified.)

OK, here's the thing: this movie does NOT make fun of Jesus, nor does it try to say that Jesus isn't the true Messiah. Jesus actually is a real person on the fringes of all the Python insanity. Jesus appears at the beginning of the movie in two scenes: the first one at the Nativity (Brian was born in the stable across the street); then Brian and his mother are at the Sermon on the Mount, where they can't hear anything. Also, there is an ex-leper (no doubt one of the 9 lepers healed by Jesus who didn't come back and thank Him) who is complaining that Jesus took away his livelihood. When Brian is hiding from the Roman authorities, he pretends to be a street prophet and quotes from the Sermon on the Mount. So, Jesus is a real person in this movie. He's just not involved in the lunacy. Brian is mistaken to be the mythical messiah that people were looking for, although he always tries to dissuade people from believing that.

People who missed the first 10 minutes of the movie misunderstood the point of the movie (which I'll get to). They assumed that Monty Python was making fun of Jesus and claiming that Brian was the true Christ. Wrong. This is kind of a case of complaining about movies you don't watch.

And this is coming from someone who considers herself to be a strong Christian.

While promoting Holy Grail, the troupe was asked what their next film project would be. Eric Idle, jokingly, said that their next project would be "Jesus Christ: Lust for Glory." OK, there is absolutely no evidence that says that they actually took this title seriously. But, it shut up reporters asking about their next project, so all the members adopted it as their stock answer.

The members, two of whom are really awesome historians (Jones and Palin) started playing around how to do a movie set in ancient Judea during the events Jesus lived through and poke fun at what was happening in the world and in Britain in the 1970s. Basically, a satire about life in First Century Judea and a more political satire about issues of today.

The members got together to research and to write the script. They never had any real intention of satirizing Jesus, and after reading the New Testament and commentaries about it, the members figured that they couldn't make fun of His message either. They determined that Jesus was pretty awesome. Plus, although Christians are the only ones who claim Jesus is the Son of God (and I'm a Christian), many Jews respect Jesus as a rabbi, and Muslims consider Jesus to be the second greatest prophet after Muhammad.

The troupe's next thought is to have a 13th disciple named Brian. Brian was always missing things going on. Like he was supposed to be at the Transformation, but he was out getting water and missed it.

Finally, the troupe decided to actually do something a little closer to reality: a false messiah. Because that actually happened. People would claim to be or thought to be the "true" messiah around that time. It happened more often than people think.

People complain that the film ends with a crucifixion. Yes, it does, but it's pretty ridiculous, if you know anything about crucifixion. For starters, all the people getting crucified sing "Always Look on the Bright Side of Life." You absolutely couldn't sing on the cross. You wouldn't be able to. Crucifixions killed people by having them asphyxiate. It was remarkable that Jesus could even speak during His Crucifixion. Not to mention that everyone was very clean while on their crosses. Also, in the movie, John Cleese is wrapped up in a blanket because he couldn't stand the cold, something which is poked fun at during the commentary. Michael Palin wanted to know if he was comfortable, because he's the only one wrapped up like that. Yeah, Romans weren't all that concerned if you were comfortable on the cross.

And here's the thing with people complaining about why this film ends with a mass crucifixion. Here's why Python chose crucifixion: it was a pretty common method of execution for Rome. While generally Roman citizens were exempted from being crucified, it was commonly used in their territories with non-Roman people. It was a method of execution for about 600 years BEFORE Jesus' execution, and it was used about 400 years AFTER Jesus' execution. In about 71 BC, some 6000 followers of Spartacus were crucified along the 124 mile road between Capua and Rome as a warning to anyone else who would rebel.

The biggest point of this movie is confusion due to miscommunication, and it's something that applies today. When Brian starts gaining a following believing he's the "true" messiah, he runs away, leaving his sandal behind. Soon, his followers start arguing about worshipping the sandal—if only they can figure out if it's a "sandal" or if it's a "shoe." And they split into factions—one side claiming it's a sandal, the other side claiming it's a shoe.

And, sadly, you'll still see this today. Heck, it was happening in the first century! In his first letter to the church in Corinth, Paul chews out the Christians there for dividing into factions—one faction saying "I belong to Caiphus," another faction saying "I belong to Paul," and another faction saying "I belong to Jesus." Paul asks if he was crucified and rose again for the people in Corinth.

So, Monty Python is actually poking fun at that. In 1998, the surviving members of Python gathered in Aspen, where they answered questions. Naturally, some questions involved Life of Brian. Terry Jones (if I'm remembering correctly. It's been a while since I've seen it) said that you can't argue with what Jesus said, no matter if you believe that He's the Son of God or not. However, as good as Jesus' message was, Christians have spent the last 2,000 years fighting and killing others because they can't agree of how He said it.

They're also poking fun at political groups as well. There are two main Zionist groups mentioned. Both groups want Rome out of Judea. However, they hate each other as much as they hate the Romans. The names of the Zionist groups? The Judean People's Front and the People's Front of Judea. There's a suicide squad that comes to rescue Brian from the cross by committing ritual suicide. Of course, you have the Romans who are idiots. One Roman centurion corrects Brian's Latin graffiti which is supposed to say "Romans, go home" and makes Brian write the correct way to write that 100 times on the wall that he was originally defacing. Pilate can't pronounce his "Rs" and doesn't understand joke names. So the political authorities aren't too impressive either.

And, they poke fun at extreme beliefs. For instance, a male character, Stan, wants to be a woman. He wants to be called Loretta. Why does he want to be a woman? Because he wants to have babies, and it doesn't matter that he doesn't have a womb. He just doesn't want to be oppressed. (So, he wants to be a woman in a society that male animals are more important than human women?)

Now, I mentioned George Harrison, right? Well, needless to say, this movie is controversial, and it was controversial even while they were filming. George Harrison founded a production company, Handmade Films, because he wanted to see this movie. He was a fan of Monty Python and figured that no one would be producing this movie. So, he personally bankrolled it. In gratitude, Python gave him a cameo in this movie.

Needless to say, this movie was banned in several places. Quite humorously, Norway banned it for a year, and Sweden promoted it as "The film so funny it was banned in Norway!" Ireland banned it until 1987. It was banned throughout the Midwest and the Southern United States. It's still considered pretty controversial. At the Aspen reunion, John Cleese mentioned that there were protests from all denominations of Christianity, and Michael Palin joked that this film brought all the denominations together after 2,000 years.

Look, as I said, I consider myself a strong Christian. This isn't a religious satire at all. I actually think it's more of a political satire, one that's even more telling today. You watch this movie, and you see different factions that could be the Tea Party. You see different factions that can be Democrats. You see issues that were important in the 1970s that are still important now (and, sadly, after doing some history involving First Century Judea, times absolutely haven't changed politically! There were factions then, there are factions now.) The worst part about it: Graham Chapman has full-frontal nudity.

It's a hilarious movie. But, I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that it's not for everybody. Which is why I tend not to recommend it to everybody.

(At least it's infinitely better than The Passion of the Christ. I really don't like that movie.)

I will leave you with my favorite set of dialogue:

Brian: You don't need to follow me, You don't need to follow anybody! You've got to think for yourselves! You're all individuals!
The Crowd: Yes! We're all individuals!
Brian: You're all different!
The Crowd: Yes, we are all different!
Man in crowd: I'm not...

I haven't watched House for probably three years now. The show started getting pretty unbelievable, and I stopped watching it.

However, in honor of it, I watched the final episode.

And I actually loved it.

I've loved Hugh Laurie for a long time. What a great actor. He deserves an Emmy, and I can't believe he hasn't won one yet. What's wrong with Emmy voters? He keeps being nominated and passed over. John Noble (Fringe) has never been nominated. Hopefully, Hugh Laurie will win for this year. Because, no matter how unbelievable and stupid the show itself got, Hugh Laurie never disappointed.

Heh. Here is how good of an actor Hugh Laurie is:

I was talking to Mom when the retrospective began. My parents used to watch House, and I asked if they were going to watch the finale. No. (Mom was confused with the concept of series finale and season finale.) I mentioned I love Hugh Laurie. Mom said that she doesn't--he's a smart aleck and a jerk.

So, I asked if she's talking about the character of House or the actor, Hugh Laurie. Because, from what I've seen from interviews and stuff, Hugh Laurie seems like a perfectly decent guy. She said that they're one and the same to her.

Then I further floored Mom by saying that he started off as a British comedian. She did admit that he was funny, so there is that.

See, unlike Mom, I always enjoyed the character of House. Maybe because of my love for Hugh Laurie, and I'm interested to see what he does next. (By the way, if you haven't read his novel "The Gun Seller," I recommend it. It's a lot of fun.) But, I always liked the character. House was a grumpy, cranky, drug-addicted creep, but he was funny and surprisingly loveable.

While the finale wasn't exactly perfect (why didn't Lisa Edelstein come back? She would have been great as a hallucination at least. Or Cuddy should have come to the funeral. And I was hoping that Jesse Spencer could have had more to do, since he was one of the original cast and has been there since the pilot. But, at least Chase inherited House's job), I was glad for a couple things: that they didn't spend a lot of time on characters I didn't know. I knew all the characters who appeared as hallucinations and thought that was awesome. And I liked the look into House's mind. And what an ending! It was perfect to have House and Wilson drive away into the sunset.

I mentioned my complaints about not having Lisa Edelstein. And Jesse Spencer should have had more to do. I also question the events that lead to House faking his death. When would he have switched the dental records? I don't find it very likely that he beat the explosion by slipping out of the back door. I don't think someone with two good legs could have moved that fast. Plus, he wasn't showing any signs of smoke inhalation, and he didn't have any burns on him at the end. (And where was his cane at the end?)

I can see why some people believe that House actually died at the end. But, I will absolutely accept that he did at the very end and went off with Wilson, in spite of my questions. Because I loved that very last scene.

Kat

OK, before I go on with the blog, I have a bunch of movie reviews to post. And I'm almost finished watching some early Hitchcock movies, which I'll be reviewing. Here's a sneak peak: except for a couple of gems in this 14-movie collection I've got, most suck!

I started taking stock of shows I watch, and I realized this:

When Community and Fringe end, I'll have no forums to go to.

I used to watch The Big Bang Theory, but, except for the daily reruns, I don't watch it anymore. It just got to be the same old schtick. I still occasionally watch Psych. Hot in Cleveland started off good, but now it sucks (although I do find "Happily Divorced" and "The Exes" still a hoot). Smallville, Dollhouse are all long gone. House ends tonight (I haven't watched in 3 years, but I think I'll check out the finale). I still like Castle. Sherlock ended its run on PBS last night. When's the third season? I don't get BBC America, although I love Doctor Who. I have to rely on the DVDs.

Then, I got thinking how much I don't watch network TV anymore. Or really TV at all anymore. Thank goodness for DVDs.

After watching the finale of How I Met Your Mother, I'm finished with that show. Let me know when Ted meets the Mother. But, I was disgusted with the season finale (I don't think Ted can be a bigger a-hole than he became in this episode. "Waitforit" is an absolutely horrible middle name and a cruel thing to do to a kid. And I used to be a Barney/Robin shipper, but after the writers screwed up that relationship, I no longer want them together. Besides, it's only when Barney is with someone does Robin want him. And what happened to Robin never wanting to get married anyways? Of course, Barney and Robin marrying was incredibly predictable. The dogs I play with at the Humane Society probably could have predicted Barney and Robin marrying. Doesn't mean it makes me very happy, though.

I've heard Supernatural was better this past season, and the finale was pretty awesome. But, I only watched two episodes this season and liked only one of those. I'm on a Yahoo board, and I really wish that I can delete my account so I won't get any more posts on the board. But, for some strange reason, Yahoo won't let me. I'm going to have to completely change my email address, aren't I?

See, here's the thing: I started getting out of Supernatural--or at least its fandom--in season 4. And the fandom (or fandumb) is getting even scarier. Now, the show was still good in season 4. Or, at least, I enjoyed it. But the fans became scarier. Now, there's a girl who has made a petition for Jensen Ackles and his wife to have a baby, and she plans on presenting the petition to him at the next convention. And she doesn't understand why it shouldn't be fans' business if Jensen and his wife have a baby and why that's a complete and flagrant disregard of their privacy.

But, sadly, that seems to be commonplace. These kind of fans give other Supernatural fans a bad name.

I don't understand the idea that a TV series is everything. When Supernatural and How I Met Your Mother first started, I needed to get a life really bad. When both shows started, I had just finished college and was working as the drive-thru person at McDonalds. I wasn't an adult. Seven years later, and many miles and hardships later, I am an adult. I have a career and I'm active in volunteer work.

While I do understand being a loving, loyal fan of a show (for me, it's Fringe and Community), I don't understand how a show can be the end-all be-all for anyone. People don't like it when you criticize their shows, even if you're doing it out of love. So, the fandoms are some of the reasons I'm leaving these shows behind (and now, it's not only the Supernatural fandom I'm talking about. I'm now including How I Met Your Mother.)

No show is going to be everyone's cup of tea. Tastes change as well. To me, both How I Met Your Mother and Supernatural have gone about two seasons too long. The writing is no longer good. The actors seems bored. But, you point that out, you're an absolutely horrible person.

So, since I really shouldn't complain about shows I don't watch, I won't watch Supernatural again, even if season 8 is the best ever. There's too many hurt feelings and actual personal attacks against me to really ever enjoy the series again. In fact, I was eyeing my DVDs, wondering if I still want them. I have the first 4 seasons.

If someone tells me that Ted has finally met the Mother for HIMYM, I may watch the last few episodes.

So far, the only show that's been given a full pickup (22 episodes) that I'll watch is Castle. Although last season was hit and miss as well. Community and Fringe are still unbelievably awesome, but they're only going for 13 episodes. Fringe will be done, while it's possible that Community is picked up for the back 9. But, if both Community and Fringe are cancelled after the 13 episodes, I'll grieve. And then I'll move on.

That's life. TV shows aren't life.

OK. Just my 2 cents. Take it as you want.

Kat

This will be a short blog.

Friday, two friends and I went to see The Avengers. It is, in a word, AWESOME.

The basic plot is Loki (the villain from Thor, played by Tom Hiddleston) came back from the black hole he was in and stole a power supply from S.H.I.E.L.D. This power supply is supposed to open a portal and let an alien army invade Earth.

S.H.I.E.L.D., led by Nick Fury (Samuel L. Jackson) recruits the Avengers--Iron Man (Robert Downey, Jr.), Thor (Chris Hemsworth), Captain America (Chris Evans), Hulk (Mark Ruffalo), Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson), and Hawkeye (Jason Renner)--to first recover this power source, to defeat Loki, and then to defeat the invading alien army. However, as you can imagine, the team's own personalities tend to conflict.

There are a couple of absolutely amazing scenes in this movie. It'll make you laugh and cheer and it will break your heart. My favorite character dies. I nearly started crying.

However, the Hulk laying the smackdown on Loki will instantly cheer you up. That was one of the coolest things I've ever seen.

This is absolutely destroying box office records. It had the biggest opening, and it has made over $200 million the fastest.

And it's a must-get in my DVD collection.

Till next time.

Kat