I went to see The Three Stooges this past weekend with a friend, and was amused to look over and see a grown man in his 50s finding his inner 10-year-old, cracking up every time Moe rips a handful of hair from Larry’s unruly afro or pokes Curly in the eye.

The Three Stooges circa 2012

(Spoiler)…and never in a million years did I ever think I would live in a world where Moe Howard would join the cast of Jersey Shore.

Hollywood has been trying to make this updated version of the classic film series for over 10 years, and at one time actors chosen to play the parts included Andy Samberg as Larry and Jim Carrey as Curly (it can only be fate that chose to step in and delay filming, as I feel these are two of the most unfunny, overrated comedians ever to walk the planet).

In the end, Chris Diamantopoulos (more accustomed to playing heartthrob roles) plays Moe, Sean Hayes (Jack from Will and Grace) plays Larry, and Will Sasso (former MadTV alum) delivers an incredible Curly.

Without giving away much of the story (however flimsy and trite it is), let me just say this-if you like the original Three Stooges, you’ll like this movie. If you are one of the poor unfortunate souls who watch an episode with a blank stare and a slight curl of the nose like you just smelled Curly’s shoes, then you would probably prefer staying home and alphabetizing your canned vegetables.

One critic called the movie “overly juvenile and totally dumb.” Ummm…duh. Curly tries to use an iPhone with his eye…it’s not like the filmmakers were going for character depth and Oscar-worthy performances. We’ll leave that for the Twilight series.

...and the originals, circa 1938.

The movie is stupid—gloriously, deliciously, and ingeniously, just like the original series.

In a telling postscript to just how far into the macabre and ridiculous the new “politically correct” state of society has become, an epilogue to the film shows two actors portraying the Farrelley brothers, instructing kids on how the sight gags were accomplished and imploring them to “not try this at home.”
Correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t seem to recall hearing anything about a rash of incidents involving kids being crushed with anvils or trying to move pianos down six flights of stairs every time a Three Stooges short was shown in theaters in the 1930s and 1940s.
The cause of more eye-rolls from yours truly comes from a statement released by the president of the Catholic League, condemning the movie for its “supposedly disrespectful portrayal of Catholics, specifically nuns.”
Apparently, showing one nun in a bikini and giving another the name “Sister Mary-Mengele” could potentially cause a mad wave of Catholic hate crimes across the nation.

Along with reminding America what slapstick humor was like 75 years ago, this movie also is a reminder that America has lost any kind of decent sense of humor.

Thank goodness we at least still have bluntcard.com and the first seven seasons of Two and a Half Men to offend the masses.

When new photos of Charles Manson were released to the press last week, they quickly became one of the most popular items being searched online.
New mugshots of the 77-year-old prisoner were taken recently, just before his parole hearing scheduled for next week (his 12th), and requested by CNN for release.

My question is WHY are his new photos so popular? The last pics of him were

Lines waiting for a seat at the infamous Manson Family trials often snaked around the courthouse and even out the doors daily.

taken just three years ago. There have been no real updates on the case, no recent developments to warrant a top news story. The clamor for the new pics is simply another example of the public’s morbid fascination with the man who has transcended to the level of “epitome of evil.”

During the summer of 1969, members of Manson’s hippie commune, calling themselves “The Family,” committed a series of murders in the Los Angeles area, including the killing of Hollywood actress Sharon Tate and her unborn child. The high profile victims, the bizarre lifestyle and philosophy of the cult and its leader, and the public’s obsession with finding a rational motive for the murders set alight a fire of controversy and publicity that has yet to be extinguished.

Over the course of the last 40-plus years, Manson has become an iconic cult figure, forever fixed and indelible in the consciousness of the American psyche. Long after memories of Jim Jones, John Wayne Gacy, and the BTK killer fade, you will be hard pressed to find anyone over the age of 10 or 12 who does not know the name Charles Manson. Thanks to a tremendous amount of publicity during and after the trials of his cult, Manson quickly transcended beyond just another cult leader or murderer, and just the utterance of his name sent chills across not only California, but the country and, in fact, the world.

One of his former followers, Catherine Share, accurately described the media’s portrayal of Manson as “everyone’s bogeyman; a devil of the worst kind.” For decades, that analysis has been frighteningly accurate, as the myth quickly outgrew the man…and Manson, a charismatic con man, has eaten up the attention and mythos.

The media is not the only guilty culprit in keeping Manson a hot topic and giving him more attention than he deserves. Former Family prosecutor Steven Kay and current Los Angeles County Deputy Dist. Attorney Patrick Sequeira have played upon irrational fears during every parole hearing held for any of the former members, distorting facts of the case and portraying the Family as a still-united group who would immediately go on a killing spree should any of those still in prison ever be released.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Should Manson remain behind bars? Definitely. Considering the carnage, destruction of life and the loss of innocence of an entire nation that he instigated, he should never again see freedom. But the man is never going to be paroled…is it really necessary for him to continue to be a top news story every few months?

53-year-old Madonna and 62-year-old Lionel Richie continue to show the “young kids” that the vets still have it going on.

Four years after (the really pretty bad) urban-flavored Hard Candy, Madonna is back with her new release, MDNA.
People have been trying to classify MDNA by comparing it to previous Madonna albums, but it is, in fact, a mishmash of her entire career. The electronic beeps and banjo of Love Spent, a not-too-subtle jab at ex-husband Guy Richie‘s divorce settlement, harkens back to the sparseness of 2003′s acoustic American Life, while Girl Gone Wild and I’m Addicted sound like the modern disco of Confessions on a Dance Floor. Producer William Orbit’s influence is apparent on the Ray of Light-like ballad Falling Free, and Masterpiece is Madonna-Evita, circa 1996.
One thing that stands out on this release is its coldness. Even when letting her newly-divorced heart bleed on disc, Madonna sounds detached and unattainable, a trait that seems to grow, for better or worse, with each new release. Only the retro-Madonna, early-80s sounding Turn Up The Radio shows any warmth.
Track to check out: The angry, throbbing ode to Quentin Tarantino, Gang Bang.

As opposed to the Queen of Pop, Lionel Richie‘s only real widespread exposure to speak of for the last decade or two has been the reality fame of his daughter, Nicole. In an attempt to remain relevant in a musical landscape that has left him behind, Richie has released Tuskegee, a duet reworking of his past career that works much better than it should.
With country music superstars such as Shania Twain, Tim McGraw, and Jason Aldean assisting on classics like Hello, Endless Love, and Dancing on the Ceiling, a Southern twang is applied to even the poppiest of hits from the former Commodores frontman.
Track to check out: A personal favorite, Stuck on You, which is given an impressive treatment alongside Darius Rucker.

I stumbled across this post on Facebook and I wanted to share it.

One of the things I love about Margaret Cho is the way she can describe different events in her childhood and make you feel as if you were right there. Since we are roughly the same age, in many ways her experiences were my experiences. When she talks about songs on the radio, cartoons, or television shows, chances are they are the same ones I watched and listened to, so there is an instant connection there.

She posted this blog on Facebook this morning, so I thought I would pass it along. I had TOTALLY forgotten about the little weird cornbread puff thing in the t.v. dinners that tasted more like a dessert…I loved those! (Even though they probably consisted of some strange nuclear waste and mineral-based preservatives…but after all, that is what we were raised on.)

And yes, t.v. dinners that are nuked in the microwave are not nearly as good as the classics from the 1970s and 1980s, when they weren’t even MADE to be cooked in a microwave. And checking the calorie count and the total carbohydrates just takes all of the fun out of “pretend” food.

http://www.margaretcho.com/content/2012/03/20/tv-dinner/

(These, of course, were best when eaten while watching the drunk celebrities on Match Game ’76.)

Two recent news stories have me thinking about news outlets and their role in responsible journalism.

The first occurred last week, when reports began to emerge that actress Tatum O’Neal, a self-admitted addict in recovery, had relapsed on cocaine and was in rehab. Not only did tabloid fodder such as ET and TMZ jump on the story, but “legitimate” news sites did, as well.

In truth, O’Neal, who says she has been sober for a couple of years, had extensive back surgery and voluntarily entered a program where the pain medication she is prescribed is closely monitored so that there is no chance of the medication causing a relapse into drug abuse.

So, what appears to be an intelligent attempt to make a healthy life decision turned into eye-catching headlines such as “Tatum back in rehab for cocaine” and “Latest drug hiccup for O’Neal family.”

The second story was on a local news station here in St. Louis this morning. I was in the kitchen when I heard, “Up next, you won’t believe what happened on an area school bus, and it is ALL captured on video, exclusively on (our news station)!”

Of course, that got my attention and I made a point to watch. After a dramatic buildup, the “explosive” video amounted to nothing more than two middle school-aged boys getting physical with each other. It was not a fight, as the boys and their peers were laughing throughout the video, but instead involved some obnoxious pushing, rassling, and name calling. Were the kids being inappropriate? Yes. Disruptive? Yes. Newsworthy? No.

I, like probably every other person in America who has attended school and ridden a bus, have seen, and maybe even participated in, that kind of “kids will be kids” behavior. There was no evidence of bullying, abuse, or mob mentality violence.

The reporter said the mother of the child who took the video had contacted the school and the bus company. After reviewing the tape, the bus company issued a statement saying it looked to be nothing more than “horseplay.”

At this point, the objective news anchor gives the camera a long, incredulous look.

From appearances at this point, both incidents seem to reflect poor examples of responsible journalism, choosing to jump on the sensationalist bandwagon rather than getting the full story. I have to wonder how seeing tabloid-style headlines made O’Neal, still in the early stages of recovery, feel. What kind of attention are the two students on the school bus getting this morning, knowing that thousands of people in the area saw the “incident” on their television screens?

I think I will choose to make these examples serve as a gentle reminder to me of my job description when covering news.

My job is not to “create” a story to increase readership or ratings.

Just days after photos of a gaunt, emaciated Macaulay Culkin hit the web, sparking widespread speculation of illness or drug use, Whitney Houston‘s lifeless body was found in a Hollywood hotel bathtub.

I see both incidents as a chance to look a little closer at how we see celebrities in trouble.

Culkin, child star of the Home Alone series and later a face of more subversive films such as Saved and Party Monster, was photographed last week on the streets of New York. Online surfers described his appearance as “looking homeless,” “on death’s door,” and “the appearance of someone in the throes of crystal meth addiction.”

People also began flooding websites like ET and OMG with concern over his well being and comments demanding the people in Culkin’s life intervene and help someone “so obviously in trouble.”

Culkin’s publicist released a statement saying the actor was “in perfect health.”

Two days later, troubled singer Whitney Houston‘s lifeless body was found at the Beverly Hilton hotel in California following a night of partying in Hollywood. Houston’s reps as well as the police are stressing that it could be weeks before a definite cause of death can be determined.

As news of her death spread across the world, websites were besieged with comments, asking why her “people” did not stop her from descending back into drug use, despite the fact that has yet to be proven.

People have fond memories of both Houston and Culkin, and I get that. So many filmgoers from my generation equate the Home Alone movies with their childhood, and Houston’s incredible singing touched the emotions of countless fans. But I do not get the need to point the finger at others for their actions. The way I see it, we are all adults, and we all have the freedom to make choices throughout the day. Sometimes we make good choices, and sometimes we make bad ones. All of us.

These are celebrities, but they are still human beings. No one put a gun to Houston’s head and forced her to use drugs. She made choices every day that affected her life, not to mention the lives of her daughter and family. IF her death winds up to be attributed to drug use, then I think continuing to portray her as a helpless kid who fell victim to the “bad people” surrounding her is a bit naive. It is also presumptuous, as none of us were there for her day-to-day activities.

Do I think the people in Houston’s and Culkin’s lives have a responsibility to voice concern over issues? Absolutely, just as I feel it is my duty as a friend to ask someone in my life to get help if they need it. But I also do not blame my personal choices on others.

Just because someone is a celebrity, I don’t feel the rules should change.

The last few minutes of the Super Bowl were among some of the most exciting in the history of the event.

But when I got up this morning, the news stations only briefly covered Brady, Manning, and those oh-so-crucial 57 seconds. They only touched on the commercials (which were underwhelming this year, anyway). What they DID spend time talking about was the fact that British rapper M.I.A., Madonna‘s guest during the halftime show, seemed to sing “I don’t give a s@*t and flipped off the camera during the performance.

(I say “seemed to” because the powers that be continue to argue this morning over whether she actually said the expletive). Take a look for yourself here and be the judge.

Madonna‘s highly-praised performance, also guest-starring Nicki Minaj, LMFAO, and Cee Lo Green, played out like an abbreviated “greatest hits,” with the singer spotlighting past hits Vogue, Music, Open Your Heart, Express Yourself, and her new single, Give Me All Your Luvin, before closing with a dramatic Like a Prayer.

And then there was the finger.

In the long run, I have a feeling the world will continue to function and spin on its axis, with or without M.I.A.‘s finger. Personally, I think it was a crass and classless decision on her part, considering the Super Bowl is an event watched by millions as a family, including small children. I also have to say, however, I have a feeling we would be hard pressed to find any child over the age of two who did not know what that gesture means, and I highly doubt that seeing M.I.A. flip off the world will cause many of those children to degenerate into a life of crime and debauchery.

If Madonna did NOT know about the finger ahead of time, then something tells me there were some words (loud words) exchanged backstage immediately after the performance. If, on the other hand, this was a calculated and preplanned stunt, then how genius was it to ensure that everyone would be talking about your performance the next morning without having to jeopardize your own “refined” reinvention?

In my opinion, Madonna can hardly get too bent out of shape (unlike some of her moves during the halftime show) if her guests court controversy. While the Material Girl herself has (more or less) matured from a trash-talking sexual provocateur into a mother, movie director, and author of children’s books, she also has relied heavily on guest rappers in recent years to provide a more urban flavor to her music. When you invite Kanye West, Timbaland, Pharrell, and M.I.A. into your image-conscious world, you have to kind of expect a certain type of behavior.

Or is that the whole idea?

My previous blog was dedicated to the commercial success and critical failure of the newly released The Devil Inside and its place among films dedicated to the subject of demonic possession.

"The Devil Inside"...a winner at the box office last weekend but already hailed as one of the worst movies EVER made.

Now I want to talk a little about the other genre this apparently EPICALLY bad film falls into-the “found footage horror mockumentary.”

While there have been other (and better) pioneers in the genre (1980′s Cannibal Holocaust, 1998′s The Last Broadcast), it was 1999′s The Blair Witch Project that blew the trend wide open, bringing about the inevitable exploitation and saturation by the dreaded film industry. Suddenly, making films using hand-held cameras on a budget of about $50 and marketing it as “true events” was a method adopted by every hack and brainless Hollywood goon (and Hollywood goon wannabe) who aimed to cash in on a trend.

Not that they are all bad. It is unfortunate that The Blair Witch Project has fallen victim to overexposure and characterization (and unfortunate that they felt the need to make one of the worst sequels of all time with Blair Witch 2…. didn’t anyone make them watch Exorcist 2 first?).

If you can, imagine a time when 75 percent of television shows were not “reality television.” Shaky camera shots and inconsistent audio were limited to clips of home videos placed within the context of big budget productions. There is no Survivor, no Jersey Shore, no American Idol.

Now go to the movies to see The Blair Witch Project and be subjected to a viewing experience unlike anything you’ve ever seen. In fact, opening night, I went with a group of friends. We had previously watched a “documentary” about the case-including interviews with police officials and family members of the missing party-and we did not know the case was not authentic until the end of the movie. Say what you will about the parody it has now become, but all three actors displayed authentic unease, disorientation, and FEAR throughout the film. As you watched these young people deteriorate from fun and joviality into the edge of madness, you could not help but think, “That is just how I would react.”

This is just about the ONLY screen shot for "Cannibal Holocaust" that I can use for this public blog!

But my favorite film in the genre is definitely Cannibal Holocaust. While I do NOT condone the harming of animals for any film (in fact, that scene is unwatchable for me), the realism and terror are UNSURPASSED in any other film in cinematic history (the filmmaker in fact was arrested and charged with murder, as officials believed the actors in the film actually perished during filming!). It is a very difficult film to watch, but very satisfying for the discerning critic.

2001′s In The Bedroom, starring the incredible Sissy Spacek as the mother of a murdered child, also is a seat-squirmer but unparalleled in its realism and emotion.

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the onslaught that followed. Paranormal Activity. Cloverfield. Paranormal Activity 2. The Last Exorcism. Paranormal Activity 3…(PLEASE stop making sequels!!).

My advice for anyone who thinks they have the ability to make a good, scary, “reality” flick—unless you are someone with creativity and talent, PLEASE just leave the “newly discovered” raw footage of exorcisms and murders hidden…for everyone’s sake.

I am going to do something I have never done before – review a movie I have not seen.

Apparently, The Devil Inside, Paramount Pictures’ new release about a woman investigating the possible possession of her mother, had a pea soup shooting weekend, with ticket sales totaling $34.5 million…taking the #1 box office spot.

The Devil Inside....even the movie poster is lame.

There is only one problem. I can’t find a single person who didn’t hate it.

After learning that critics were not allowed to screen the movie before it was released (a sure sign that the production company knows it reeks), reading the reviews, and hearing from friends and acquaintances who did go to see it, I decided I did NOT want to waste ten bucks just to walk out of the theater saying, “Wow, everyone was right…that DID suck.”

But it seems even blocking the critic reviews beforehand did nothing to slow this disaster, which tells me something. People are still hungry for a good flick about demon possession. The problem is, they rarely find one.

Since The Exorcist caught viewers off guard in 1973, every production company and studio has tried desperately to recreate and cash in on the phenomenon. Yes, there have been some really good movies about possession. The Exorcism of Emily Rose. Exorcist III. Demons. The Shining.

But the list of awful movies that should never have been made is much longer. Exorcist II. Exorcist: The Beginning. Dominion. Possession. The Last Exorcism. Fallen. Night of the Demons. The list goes on.

The Exorcism of Emily Rose. Smart. Subtle. Thought-provoking...and scary.

But it seems this newest entry, The Devil Inside, is a loser even among losers. People who have seen it have NOTHING good to say about it, criticizing the plot, the acting, the story holes, and especially the ending (or lack thereof). Talk is already circulating that it will be voted the worst movie of 2012 (and it is only Jan. 9, for Pete’s sake!), and it currently holds a 7 % approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes….7 %!! That is even lower than the current approval rating for Congress!!

For someone to truly hit a home run with a movie about possession, there needs to be some talent behind the project (are you listening, makers of American Horror Story? I bet you could do a great possession storyline for season two!), and keep the studios (who only worry about opening weekend numbers and catering to 12-year-old filmgoers) out of the creative process.

Look for my next blog in the next day or two, exploring the trend of  “found footage” movies, of which The Devil Inside is just the latest…

Anthony(‘s) Weiner. Jesse James’ 19 women. Ashton wants Moore than just Demi.

What was your favorite scandal of 2011? Here are the biggest and the best.

Ah-Nold’s Uh Oh

I still cannot determine what is more mystifying – the fact that a live-in maid can have a kid by Arnold Schwarzenegger without Maria Shriver knowing, or the fact that someone can be married to Maria Shriver and yet have an affair with…ummm…someone as…aesthetically challenged as Patty Baena.

Ah-Nold's hot babymomma.

The Lohans

This family requires a timeline (and a Silkwood scrubdown after physical contact of any kind with any of them). February Lindsay is charged with the theft of a necklace from a jewelry store the month before. March Lindsay fails a mandated alcohol test. June The fifth season of Celebrity Rehab with Dr. Drew airs, with Michael as one of the addicts receiving treatment. October Lindsay’s probation is revoked and she is sent back to jail. Meanwhile, Michael is arrested for smacking around his on again/off again girlfriend. Two days later, he is arrested again (after jumping from a window to elude police) for contacting the alleged victim. December Lindsay appears nude in the Jan./Feb. 2012 issue of Playboy.
And of course, all throughout the year, Dina desperately continues to haunt the “cool kids” hangouts, dressing like a 16-year-old shiny girl and performing her best lobotomy patient imitation.

Sheen: The Dean of Crazy

Only one meltdown of 2011 can boast it actually created buzzwords that will live in the American language for years to come. Charlie Sheen’s cocaine- and manic state-fueled rants gave us such gems as “tiger’s blood,” “bitchin’ rock star from Mars,” and the enduring “winning,” which captures an entire dictionary of dysfunction in just one word.
Sheen’s breakdown, which lasted months in the tabloid headlines as well as on the talk show circuit, will no doubt continue to be debated for its authenticity and impact on the public’s consciousness of drug addiction and mental illness.

But what was the most explosive, dramatic, culture-altering event of 2011? What continues to receive the lion’s share of hits on YouTube? What do people still discuss on a daily basis? What 2011 controversy will become its own college course in the future, to be discussed, dissected and delved into for generations?

Why, it’s Rebecca Black’s video for “Friday,” of course.

Here is a link to the classic pop ditty that started it all.

Come on…I know you want to click it. How long has it been since you have seen “Friday“? One week? Two? You finger is just itching to click the link, isn’t it? Go on…no one is watching. Click the button, turn up your speakers, and dance around your office like it’s…well…Friday. After all, tomorrow is Saturday, and Sunday comes afterwards.

“Gotta have my bowl. Gotta have cereal.”

Poetry. Sheeeeer…poetry.