Is Don Draper a Coward?

WARNING: SPOILER ALERT! 

“You know that guy who can pick up any girl, I’m him, on crack.”  

This charming quote comes from Thank You for Smoking’s Nick Naylor, which he uses to describe his borderline arrogant, yet very attractive personality; however, I believe that there is a certain other endearing fictional character whose suave, persuasive power, and dash can be even greater summed up by this line: Mad Men’s chief character, Don Draper.  

Don Draper is a stylish, highly complex alpha male that works as an ad man on Madison Avenue, in 1960s Manhattan.  He’s no ordinary “Mad Man,” however.  He is the head of creative at the Sterling-Cooper agency.  The show, Mad Men, is an incredibly excellent program, and I highly recommend it.  Its portrayal of the 60s office is wonderful, drenched with booze soaked offices, hard liquor business lunches and dinners, men and women lighting up all over the workplace and home, and just a general boys-will-be-boys mantra.  Its characters are complex and deep, and their struggles not only reveal something philosophical and emotional about the 60s, but about America in general.  If you have not had the pleasure of viewing this show (and plan on doing so), I implore you to stop reading this.  As the warning above alerts, I will divulge details of the plot and characters within the show in my attempt to answer a certain question about Mr. Draper that I’m sure has been debated about amongst the show’s audience: Is Donald Draper a coward?

As much as I’d love to rattle off an ode to Don, something I may just do, praising the way he handles his business and his other various conquests (women, booze, etc.) I want to deal with this certain issue within his character, because despite his charm and skill, this issue of cowardice is something that cuts deeper into his true identity.  I will be examining his character but only within the parameters of whether or not he is a coward.  This is not going to be a post dedicated to extrapolating whether or not Don Draper is truly a good person, if he is as full of shit as people like to imagine advertisers as being, or even what makes him tick.  The one, true purpose of this post is to reach a more solid understanding of his seemingly cowardly acts and to decide if he is indeed a coward.  

To have a concrete reference point in this undertaking, I have turned to Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary for a definition of the word “coward.”  They define a coward as, “One who shows disgraceful fear or timidity.”  I think this is a fair enough definition, and the place to start my inquiry.  There are several instances in the show, as well as underlining elements to Draper’s character that display what could be contrived as cowardice.  I will highlight these examples, as well as examples of Don’s behavior that are equally as powerful but show bravery and strength.  After this juxtaposition, I will try and arrive at my own conclusion, but of course, everyone has their own opinion.  

Perhaps the most profound example of Don’s potential cowardice was his desertion from the Korean War, switching his identity from his birth name of Dick Wittman with that of his deceased commanding officer, Donald Draper.  There are a couple of reasons as to why he did this, to escape the Korean War or to escape the poverty and depressing life that he had lived up to that point.  He was a bastard son, his mother being a whore died in childbirth.  His father, whom he lived with for the first years of his life, died when  he was very young; his father’s wife then raised him along with her new husband in a depression ridden land.  The other reason is that he was trying to escape the dangers of war in Korea, with his commanding officer being killed right before his eyes.  I believe that it is more the former because all of the flashbacks that we see from his childhood show a very gloomy, empty existence.  

Another of his cowardly acts was his attempt to try and run away from his problems.  First it was with Rachel Menken, one of his several affairs throughout the show, after another employee, Peter Campbell, who has a peculiar almost jealous fondness for Draper, finds out the truth about Don’s past.  He’s trying to flee from his problems, a classic example of cowardly behavior.  For this, I have no defense because that truly is an example of bowing into fear and timidity.  This motif of trying to run away from problems also manifests itself when Don travels to California with Pete to try and get in on the aerospace boom.  He takes off with a woman he meets and leaves Pete and everyone else completely clueless as to his whereabouts.  This running away is cowardly, true, but perhaps it is more selfish than cowardly.  However, there is a great deal of selfishness within cowardice.  

The most searing form of his cowardice was how he dealt with his half-brother Adam, when Adam, long convinced that he saw Don in the train all those years ago when they dropped off the real Don Draper’s body to Dick Wittman’s surviving family, discovers him in New York.  Adam is thrilled and feels complete at finding his long-lost brother, whom he viewed as a hero and loved unconditionally.  Don, however, is terrified and cold, wanting nothing to do with his brother.  He offers him money, but rebukes his attempts to become a part of Don’s life again.  His fear has crippled him, and a distraught Adam hangs himself in his hotel room, a victim of Don Draper’s fear. 

Don does have many redeeming brave qualities.  The way that he handles his business, his confidence and strength in pitching his advertising ideas has lead him to where he is in the show, and he continues to make bold presentations.  Even the way in which he gains employment at Sterling-Cooper, as brought to life through Roger Sterling’s flashback, shows an eager, unapologetic, and unafraid young man trying to make his way up.  He also shows a great courage in his constant aid of the real Don Draper’s widow, who discovered his lies when he was younger.  He sends her money and visits her, letting her call him Dick, a name filled with so many painful memories.  

To put it simply, Don Draper is a wonderfully crafted and complex character.  The creators and writers of Mad Men have created a seminal character, a television role so human.  He makes mistakes and does brilliant things, loves his children, cheats on his wife, etc.  I can’t let myself keep going on because I wanted to limit my scope to his fear, to his potential cowardice.  So after this contemplation, I ask myself and you all who have trudged through my rambling prose: Is Don Draper a coward?  I must say that I do not think he is a coward.  The character flaws within Mr. Draper, or Wittman, or whatever, are not due to cowardice.  I believe that his personality defects must be labeled something else, perhaps selfishness, but that is a matter for another day.  I think I would like to revisit that, but the answer to that question may seem a deal more obvious because his actions do speak louder than his words.  

BUY MAD MEN SEASON 1 (Blu-Ray) [3 DISCS] (Google Affiliate Ad)

Man Attempting To Be Bigfoot Becomes Roadkill

Do any of those guys in Ghillie suits look like Bigfoot to you? Well, apparently these camouflage outfits looked just odd enough for one man to attempt to create a Bigfoot hoax in it. That man is, well, was Randy Lee Tenley. Tenley was walking around the Montana woods in this suit on Sunday night and then decided to take things a bit further.

You know how, in those Bigfoot shows, the people talk about the creature walking across the highway in the night? Since it's night, they don't get that good of a look at the thing, but they can tell it's no ape and it's no man. Well, that's exactly what Tenley was hoping to achieve when he walked out onto Highway 93, only to get a drastically different outcome.

First, he was hit by a 15 year old (imagine being 15 and having nearly no experience driving when some weirdo in camouflage runs out onto the road), and then was thrown into the road where a 17 year old proceeded to run him over. "He probably would not have been very easy to see at all," said state trooper Jim Schneider.

Tenley's intentions were later confirmed by one of his companions, though, curiously, the Montana people are pretty intelligent. The local Highway Patrol claims to have received no calls about any strange sightings. I suppose time will tell whether any really happened - because we'll probably see someone interviewed about this on some show at some point. At some point, they may have even come onto our radio show.

All this Bigfoot stuff helps justify my ever growing disbelief at the subject. This site has received more than one false scoop about the release of crucial Bigfoot information, and this is not something I intend to fall for again, no matter what Bigfoot Organization you belong to. All that being said, I think this story is damn funny.

All you kids reading, don't try to be Bigfoot. Or, if you must pretend to be Bigfoot, look both ways.

Science Proves Women's Periods Don't Actually Attract Most Bears

Brick Tamland has been debunked by the National Park Service in the very well researched (and hilariously titled) study Bears and Menstruating Women. It turns out that the average menstruating woman does not need to fear bear attacks. This whole business started in 1967 when two women (allegedly on their periods) were attacked by Grizzly Bears in separate incidents. Thus a rumor was  born that science would not test until the 21st century.

The study placed human menstrual blood in front of a variety of bears and tested their reactions. Grizzly Bears and Black Bears were generally uninterested in the tampons offering blood from a variety of stages of menstruation. The Grizzly Bear data is slightly more iffy, but they found no reason to think there is any correlation between the attacks and the periods. So, if you're camping in the usual sense of the word and you're on your period, you really aren't in any more danger than anyone who might not be on their period (or a man).

The Van Buren Bears

Of course, there was one interesting correlation that does appear to exist. . . It turns out Polar Bears were offered seal blood, regular human blood, and human menstrual blood and they reacted most strongly to the menstrual blood. The Polar Bears were significantly more attracted to the menstrual blood than the other offers, even ignoring the regular human blood and unused tampons. So, maybe there is some reason to fear if you're going to be around Polar Bears. I guess Brick won that point, though I think we can all agree that's not what he was yelling about.

The study concluded that humans with food are (generally) the biggest risk, not women on their periods. This was what attracted the average bears the most. If you run into a bear, the National Parks Service offers five nuggets of wisdom:

You can reduce the risks by: 1) hiking in groups of 3 or more people, 2) staying alert, 3) making noise in areas of poor visibility, 4) carrying bear spray, and 5) not running during encounters with bears.

And, though they supply ample evidence that you need not fear bears while menstruating, there are some precautions women ought to take anyway:

1. Use pre-moistened, unscented cleaning towelettes.

2. Use internal tampons instead of external pads.

3. Do not bury tampons or pads (pack it in - pack it out). A bear may smell buried tampons or pads and dig them up. By providing bears a small food "reward", this action may attract bears to other menstruating women.

4. Place all used tampons, pads, and towelettes in double zip-loc baggies and store them unavailable to bears, just as you would store food. This means hung at least 10 feet above the ground and 4 feet from the tree trunk.

5. Tampons can be burned in a campfire, but remember that it takes a very hot fire and considerable time to completely burn them. Any charred remains must be removed from the fire pit and stored with your other garbage. Also, burning of any garbage is odorous and may attract bears to your campsite.

6. Many feminine products are heavily scented. Use only unscented or lightly scented items. Cosmetics, perfumes, and deodorants are unnecessary and may act as an attractant to bears.

Did that quell your fears?
 

Why Do So Many Horror Movies Pretend To Be Based on a True Story?

The Possession, a film produced by horror master Sam Raimi and claiming to have basis in fact, comes out this Friday. It touts an interesting premise, and an actually unnerving trailer. There are, for some strange reason, a myriad of exorcism or possession type films that come out every single year. It's difficult to think of any that were actually good, save for maybe the original The Exorcist. That was a little bit different, however, as no one had ever seen anything like it before. Now, we get it all the time. Of course, the concept of demonic possession is a wonderfully creepy idea and the fact that it could be real does a number on a lot of people. The problem is, even though nearly all of these films pretend to be based on a true story, they never get you to actually believe in what you're watching.

There's the trailer for The Possession, and it works. Well, I'd say. It both creeped me out when I saw it on the big screen and made me curious to see the whole story. That's an accomplishment of its own for a PG-13 horror film these days. But there was one thing about the trailer that didn't sit well with me. There was something that clearly wasn't supposed to be there: the phrase "Based on a True Story." As interesting as the film looks, I really doubted any of that happened. So, I decided to look it up for myself.

The source material is a book by Jason Haxton titled Dibbuk Box, chronicling his personal struggle with the strange box. I haven't read the book, but from excerpts that are available online, the story sounds spooky, but not anything like what you saw in the above trailer. It follows the strange happenings of a man who purchased a strange wine cabinet at an estate sale. He was warned that it was a dibbuk box, but he didn't know what that meant and bought it anyway. Here's some of the strange tale:

"At the time when I bought the cabinet, I owned a small furniture refinishing business. I took the cabinet to my store and put it in my basement workshop where I intended to refinish it and give it as a gift to my mother. I didn't think anything more about it. I opened my shop for the day and went to run some errands leaving the young woman who did sales for me in charge. 

"After about a half-hour, I got a call on my cell phone. The call was from my salesperson. She was absolutely hysterical and screaming that someone was in my workshop breaking glass and swearing. Furthermore, the intruder had locked the iron security gates and the emergency exit and she couldn't get out. As I told her to call the police, my cell phone battery went dead.

"I hit speeds of 100 mph to get back to the shop. When I arrived, I found the gates locked. I went inside and found my employee on the floor in a corner of my office sobbing hysterically. I ran to the basement and went downstairs.  At the bottom of the stairs, I was hit by an overpowering unmistakable odor of cat urine (there had never been any animals kept or found in my shop). The lights didn't work. As I investigated, I found that the reason the lights didn't work also explained the sounds of glass breaking. All of the light bulbs in the basement were broken. All nine incandescent bulbs had been broken in their sockets, and 10 four-foot fluorescent tubes were lying shattered on the floor. I did not find an intruder, however. I should also add that there was only one entrance to the basement. It would have been impossible for anyone to leave without meeting me head-on.

 "I went back up to speak with my salesperson, but she had left. She never returned to work (after having been with me for two years). She refuses to discuss the incident to this day. I never thought of relating the events of that day to anything having to do with the cabinet.

"Then, things got worse."

There are more passages describing recurring nightmares and various other strange events including shadows traveling around the man's house. It's all quite unnerving if it's real, which is exactly what it is supposed to accomplish. If I were to read the allegedly true account of this man in his book, I'd no doubt be scared or laugh it off. One or the other. The movie, however? There's no similarities at all. So, why even bother saying it's based on a true story?

I ask you, the audience, are you ever more frightened of an insane horror movie because it claims to have some basis in fact? The most famous example of this is, of course, The Exorcist. It's an unnerving film for a lot of reasons, and people were positively terrified that any amount of it could be real. The story of that film, based on a novel, follows a young girl who begins to act strange as she has been allegedly possessed by the devil. Subsequently, an agnostic mother calls upon two priests to come try to cure her daughter. Things get seriously insane over the course of the film, however, and it's hard to believe it was real.

So let's look at the "true story" that inspired The Exorcist. First off, it was a boy in real life, not a girl. A lot of the novel was inspired by the diary of a Reverend involved in the exorcism. The accounts say things began when a picture of Jesus began to shake in the house where the boy lived, then strange scratching noises continued to perplex the family, as well as sounds of squeaking shoes at night. Vaguely around this time, the boy's Aunt Tillie had introduced him to a Ouija Board, and soon after she died. During the exorcism, there was some evidence to suggest her death was connected. The boy's bed began to shake and things in the room would move on their own.

The family called upon two Lutheran ministers to come see the boy. Psychologists and parapsychologists were continually running tests on the boy but could find nothing wrong with him. Scratches and bruises began to appear on the boy, and the scratches even manifested in the form of letters, spelling words. He was moved to a hospital where a priest was brought in to bless the boy. During this, the boy kicked, yelled at, and even cut the priest with a loose spring from his bed. The priest went on to have a nervous breakdown.

Eventually, a legitimate exorcism happened, during which the boy became so violent that they had to hold him down. He spoke in different languages and vomited on the priests. After many exorcisms, he claimed that the demon inside him had been expunged by Michael the Archangel and slowly things returned to normal.

If you ask me, the true story here is much scarier than the movie. There are quite a number of other films where I think the reality is much scarier than what ended up on the screen. Another famous example is Psycho, a film that terrified audiences like no other. In truth, it's a wonderfully crafted film that keeps you on your toes throughout its entire runtime. What was the real story?

Ironically, the real story behind Psycho is more along the lines of The Silence of the Lambs, a horror film that didn't claim to be based on a true story. It was similar to the film, a man was killing people in his hotel, as well as digging up corpses that reminded him of his dead mother. He would skin the bodies and make lamp shades as well as a woman-suit out of them, so he could be a woman himself. He ended up in a mental institution for life. Honestly, I like Psycho just fine as it is, and this was very much what Jame Gumb of The Silence of the Lambs was doing.

This brings us back to my original point, however. With the way horror movies love to throw around the phrase "Based on a True Story," I feel like The Silence of the Lambs has just as much of a right to say this as The Exorcist. Both originally come from stories that share some basic similarities in real life, but are heavily adapted for the big screen. This has been used for films like The Serpent and the Rainbow, The Hills Have Eyes, The Mothman Prophecies, and An American Haunting to name a few, but did it really scare audiences any more than if they'd just focused on telling a compelling scary story?

I believe scary fiction can be even more frightening than true stories for a simple reason - there are no rules. Anything could happen. When I see something like The Rite and things get too ridiculous to be true, I stop being scared because I know it's based on a true story and we've deviated quite a lot. When I read a Stephen King novel, I have no idea where things will go, and that's part of the fun. He has full license to make things as crazy and unpredictable as he likes and it works a lot better.

On the other end of the spectrum, the true accounts of these horror stories is often much creepier. It wouldn't surprise me one bit if the Dibbuk Box book turns out to be a much scarier experience than seeing The Possession. Truth can be stranger than fiction, but I like there to be a legitimate distinction. I'll be very surprised the one day an exorcism movie comes out that's actually related to any form of reality, however.

Pleasantly surprised, that is.

Your Yearly Honest Horoscope

I assure you, we used all this scientific mumbo jumbo to configure each one of these.

Virgo (8/23-9/22): You enjoy being the sidekick or indispensable assistant. This year, knock it off. 

Libra (9/23-10/22): You're indecisive, avoid confrontations, and carry grudges. This year, get in a fight.

Scorpio (10/23-11/21): You're passionate, intense, and probably muscular. This year, find a worthy adversary. 

Sagittarius (11/22-12/21): You're unemployed and probably an alcoholic. This year, knock it off and get a job. 

Capricorn (12/22-1/19): You're a condescending know-it-all and probably really annoying. This year, knock it off. 

Aquarius (1/20-2/19): You're boring. This year, knock it off. 

Pisces (2/19-3/20): You tend to be a victim, fearful, overtrusting, and sad. This year, knock it off and grow some balls. 

Aries (3/21-4/19): You're courageous, have an athletic body, and everyone hates you for it. This year, knock it off. 

Taurus (4/20-5/20):  You're stubborn, uncompromising, and possessive. You also seem like a fat ass. This year, knock it off. 

Gemini (5/21-6/20): You have scattered energy in too many places at once, are nervous, and have a short attention span. This year, get treated for ADD. 

Cancer (6/21-7/22): You're manipulative, you cling to the past, you're insecure, and you're a pack-rat. . .but you probably have prominent breasts. This year, knock it off (unless you're a woman, then the last part is okay). 

Leo (7/22-8/22):  You're an asshole; you're constantly arrogant, stubborn, inflexible, and lazy. This year, knock it off. 


As foretold by Arena Govier and Tom Knoblauch

Rumors Suggest Johnny Depp Could Get $90 Million for Pirates 5

It's no secret that the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise has been on the decline since, oh, Curse of the Black Pearl, but that doesn't stop Disney from continuing to crank them out. I'll be honest, I enjoyed myself quite enough with parts 2 and 3 to support this decision initially, but On Stranger Tides was an embarrassingly awful waste of two hours. I mean, seriously, movies that bad just make me angry. That dreadful vaccuum of time you'll never get back did, however, make a billion dollars at the global box office which, on a budget of $250 million, means they made a nice profit.

The first film started with a large, risky $140 million. Back in 2003, that was a big budget for a new kind of film. I won't call it original exactly since it does take its basic inspiration from the beloved ride, but it was back when studios actually let creative people do creative things and gave them money to do so. Oh, how I miss that. But I digress. The film was a massive hit and director Gore Verbinski was given $300 million to make two sequels back to back. Well, Gore may be a great filmmaker, but he's not always the best about staying on budget and ended up spending $215 million on part 2, and (tied for the most expensive film of all time) $300 million on part 3.

After the not-so-successful hey, let's film (TWO MOVIES) without a finished script approach of the sequels, Gore Verbinski decided to leave the series and Rob Marshall directed the fourth film with a $250 million dollar budget. $40 million of that went right into Johnny Depp's pocket. Where the rest of that went, I couldn't tell you. That movie looks like shit. I've seen stuff shot on I-Phones that looks more professional than the quality of that mess. At least they were consistent, though, with the let's make everything as shitty as possible approach. If that was their goal, that was a very successful film.

If you see a $300 million budget for part 5, don't be too surprised. If these (very unsubstantiated) rumors are correct, Depp is en route to make a whopping $90 million off of it. How that makes any financial sense is anyone's guess. Can Disney really intend to give him more than half of the budget of the first film in the series? I mean, really, let's take a look at that, shall we?

Based on the way studio-theater splits work, a $90 million film needs to make no less than $180 million at the box office to basically break even, and that's not even taking marketing into consideration. In reality, films for the most part aren't profitable until they make 2.5 times their budget back. So, when we're talking about paying one actor $90 million for one film, that means his presence in the film alone needs to be worth basically $200 million. Even if you do have a massively successful franchise, what the hell kind of fiscal sense does that make? You tell me.

Of course, we have no reliable source reporting such a crazy figure is actually in talks. Perhaps Depp's publicist is trying to get talks for a big raise going. You know, because Johnny Depp, a man worth more than $300 million, really needs more money. Last we heard, the first script for Pirates 5 has been scrapped and they started over from scratch, but the project is certainly not dead. Watch out for a Pirates 5 within the next two years regardless of how much Depp is actually getting paid.

Legitimate Rape Can't Get You Pregnant, Says Republican Senate Nominee

Politicians are like doctors, right? I mean, they have to be smart to get elected into office, you'd think. And once a smart person is, say, one of the major candidates running for Senate in Missouri, he or she probably has a pretty good idea of how the world works. In fact, in some cases, maybe he or she is even privy to secret information that no one else in the whole world knows!

That's what we've got here with Republican Senate nominee Todd Akin, who dropped some shocking revelations about rape on the 19th. In an attempt to further his position on abortion on KTVI TV, he dropped the big bombs with scientific facts that were shocking to everyone:

"First of all, from what I understand from doctors [pregnancy from rape] is really rare. If it's a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut the whole thing down."

Now, if only he'd given a definition to his coined phrase "legitimate rape," then we'd have a better idea of what he's actually talking about. Apparently only fake rape gets you really pregnant, as far as the rape category goes. The American Journal of Obstetricians and Gynecologists published a study in 1996 stating rape-related pregnancy occurs with significant frequency, up to 32,101 pregnancies a year. So, those were illegitimate rapes then?

When asked for clarification, he referred to his "off the cuff remarks" only by saying that he "misspoke." So I guess we just misunderstood what he was trying to convey from these doctors he apparently speaks to about rape. Or maybe legitimate rape was what he said wrong? I couldn't tell you. It sounds like he was pretty sure to me, because he went on about it for more than that quote above.

Akin is currently ahead of his opponent Senator Claire McCaskill in the polls.

10 Movies To Keep Your Eye On This Fall

Right, so I'm that dork who loves Oscar season. It's the most wonderful time of the year. I sit through the odd spring films, the big summer blockbusters, and I tend to enjoy a lot of them, but nothing gets me giddy like the real content we're sure to get by the end of the year. Now, the whole reason why Oscar season is in the fall is simply because Oscar voters tend to have some trouble remembering movies unless they just saw them. That aside, there's some great stuff we have in store for the rest of this rather lackluster year so far.

10. Lincoln 

Talk about an insane amount of potential here. Spielberg doing a Abraham Lincoln biopic starring Daniel Day Lewis? It's times like these that you get suspicious of the phrase too good to be true. Of course, Spielberg's done nothing but spew crap into the theaters for the past 7 years, so I'm not exactly expecting his A game here. Daniel Day Lewis doesn't even have a B game, so if nothing else, we're going to get a jaw droppingly wonderful performance in a possibly mediocre film. But I have no reason to judge the quality other than having sat through drivel like War Horse in its entirety. Movies like War Horse make me embarrassed for being interested in the art form. Please let this be more like the old Spielberg epics than War Horse.

Lincoln opens November 9

9. Anna Karenina

Let's see how this fits in the Tom Checklist: Russian Literature - check, Good Director - check, Good Writer - check, Great Actors - check. Okay, so see this. It's one of the biggest classics of all time, directed by Joe Wright (Pride and Prejudice, Atonement), written by Tom Stoppard (Brazil, Shakespeare in Love), starring Keira Knightley and Jude Law. So, yes, sir. That looks good.

Anna Karenina opens November 16.

8. Looper 

Ryan Johnson's an interesting guy. I've only seen his first film, Brick, which was a hard boiled noir story set at a high school, which was pulled off very nicely. Back with Joseph Gordon-Levitt here, we have a hardcore sci-fi story about a man whose job is to kill people who get sent back in time, erasing them from the future and getting rid of the problem of having a body. When his future self (played by Bruce Willis) gets sent back, however, things get messy. His older self knows the drill, and manages to escape the initial execution. So we follow the story of a man hunting down his older self with intention to kill. Yippiekiyay, Mr. Falcon! That sounds great, right?

Looper opens September 28

7. Flight 

How long has it been since we had a good Denzel Washington movie? I haven't been counting, but I'd say it's been a number of years. Some liked The Book of Eli, but I thought that was an awful waste of time. This appears to be a spectacular return to form for both Washington and director Robert Zemickis. It's a true story of a pilot who managed to safely land a plane that began to fall apart in mid-air, saving every life on board. Rather than being proclaimed the hero he was, he was put on trial for having alcohol in his system. Drama ensues.

Flight opens November 2

6. This is Forty

I support Judd Apatow, and I like his movies. I find that Knocked Up has not aged well for me, but I still really like The 40 Year Old Virgin and Funny People. In fact, I'm apparently one of the very very few who liked Funny People at all. So sue me. His newest endeavor follows Paul Rudd and Leslie Mann being 40 and hitting an existential crisis of sorts. Oh, and it has Albert Brooks, so you know at least part of it will be good.

This is Forty opens December 21.

5. Seven Psychopaths 

Nooks and crannies. In Bruges is all I'll ever need on writer/director Martin McDonough's resume to convince me to see every single movie he ever makes. Back in 2008, that movie had me on the floor with laughter and had my eyes pealed at his attention to detail. The guy knows his stuff, and, although this doesn't look quite as clever as his debut, that last scene in the trailer with Christopher Walken proves this is going to be a very fun couple of hours.

Seven Psychopaths opens October 12

4. Argo

I'm a little torn on Ben Affleck's directing career. I, like every other critic, really dug Gone Baby Gone. The Town, his followup, really failed for me on a lot of levels, however. I think he's very competent behind the camera, but unless he has a great script going, I'm not so sure he's really that talented at all components of filmmaking. That being said, watch that trailer. That's one great looking movie he's got here. I'll be there opening day and so should you.

Argo opens October 12

3. Django Unchained 

I like the way you die, boy. Count me in for Quentin Tarantino's "southern." Part of me is a little bit annoyed with the fact that all Tarantino does anymore are epic homage-ridden revenge flicks, but the other part of me is damned entertained almost every time. A stellar cast including Jamie Foxx, Leonardo DiCaprio, Christoph Waltz, Kerry Washington, and Samuel L. Jackson can't hurt, even if this will turn into a controversial slavery film.

For some reason, the Weinstein Company is releasing Django Unchained on December 25, Christmas Day.

2. Cloud Atlas 

If this gets pulled off, it will be a stunning masterpiece unlike anything you've ever seen before. It comes from absolutely phenomenal material. David Mitchell's novel of the same name was an amazing read that was engrossing and yet completely foreign to my mind. It's the tale of six stories starting in the 1800s and ending in a post-apocalyptic world, with plenty of room for the same mistakes to get made time and time again. The Watchowski siblings and Tom Twyker have done their best to keep this under three hours long and, based on the trailer, I think they may have just pulled off this stunning feat.

Cloud Atlas opens October 26

1. The Master 

Paul Thomas Anderson has proven again and again that he's one of the most talented filmmakers currently working. I'd put him in the top five best filmmakers out there. I must have a soft spot for those magnificent Andersons. After There Will Be Blood, Anderson's last opus, I'm never going to doubt the man again. He's back five years later with the tale of Freddie (played by Joaquin Phoenix) a lost soul who encounters Lancaster Dodd (Philip Seamour Hoffman). Dodd has just started his own religion, a sort of allegory to Scientology that attempts to take in lost souls like Freddie. No doubt this will be a stunning dissection of organized religion, and I'm giddy for it. Bring it on.

The Master opens September 21



What are you looking forward to?

Do You Want to Hear About a Sailor Who Saw the Loch Ness Monster?

Aint you just as cute as the dickens?

Look, I'm not one of those big proponents of the Loch Ness Monster, but it's not like I have any scientific evidence to say there isn't a large creature out there. I'm just skeptical when it comes to photographs of any kinds, basically because I've done some photoshop and I know how easy it is. Even with old ghost photos, there's usually some way that it could be fake, whether that's something you can prove or not. A new picture has come to the media, being touted as "proof" of Nessie.

We go to the story of George Edwards, a sailor whose boat is even called NESSIE HUNTER, who claims he was just out on the lake one day when something moved out of the corner of his eye. Lo and behold, it was that Loch Ness Monster. He got out his camera and took a quick shot of what he says is the back of the head of the creature.

Edwards contends that the creature mildly resembles a manatee and that he believes there are likely a plethora of them out there. When talking to ABC News about it, he had this to say:

"When people see three humps, they're probably just seeing three separate monsters. . .It was first seen in 565 AD. Nothing can live that long. It's more likely that there's a number of monsters, offspring of the original."

That's not speaking on a whim, clearly, so the man has done some homework. Finding Nessie has been a lifelong dream of his, and has been his full time hobby for years now. He says there is indeed a network of monster hunters at Loch Ness, though it's mostly under the radar to improve public images. That's not to say he's embarrassed, especially now that he has a picture. He contends that various Ness experts have examined his photo and think it might just be the best one in circulation.

What do you think?

If you want to go check things out for yourself, Edwards was even kind enough to give you a few nuggets of wisdom from his years of experience.

 "You have to be out there every day, with a camera and binoculars, and you have to be at the right place at the right time."

So, if any of you readers go out and follow the example set by George Edwards, do take a picture, and I'd appreciate if you'd send it my way. Thank you and good luck.

Review: Odd Apocalypse by Dean Koontz

First Posted at BlogCritics.org

Four years after the last Odd Thomas adventure, Dean Koontz has written the fifth book in the series: Odd Apocalypse. When most hear the ominous name, they assume this is the final volume. After all, if "apocalypse" is in the name, the world has to end, right? Though this is certainly the craziest novel in the series so far, the apocalypse is more subtle than you'd think.

Odd Thomas is a strange fellow. He's now twenty-two years old, but his life is far from normal. Other than the fact that his legal name is, in fact, "Odd," he has a sixth sense. He can see the ghosts of the lingering dead. They don't talk, but they can communicate to him in other ways. This has guided Odd on a strange journey through the first four books of the series, and here it takes him to his darkest place yet.

In the midst of a much larger journey, Odd and his companion, a seven month pregnant young woman named Annamaria, make a stop at Roseland, a 1920s mansion. Roseland is the home to a mysterious billionaire and his even stranger servants. Right away, Odd is aware that things are not right in this place. A ghost of a murdered woman on horseback confirms his dark suspicions, and the mystery of Roseland unfolds to greater horrors than Odd had ever imagined.

As far as I'm concerned, Odd Thomas is the greatest character Dean Koontz has ever created. He's funny, humble, immensely likable, courageous, and just a joy to read about. Every time one of these novels comes out, I drop what I was doing and make a point to pick up the book immediately. I've read each one within a day or two because they all are completely compelling. Though a reader could technically jump into the story at any of the books, I very much advise you to start at the beginning. Each story serves its own purpose, but there is a larger arc of the character that is worth the extra time.

Whereas I found the previous book in the series (Odd Hours) a little unsatisfying by the ending, Odd Apocalypse proves to be Koontz's most creative book in years. It's really got everything a great book needs. The characters are complicated and interesting. The story is very unique and provides a great deal of suspense. The ending is open enough that you crave more, but aren't left on a cliffhanger. Seriously, buy this book.

Here, we see Odd in a more confused place than he has been previously. There are big things at work that he has not quite put his finger on, but we will surely learn more early next year when book six comes out. There's a lot to love about every Odd book, but this one ranks third in the series for me. I applaud Mr. Koontz for crafting this brilliant series that has stayed strong five books in.

So, what are you waiting for? Stop reading and buy this book!

Tune into FM KVNO 90.7 HD2 or listen to the show online here. Br.Gary Joseph is the guest in the first hour - talking about his near death experience and what he believes is proof that there is an afterlife. It's something that you really shouldn't miss.

Then, get a news recap with Tom and returning co-host Chris Fago.

Listen or be square. Only on Guilty Pleasures Radio.