bedsitter23

Hatfields and McCoys (History Channel) - I am not usually into the big tv event, but History's first move towards epic tv movie making was too close to my interests to be ignored.

I know that reviews of this three night, six-hour epic were mixed.  It is hip to hate on Kevin Costner, and that group had a feel day.  Personally, I like Costner, and his CV is actually a little bit more to it than only the two or three movies that come immediately to mind).

I have seen some internet supporters attack critics who call this a serious, grim affair, but it is- This movie takes itself very seriously and that is a bit of a negative point. 

Yes, those of you would yell, the Feud is a serious thing, but the film can be tedious at times. 

Still, I end up side with that internet crowd.  I did for the most part enjoy this story.  Costner and Paxton may be a bit too over-the-top, but I found them (especially Costner) appropriately charismatic.

Although as other point out, this isn't a sexy project (and thus didn't get the kind of four and five-star cameos other projects would) there are a lot of strong performances.  Powers Boothe commands every scene in, and there are plenty of star turns, though those tend to come from actors who are either women (Jena Malone, Lindsay Pulsipher, Mare Winningham) or British (Ronan Vibert, Andrew Howard).

I think a different format (three two-hour segments) would have served this better, but in a world of DVDs and DVR, that is not the worst crime.  I think a 3 or 4 hour movie might have been better or perhaps cut up into four or five one-hour segments.

It's not as good as the typical HBO series, but it is pretty good, and maybe, it's more good than it has a right to be.  It is at least good enough to put History on a solid footing should they decide to make more of these (and based on the ratings, that is inevitable).

I would recommend this, but I would recommend it with some pretty hard limitations.  First, it is pretty violent for a tv movie.  If that turns your stomach, then turn away.  Second, being a history buff would help.  If you're not a fan of Westerns or historical drama, you may tire of it quickly.  Lastly (and to drill this point in again), this isn't a HBO series.  It's got a lot of meat to it, and it will drag you in if you spend the time.  However, it won't grip you with the immediacy of some of those best HBO series.

I don't know enough about the Feud, but based on this, the Hatfields get the better end of the stick, probably because of Costner's role.


United Stats of America (History Channel) - In another effort to make History appeal to the masses, they have been giving series out to comedians.  Hate Larry the Cable Guy if you want, but on paper, Only in America should be good (Unfortunately, it isn't.)

Thus, I was ecstatic to see the Sklar Brothers get their own show.  You may be familiar with their appearances on Chelsae Lately or their fill-in spots on Jim Rome's radio show.  They have a unique dry humor that I realize isn't for everyone, but I think they are hilarious.

Most notably, the Sklars had a show on ESPN called Cheap Seats which I only came around to after it was cancelled (Fortunately, ESPN Classic reairs the show constantly).  Non-sports fans would likely avoid it, but they need not worry.  It was a MST3K/Beavis and Butthead style show in which the Sklars dug up old, odd ESPN footage (say The Battle of the Network Stars or All-Star Wrestling)

You can find a lot of that show on YouTube as well.  Do it.

The show itself is a good concept- a look at some stats about everyday life-  What do people spend most of their time doing?  What kills the most people?   What wages do we make?

I caught a few bits of the first show and was afraid this was going to be just the Sklars introducing segments and throwing away to prerecorded segments.  However, this show is filled with the Sklars and their sense of humor.  it may be a bit more conventional than Cheap Seats, but it is still very much their show.

I like this show alot and realize it is a bit too weird to survive on television.  However, maybe you will be lucky and catch an episode or two; and hopefully you will get as big of a kick of it as I do.

Check out the show's website for some extra clips and see if you dig the Sklar Bros sense of humor as much as i do.

I complain time and time again but I enjoy watching the Grammies. I can't help it.

Here's all you need to know.

-The show is slimmed down from what you may remember from 20 years ago, but it generally works. Adele was the big winner. It always seems that the awards all go to the same person and their isn't a lot of distribution. I don't have anything against Adele. She seems pretty sweet, but I don't get the critics fascination with her. Still, she brought Rick Rubin on stage, so that was cool. With all the Rihannas and Katy Perrys, there will be a lot of ink I am sure that you don't have to be a tart to get airplay.

-I thought Springsteen's (who I love) opener was weak. I realize new songs have a tougher go, but it seems a let-down. I didn't think it was very powerful and seemed generic Boss. Usually, I would complain the other way, but I think he should have worked "Born to Run" in.

-No real memorable appearances this year for me. The Beach Boys was probably top of the list. It would have been better if there had been some education on the significance. There were plenty of close-ups of Brian Wilson, and it was called a reunion (but many viewers would confuse this with the Beach Boys that spent the last two decades playing state fairs and casinos).

-Bon Iver won best new artist. That was the wild card selection. I wonder if the New Artist has become such a jinx that they thought they would give it to someone with no commercial expectations in the first place. I like Iver fine, but it seems odd the voters wouldn't pick Nicki Minaj or The Band Perry over Iver.

-Whitney was the obvious shadow over the whole show. It would have been nearly impossible otherwise, but it did seem to slight others, most notably Amy Winehouse. Etta James did get a Bonnie Raitt/Alicia Keys tribute, so I guess that is ok. Don Cornelius got a shout out too.

Jennifer Hudson came out and sang "I will always love you" with no introduction and hair done up as Whitney. I think it was supposed to be poignant. Still, it felt to me, that ultimately most winners in these awards are replaceable. This is the place where Milli Vanilli won awards and (probably even worse) had them taken away.

-The Foo Fighters got two songs (their own and one as part of an electronic jam). I like the Foos alright, but it seems like the spot would have been better given to someone else. The same goes for Chris Brown (whose popularity is beyond me) who got two similar spotlights

-Nicki Minaj had the 'controversial' performance of the night, which now seems obligatory. I like Minaj (She seems original, though "Superbass" is such a gawdawful song). I suppose in the absence of Gaga, she did a piece that blended an exorcism, thus working in offending priest characterizations (from the classic Madonna playbook) and people floating in air (from Madonna's Super Bowl 2012 performance.) The whole thing seemed a mess.

-Bruno Mars and Taylor Swift's separate performances were fun (though I am not a fan of either). Katy Perry and Coldplay/Rhianna really didn't resonate with me.

-The aforementioned electronic jam didn't do anything for me, but it was a nice thought. It surely got a few people wondering who Deadmau5 is. Glen Campbell's tribute was enjoyable, though I am not particularly a fan.

Overall, not the most memorable year. LL Cool J worked well as host, and generally, things moved well. Paul McCartney performed Golden Slumbers/Carry That Weight/The End at the end of the show (He did an original song during the show, as well, which was nice, but pretty forgettable), which seemed a bit stale, but wasn't "Hey Jude" at least.