This week, Kaycee and Chris are cracking open a few cold brews and chat about a variety of topics including their most anticipated films of 2015 and some of their recent film projects!
Be sure to tell us what films you excited for in the comments!
Take a refresher course with the Geeks before this year’s most anticipated movies are released!
Better Call Saul broke cable history with it’s two night debut on February 8th and 9th garnering a combined total of 15.6 million viewers, 9.7 million in adults 18-49 and 9.1 million in 25-54 demographic. Without a doubt, Vince Gilligan has created another runaway hit for AMC similar to the impact Boardwalk Empire had on HBO a few years ago. And this world of crime in Albuquerque isn’t going away anytime soon, as Season 2 was confirmed before the show premiered and is prepared to air early 2016. But has Vince and co-showrunner/writer Peter Gould repeated the same formula for quality?
Taking my role of the Animated Anarchist aside, Breaking Bad is my favorite television show of all time. The sheer level of craftsmanship, character development, and every aspect from technical to storytelling is impeccable and pure. Every season ratcheted up the tension wonderfully and somehow the near-impossible standards were surpassed with every new plot twist or unraveling scene. The tale of Walter White will live on as one of the best morality dramas ever and despite how horrible everything ended up, it was worth it every step of the way. I even pushed to publish an article about the show’s influence in my college newspaper because I was so passionate about the program coming to an end.
High standards, aren’t they? When I heard about Better Call Saul, I was pretty easily skeptical, but my concerned eased when I found out the show would be a prequel. This story of corruption and meth distribution in the Albuquerque desert has a surprising amount of scale that expands beyond what we watched in Breaking Bad. Saul was integral to making the show so incredible, by adding some much needed levity when moments got really heavy and providing clever, legal answers as Walt’s operation became bigger than just an RV. And when Vince Gilligan first introduced the character in Season 2, he mentions a very unique part of his back story and personality:
“My real name’s McGill. The Jew thing I just do for the homeboys. They all want a pipe-hitting member of the tribe, so to speak.”
“I am legally obligating my client to tell you the next paragraph has spoilers for the first episode.”
Better Call Saul has a interesting premise, focusing on the smart-talking, unlucky Jimmy McGill who is trying to balance his precarious lifestyle of taking care of his lawyer brother and work as a public defendant. As he’s adjusting to making a more honest living, he’s frustrated at the lack of money from working on hopeless cases and being belittled by competitor’s from his brother’s lawfirm: Hamlin, Hamlin & McGill. To get one huge case, he elaborates a large scam with two skateboarders to get money from a husband and wife who embezzled money from public office. But this attempt to create one big snafu leads him into a Hydrofloric Acid Barrel worth of trouble, by accidentally getting early Breaking Bad villain Tuco Salamanca involved.
I decided I would review the series after three episodes because most shows tend to break away from the pilot. For a dramatic, hour-long series, three episodes is a good litmus test to know what the show is aim for tonally and what the central plot is going to be. With Breaking Bad, I was floored from everything that happened in first episode, but I knew I couldn’t stop watching after seeing tense, dramatic bike lock scene from “…And the Bag’s in the River.” Yet with Better Call Saul, I’m not 100% sold yet on where the show’s going. Although it can’t compare to Breaking Bad for now, it still stands a good show to pay attention to.
What has stayed from the transition between the two series is the astounding sense of direction. Vince Gilligan along with the work of Breaking Bad directors such as Michelle MacLaren (“Abiquiu”/”Salud”) and Terry McDonough (“Better Call Saul”/”Bug”) make every moment in Better Call Saul compelling to watch. Scenes of Bob Odenkirk driving in his crappy car to covering the sterile nature of the courtroom always feel dynamic and they can capture so many moods no matter what’s happening. They still remain the kings of montages too, as the process of Jimmy taking court case after court case during episode 2 may be my favorite segment of the show so far, and it’s easily the best episode out of the three.
Unfortunately, Better Call Saul only has so much range by being a prequel. As much as I love Bob Odenkirk being charismatically slimy as Jimmy McGill, there appears to be a limit to how much great material you can write for him. I enjoy all of his scenes where he talks to character like Tuco and Mike Ehrmantraut that display Odenkirk’s range of linguistic gymnastics. Yet for a show that has all this great content and potential, the three episodes feel packed with filler when trying to develop a lot of the new side characters.
I don’t get exactly why they wrote this subplot in for Jimmy’s brother Chuck, who is currently staying home on sick leave because he believes he has developed “electromagnetic hypersensitivity” from a mental breakdown. Most of the conversations with this character feel repetitive and unnecessary as they keep conveying that he is sick and paranoid about the use of electronics. In feels like they wanted to create an unusual reason for Jimmy McGill to be bad off financially, but it does not have that same level of craftsmanship to make it compelling or interesting.
Although I enjoyed Jimmy (It’s getting really difficult to call him that instead of Saul, despite the name of the show) working with both the moral and shady aspects the law, there isn’t a lot of consistency to his character. We know he’s going to end up as his the lawyer king of the strip mall, but the journey there feels uncertain due to his inconsistent morals. The writers are trying to make him do everything at once including several sympathetic angles, but he’s ultimately motivated by money. As a viewer, all of his extenuating circumstances are just dropped onto our laps. There isn’t a slow descent into morally ambiguous territory; I’m just watching Bob Odenkirk spin plates on sticks trying to recapture the scientific genius of Breaking Bad.
“I just talked you down from a death sentence to six months probation, I’m the best lawyer ever!”
Thankfully, I believe Better Call Saul has shown all the footage we’ve recognized in the trailers amongst these three episodes so we should get some development back to a more concrete direction. You could even argue Breaking Bad’s first season can be slow or is filled with unlikable characters that don’t have much dimension at first like Skylar or Marie. But for Better Call Saul, the issues are unavoidable because it ends up being middling or banal when something super dramatic isn’t happening. We love the developments and the set up, but the execution is currently questionable.
Despite my issues, I still have plenty of faith in the show. These are all issues that can be solved over time or with better development later on. So far, there hasn’t been any major break in continuity and there’s still plenty of meat to chew on. Hell, I imagine we’re all in anticipation for the next familiar face to pop up. Hopefully it’ll be someone entertaining like Matt Jones as Badger, or the glorious, intense return of Giancarlo Esposito as Gus Fring. Everything technical to make the show incredible is there, but they just haven’t used the right catalyst yet.
My Arbitrary Rating for the First 3 Episodes of Better Call Saul: 7.5 out of 10 Reduced Sentences.
What are your thoughts on Better Call Saul? Think it’s just as amazing as Breaking Bad or do you lean more with the unimpressed crowd? Leave a comment below, as you’ll probably see a full review for the season later!
Roommate Mania! The Best of the Worst Music! Body Swapping! Drop a Snickers in the sink with Public Axis and guest Chuck Vans!
Recorded on February 12th, 2015 at the Public Axis F-Stop.
00:00 Welcome to the F-Stop! This week, we welcome San Antonio radio personality Chuck Vans! Tales of old school skateboarding and massive shoe collecting ensue! Plus, awesome gifts from listener Ryan Timothy Brace! Massive and infinite thanks!
27:41 Yeah, Imma Look Into Dat! Topic #1: Tell us about your best and/or worst times with roomates! (Inspired by the upcoming movie, What We Do in the Shadows.)
52:40 Dad’s Corner(ed)! Topic #2: Who is your favorite artist from your least favorite style of music?
1:09:59 Hey, That’s Not Funny! Topic #3: If you could swap bodies with one person, who would it be?
1:29:58 What Did We Come to Know? Public Axis is an educational program and at the end, we always ask our guests and listeners, “What did you come to know?” Enlighten yourself.
Let your friends know about Public Axis on Facebook and Twitter and keep those Facebook comments coming at our Happy Campers group!
X-Men: Days of Future Past was not only one of the best films of 2014, but it has frequently been credited as the film that redeemed 20th Century Fox’s struggling X-Men franchise. Bryan Singer (X-Men, The Unusual Suspects) is looking to impress audiences and critics again in 2016 with X-Men: Apocalypse. With recent casting news and rumors of returning characters, Singer and Fox are looking to keep Apocalypse in the public eye as much possible. With so little known about the X-Men sequel, it makes sense for Singer to tease fans with the occasional concept art image for the highly anticipated film.
Revealed via Singer’s Instagram account, the image shows a lone figure before a large machine or vehicle.
Though it’s difficult to make out the blurred figure in the image, it’s reasonable to guess the individual might be Apocalypse or one of his four plague-commanding horsemen. The color scheme of the machine is reminiscent of Apocalypse’s classic armor, but there’s little to go on with the single image.
Some fans and websites have suggested that the large object in the image my in fact be the ancient AI known as Ship. Devoted X-Men readers may be familiar with the techno-organic being, but the character/vehicle is generally not known by the general public. Originally created millions of years ago by an alien race known as the Celestials, Ship was enslaved by Apocalypse and used as a personal headquarters and battle station for the self-proclaimed mutant god. Ship was most recently featured in Rick Remender’s award-winning series Uncanny X-Force as Phantom X’s personal vehicle and friendly AI companion.
X-Men: Apocalypse will star Oscar Issac as the film’s titular villain as well as introduce Sophie Turner (Game of Thrones), Tye Sheridan (Mud) and Alexandra Shipp (Ray Donovan) as Jean Grey, Cyclops and Storm respectively. It’s set to be released May 27, 2016.
What do you think reader? Any guesses as to what the mysterious object is? Are you excited for X-Men: Apocalypse? Let us know in the comments below.
Directed by Guillermo del Toro (The Devil’s Backbone, Pacific Rim), Crimson Peak is a horror film set in Victorian-era England. The film follows Edith Cushing (Mia Wasikowska), a young woman who falls in love with an eccentric and mysterious stranger named Sir Thomas Sharpe (Tom Hiddleston). After a quick marriage, Sharpe wisks Emily away to his secluded estate in Northern England, where Sharpe’s disturbed sister, Lady Lucille (Jessica Chastain), also resides. Overtime, Emily relaizes that her husband, sister-in-law and new home are not what they appear to be.
Take a look at the teaser below and decide if the first trailer for del Toro’s Crimson Peak is as frightening as it advertises to be.
To start with, the trailer is a bit underwhelming. It has all the trappings of a typical haunted house film set during the 19th Century. You have a decrepit mansion, a mysterious brother and sister, copious amounts of fog and a naïve young girl who is dumb enough to stay in the haunted house. The film’s first reveal of the ghosts and ghouls that reside in Hiddleston’s childhood home are eerily reminiscent of the CGI spirit that plagued Daniel Radcliffe in Hammer Films’ The Woman in Black. The apparent over-reliance on CGI creatures feels out of place and is more akin to del Toro’s work on Hellboy or Blade II.
On the more positive side of things, the film’s sets and costumes look superb and perfectly capture the feel of the time period. The cast is equally impressive, and showcases del Toro’s ability to attract talent to his projects. Wasikowska is coming off of award-winning films like Jane Eyre and The Kids Are All Right, while Hiddleston is revered for his theatre work and performance as Marvel’s Loki. Chastain’s Lucille is by far the most unnerving character featured in the trailer. Watching her brother and sister-in-law’s bedroom activities is probably just one of her many unusual hobbies. However, even with the strong cast, the first trailer for Crimson Peak doesn’t really engender any fear or excitement. Perhaps, once the film is closer to its release date, Universal will deliver a suitably terrifying second trailer.
Thats right! Just like Boyhood, The Geeks are capitalizing on a gimmick, in the hope of Oscar glory, and giving you a podcast that started production all the way back in 2003!
Nah, not really.
But hey, there’s still lots of Oscar talk and predictions between Kaycee, Taylor and returning alum Steven!
What are your predictions for the Oscars? Tell us below in the comments!
DISCLAIMER: No Kaycees were harmed in the recording of this episode. A cat got sick and somebody shot a duck, but that’s it.
This week’s episode of Digital Noise is all about ethics in journalism. No, really. We review titles like Nightcrawler, Kill the Messenger, and Rosewater, all of which deal with various aspects of the world of journalism; from moral center to post-moral.
Plus, on this episode, Brian is joined by Richard Whittaker, who is like…an actual journalist and stuff. Oh, and if someone decides to violate our strict journalistic code of ethics, that’s when we send John Wick after them.
All this, AND we give away a copy of a film written by Joss Whedon! No, not that one. Nope, not that one either. Look, just listen in and find out.
2) Tweet at us with the name of your favorite actor and the worst movie in which they’ve appeared that you would STILL WATCH because you like them so much!
3) Add #EyesGiveaway
4) We’ll select our favorite answer and contact that winner via Twitter (open to U.S. residents only).
Star Wars: Darth Vader #1 follows the Dark Lord of the Sith himself a month after the Rebel Alliance’s decisive victory at the Battle of Yavin IV. After receiving the lion share of the blame for the destruction of the Death Star, Vader is tasked with a special mission that involves consorting with the galaxy’s most notorious crime lord, Jabba the Hutt.
Contains Minor Spoilers
Written by Kieron Gillen (Uncanny X-Men, Journey Into Mystery) with Salvador Larroca (Invincible Iron Man) on art, Marvel’s Darth Vader manages to deliver a compelling first issue that reminds comic readers and Star Wars fans alike that Vader is one of the most tragic and terrifying villains in all of fiction. As the central protagonist of his own series, Vader is presented as a broken villain trying to regain some semblance of respect after a series of failures that were out of his control. He has alterative motives of his own, but attempts to mask them with mock loyalty. His ambitions, as nefarious as they are, reveal a desperate character seeking some form of twisted redemption. Darth Vader #1 provides all of the things to whet one’s Sith Lord loving appetite, while including a few force chokes and the occasional lightsaber stabbing along the way.
As surprising as it might be, Gillen works hard to present Vader as a sympathetic figure. Yes, he’s the Dark Lord of the Sith and kills Imperial officers indiscriminately, but Vader truly is a shell of very lonely man. The enormous difficulty of conveying any emotion with Vader (a person who is a 7-foot tall cyborg clothed entirely in black) is a momentous task, but Larroca’s art manages to do it with relative ease. Whether it’s the slight bow of the head or a clenched fist, Vader’s many emotions are perfectly conveyed in scenes through his body language. There’s not a single moment when you don’t know what Vader is feeling or thinking.
This is done to great effect when the issue delves into Vader and Emperor Palpatine’s relationship. If Palpatine had any fatherly affection towards his apprentice in the past, all of those feelings have been erased with the destruction of the Death Star. Palpatine’s constant berating of Vader and his “failures” reveal a relationship that is based around mutual loathing and disdain. Vader is given no respect from his master, and is viewed as nothing but an instrument to be wielded against the Empire’s enemies. It’s obvious Gillen took inspiration from Return of the Jedi’s climatic scene, where the Emperor demands Luke Skywalker to kill his father and take his place as the apprentice. To Palpatine, Vader is simply a means to an end, a tool to be used and replaced if the situation calls for it.
Now while the issue delivers a healthy amount of character development, it also showcases why Vader remains an imposing and feared figure throughout the galaxy. His confrontation with Jabba the Hutt and his entourage on Tatooine is reminiscent of the Sith Lord’s dealings with past Imperial and Rebel soldiers. Although short, Vader receives an action scene that is obviously reminiscent of Luke’s first meeting with Jabba. It’s a suitably darker sequence than the young Jedi’s, and it quickly dispels the notion that Jabba is Vader’s equal in terms of authority. During such tense scenes, Gillen ensures that Vader’s words are always threatening, but is careful to add a layer of dry sarcasm to them.
Much like Marvel’s other ongoing Star Wars series, Darth Vader #1 quickly shows that Star Wars is in capable hands. Though only one issue, Gillen and Larroca obviously understand Darth Vader, and are careful to present him as a character that is deserving of fear and sympathy. With a Mark Waid Princess Leia series set to release next month, it’s clear that Marvel will be actively trying to expand its catalog of Star Wars comics for the foreseeable future.
What about you reader? Are you reading Marvel’s Darth Vader? Any Star Wars villains that you think deserve their own series? Let us know in the comments below!
Interested in picking up the first issue? Please use our Amazon links to do so!
Saturday Night Live is both a network television variety show and a comedy institution. 40 years, countless cast members & more than a few horrendous film spin offs later and it’s still running without any real sign of stopping. Yet, since the first cast of Not Ready for Primetime Players started leaving the show in the late 70s, SNL has constantly been accused of dwindling quality. Each new cast lives in the shadow of some earlier cast, whether they be comedic giants like Eddie Murphy, Will Ferrell or even Bill Murray. All of them had to follow in the footsteps of some of the most well recognized comedic talents of the last several decades. So, has SNL gone down hill? How long has it been going downhill? Is there anything to salvage out of modern SNL or is the once-cutting cultural touchstone just out of steam?
The early years of Saturday Night Live are commonly associated with the cream of the crop for the show. Given that the first cast included Dan Aykroyd, Chevy Chase, Gilda Radner, John Belushi and Jane Curtin, that praise isn’t unearned. Yet, despite their notoriety, watching earlier episodes of the show showcases just how “Not Ready” they were as “Players.” There’s a clearly stiff awkwardness to how the show was early on in it’s life. There’s a clear nervous energy to the entire show and you can even see that terror in the eyes of the cast members. This early nervousness on the show gave way to a desire to experiment and try new things like current culture commentary, raunchy cutting edge material and rather surreal out there bits, mostly done as a desire to fill time.
Sure, let’s put John in a samurai outfit. Whatever, we’re on the air in five minutes!
Yet, that desire to try anything is what helped give SNL it’s identity as it evolved over that first cast, especially during a time when Johnny Carson still ruled late night television and the comedy variety show as a concept had been fading out with the ending of Rowan & Martin’s Laugh In. One of the best examples of this attitude in practice was the very first sketch from the very first episode of the show, in which John Belushi played an immigrant who attempts to learn English from a professor (played by legendarily dark and twisted early SNL writer Michael O’Donoghue) by repeating everything he does, including repeating the professor’s sudden death by heart attack, all before Chevy Chase walks on to utter the first “Live from New York, It’s Saturday Night!” It’s odd, it’s out there and it doesn’t quite work as a sketch, but it wasn’t like much of anything on television in 1975. Speaking of odd, let’s not forget that during that first season of the show, Jim Henson, Frank Oz and several other Muppeteers were involved in sketches about aliens in sitcom situations with jokes about drugs, sexual frustration and eventually awkwardly forced attempts at give them scenes with the main cast.
Which one isn’t a Muppet again?
So, as the initial cast learned to deal with their issues (and an overly cocky Chevy Chase), the show became this staple for hip comedy with millions of people looking forward to the emergence of recurring characters they’d grow to love, pot shots at modern news through the longest running sketch Weekend Update or whatever popular music act would pop up to sing a few songs. Admittingly, that initial cast (along with newcomer Bill Murray who replaced the above mentioned overly cocky Chase following his exit mid-way through season two) was hard to live in the shadow of, given the talent involved and all those memorable sketches like The Olympia Restaurant, Roseanne Roseannadanna, Nick the Lounge Singer, The Blues Brothers and countless others. It was especially hard to follow them up when SNL creator and guru Lorne Michaels briefly left the show along with the rest of the main cast in 1980. The resulting era (1980 – 1985) was met with mostly scorn & derision and, having watched bits and pieces of that era, it’s easy to see why. With the exception of highly energetic and youthful Eddie Murphy, the cast felt stiff and awkward, slotted into positions that were trying far too hard to fill the vacuum that had been left by the cast of beloved players and slapdash writing that felt far less genuine and more like a calculated attempt at recreating the magic of before.
This moment of host Bill Murray giving Eddie Murphy a high five is probably the highlight of that season, honestly.
This would later grow to be a common occurrence as Saturday Night Live continued, putting the show in multiple seasons of flux as it tried to find a solid new groove with the right cast members. This process has ended up claiming many talented comedic performers, including Gilbert Gottfried, Sarah Silverman, Rob Riggle, Joan Cusack and Anthony Michael Hall. It’s a process the show is currently experiencing in it’s 40th season, having lost much of it’s main cast anchors at the end of it’s 38th season. The show currently lacks a stand out cast members and awkwardly written, though several would argue that the show has been doing this for awhile… but then again, what is “awhile”? Post-Will Ferrell? Post-Adam Sandler? Hell, post-The Not Ready for Primetime Players? Honestly, the answer to that question varys so much that it might as well be “post-whenever the person you’re asking last watched SNL regularly.” People have a natural bias towards the cast they grew up with and that makes sense. SNL aims towards current cutting edge humor targets that the younger generation growing up at that time would recognize. When middle aged people think of SNL, they’ll throw off a “Cheeseburger Cheeseburger Cheeseburger” or “I’m Gumby, Dammit!”, where as a modern SNL audience is more likely to throw out a “New York’s Hottest Club…” or “What Up With That?!”
Not too many are still doing the “Makin Copies” impression… thankfully.
That all being said, I don’t think this sort of bias is true to what Saturday Night Live really is; inconsistent. Yes, despite the love of whatever cast, SNL by it’s very nature is doomed to be uneven. Since it premiered in 1975, the production schedule for an episode of SNL is literally a week long. No matter how talented the cast and writers are, no group can manage to write, rehearse and perform an entire episode’s worth of live laugh out loud comedy. This perspective became incredibly clear to me when I watched a lot of the older episodes on Netflix (which they removed for whatever reason as of this writing). Despite the best efforts of immense talents like John Belushi, Dan Aykroyd, Eddie Murphy, Phil Hartman, Jon Lovitz, Dana Carvey, Will Ferrell, Amy Poehler, Tina Fey, Bill Hader or any number of others, no episode was pure back to back comedy. Certain conflicting circumstances can be against them on an episode, whether it be an awkwardly unfunny host, technical flubs or huge controversial events that overshadow the episode all together.
It takes a lot to deliver lines more awkwardly than Jimmy Fallon. Bravo, Miss. Hilton.
SNL has always been done by the seat of it’s pants, electing to sacrifice quality in an effort to produce a weekly show. That may sound like a criticism… but that’s honestly the fun of the show. Each week (excluding summers, holidays and writer’s strikes), we get a 93 minute block of content that cobbles together the works of multiple people trying to give their audience a satisfying way of spending their Saturday nights. It is and always has been a mixed bag; sometimes you get a sketch that is the talk of the town Sunday morning, sometimes you get a guest host embarrassing themselves. Sometimes you get an old face returning in a surprise cameo, sometimes you get a cast member flubbing lines excessively. Sometimes you get a sketch that’s more tender & emotional than most and sometimes you get a bizarre as all hell sketch that is slammed to the 12:50 slot right before the show ends. Given that the term “variety show” usually means more than comedy sketches and one or two musical performances, the variety of SNL comes mainly from the roulette wheel of guessing who or what will pop up next in a sketch, even if it isn’t that great.
If you stick around, cool people from the past show up… oh, and Chevy Chase, too.
It’s obviously gotten tougher for SNL to compete with the onslaught of satiric comedy and sketches from online media over the last decade or so (ironically, part of this online revolution was brought on by SNL‘s infamous Lonely Island “Dear Sister” sketch). People can parody something in an instant and upload it, so why even bother with show that’ll be a week late on the subject? Well, it’s mainly the “Let’s Put On a Show, Fellas” attitude. It’s the guiding spirit that keeps the show from ever completely losing me as a viewer. In the same vein as the original Little Rascals, these people have been and always are trying to put on a weekly show that’s contemporary, experimental and hip with an uneven success rate at times. Yet, people tune in on the off chance we’ll see the growth of a new comedic icon or a sketch that will entertain us for years to come. We want to see a new John Belushi that will raise his eyebrow in charming delight, a new Church Lady that we’ll love to see recur over and over again, a new surprise appearance to make us smile nostalgically. We might not get any of that, but that’s part of the fun. Those apprehensive live show jitters have made stars out of so many people during the long history of the show, including recent SNL (ie the new millenium years) and any season before or after it. So who’s to say that someone from even the most recent troubled season won’t amount to something?
Look at this kid from the 85-86 season. He was so bad on SNL, there’s no way he went on to have any sort of career at all.
So, with the 40th year of Saturday Night Live comes the questions about the future. How long will Lorne Michaels shepheard the show before he retires? Will the show continue after him? If it does go to a new successor, who will it be and will they improve the show or not? Personally, I think the show should exist in some form or another in order to keep the tradition of introducing new and upcoming talent in comedy. For better or worse (ie worst of his run probably being the first year he came back in 1985-86), Lorne Michaels has run the program with that same desire to put on a show and allowing his cast members to find themselves. As many have often imitated about Michaels, he’ll usually respond to a worrisome cast mates and writer in a simple Dr. Evil-esque deadpan with “Whatever you have at 11:25, we’ll run. You’ll do great.” As long as his eventual successor realizes that similar desire to experiment, they’ll be perfectly fine at keeping Saturday Night Live the off beat commodity it still is to this day. Without it, the ending moment of exhaustion and calmed smiling that is the “Goodnight” section at the end of every episode wouldn’t feel as genuinely happy and spontaneous as it normally is. It’s the perfect way to end everyone of these exhausting weekly circus acts; with a bunch of tired performers giving a weak smile and wave to the audience that made them so humbled by merely watching… unless of course that person was Chevy Chase.
Interested in picking up some titles mentioned in the article? Please use our Amazon links to do so!