Sterling Cooper. If you have no idea what that name means or signifies, than I’ve already lost you. However, if you do know what Sterling Cooper means than you can understand why it makes “Mad Men” the OBSESSION OF THE WEEK.

For most people I know, “Mad Men” is a show that takes a little while to not only understand but to also love. Yet once you do get the premise and genius of the show, you’re completely hooked. As soon as you hear the short but sweet symphony begin the title sequence, you know what it means; it’s Draper time. Draper being the main character behind the show, Donald Draper to be exact. Don Draper works at Sterling Cooper, an advertising agency in the 1960′s, hooked yet? Yeah, neither were most people.

Though the more you watch the more you realize not only the significance of advertising in the 1960′s but also how you’ve been transported into a whole other world that you’ve never before witnessed. Granted, it’s probably because most of the show’s fans weren’t alive when it’s many historic events occurred. Whether they are representing a Bra company that asks “are you a Jackie or a Marilyn” or showing the beginnings of racial stereotypes in advertisements. “Mad Men” is a show that interests both history buffs and culture aficionados alike.

That’s not to say the show doesn’t offer many other eye popping interests as well. With a fantastic premise the show boasts a beautiful cinematic look all its own while still being faithful to the time period. “Mad Men” also has a fantastic cast of mostly relative unknowns and a writing staff that previously worked on “The Sopranos”. If that’s not enough to make you watch I’m not sure I can better convince you.

What else makes the show so addicting is the lifestyle it presents, when watching an episode your tempted to make yourself an “old fashioned” just to feel like you’re in that world. With sharp dialogue, amazing costumes, and set decoration, it’s very easy to get wrapped up in this place that time may have forgotten.

Don’t miss out on this engrossing and masterfully made program. It’s worth every drop.

Mad Men airs Sundays at 7:00 ET 10:00 PST on AMC

I spent nearly 4 hours watching and reading coverage of this year’s Comic-Con 2010, and after it was all said and done I felt very empty. What began as an article supporting the excitement and recent burst of hype in the media changed quickly. I knew that I had a journalistic responsibility to expose how hype has effected me and the world in which we live in. So while writing this article it turned into something very different, I hope you enjoy.

The time is here, Comic-Con 2010 has come and gone, who cares right? Well some people do, over 100,000 in fact. Comic-Con, for those who do not know what it is or see it as just a “nerd-fest”, has slowly become in its 40 years of existence the quintessential media event of the year. CNN, The New York Times, and Time Magazine – all different mediums of highly prestigious and primarily current-event oriented news have covered it. “It” in question is a 4 day event held every year at the San Diego Convention Center in Southern California. Comic-Con offers everything from celebrity panels to exclusive footage that won’t be seen anywhere else for almost a year. It is a nerd haven where those who are usually neglected by the “popular crowd” take center stage and are embraced for all the nerdyness that they can dish out. The past few years have been effected by the winds of change however.

While the convention used to usually consist of those that I previously mentioned, with the recent “SuperHero Film Boom”, it now is something that has morphed into a hype fest of sorts. The nerds of the world have been given the spotlight and branded with a dollar sign above their greasy unpolished foreheads. Unfortunately, instead of fighting the system as this culture has so often done before, being cast into obscurity for so long has had the opposite effect. Nerds display themselves proudly and have become a product sold to the highest bidder. This society has lived their lives without the respect they so often seek for far too long and now that they have their “moment in the sun”  they aren’t looking for shade anytime soon.

What has happened as a result, is a transformation of something that was created as a conference for those who feel different to now a freak show for the mass public to scoff at and then benefit from. It is because of this negative effect that I can’t help but wonder is hype a good thing? “Hype” to most is just another word for anticipated excitement and yet to the rich fat-cats of the world it is just another way to add more zero’s to their bank account. With these “exclusive looks” and “collectors items” we as consumers are supposed to feel special and elite. Yet when the very people who want you to pump their gas or serve them coffee are those who fund such an “elite” status it’s difficult not to question it’s merit. Comic-Con has become nothing more than an oversized and overcrowded “Monorail-Tour” at Universal Studios where the audience is given an “inside look” at how movies are really made when it’s nowhere near close.

We are shuttled around like cattle, being told to be excited because something is happening when really the cover has been thrown over our eyes. It feels to me almost like the scene in the film “Big Fish” where the ringmaster of the circus gives a ridiculously long interlude for a giant and when he is finally revealed, he is no taller than someone slightly above average. Following this revelation, we then see what an actual giant looks like and the crowd snaps silent, including the ringmaster. What I mean by this analogy is that Comic-Con is an amazing event when it’s done right, but recently it has become just a parade of the slightly average. I attended Comic-Con at the “beginning of the end” as they call it, and the sad part is I could feel it. While I attended the celebrity panels and felt that lovely false sense of entitlement I mentioned, it wasn’t until I saw what comic-con truly was that I realized it’s fraud.

Comic-Con should be a unification of what we all value most in storytelling; actual storytelling. Instead, the studios of the world have invaded ours in which we created like a sheep in wolf’s clothing (or latex, depending on the costume). To better formulate my point let me use a real world example. The “Harry Potter” novels are rich detailed stories and have taken the time both in the written word and screen in order to prove this point. Rather than cast a “flavor of the week” actor or actress, these films use relatable unknowns as their leads and classically-trained actors to support this ever-expanding universe. To contrast, the “Twilight” novels and films are ones that unlike “Potter” weren’t based around a deeply complex character or in a world unlike anything we could imagine. These poorly written books and disgustingly low quality array of films rely on the very thing you shouldn’t; hype. Hype is destroying so many things around us and yet we just accept it, hoping like it’s predecessors it will simply pass on.

What I valued most about the times I went to Comic-Con, was when I sat down one-on-one with an author or an artist and was able to talk to them about the process that went into creating that particular piece of work. Yet when we are constantly bombarded with what “is” hip and what “will be” big we lose sight of what actually is beautiful and significant in this world. Art is something that should be examined, and something that should be appreciated. But when things are rushed like a panel where a fan can’t even ask a question (“Chuck”) or a multi-million dollar film that takes less time to develop than to make (“Twilight”), we lose sight of why we love these things to begin with. I’m not condemning fandom or even vampires for that matter, but what I’m saying is slow down. Hype relies solely on speed and yet because of that, substance suffers in the process. If you want to make me excited, put in the time and effort in order to do so. Because when you do, films like “Inception” happen and yet when you don’t, well, let’s just say something much worse happens instead.

Though it’s not too late, there is still hope but we must act now and we must support what deserves and truly needs it. Go to an art gallery and tell me that after looking at a piece for 5 minutes you know what the painting means. If so, then maybe there is not as much hope as I thought. But if not, then from one nerd to another let me tell you thank you and may the force be with you….always.

In this episode: We interview filmmaker, Azazel Jacobs. Azazel is the writer/director of films such as, the critically-acclaimed MOMMA’S MAN, and THE GOODTIMES KID. Both films are highly recommended. Make sure you check out MOMMA’S MAN while it’s still on Netflix Watch Instantly.

Azazel is an extremely talented filmmaker and it was a pleasure to have such a lengthy conversation with him about his work and technique. I am a big fan of his films and can’t wait for his next one! Thank you to Azazel for taking the time to do this interview.

You can also listen to any of our podcasts by clicking on the player at the top right, or by subscribing to our podcast on iTunes.

“Momma’s Man” trailer

“The GoodTimes Kid” trailer

Today in this day and age we are subjected to a wide array of advertisements. There are commercials before our movie previews and there are pop up ads advertising products before we buy something on amazon. So needless to say, that it is rare to really feel affected in any way by an advertisement today because of the constant onslaught we have sadly become accustomed to.

This however changed on Thursday when I saw the trailer for the upcoming film “The Social Network” by director David Fincher. Now granted, as of last year I mentioned on the podcast that i would begin to watch less and less trailers in order to be more surprised by the upcoming film releases. To me, trailers nowadays seem to give away so much that you only find a handful each year that actually get you excited about a film without giving it all away, this film is part of that handful.

Every once in awhile, people throw around terms like “a film that defines a generation” and I usually laugh or scoff at a statement such as this. But as an ashamed member of this A.D.D. generation, I will boldly agree with this outlandish statement. “The Social Network”, revolves around the creation of the social networking site FACEBOOK.COM. To put it simply, this film has the writing (Aaron Sorkin – “The West WIng”), the direction (David Fincher – “Zodiac”), and a slew of young talent (Jesse Eisenberg, Andrew Garfield, and Justin Timberlake). I can’t begin to tell you how excited I am about a film of such potential. Since the online premiere I have watched the trailer at least 5 times more.

With a great song (eerie cover of Radiohead’s “Creep”), fast dialogue, and a great tagline (You don’t get to 500 million friends without making a few enemies) this trailer is my – OBSESSION OF THE WEEK.

Watch “The Social Network” trailer below:

Tom and I often have long-winded conversations about movies via skype. Recently we were trying to think of some movies to debate on future podcasts, so naturally the name of M. Night Shyamalan quickly came up. Shyamalan is definitely one of those filmmakers that people either love or hate. With the release of Shyamalan’s latest film, The Last Airbender, we thought we’d post our conversation here, it seemed relevant enough. So, with no further ado…

Titus: We need a good film to debate.

Tom: A good one would be The Last Airbender. I can always find reasons to defend Shyamalan.

Titus: Really? Even with The Happening?

Tom: lol. I could totally defend that film as a whole. I will concede to some lame parts but I would still
take a positive side on that one

Titus: “Some” lame parts? :)

Tom: Yes, some. It just needed a different twist, not trees killing people.

Titus: And a better cast or possibly some direction.

Tom: lol. That’s pretty harsh. I don’t think the cast was the problem. I don’t think he directed it poorly
either. The whole thing is pretty cool and builds tension well until we find out the plants are angry
with us. After that revelation it is hard to take the rest seriously.

Titus: Oh man! The acting in that was reprehensible and I wasn’t buying the whole “we meant for it to
be bad” shtick.

Tom: Was the acting really the big issue or the lines they were asked to deliver with a straight face?

Titus: Wahlberg’s performance was laughable at best. I was watching it dumbfounded at how bad the
acting was. I kept thinking “is this for real?” Script, acting, directing, it was all bad!

Tom: Wahlberg was Wahlberg. That’s what you get when you cast him. Everyone going to see him act
knows that by now. That’s what we expect when we watch him.

Titus: It had potential too, that was the sad part. The scene where those kids get shot was so funny and I
think we were supposed to feel bad.

Tom: I have to watch it again because I honestly don’t remember that scene. We saw it opening night
and haven’t seen it since. I’m going to have to Netflix it now.

Titus: Everyone is surrounding that barn, and then a double barrel shotgun pops out and blows a kid
away right off the porch. Everyone in the theatre was either confused or laughing.

Tom: lol. I have to watch it again. I put it in the same boat with Death Race, Incredible Hulk, Doomsday,
AvP, etc. I enjoy watching all those when I just want to watch something fun and don’t want to
have to think too hard.

Titus: I saw it opening day too. First and last time I will ever see it. The movie tried to be so much more
than those movies though. That’s what made it so much worse. I was hoping The Happening
would be fun, but I didn’t think it was.

Tom: I think if you took out the premise of plants killing people because they are angry with how we
treat the environment and replace it with like a toxic gas or crashed satellite you would have had a
different reaction.

Titus: Lady in the Water?

Tom: Lady in the Water is tough to defend. Kind of like Sharkboy and Lava Girl was for Rodriguez.
However, kids love Sharkboy and Lava Girl for some reason. I have yet to meet a kid that likes Lady
in the Water. Actually I have yet to meet a kid who saw Lady in the Water.

Titus: Lady in the Water was real bad, but I think I may have liked it better than The Happening.

Tom: Lady in the Water was supposed to be for kids but it was way too creepy for kids, among many
other problems.

Titus: I thought water being the aliens’ weakness in Signs was lame, but the rest of the movie was good
so it got a pass. The Happening is a whole other story.

Tom: Why would you have a problem with water being the aliens’ weakness? When was the last time
you were attacked by an invading alien race? I am perfectly willing to give things like that a pass in
films because who really knows. Just because it doesn’t fit into our conventional thinking of what
should kill an alien? I take that stance with many films that people/critics are way too hard on.

Titus: No, it’s more like with aliens being as smart as they are why would they invade a planet that is
70% water?

Tom: lol. Again, over thinking the situation.

Titus: haha, this could be a fun blog post.

Tom: It made perfect sense for the aliens because they got a long way before people figured out water
was there weakness. They figured it out by complete accident.

Titus: Water didn’t ruin Signs for me, but it did seem like he was a little lazy with the writing there.

Tom:  I really liked Signs almost as much as Unbreakable.

Titus: I liked Signs too. I thought it was a lot of fun. The Village was ruined for me though because of all
Shyamalan’s plot holes.

Tom: Yeah, that one frustrated me but it was still fun to watch. I enjoyed Bryce Dallas Howard’s
performance. That was the first thing I had ever seen her in. I thought the whole premise for the
film was a neat idea. And it wasn’t crazy plot twists at the end. You kind of already knew.

Titus: With The Village though, I couldn’t buy that Adrien Brody’s handicap character became all
menacing when he put on the monster suit. Stuff like that throughout The Village just ruined it for
me. I did like the ending though and thought it was fairly entertaining.

Tom: I loved in The Village how the people had these bad accents and were attempting to speak in old
English. It bothered me through the whole movie and then it made sense why they were speaking
like that at the end. I thought that was a nice touch.

Titus: They should have a put a twist like that at the end of Robin Hood Prince of Thieves. Shyamalan is
just getting gradually worse. He became so lazy in his writing after he struck gold with The Sixth
Sense and then bombed with Unbreakable.

Tom: I guess sometimes I give people a pass because they have such intriguing ideas. I loved the ideas
and concepts behind Unbreakable, The Village and The Happening. Shyamalan is a good director,
just not sold on his writing. He should dictate his ideas to someone else and let them put them all
to paper.

Titus: Unbreakable, yes. The Village, kind of. The Happening, no.

Tom: You didn’t think the effect of the toxin or whatever in The Happening was cool? What it made people
do? That was awesome! It just shouldn’t have been angry plants.

Titus: Yeah, that opening scene was like the only cool part. I think he is a good storyteller, but I don’t
really think he can direct actors.

Tom: So you would compare him to George Lucas? Lucas is horrible with actors but he is a great
storyteller. It will be interesting with Airbender to see him direct someone else’s material. I think
that will help prove my theory that his only real problem is his writing ability.

Titus: He is basically more of a Lucas than a Spielberg. Which sucks for him since Spielberg is like his idol.

Tom: Lucas has still yet to direct a script he did not write. Shyamalan needs this film (Airbender) to
prove he is still worthy of studios giving him money.

Titus: I agree with you though that sometimes critics and people are too harsh and sometimes they
deserve a pass. But Shyamalan is so cocky and studios give him so much money to make his films,
and sometimes it seems like his films fail just because of his laziness or cockiness.

Tom: You can put a few directors in that same boat. I think Airbender will prove if writing is his only
problem or if he can’t direct actors either. He is getting a young and relatively inexperienced cast to
work with.

Titus: I’ve never really been a Shyamalan naysayer until Lady in the Water and The Happening. Both of
which I saw in theatres right when they came out. I’m still rooting for him in a way.

Tom: I’m always rooting for films and directors in general. I wish they could all be good and come out
the way directors see it in their heads. Then this wouldn’t be a love/hate blog and we would have
nothing to debate.

Titus: That’s impossible as long as Uwe Boll is out there :)

Stay tuned, this debate may continue once we both see M. Night Shyamalan’s The Last Airbender.

Thanks to Tom for editing our Skype conversation so that it was actually grammatically correct and legible.