sammi says

I'm fed up with everyone hating on Christina Aguilera claiming that she is ripping off Lady Gaga in her new video "Not Myself Tonight."

Christina's been pushing the boundaries of acceptable expression of sexuality since 1998. She's been dressing slutty since Lady Gaga was in grade school. She wasn't the first, and she won't be the last pop star to dress like a whore. Don't get me wrong, I love Lady Gaga, but truth be told, I've loved Christina longer.

I can certainly appreciate people, especially the younger crowd, seeing Lady Gaga as a great innovator and ground-breaking artist...And I wouldn't necessarily disagree. But I can also remember when Christina wore ass-less chaps, wrote a song called, "Dirrty," and showed up to award shows wearing ridiculous costumes.

When Lady Gaga first hit the radio with "Just Dance," I remember thinking, "Wow, she's going to blow up...She reminds me of Christina Aguilera." And she was a welcome replacement to fill my pop music needs while Christina got married and had a baby. But now Christina's back and I think we need to make room for our old favorite and quit pitting them against each other.

Has it occurred to anyone that Christina acting like other pop stars (or porn stars for that matter) in her video, "Not Myself Tonight," was intentional? It is called, "Not Myself Tonight," after all. The song title is not exactly an enigma. Perez Hilton, is one of Gaga's main supporters and is ripping Christina to shreds because of this video. Look at his side by side comparison of Lady Gaga's "Bad Romance" and Christina's "Not Myself Tonight." I don't know, I can certainly see some similarities, but I also think he's grasping at straws....Lady Gaga wore red, Christina wore red. Gaga's video featured a hot guy on a bed, clearly, groundbreaking in a music video. And somehow Lady Gaga made wearing sunglasses original. Please.

Here's a cheesy slideshow showing the long line of borrowed fashion trends on pop stars.

Can't we put on our favorite wig and leotard and all be friends?

It's also best to remember that while I'm insisting that Christina has done it all before Gaga, we have to remember that Britney and Beyonce have done it too, and Madonna did it before everyone else...

...and Christina is vocally superior to all of them.

Simply put, "Kick-Ass" kicked ass.

I wasn't thrilled by the trailers leading up to the release of the movie but it got an 80% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes so I figured I'd give it a go. I didn't really know what to expect, is it an action movie? Is it a comedy? Turns out, it was a healthy mixture of both.

The premise...Dave (Aaron Johnson), a comic book-loving high schooler who is mugged frequently, decides to take matters into his own hands and become a superhero despite his lack of superhuman strength, the ability to fly, or any kind of power other than a high tolerance for pain. He orders a scuba diving suit and transforms himself into Kick-Ass. He becomes a YouTube sensation and finds out that he's not the only civilian to take matters into his own hands. He encounters the father-daughter duo of Big Daddy (Nicolas Cage) and Hit Girl (Chloe Moretz) along with the dorky Red Mist (Christopher Mintz-Plasse).

Sounds pretty funny, right? It is hilarious but is also the most graphically violent movie I have ever seen. No kidding.

I'm not really into super violent movies but I didn't find the violence as disturbing as it probably should have been. It's done in such a ridiculous, tongue in cheek way that I was mostly able to laugh rather than cringe in horror. The goriest violence is perpetrated by the foul-mouthed, ten-year-old Hit Girl. She's not invincible and takes a beating a few times which should be really disconcerting, but again, you're able to suspend disbelief and just go with it. There's a lot of blood, limbs are chopped off, people are blown up and set on fire. I'm really not joking about the violence. But lucky for us, the comedy is strong enough to balance the movie.

Definitely go see the movie but be prepared for brutal violence and lots of laughs.

Here's an idea. Let's take the most popular and highest rated shows on television and write an article about how bad they are and insult all their viewer's intelligence in the process.

(see "The Most Overrated Shows on Television")

Thanks, TV.com for telling me that my shows suck. The article lists "Lost," "The Office," "Weeds," "American Idol," "NCIS," "Glee," "Mad Men," and "30 Rock" as the most overrated shows on television. Hit me where it hurts, why don't ya! "Lost," "The Office," and "Weeds" are three of my all time favorite shows. "Glee" is still too new to call it an all time favorite, but right now it's pretty high up there on my list. "30 Rock" isn't a favorite but I have definitely enjoyed it on the occasions that I've caught an episode.

I'm having a real problem with this article mostly because it's written by so called television lovers. As a television lover myself, I can find value in all TV shows even if I think they are pieces of crap. People like TV for different reasons. Some watch for information, some for entertainment, some watch out of boredom and some watch for escape. I respect all TV viewers. As a TV critic it's one thing to review a show and say that you don't like it...but to say that everyone else who does is wrong makes me angry. TV.com could write an article on the TV shows they think no longer work or were never good in the first place, but don't call them overrated insinuating that the viewers are wrong for watching. These are some of the highest rated shows on television, so did they really think it was a good idea to alienate a large portion of their readers?

I don't watch "American Idol," "NCIS," or "Mad Men." In fact, I would go as far to say that I hate "American Idol," and "NCIS." My dad watches "NCIS" reruns like it's his job and on occasion I've had to suffer through watching it during dinner. So even though I can't stand it, I can respect that my dad likes the show...it's clearly not targeting my demographic. "American Idol," is the show that will never die. The show is so popular because people like the familiarity. They know it's going to be on every six months or so and it's just for fun. No complicated story lines, no major drama (my definition of drama is Walt almost getting his head chopped off for wronging drug dealers on "Breaking Bad" not wondering if folk-singer, Crystal, is going home this week) and if you miss a week, you're not completely lost.

No one is being forced to watch television shows they don't like. So all you watchers of the good, bad and "overrated" TV shows, keep tuning in as long as you're still entertained. If you don't like a show, don't watch but don't hate on everyone else that loves it.

Jonathan Safran Foer has easily become my favorite contemporary author after reading his second novel, "Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close." I'm a little late in the game considering it was written in 2005, but I finally got around to reading it and have no idea why I waited so long. I fell in love with his first book, "Everything is Illuminated," after reading it on a whim, mostly because I wanted to read the book before watching the movie. "Everything is Illuminated" is one of those books that isn't easy to read, I often had to reread entire chapters and found myself flipping back pages to see if I missed anything. It's told in the form of letters from a Ukranian translator (whom I can only describe as Borat-like) who is guiding the "hero" on a journey to find a woman who may have saved his grandfather from the Nazi's. Interlaced in the narrative are fairy-tale like chapters describing the mythical, confusing, and comical history of a small Ukrainian village in the 1940's. As promised in the title, everything is eventually illuminated and it makes for a rewarding story.

Foer's writing style is extremely similar in "Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close." It is also the story of a young boy's journey and partly told through letters. It reads almost like a scrapbook, journal or diary, with letters and photos placed throughout the narrative. Nine-year-old Oskar Schell's father died in the 9/11 attacks and so he embarks on a mission to find the lock that matches a key he finds in his father's possessions. Oskar is incredibly intelligent and always coming up with ideas or inventions that would make the world a better place. Oskar is tortured by his father's death and is having a terrible time coping. His journey to find the lock gives him a sense of purpose and he meets some extremely interesting people along the way.

There is the same sense of mystery in this novel as in "Everything is Illuminated," but I found it much easier to understand and extremely exciting. As a reader, it's an incredibly silly task that Oskar hopes to accomplish but you play along because he's a child, as do the characters in the book. As the search goes on, as expected, we learn there's a lot more to the journey than just the end result. If you're thinking this is story about 9/11 you're wrong. It's simply the event that caused his father's death and not a gimmick to gain readers. This novel is about family and serves as a reminder of the imagination, resilience, bravery and optimism of kids and our inner-child. The book is hilarious, smart, heartbreaking and uplifting. There are people that will read this book and be cynical of its motivations but I think that is the exact feeling this novel is trying to protest.

"The Runaways" was probably the movie most likely to disappoint, that didn't. The music is what intrigued me to see this movie; the actors chosen to play Runaways member's Cherie Curie (Dakota Fanning) and Joan Jett (Kristen Stewart) scared me. Kristen Stewart is one of those actresses you either love or hate, there is no in between. I had not been aware of Kristen in her pre-"Twilight" indie movie roles and only started paying attention when she became a gossip-column fixture. I was not impressed with her acting skills in "Twilight," but since I've seen more of her body of work I want to blame her bad rep on the "Twilight" material and the character she plays.

If you've ever seen an interview with Stewart she seems like the most awkward, confused, twitchy person which can certainly rub people the wrong way. In a way, I think she almost has John Mayer-syndrome. We're so used to celebrities acting a certain way; having rehearsed answers to questions, to keep their opinions to themselves and basically have their guard up at all times. Like John Mayer, I think she says the first thing that comes to her mind and is more honest and real than most young actresses. She dresses like crap, doesn't smile at the paparazzi and generally doesn't enjoy her level of fame. I wouldn't expect a clothing line, perfume or ad campaign out of her anytime soon and that's sort of refreshing.

It seems that smaller roles like Joan Jett in "The Runaways" really suit Kristen Stewart. I thought she sounded amazing, had a kick ass attitude and was overall extremely likable and believable as Joan Jett. Even though the story is focused more around Cherie Curie, Kristen stole the show. I never once thought during the movie that Bella Swan was playing a rock star, whereas I had a harder time believing sweet, baby-faced Dakota Fanning was the over-sexualized, sultry, drug-ridden Curie. I don't think it was necessarily Fanning's acting that didn't work, but more along the lines of forever remembering her as the adorable brat in "Uptown Girls." During the more racy scenes I couldn't help but think, "You're just a little girl!!!" Which in retrospect, is probably what the audience is supposed to be thinking considering the real-life Curie was also only 15 years old during the Runaways rise to fame.

I left the movie feeling pleasantly surprised. The music was great. The hair, make up and costumes kept me interested the entire time. There were a few scenes that seemed too dragged out, but other than that, the movie rocked*.


*pun intended

"I'll see you in another life, brother." Desmond's signature catch phrase since his first appearance on "Lost" has never been more true. (Refresh your memory here)

All my wishes came true (see the end of my last "Lost" recap) and this week's episode of "Lost," "Happily Ever After," was Desmond-centric and really shed light on the whole flash-sideways/alternate reality situation. We learned last week that the flash sideways world is in fact a reality in which the Man in Black has left the island and evil has spread. Widmore brought Desmond back to the island because he is the only person who can withstand huge amounts of electromagnetic energy (remember when the hatch blew up?). Clearly, somehow Desmond is a key to keeping the Man in Black on the island and it will involve the island's huge amount of electromagnetism. Widmore's people test Desmond's immunity to the energy which sends him into the flash sideways world--a world in which he not only works for Charles Widmore, but is his right-hand man. Oh, and he doesn't even know Penny.

Widmore gives Desmond the task of collecting Charlie from the police station and delivering him to his son's concert. Charlie is less than thrilled to see Desmond. Charlie explains that when he was choking on his bag of heroin on the airplane he had a vision of the love of his life. Desmond doesn't understand because it's stressed several times in the episode that Desmond has no family, no connections, nothing tying him down. In an attempt to kill himself or to show Desmond what he means, Charlie grabs the steering wheel sending their car into the water. Desmond escapes but Charlie is passively drowning. But of course, in true "Lost" fashion, that super sad music starts playing, Charlie puts his hand to the glass and Desmond flashes. He sees Charlie's hand go to the glass and written on it is, "Not Penny's Boat." (Watch Charlie's original death here) Desmond does what he couldn't do the first time around and saves Charlie's life. At the hospital Desmond is inside a MRI machine (hello, radiation!) and flashes again and sees his life with Penny.

Needless to say, he freaks out, but loses Charlie in the process. So it's up to Desmond to inform Mrs. Widmore that due to Charlie's absence, Drive Shaft will not be performing at the concert. Mrs. Widmore, is of course the all-knowing, Eloise Hawking. She takes Desmond's news extremely well....until Desmond overhears the name "Penny" on a guest list and starts asking questions. Mrs. Hawking quickly changes tones and demands that Desmond "let it go" and continue living his life as planned. Eloise is definitely aware of the alternate reality. Desmond returns to his limousine (the chauffeur is none other than George Minkowski, the communications officer from the freighter who died from the lack of a constant) feeling defeated until he is stopped by none other than Daniel Faraday-Widmore. Daniel overheard the exchange and tells Desmond he had a similar situation after seeing a woman named Charlotte for the first time. He went home that night and spontaneiously wrote a physics equation in his notebook, despite his lack of scientifically knowledge. He tells Desmond that it's an equation for an atomic bomb that would reset time. Desmond asks if he's going to detonate a bomb, Daniel's reply, "I think I already did." Daniel tells Desmond that Penny is his sister and how he can find her.

Desmond finds Penny at the stadium (where he initially met Jack 3 years before the crash of Oceanic 815). He shakes her hand and flashes back to the island where he has survived the electromagnetic radiation. He is no longer hesitant. He tells Widmore he'll do whatever he needs. But before any of that can happen, Sayid "rescues" Desmond from the bad guys. Desmond willingly goes with him. Back in the flash sideways world, Desmond and Penny set up a coffee date. Desmond asks Minkowski for the flight manifest and says he's going to show them something.

Time and time again Desmond-centric episodes have always been my favorite. I love the tie-ins and parallels with previous episodes. I was screaming when Charlie put his hand to the glass. This episode really proves that this series' focus is not about time-travel, science fiction, or even the ultimate battle of good vs. evil, when you boil it down, it is a character based show and is based on love. Think about the power couples- Desmond and Penny, Charlie and Claire, Sun and Jin, Daniel and Charlotte, and even Rose and Bernard....these relationships have transcended time and space and still mean something even in the flash sideways world where some of these people haven't even met each other yet. I can't believe there are only 5 episodes left. I'm going to be so sad when the show is over. I have no idea what's in store for the next episode but I'm sure we can expect to see what Widmore has in store for the Man in Black, or vice versa for that matter.