Film Review: The Illusionist

So I watched yet another Oscar nominated film last night, this time it was The Illusionist.

Some of you may recall that this movie came out at about the same time as another film about magic: The Prestige. Fitting, then, that they happen to be facing off in the Oscar category for Achievement in Cinematography. (The Prestige is also nominated for Achievement in Art Direction)

Upon viewing the film, I realized why The Illusionist received no other Oscar noms.

This movie is soooooooooooooooooooo obvious. I was stunned. If you are fooled by any of the "swerves" in this film, you either don't watch enough movies or were dropped on your head as a child.

I couldn't believe it. Does the director/writer (same guy - no surprise) actually think we don't see the transparency of the "mystery"? And because the mystery is so obvious, the Usual Suspects-style ending is laughable (not to mention it makes no sense in the context of Paul Giamatti's character).

How the f@#& did this movie score a 75% on rottentomatoes? The characters and cast might have been decent, but the story is pathetic.

Thumbs down.

Rent the more entertaining and comparably rated The Prestige instead.

Film Review: Babel

Knocked this one off my "To see" list, too.

As most of you now know, Babel is getting lots of Oscar attention for its 7 nominations, including Best Picture.

I'm not surprised that it got the nominations: this movie is a Crash clone. Did you like Crash? I sure as hell didn't.

By the way, I just had a look: Crash got a 75% on rottentomatoes. I thought that was brutal for an Oscar film - until I noticed Babel's 69%!!!! That's atrocious for an Oscar film. If critics are having such a hard time liking it, why is the Academy praising it?

Let me summarize both films: "Bad things happen to people whose lives are intermingled in some way."

That's it. The end. Pass the Oscar.

This movie had a lot going for it. First of all, director/producer Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu deserves a ton of credit for putting this thing together. The movie looks good and it works for the most part. Writer Guillermo Arriaga, on the other hand, ought to be shot - by Inarritu. So much of this movie is filled with crappy dialogue that I just couldn't enjoy it.

The Brad Pitt/Cate Blanchett storyline is boooooring. It's especially boring for those in the audience actually paying attention - the outcome is blown early on, so where's the suspense? Their first scene together is doinated by the most heavy-handed, obvious, film school exposition that I cringed, groaned, then almost fell asleep. People in that situation wouldn't be having that kind of conversation - because they would have had it long before they got there.

But the real sign that this movie had problems came in a scene later in the movie, again involving Pitt. Clearly, the writer and/or director actually thinks that the audience is being shown something new - that a revelation is taking place. But again, if you paid attention early on, this is the most boring, superfluous scene in the movie.

My friend and I agreed on which storyline was our favourite, but disagreed on our reactions of the storyline involving the character Chieko. She hated it, and I actually enjoyed it in that it was daring and somewhat different. It's no spoiler to say that it involved a girl with a handicap, which I actually found somewhat compelling. It gets a little out of hand, though, and includes one of the crassest bits of foreshadowing ever put to film. I actually laughed.

Oh, and a little warning - those prone to seizures should avoid this film. There's a scene about halfway through that puts Pokemon to shame.

Overall, I can't bring myself to give this movie anything more than a thumbs sideways - it was as obvious as you think it might be, going in. I got exactly the kind of movie I was expecting - a Crash clone - and that's not good.

Film Review: Little Miss Sunshine

So there's this new video store near my place. I don't know how widespread they are. It's called Videoself and what happens is that you take out movies using a computer and automatic dispenser 24/7 for the low low cost of just $1.99 for 6 hours or just over $3 for a day.

Pretty sweet. I was waiting for the problems to start.

Anyhow, I signed up and got a debit type card. I put on $20 and they added $5 as a promotion. I rented Citizen Kane that night (don't ask).

The other night, though, I rented one of the Oscar films I'm trying to catch up on: Little Miss Sunshine.

I'd heard very good things about it and although I hadn't taken the time to see it in the theatres, I was looking forward to watching it now, mostly because of the very good cast.

Right off the bat I appreciated the quirkiness of the movie. I give writers/directors/actors lots of credit for trying to make a "different" movie. It shows effort. But it doesn't always work.

Overall, I liked this movie. The cast did a terrific job and I enjoyed the "road trip" aspect. If I had a bone to pick, it was with the use of the various characters. In my mind, Alan Arkin and Steve Carell were the highlights of the movie but (to varying degrees) they essentially disappear halfway through the movie. The story is pretty much left in the hands of Greg Kinnear, who had an interesting role, but I didn't sympathize with him nearly as much as I think I was supposed to.

I really enjoyed Paul Dano as Dwayne. I actually thought the movie would have been better served by making him the focus of the denouement.

Abigail Breslin was charming in her own right. As to whether or not she deserved an Oscar nomination, well, that's another discussion for another day.

If you haven't seen this movie, go rent it before the Oscars.

Thumbs up.

Oh yeah: the widescreen side of the dvd I was watching froze in the last 5 minutes (arrrggghh!) - fortunately I was able to watch the ending using the full screen side. Seeing as I returned the movie after the attendant had left, I inserted a note in the case for the next renter.

Martin Scorsese's Sesame Streets

Man, I was having a downer of a day until I finally got around to watching this clip a friend had sent me.

Cheered me right the f**k up, as only a spoof trailer featuring muppets and swearing can.

For the record, I don't think Scorsese should win this year either (for the overrated The Departed). Maybe he should consider making the next Muppet Movie...

Altruism

I was reading an article on Boingboing today (yup - it must mean I'm back to being bored) about the neuroscience of altruism.

I was pleased to read that the study being quoted found that altruism is more a result of people being consierate of others rather than a roundabout selfish impulse meant to bring about pleasure and contentment to the doer - thus not altruistic at all.

I like to think that I am generally a considerate person who often performs altruistic tasks (though not for jerks - jerks are jerks and they can kiss my ass!).

I've noticed, however, that this sort of behaviour can be met with strange reactions in others; often the person will question my motive or even be startled, instead of simply saying thanks or smiling. This led me to believe that not all people are as considerate of others. This sort of behaviour was unfamiliar to them.

I always think that's pretty darn sad.

Oscar Nominations 2007: The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

Every year around this time, I hold out the faint hope that the Oscar nominations will make sense and that the best in cinema will be duly recognized.

And ever year I shake my head at a nomination or ten.

Once again the Best Supporting category is in the middle of it all.

Mark Wahlberg as Best Supporting Male for The Departed?

Are you sh**ting me?! The guy's in the movie for about 15 minutes and the extent of his role involves putting on a tough mug and cursing at Leonardo DiCaprio. Honestly: wtf? Just think of the thousands of movies out there and the millions of roles that could have been considered for this category. Is anyone in their right mind actually going to argue that Wahlberg's performance was one of the top five? It wasn't even one of the top five in that movie!

Then there's the flipside: the Sam Jackson argument. That is, when someone gets nominated for Best Performance in a Leading Role, when clearly they had a supporting role. This year, Merryl Streep was nominated for Best Actress in a Leading Role for The Devil Wears Prada. Last time I checked, Anne Hathaway played the lead and Streep played the supporting character. I mean, there are tons of scenes involving Hathaway that have nothing to do with Streep, but the reverse is not true. Clearly the movie is about Hathaway's character. Just because an actor chews the scenery when they're on screen doesn't mean they are the lead. Streep might have been a lock to win in the Supporting category, but as lead? She wouldn't get my vote.

Fortunately, the rest of the nominations were spread around a little. Babel is probably in the driver's seat for Best Picture and to scoop up a bunch of awards, but they didn't get any noms in the Leading categories. I didn't see the flick, but when a picture gets a ton of nominations in every category except yours, it's a kick in the balls. This is known as the DiCaprio/Titanic rule, and I support it wholeheartedly. Just because a movie is great, doesn't mean it had a top five in every category.

Aside from that, no real shockers. I was pleasantly surprised to see Peter O'Toole get nominated for such a small flick (I don't think anyone in attendance at the announcement had heard of it - it was the only nomination I can recall that received no applause).

Pan's Labyrinth got a few noms; look for it to win the "artsy" categories.
And could someone please tell the Canadian Press that Water is nominated for Best Foreign Language Film, not the non-existent "Best Foreign Film" category? There's a reason movies like The Queen aren't nominated in this category.

Stay tuned for my Oscar pics as well as my top films of the year (yes, those are two different posts entirely).

Now I have to go out and see Babel, Letters From Iwo Jima, Little Miss Sunshine, Blood Diamond, Dreamgirls...

Like I wasn't going to the movies enough recently...

Film Review: Venus

Ok, now I remember the last movie I saw that I really liked. It was yesterday and it was called Venus.

It's in limited release and hasn't been getting much press, so don't sweat it if you haven't heard of it. In Toronto, it's only playing at the horrid Cumberland in Yorkville.

The movie tells the story of an old man and his budding friendship with a teenaged girl. It's kinda like Lost In Translation, but much more honest, stark and, well, creepy. If you can wrap your head around the old man's motives, you'll thoroughly enjoy Peter O'Toole's performance. I smell an Oscar nom.

Great performances all around by this cast, in fact. And that includes Jodie Whittaker who has the rather challenging role of the Lolita in the story.

Sure, you can wait for it to come out on video (I mean, there are no explosions, I'll give away that much) but I'm glad I saw this one before I heard too much about it.

Thumbs up.

"There are no pockets in a shroud."

- Leslie Phillips in Venus

Film Review: Children Of Men

It's been a bit of a movie week, huh?

What can I tell you about Children Of Men?

This is yet another flick that had been getting good reviews on rottentomatoes (currently 91%). I had high hopes for this one after some friends of mine suggested that it would be "conversation worthy".

When the credits rolled, I had no idea what they were talking about.

This movie was fine, but not exactly the intellectual stimulation I had been expecting. It basically devolved into an action flick. Meh.

When you consider that this film is about what happens to society when infertility sets in and the population is essentially doomed, well, I gotta say there wasn't a lot of meat on this sucker.

Clive Owen was alright; he's always been ok in my book, ever since Croupier (I'll admit to not having seen King Arthur, though) and Michael Caine was enjoyable in his supporting role.

But the story...well, I can't talk too much about it without blowing stuff, but let's just say I was expecting a whole lot more. And if the story is gonna go to hell, at least throw in some philosophy, will ya? I mean beyond the first 20 minutes. It's the end of the f***ing world, guys!

I give this flick a thumbs sideways. Wait for the dvd.

I'm trying to think of the last movie I really liked.

...It'll come to me...

Film Review: Pan's Labyrinth

Managed to knock this one off my list too.

Ok, where to start? Oh, I know: this movie is not for kids!

Can I stress that enough? Don't even think about it. Heck, it's not for some adults. There's some pretty grotesque violence, including a variation on one of the most disturbing pieces of violence I have ever seen committed to film (see Irreversible - no, not that scene).

Right now, Pan's Labyrinth (El Laberinto del Fauno) is sitting at 96% on rottentomatoes. That's unbelievable. It's been getting great press (if not a lot of it) and is sitting on many "year's top ten" lists.

I'd have to think about it, but I bet it'd make my top ten of this year. Not sure if that says more about the movie or the kind of year it's been. (Stay tuned for that list)

All in all, I definitely liked it. I would recommend seeing this one on the big screen rather than waiting for the dvd for the simple fact that larger-than-life effects always look better, well, larger than life.

But I'll warn you: don't expect wall-to-wall fantasy. This movie is at least as much about the "real world" as it is about the surreal one. Part of my disappointment in this film stemmed from the fact that I was expecting...more. I didn't mind the "real world" per se, but the storyline was rather simplistic and it unfolded in an obvious fashion. The movie just didn't surprise me enough for me to go completely ga-ga over it.

This is the type of film teachers like to use for thematic examination. By the end, I was trying to figure out exactly what the events meant. I think I have a pretty good idea - now I'm just trying to figure out if I'm ok with that.

Can't say too much more without spoiling some stuff, so I'll leave it at that.

Go see it.

Film Review: Volver

Finally got around to seeing this one.

Haven't heard of it? Hm...it's kinda hard to describe without blowing the plot...suffice to say it's a Spanish movie with subtitles about a quirky family living in a quirky town. Good enough? Cool.

This film had been getting great reviews on rottentomatoes, so it, along with Pan's Labyrinth and Children of Men, has been high on my "to see" list.

I liked it, but I have to say it wasn't quite as good as I thought it'd be. I had heard a little about the plot going in and it sounded interesting in the aforementioned quirky way, but in the end I don't think it quite delivered. I was definitely into it, but for a while it felt like I was watching two different movies because of the two main plots. I wanted Penelope Cruz to be more involved in the secondary plot because you just knew that's where the fireworks were going to be. Instead, we were treated to a "day in the life"-type story for her character.

Oh, and an insane amount of cleavage.

I don't know what Cruz's relationship to the director is, but there were so many gratuitous cleavage and butt shots that it made me wince.

..But I didn't mind too much...

Overall, thumbs up. I dont know if it'll get Oscar buzz for Foreign Language Film (in which case you might want to catch it soon), but I'd suggest waiting for the DVD realease.

...That way you can pause it at the good parts!!! Booyah!!!

President Obama?

I don't know if you've heard of this guy, but a Democratic senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, has been hinting he might run for President in 2008. If he won, he'd be the first black President.

Hey, I wish the guy good luck, but, um....

...am I the only one who thinks that his name will hurt his chances?

I mean, I know that every time I hear/see the guy's name, I think of good ol' Osama Bin Laden. And if a gentle, sweet, innocent Canadian makes that connection, just imagine how he sits with the good ol' boys down south.

Can you imagine the headlines if there's ever a scandal or two involving this guy?

Picture this:

Obama Sin Laden

Random January Thoughts

I've started working again, so I don't have the free time to post as much as I did. You may notice that this seems to be a direct contradiction of my blogging theory from a few weeks ago, but, see, this time I'm actually busy at work.

So, here are some highlights of what's been on my mind recently:

- George Bush is a dumb-@$$ motherf***er. No, this is not news, but it was brought into full view again this week. The invasion of Iraq is so incredibly unpopular that voters overwhelmingly supported the Democrats in the last round of elections. Does this deter Mr. Bush? Nope. He vows to increase the presence of troops in the region, since this will accelerate the mission's completion. This from the same man who claimed that when he won the election and Republicans were elected to Congress, that the American people had given him a mandate and that he was now in possession of "political capital" that he planned to spend. Newsflash, @$$hole: you're broke.

- The Dallas Cowboys were eliminated from the NFL playoffs on an unlikely botched 19-yard field goal attempt when darling quarterback Tony Romo fumbled the snap. I won't lie: I was pulling for "Them Cowboys", but this is an example of what makes sports great: drama. You gotta feel for the guy. He comes in in relief of struggling Drew Bledsoe, goes on a winning streak, becomes the toast of the town, then wears the goat horns for the entire off-season because of one play. Season ruined. That's gotta suck.

- Speaking of sports, David Beckham's career ended this week. The former star midfielder for Manchester United and the English national team decided to sign with the Los Angeles Galaxy (you've heard of them, haven't you?) of the MLS for a whopping $250 million over 5 years... Wow. Look, I like Beckham. I've been watching him since he was a kid, but this is so stupid. Sure, he's past his prime, but he's still leaps and bounds beyond this league. This is a no-win situation: he either plays well and puts the league to shame, or he plays so-so and he's a bust. Forget what he said about being in America to promote soccer (though I hope there is an increase in interest), Mr. Posh Spice will be swallowed up by the Hollywood lifestyle. He'll be at all the premieres, all the hot spots and his face will adorn every newstand in the land. Soccer? What's that?

- Now this really pissed me off: Liberal MP Wajid Khan stabbed his constituents in the back by crossing the floor to join the Conservative caucus. Mr. Douchebag (I mean Khan! Khaaaaaaaaan!) had been acting as a special advisor to PM Harper regarding the situation in Afghanistan (because, apparently, Mr. Harper doesn't know any other Muslim folk - go figure). Understandably, this rather odd arrangement didn't sit particularly well with new Liberal leader Stephane Dion. Mr. Khan pounced on this opportunity to leap to the government side. Mr. Khan, it seems, thinks he took the high road. "When I'm given a choice … between a political party and my country, I will always choose Canada and that's why I chose the Conservative government," said Khan. You. Stupid. Bastard. I swear, there should be a rule against floor-crossing. The right thing for Mr. Khan to have done would have been to resign from the Liberal Party, sit as an independent, continue to advise Harper, and run in the next election under whatever banner would accept him. There was no reason to join the Conservatives unless he wanted to protect himself. This was a selfish move that did not take into account how voters in Mississauga-Streetsville would have their votes nullified. I can't wait to see this moron get his ass handed to him in the next election. Can't wait.

- The Leafs suck.

That's it for now. I've got some playoff football to watch. (Sorry, Bob, I'm pulling for Da Bears)

Little Mosque On The Prairie - Tonight! 8:30 CBC

A little last-minute, but...

The premiere episode of Little Mosque On The Prairie is on tonight (let's hope it's better than the website!). My old buddy Zaib is starring as Toronto lawyer who moves to Saskatchewan to start over as an imam.

The show's been getting tons of press and buzz due to its subject matter, but of course that has led to the more recent negative backlash as the debut approaches. I'm expecting polite Canadian chuckles, not belly laughs at South Park-type humour.

It's the CBC: grain of salt, folks, grain of salt. If this is even a decent show, it'll be a step in the right direction for the national broadcaster.

Let me know what you thought!

I'm sure as hell gonna let you know...

If you want to see more of Zaib, catch his appearance on The Hour, here.

UPDATE: 2.1 million viewers. Wow. That's an unbelievable number. Let's hope it stays high in upcoming weeks. The show has promise if the actors can settle into their roles and they hire a new cameraman... Next week it plays in its regular timeslot - Mondays at 9pm, which puts it up against the likes of Heroes...

Cancer Lottery is a Scam: What are the odds of that?

So one of my pet peeves came up again this week.

See, I got a flyer for the "Cash for Cancer Lottery" to help support the Oshawa Hospital Foundation. All things being equal, I figure this is a worthy cause and I'm glad they make money off this.

My problem is the advertising.

The flyer promotes amazing "1 in 7 odds you'll win!" Those odds really are amazing - because they're a complete fabrication.

They sell 87,500 tickets and draw roughly 12,500 tickets. That's about 1 in 7 right? Sounds pretty good.

Oh, but wait; it gets better.

You get multiple chances of winning because - get this - they put the drawn names back into the "barrel" after each draw. Wow! Awesome, right?

Wrong. You just failed math.

If they drew all 12, 500 tickets in one shot, yes, you'd have 1 in 7 (12,490 in 87,500) odds of winning. But they don't. They draw one ticket out of 87,500 each time.

Put it this way: I have 100 tickets. I'm going to draw 50 winners in one shot. What are your odds of winning? 50%, right? What if I draw one winner, put the ticket back in and draw 49 more times, one at a time? Is it still 50%?

Nope.

You following this? Ok, let's make it simpler.

I have 100 tickets. I draw 100 winners in one shot. What are your odds of winning? 100%, right? You are definitely going to win. Way to go.

But if after each name I draw I put the winning ticket back in, what are your odds of winning? 100%? Nope. (The original winner could win again, thus usurping your victory - bastard!)

So if the odds aren't 1 in 7, but actually something not quite as good, what are your odds of winning?

Uh...I don't know. I didn't take Probability and Statistics. Didn't need it to get into Theatre.

But I am smart enough to know that it's something akin to this: I flip a coin. What are the odds it'll come up heads? 1 in 2, right? 50%? Good. Now, does that mean that if I flip the coin twice that I'm guaranteed to get heads at least once? Nope. I could get tails twice. You have to look at the possibilities.

Heads + Heads
Heads + Tails
Tails + Heads
Tails + Tails

So, if I flip a coin twice, my odds of getting heads at least once is 75%...that's not quite the same as 100%, is it?

Now, I ask again: if there are 87,500 tickets and I draw one name at a time 12,500 times, but put the winner back each time, what are my odds of winning?

Worse than 1 in 7, that's for sure.

Here's a better question: why are these lotteries allowed to get away with this blatant false advertising?!

I'm calling them right now...

International Bowl in Toronto

Have you heard about it? No? Don't beat yourself up - most people haven't.

And that's the problem.

See, when I heard a couple of months ago that a NCAA Bowl game was going to be played in Toronto, I was like, "Woo-hoo! Cool. When? Who's playing? I'm there!"

I'm not a huge fan of college football (American or Canadian - I went to UofT and Ryerson), but I'm a fan of Toronto as a potential destination for a NFL team. So, given the opportunity, I'd go and support the game in order to sell the city to the American viewers and league officials.

The first hiccup came when they announced the teams for this International Bowl: Cincinnati (7-5) and Western Michigan (8-4).

I didn't know Cincinnati had a football team. (Though their basketball team is pretty good)

I didn't know Western Michigan existed!

My interest plummeted. I no longer really cared. I mean, if the BCS isn't going to put more effort into giving this game a real chance of succeeding, why should I bend over backwards to eat their crap?

But, while I was a little miffed, I was still considering going. Then a strange thing happened; they stopped promoting it. I heard about it from time to time on talk radio, but there were no ads to be seen - not even on the subway! I wasn't even sure when the game was being held. What kind of chance did this "historic event" have?!

Then I heard the game was being held on the first day of the NFL playoffs. Pfft! No thanks. F-U, BCS.

Turns out the playoff games don't start till 4pm. Oops. So, it's the day of and I'm watching the International Bowl on tv. It's a pretty good game, though the announcers leave a little something to be desired.

Western Michigan was down 24-0, but have come back to tie the game. Pretty exciting.

Wish I'd gone.

Film Review: Jersey Girl

I confess: I watched the W Network tonight.

But, oddly enough, my manhood was not threatened. I was watching - get this - a Kevin Smith movie! ...On the W Network?!

Jersey Girl was the one Smith flick I hadn't seen. Partly, I suppose, because it's not really part of the View Askew-niverse as we know it. If Jay & Silent Bob aren't in it, it don't count.

The other reason I hadn't seen it was because of the Bennifer Effect - that's the Lopez "Ennifer", not the Garner "Ennifer". I was sick of the bullshit relationship buzz and couldn't drag my ass out to see this flick, despite my usual support for Smith.

Ok, let's get to the flick. It wasn't half bad. It starts off a little rough with some typical cheese and some bad acting, but once a certain actress woh shall remain nameless leaves the scene (not a spoiler - it's pretty obvious), the pace picks up immensely.

The film's got charm. There's some typical characters in typical roles, but I didn't mind too much. The film plays out much as you'd expect, but that was ok, too.

I'd heard the little girl was a dead ringer for the spawn of J-Lo, but holy crap! Great casting. She doesn't seem to have done much since, but I thought she was pretty good. I guess the Bennifer curse got her.

See, this flick came out a little after Gigli - the name that henceforth shall not be spoken; which is good, 'cause most people don't know how to pronounce the title! I haven't seen that one, either, but the clips I've caught make it seem pretty atrocious. I think if Jersey Girl had come out first, it would have actually done ok. Hell, maybe J-Lo and B-Aff would be married now.

Way to dodge a bullet.

So, while I cannot give this film a thumbs up as a movie in the grand scheme of things, I think it's a pleasant watch for Smith fans with a softer side (like me - Snoogans!) or people who like sentimental crap.

Oh, and Liv Tyler was not only bearable, but downright hot! Where did that come from?!

p.s. Sweeny Todd is actually a pretty good show with a couple of memorable songs - it's Sondheim, go figure. (Told you I was in touch with my softer side!)

Oprah Winfrey: Sexpert?!

First of all: happy 2007 everybody. Did you all have a good time? Great. Now let's get back to some bitching, shall we?

So I'm hanging out with a friend of mine the other day and we're flipping through the channels on the ol' boob tube. One unfortunate channel happened to be showing the Oprah "look at me, I'm the voice of god, I'll give you a car if you bow before me" Winfrey Show (honestly, what kind of ego do you have to have to crash weddings with a camera crew and expect to be welcome? And btw, she doesn't give away cars, the car company donates them for promotion - she just takes the credit). I noticed Jay Leno and a couple of other guys I didn't recognize were sitting on some panel. I fought my instincts and stayed on the channel for more than a split second. I figured out that this was supposed to be an honest conversation about men.

Amongst the topics being discussed were:

- Why do men watch porn?
- Why do men love golf?
- Why do men cheat?
- What do men think about after sex?

Ok, ladies, listen carefully: if you want to know the answers to these mysteries, find yourself a man you trust (don't laugh) like a boyfriend, brother, friend etc. and ask him. Do not, under any circumstances, listen to what you hear on the Oprah Winfrey Show.

If you have no such honest man in your life, come back here and ask me: I'll give it to you straight.

Oprah is all about political correctness and frowning on anything that may seem blunt or crass.

There's nothing politically correct about the answers to these questions, ladies.

Is Jay Leno really going to give an honest answer about sex and porn with Queen Oprah sitting there, judging him?

I was praying for Sue Johanson to make a surprise appearance. I'd pay to watch that episode! Let's see Oprah try to shame her!