"Hitman: Absolution" Review

Back from the dead! Both myself and Agent 47 in this post. It has been six long years since Hitman: Blood Money debuted and I, personally, was extremely excited for the new installment and held very high expectations.  Some of these expectations were met, but new changes to how you spend the game has left me with some mixed feelings.

I will start with some non-spoilers: with every new Hitman title that has been released, the controls have improved. In Absolution they were finally perfected. 47 has been granted new abilities, easier to master operating controls, and some great new features like "instinct mode", similar to Arkham Asylum's 'detective mode'. Graphics are obviously another huge improvement, as well as the AI of others, such as guards and pedestrians. All are much more realistic, and therefore bring a new level of challenge to the franchise. They also took away the map, which...while very helpful...was not very realistic to an assassin.

The game also features Hitman's first muliplayer mode: Contracts, not to be confused with the third game: Hitman: Contracts (I agree, a better name could have been in order). Contracts mode allows you make your own targets within each level, and challenge your friends to play them. It's like an assassin's game a H.O.R.S.E. Very interesting, and very cool.

The problems I have with the game are found with the plot. With that, let's head into spoiler territory. 

The game begins with 47 tellings us that Diana betrayed the Agency, named names and what not, and has since gone rogue. Now under the direction of Benjamin Travis (Powers Boothe), the Agency has sent 47 to kill Diana, his sole handler, and now...since Absolution failed to feature an appearance from Agent Smith...the only other character to be featured in all five hitman games. When he does he discovers she was protecting a child named Victoria who Travis had created in a lab to become the ultimate killing machine (a la Agent 47). 47 gets Victoria to safety and calls upon an old friend Birdie (who we have never met before, mind you) to get more information of Victoria. He tells him where he can find Blake Dexter (Keith Carradine). Dexter gets away from 47 and he eventually has both Birdie and Victoria kidnapped. 47 spends the rest of the game trying to get Victoria back and kill Dexter, and eventually Travis.

The rest of the game.

Along the way, he decides certain people need to be killed...but these are few and with the game's new 'broken-down-level' format, seemingly far between. There are no real contracts in the game. 47 acts alone. Which is new, and different...but it didn't work. What made Hitman such a great series is that the player was allowed to be  a hitman. In this game, you were just a man in search of redemption. (Oh, and big spoiler...Diana didn't really die.)

But wait a second...let's back it up to Blood Money for a second.  Blood Money ends with 47 going rogue, unaffiliated with the agency. He speaks to a man in a brothel about seeing what he has to offer 'preferably in the back'. Then curtains close on the camera. 

So...how the hell did we get to Absolution? There is a book, Damnation, that allegedly ties the two together...but gamers shouldn't have to read a 300 page book just to know what is going on, especially since it was released a month before the game was. Not that that isn't plenty of time to down 300 pages...but these arn't well-written, and as I gave up on it about 50 in...they don't appear to say how 47 got back to the Agency.

So there's that.

Absolution ends with Diana telling you, after your final mission (and low and behold, it really is an assigned, go-kill-this-person-for-money mission!) that the money has been wired to your account. So it appears 47 is back at the Agency, and back with Diana, and all is right with the world. But this game did a lot wrong to get there. 

Sure, it was enjoyable, and it was certainly the most plot-based Hitman yet, and I like that about it...but the plot needs improvement for the next one. IO can get back to the format everyone loves while still adding in a thicker plot.

And hopefully it won't take them six years to do that.

"11/22/63" Review and Dream Cast

Stephen King...how I love you.

11/22/63 has three of my obsessions wrapped into one: The JFK Assassination, time travel, and the writing of Stephen King. No matter how many books I read of his, he always manages to pack-in new surprises to  his stories. For example, I wasn't expecting a first-person narrative with the book (it isn't a style King frequents) but it worked delightfully well in this story. I have heard, as well, that a film is in the works, to be written/directed by Jonathan Demme (Silence of the Lambs, Philadelphia) so I shall attach my dream cast after a short review. 

Here is my spoiler warning, skip to the cast list if you just want to see who I hope appears in the apparent film.

The surprise that I loved the most about this story was that it was not so much about the assassination, as advertised, but instead, proved to be a wonderful character study of Mr. Jake "George Amberson" Epping. His life in 'the Land of Ago' was delightful, mostly relaxing and more importantly, fascinating. When it was clear most of the book would focus on his calmer life in Jodie rather than on his time-traveling spy life in Dallas, I was glad. Perhaps it was just a case of the right book at the right time, but I found this 'toned-down' King novel to be one of the most enjoyable.  This calm story of an 'unremarkable' life, was perfectly balanced with moments of classic Stephen King adrenaline. It also was a great parallel to Lee Harvey Oswald's character. While Lee couldn't wait to escape his 'unremarkable life'...Jake wanted nothing more than to secure his.

I will say that I'm quite proud to call my self a conspiracy theorist (or as we prefer, realists) when it comes to the Kennedy Assassination. Going into the book I already had plenty of hours of research under my belt in the subject and early in the book it is established quite clearly that King is going the 'Oswald did it, and did it alone' route. Not historically accurate, I would say...but that's a different blog post for a different day. I only bring up this debate at all for two reasons. Firstly, because King makes a very interesting character out of Oswald in a intriguing parallel character study to Jake. Secondly, King handles the two schools of thought about the shooter(s) beautifully and, although I know he firmly believes Oswald did it, I was able to enjoy the book just as well as someone who believes Oswald never made it to that sixth floor. Again, an argument for a different day...back to the book.

My last blog post about King (and my most popular post to date, I might add) was on the epic Under the Dome, and while 11/22/63 didn't showcase that kind of adventure, the one it did was incredibly original for King, and departed from many of his 'old tricks'. King's strong-suite is storytelling. Always have been, and always will be. 11/22/63 proves that King is still at the top of his game.

Now, just like when Under the Dome came out, it was announced that a film adaptation is in the works. With Dome it was a mini-series directed by Steven Spielberg which has yet to get off the ground. I'm not altogether positive that 11/22/63 is about to hit production, and I can't (at least right now) find any real info on it, but it does appear to be in planning stages and currently does not have a cast.

Originally, I didn't intend write-up one of these dream casts, because I wasn't so sure the book would translate well to film.  But since there is significant film buzz...I figured I'd give it a shot.

Jake "George Amberson" Epping.................Mark Ruffalo

Sadie Dunhill............................................Rachel McAdams

Lee Harvey Oswald....................................Sam Rockwell

Al Templeton............................................Martin Sheen

George de Mohrenschildt...........................Anthony Hopkins

Deke Simmons..........................................John Lithgow

Harry Dunning.........................................Bill Paxton

Frank Dunning........................................Adam Baldwin

The Yellow Card Man................................John Hurt


I spent a long time looking for my Jake and couldn't come up with a damn thing. Then, all of the sudden, Ruffalo popped in there and seemed to be about as perfect as I could get. Personally, I would love to play Jake...but currently I'm about 10-15 years too young, so I'll let it go for now I guess. I also couldn't come up with a perfect Sadie, and McAdams (a blonde one) is about as close as I could get.

I think Rockwell would be a perfect Oswald and would be incredibly interesting in the role.  As for Sheen, I'm not entirely sold either. It isn't exactly how I pictured the role while I was reading, but when I came across his name while looking for others, I thought he just might work.  The same is true of Lithgow. A totally different version of the character than what I imagined when I read the book...but I think he'd bring an equally valid version to the story. That said, I'm still not sold on my own choice. Hopkins would shine as de Mohrenschidt, and as for Hurt...well, he's just what came up.  I also considered him for Harry, but ultimately I give that one to Bill Paxton. Paxton isn't perfect, either, but again...nothing really came to mind.

For the life of me I couldn't think of a good Bobby Coslaw or Bobbie Jill, but I did think that Sally Field would be a great "Old Woman across the street" when Jake lived beneath the Oswald's in Dallas.

I think the reason I had trouble coming up with names was because I honestly don't see this working well as a movie. I'm not saying it won't, but when I read the book I guess I just didn't really picture any big-name stars as the characters. I also pictured myself as Jake...guilty as charged. Sue me.

All around, another great adventure from a great author. His next book, Doctor Sleep, is the sequel to the third big success he had, The Shining. I couldn't be more excited. At first it also looked to be more low-key...but now it promises to go back to King's "balls-to-the-wall horror", something he actually hasn't visited in a few years.

It's long overdue.

Review: "The Dark Knight Rises", and Nolan's 'Batman Trilogy'

I, like most of the world, was prepared to do all kinds of bodily harm to anyone who spoiled anything about The Dark Knight Rises.  If you feel similarly, I suggest you cease and disist now if you have not seen it yet.

(That's how us cool people say: Spoilers)

When The Dark Knight ended I immediately couldn't wait for the third film to come out, and as soon as the credits rolled on The Dark Knight Rises, I immediately knew why. It was not simply because Dark Knight was a brilliant, exciting film, it wasn't the fact that I knew the third film would be great...it was because the story wasn't finished. For this reason I have also found an answer to my naive prediction that the third film 'wouldn't be better than The Dark Knight'. And it's not. It's not...because the films are incomparable to one another. 

Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, and The Dark Knight Rises are, in many ways, a crystal-clear example of what a trilogy should be: one story. Each of these films are imperative to one another's success and the story wouldn't be complete without all three. Batman Begins represents, obviously, the origin of the hero, the story, the world of the film. The Dark Knight showcases the heyday of Batman in Gotham City. For this reason, it will probably remain the favorite of most fans, probably myself included. It includes The Joker, Batman's archenemy, who I have no doubt would have appeared in the third film if not for Heath Ledger's death (just as Scarecrow appears in all three films). 

As a die-hard Batman fan, I know that The Joker Vs Batman is the ultimate villain-hero matchup. So putting it in the middle of the story was exactly where it belonged, because he was the heart of what Batman fought against. But Tom Hardy's Bane delivered an excellent concluding punch to the series in The Dark Knight Rises. The third and final film concluded Bruce Wayne's time as Batman in Gotham , and left his character, as well as those of Gordon, Fox and Alfred fully developed, and beloved. 

So which is the best one? I don't believe anyone can ever claim they think one is 'the best', only which part of the story they like the most.  But what you're here to see is my thoughts on the finale, so let's get to it.

I thought it was a brilliant final chapter to the story. I don't think I need to review it as a standalone film, because never pretends to act as one. If you didn't see the first two, you were not ready, or meant, to see Rises. If you were ready, however, Christopher Nolan was ready to satisfy your anticipation.  The Dark Knight Rises was three hours of beautifully constructed character development and engaging storytelling. The engaging performances by each member of the cast created an incredibly inspiring ensamble of actors. Tom Hardy once again shined, doing justice to the famous Batman foe, Bane. The iconic comic frame of Bane breaking Batman's spine was also included in the film, even with his phrase of 'I will break you'. 

Marion Cotillard also brought her incredible talent to the set, and was incredibly deceiving, playing all twisted aspects of Tali al Ghul to a tee. Also debuting in the trilogy was Anne Hathaway as Selina Kyle, who is never once referred to as Catwoman. I had my doubts about her, I admit, but I was wrong. But Joseph Gordon Levitt once again might have stolen the show. Don't get me wrong, Christian Bale turned in another fantastic performance. I think, of the three, we saw the most range of his Bruce Wayne in this film and he ended his tenure in Gotham beautifully. But Levitt, who is always a joy to watch was a surprise to us all, and although he wasn't playing Dick Grayson or Jason Todd, the revelation of his first name being 'Robin' is an unmistakable reference to The Boy Wonder. Nolan said the character of Robin would never appear in his trilogy, and he didn't. For the most part, Nolan never altered the Batman universe too extremely. But making Detective Blake an orphan, and named Robin, set him up in the same fashion both Robins were for their tenure as The Dark Knight. (Fun fact, Blake was becoming Batman at the end of the film, not Robin. Just saying.) 

The fights, the costumes, the effects...I really was blown away by it all. The atmosphere they created with the overtaken Gotham City was powerfully striking and shouted echoes of 1984 and Brave New World (and Nazi Germany/France for that matter).

The pacing, the music, the atmosphere...it was great. A perfect ending to a wonderfully entertaining story. Hats off to the Nolan Trilogy family on an incredible achievement. If they get the record, the deserve it. 

2012 Emmy Nominations and Predictions

Now, unlike the years past, I'm no longer what you call 'in the loop' for most of primetime television. I do, in fact find this embarrassing. Nevertheless, I know how this game goes so I offer some predictions and commentary on what I do know. 


Key:

Should Win
Will Win




Best Comedy Series
"The Big Bang Theory"
"Curb Your Enthusiasm"
"Girls"
"Modern Family"
"30 Rock"
"Veep"

 I am out of the loop on both of these equally, but I know what the people say and I know what critics say. Big Bang has been on a roll, but I highly doubt it will be able to defeat the beloved Modern Family. For the past two years the show has dominated, and I expect it will again.


Best Actress in a Comedy Series
Zooey Deschanel, "New Girl"
Lena Dunham, "Girls"
Edie Falco, "Nurse Jackie"
Tina Fey, "30 Rock"
Julia Louis-Dreyfus, "Veep"
Melissa McCarthy, "Mike and Molly"
Amy Poehler, "Parks and Recreation" 

 A bold predictions, as I literally have no zero ground to stand on here. But I, and many others adore Amy, so she is my shot in the dark for this one.

Best Actor in a Comedy Series
Alec Baldwin, "30 Rock"
Don Cheadle, "House of Lies"
Louis C.K., "Louie"
Jon Cryer, "Two and a Half Men"
Larry David, "Curb Your Enthusiasm"
Jim Parsons, "The Big Bang Theory"

 Critics are also a big fan of Louie and I really hope he comes out on top. His pseudo-biographical show shows a very intimate part of himself and I truly hope he has to get up and make a speech. I say has to, because, of course, he won't want to be bothered by it.


Best Drama Series
"Boardwalk Empire"
"Breaking Bad"
"Downton Abbey"
"Game of Thrones"
"Homeland"
"Mad Men"

I'm way behind on Bad, but I know what kind of punch it packs. Abbey, however, has been a critical as well as a rating Juggernaut. It won't surprise me at all to see it out on top. Nor would Mad Men, or Boardwalk

Best Actress in a Drama Series
Kathy Bates, "Harry's Law"
Glenn Close, "Damages"

Claire Danes, "Homeland"
Michelle Dockery, "Downton Abbey"
Julianna Margulies, "The Good Wife"
Elisabeth Moss, "Mad Men"

Bates, to me, is constantly overlooked when it comes to award season. Everyone knows of her talent, but rarely is she congratulated for it. I hope she is this year.

Best Actor in a Drama Series
Hugh Bonneville, "Downton Abbey"
Steve Buscemi, "Boardwalk Empire"
Bryan Cranston, "Breaking Bad"
Michael C. Hall, "Dexter"
Jon Hamm, "Mad Men"
Damian Lewis, "Homeland"

 Now this is interesting. This last season of Dexter was not my favorite, and I know many people complain about actors winning awards for 'a season after they deserved it'. I call bullshit. When it comes to television history, nobody cares about individual seasons when it comes to the portrayal of a character. Unlikes film and theatre, television characters live much longer and actors work on their development for years, sometimes decades (ex: Fraiser Crane). They have to deal with different showrunners, directors, and writers while still making their own mark on the character. Michael C. Hall is long over due, and Cranston, brilliant as he is has been awarded several times over. Ultimately, I think he'll pull it off, just as he will next year for this final season.

Best Miniseries or Movie
"American Horror Story"
"Game Change"
"Hatfields and McCoys"
"Hemingway and Gellhorn"
"Luther"
"Sherlock"

It will be a tragedy for Hatfields and McCoys to lose. As History's first real mini-series, the show was a homerun. The entire cast was brilliant and the writing was both phenomenally entertaining as well as educational. I will be enraged if it doesn't bring home some gold.

Best Actress Miniseries or Movie
Connie Britton, "American Horror Story"
Ashey Judd, "Missing"
Nicole Kidman, "Hemingway and Gellhorn"
Julianne Moore, "Game Change"
Emma Thompson, "The Song of Lunch"

Didn't see any of them...but I love Julianne. That's all I've got on this one.
 
Best Actor in a Miniseries or Movie
Kevin Costner, "Hatfields and McCoys"
Beneditch Cumberbach, "Sherlock"
Idris Elba, "Luther"
Woody Harrelson, "Game Change"
Clive Owen, "Hemingway and Gellhorn"
Bill Paxton, "Hatfields and McCoys" 

 And just like that, Costner proved to everyone he's still got it. He was incredible. Incredible. From an acting standpoint, his performance will stick in my mind. I'd be equally fine with Paxton winning, but ultimately I think that Costner should get it, and will get it, for comeback purposes. 

Outstanding Host: Reality-Competition Program
Tom Bergeron, "Dancing With the Stars"
Cat Deeley, "So You Think You Can Dance"
Phil Keoghan, "The Amazing Race"
Ryan Seacrest, "American Idol"
Betty White, "Betty White's Off Their Rockers" 

Let's be real. She's still working, and still awesome, for her age.

Reality-Competition Program
"The Amazing Race"'
"Dancing swith the Stars"
"Project Runway"
"So You Think You Can Dance"
"Top Chef"
"The Voice"

 
Variety Series
"The Colbert Report"
"The Daily Show with Jon Stewart"
"Jimmy Kimmel Live! "
Late Night With Jimmy Fallon"
"Real Time WIth Bill Maher"
"Saturday Night Live"


To be honest, I really don't care about either of these categories. Haven't watched reality TV in ages and all of the Variety shows don't deserve to win. SNL needs a comeback desperately, Colbert and Daily Show are the same as they always have been and we're tired of Stewart winning. Fallon is lackluster and Maher is, well, Maher.  I'm hoping for Kimmel who is at least original.


That's what I got for ya.  Enjoy.

Newsflash: Sorkin is Back

Too damn long.

That's how I would measure the hiatus of Aaron Sorkin from television. The mastermind behind Sports Night, The West Wing, and Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip is back on HBO with The Newsroom, a new drama following Will McAvoy (Jeff Daniels) and the rest of his news team at the fictional Atlantis Cable News Network. 

I delayed writing about the show until now for one main reason: I didn't want to jump the gun based solely on one or two episodes. Now four in, I simply cannot help myself: this show is brilliant. The way the show integrates a fictional news team into real life events is, thus far, seamlessly done. The cast, led by Daniels but also includes Emily Mortimer, John Gallagher Jr, Dev Patel, Sam Waterston and (occasionally) Jane Fonda, bring to life expertly crafted characters that, by the end of the pilot, I was already highly invested in. Daniels' McAvoy is just the right amount of tortured asshole you can love and root for, and this last episode proved it. His celebration, mid-show, after deciding not to pronounce Gabriel Giffords' as DOA at the hospital transferred through the screen and directly to my heart, and I was punching the air with delight right along with him. Aside from individual performances, this group make a brilliant team; both as a news crew and as an acting ensemble. From an acting and directing perspective, you can tell they all get each other and are absolutely grounded in the same realm. This may sound strange, but you can see the same type of cast chemistry in The Office those people are a family both on and off set, and you can feel that when either of these shows end it will be a very sad day at that studio...and that feeling is perhaps the keystone to this show.

By depicting actual events (BP oil spill, 2010 congressional election, Gabriel Giffords' shooting) help the audience to immediately sink into the drama of the moment, partially because we have already been there. It is also not all news drama. As with all Sorkin's work, there are relationship storylines built in that help to drive the main plot forward. In this case, they were introduced in the very first episode...which worried me. I thought they may become a little overbearing (which they did, to an extent, become in Studio 60) but much to my delight, I was proven wrong. Thus far the relationship storylines have been done with nothing but class, and careful planning. 

But points also have to be given to HBO. Very rarely does the network debut a true-to-form 'dud'. Hung is the only thing that comes close, but even that didn't start going down the tubes until its' second season. As a mini-series, the first season was great. People often complain about the networks prices, but, at least you know you'll be getting what you pay for.

Anyway, just a quick blurb about some truly great television; there isn't a lot of it left, so I always try to honor the examples I come across.  

But don't take my word for it: HBO was kind enough to put the whole pilot on YouTube, so please...enjoy. It can't be embedded...but the link is below.

http://youtu.be/1U4ZhFDFYvE

"Amazing Spider-Man" Review

Yes, friends, I've returned once more, and as most of you have probably picked up on by now, for every six-month absence I take I typically come back with a new format for this little Blogger account, so here we go with this one. Once again I'll attempt to write here more often but as I am desperately attempting to finish my two-year saga that is my play "Thick as Thieves", as well work through my summer reading list, I suppose we shall see just how successful I am.

But anyway...my review (spoilers included):

The title "The Amazing Spider-Man" is a fantastic way to describe this reboot versus Sam Raimi's original trilogy.  While I maintain that "Spider-Man 2" is one of the best good ol' fashioned superhero movies there is, this re-imagining goes well beyond a simple action movie and easily claims the title of best Spidy Film to date.

Andrew Garfield's Peter Parker is much closer to the version I always imagined from the comic books, whereas McGuire's was definitely set in a fading '90s style. It worked well for movies, but didn't capture the character at all. Garfield's Parker kept the nerd, but added the wit and whimsical nature everyone loved about the character. Parker works best as an unpopular Marty McFly. Even as the character became more tortured and hardened as the film drew to a close, it remained in-tact to the comic character's true nature, and always stayed in the developmental stage. Ending the film without a complete 'origin story' was the only way to truly appreciate Parker's journey.

The film didn't rush anything. No intro for Norman Osborn. No Daily Bugle. I assume at least the latter will come in the second of "at least three" films, as the official statement says. I loved the pacing of the film. It felt long and short at the same time and the writing was spot on. Although I was expecting Uncle Ben's signature phrase of "with great power comes great responsibility" to make an appearance, I assume it was cut for its horrendous over-usage in the three previous films. A paraphrased version was worked in there, brilliantly hidden by the always wonderful Martin Sheen.

But honestly, the casting department knocked this one out of the park. Martin Sheen and Sally Field as Uncle Ben and Aunt May, Rhys Ifans as Lizard/Dr. Connors...everyone was terrific.

My only complaint is the over-usage of CGI. Although I despise 3D...it wasn't bad in this one, but they slapped me in the face with graphics. I understand for a lot of the shots it was a necessity, but at some points it got a little annoying.  Although, one could argue the graphics do add a certain 'comic strip' feel to the film, I would retort that more often than not it didn't work, at least not to it's full capacity.

But aside from that, I really have no complaints about this one at all, and am already excited to see the next one. Speaking of which...

As for that credits scene (an apparent standard for all Marvel films) it is a little hard to guess who the mystery figure who knows 'the truth about [Parker's] father' is.  The series is clearly diverting from the traditional Spiderman plot, so it makes it harder to judge. Norman Osborn/Green Goblin seems like an obvious choice, since he seems to know Connors well. But in a recent interview Ifans said that it was "definitely not Norman Osborn". So there goes that. It is pretty clear they are setting up Green Goblin to act in the trilogy what he should have been in the first films: Spider-Man's archenemy...not the first villain to go. Personally, I'd like to see him be introduced late in 2, and be the focus of the third film...but we'll see. Since he worked with Connors in this new plot, it could be Morbius, but more likely it is someone who is much better known like Vulture...especially with the way his voice sounded.

So those are my villain predictions: Vulture...maybe Morbius, but unlikely...he isn't well-known enough. I'd love to say Kingpin, but he wasn't nearly fat enough. Perhaps the last film will be a Kingpin-Goblin double feature?!  Of course, I suppose they need to work Venom in there... hopefully they'll do him right this time.

The Shadowy figure at the end of "The Amazing Spider-man"

Then again...there's always Mysterio.

"Finding Bigfoot": Death of TV Documentary Shows?

Awhile back I wrote on the hilarity that is the documentary TV show 'Ghost Adventures'. Some of these documentary ghost-hunting shows are very interesting and have some merit...but Zak Bagans' only offer a ridiculous farce of 'scientific' studies.

Well, friends, I have found a new show that out-does the three idiots on the Travel Channel on Animal Planet called "Finding Bigfoot".

I, myself, have always been interested in Bigfoot.  I'm not saying that I think the species and/or creature necessarily exist, but rather that I hope they do. I also have always been curious in those researching sasquatches.  I think my interest has demented from watching this show, which has its second season premiering this evening at 10pm.

Matt Moneymaker, James "Bobo" Fay, Cliff Barackman and biologist Ranae Holland make up the Bigfoot Field Research Organization, and official organization dedicated to finding concrete proof of the beast.

The group conduct interviews with locals at sites where Bigfoot sighting have occurred, then head out at night to try and press their luck at catching one out and about.  They use methods such as 'Bigfoot calls and whistles', throwing rocks, as well as night-vision, laser alarm systems and helicopters to find the Mr. Big.

First of all, you've got to hear these calls.  They are the most ridiculous excuse for a legitimate animal call I've ever heard.   Like all of their other 'data' on Bigfoots, they always just write it off by saying something like  'These calls are something 'Squatches' respond to' without ever describing...how/why they know that to be true. The phrase 'I've heard they do/like that' is uttered several times an episode. I find this heard to believe. The calls they make are crazy loud, and, for a creature who seems to avoid humans at all costs, they don't seem like a noise they would make...let alone migrate toward.

Out of all of them Ranae (the only scientist of the group) is the voice of reason. She is the first to look at certain pictures and say 'I see a guy with a backpack' where as Bobo (because that name helps his credibility) almost always says 'Oh, no doubt in mind...that's a squatch."  Matt Moneymaker, the founder of the BFRO says he has spent 20 years chasing the possibly fictitious beast, and, like all of them, claim to have had some kind of encounter at one point or another (Bobo has claimed to have seen two Bigfoots, and has tattoos of their tracks to prove it).

If you watch an episode (several lead-up to the finale tonight)  you'll see why this show is good for a laugh.  I find the stories the people they interview pretty interesting, especially as they try to see if they are telling the truth...but the 'investigation' is nothing but nonsense.

If the point of the show was to increase people's belief in the existence of Bigfoots...I think they're hurting their own cause. Here's the add for tonight's premiere, gives you an idea of the calls if nothing else, and below that is the famous Patterson-Gimlin film...just for fun.