Pay Up or Get Out

   I turned on my TV the other day and the first thing I heard was "BREAKING NEWS..." so naturally I'm thinking "uh oh, this could be a long day."  Turns out the Breaking News was actually an update to Chelsea Clinton's wedding.  I knew then that it was going to be a long day, but for a different reason.
   Seriously, what kind of world do we live where an ex-president's daughter's marriage is considered breaking news?  Is there nothing more serious or pressing going on in the world right now?  Thank you once again, CBS Early Show, for opening my eyes to just how stupid and ridiculous this world can be.  I guess it coulda been worse... it coulda been another update on Lindsay Lohan's pathetic, miserable life.
   I will say this: that "Breaking News" got me thinking about how overblown and outrageous weddings have become.  Sure Chelsea Clinton's wedding was expensive, but she's also loaded and sort of a public figure, so her parents are going to go all-out (especially if it gives Hillary some media attention... 2012 is right around the corner after all).  But did you know that the average wedding nowadays costs around $25,000???  $25,000!
   Now I have a few close friends who are getting married, and I want to make sure if they read this that they understand I'm in no way dogging their weddings.  I also know that what I'm about to say will probably hurt my chances with the ladies... but it needs to be said.  Flat-out, $25,000 is way too much to spend on one night of fun, even if it's followed by a week of awesomeness on the honeymoon.  So much of that money goes into the dress (which is pretty, sure, but is forgotten after the ceremony), the wedding cake (which hardly anyone ever eats anyway), and the booze (the only respectable thing I can think of wasting money on)... it's out of hand.  I can think of about a million different things I would rather drop 25-grand on than a one-night party with a bunch of people I hardly know.
   And while we're on the subject, let's talk engagement rings.  I can't tell you how many women I've known who have been upset because their boyfriends were taking too long to buy them an engagement ring... but do you women understand that those are thousands and thousands of dollars?  I'm trying to save money to buy a house... there's no way I can afford to waste half my year's salary to buy a little piece of metal with a rock in it so that you can giggle and show it off to your friends!  The way most marriages are going these days, I'd bet the majority of dudes are still paying for those rings well after the divorce is finalized.  And in a lot of cases, those engagement rings come off once the wedding is over and are NEVER WORN AGAIN!  That's a shame, it's a waste of money, and it's absolutely ridiculous.
   I have an idea.  How about we all sit down and get back to what marriage is really about.  Instead of seeing how much money we can piss away on flowers and tuxedos and tablecloths, let's instead think about how many years we're going to be together and decide if that's really something we want to commit to.  Let's stop counting the dollars going down the drain, and start counting our blessings that we've actually met someone who we're willing to share the rest of our lives with.  Let's drop the fancy clothes and cakes and instead focus on family and friends and their support of our love for each other.  Let's try an experiment, and put a spending cap on the American wedding.  Under this cap, you don't get to wear a fancy dress (you can dress up, but none of this $8,000 bullshit).  You get a bakery cake instead of some overpriced garbage.  And you get to invite family and a limited number of close friends.  Oh and there's no registry for gifts.  Okay, so now that we've got all that in place, let's just see how many weddings there are.  That will really separate those who are truly in love from those who are so caught up in the surface-level ideas of an engagement/wedding, and I'm going to go out on a limb right now and say that under this experiment, the number of weddings (and divorces) will drop considerably.  Just a thought...

Who Are You Really Helping?
   Recently, a man was freed from prison after spending almost 30 years behind bars for a crime he didn't commit.  He was released and will be compensated nicely for the time he spent locked up (even though that hardly makes up for the hell he's been through).  I can't imagine how awful that must have been, how terrible it would be to wake up every morning in jail, knowing that you're an innocent man.  I say this because I want you to know that I am in no way trying to diminish what this man went through... but what DOES anger me is that the so-called "activists" jumped all over this guy's story, and in my opinion exploited his situation beyond belief.
   This guy was an African American, but what I'm talking about goes way beyond African American Activists, and way beyond the local level.  All over this country, for all races, there are activists who make their money preaching great ideas like "equality" and "freedom for all," when in reality all they are doing is perpetuating the exact opposite.
   Look at it like this: America was founded on the idea that the harder you work, the better your life will be.  It was also founded on everyone being equal, which unfortunately didn't last.  Slavery was a terrible thing, as were the way the Irish and other Europeans were treated in early America, as well as the Asians during World War 2, the list goes on.  However, these tragic parts of our country's history have now been reduced to ammunition which is used by these activists, to victimize those very same populations.  Now instead of telling people "the harder you work, the better your life will be," these people are being told that they deserve to be treated better, and that they are owed something.  I say that's trash.
   Slavery was awful.  The tenements in New York were awful.  World War 2 and it's internment camps were awful.  But those were years, decades go.  I didn't have anything to do with that, and neither did any of my living relatives.  Chances are, neither did yours.  It's time to put down that sword and accept that, while there are still plenty of injustices in America (on all sides, including against white people), for the most part we are living in a more equal and level country than we ever have before.
   Martin Luther King had a dream, and I believe that dream is being trampled on by the same "activists" who claim to be protecting it.  A perfect example: Mr. King dreamed of a world where people were not judged by the color of their skin... and yet here we are with Affirmative Action, which basically gives a person a job based on the color of his or her skin.  Who started that?  The Activists.  Now you tell me, because I can't really understand how that is protecting Mr. King's idea?  Anyone?  No?
   My favorite part of this is that when someone from one of these populations (like Bill Cosby) decides that it's time for us to stop hiding behind past transgressions, that there's no excuse for us being lazy and not wanting to work, that it's time for us all to get off our asses and make things happen for ourselves instead of depending on others to carry our weight... that person is then shunned, kicked out of the community!  And in the meantime, these "activists" are profiting off of creating more division and inequality, stirring a pot that doesn't need to be stirred, and creating a rift that shouldn't (and probably wouldn't) be there if they hadn't started it in the first place.
   So here's my message to all of you: why not hit the reset button?  Why not give life a fresh start and try hard like everyone else?  Sure you may have some transgressions against you (like our guy who spent 30 years in jail for no reason), and sure you have a right to be angry about those and to be compensated for those... but let's stop falling back on the same old dividing factors that none of us had anything to do with, and instead look forward to actually living in a world where we can get a job based on qualifications, where we can walk down the street and not feel nervous when a group of people from another race pass by, and where we all respect ourselves and each other enough to work for ourselves, to take care of ourselves, and stop waiting for someone else to pick up the torch we lit and clean up our mistakes.  In other words, a world where people take responsibility for themselves and their actions, and where they hold themselves accountable for improving not only their own lives, but the lives of their children and the people around them.  How's that for a dream?

Where Is The Line Anyway?
   I've noticed a lot of conversation lately about the proposal to build a mosque very close to the site of Ground Zero... you know, where the 9/11 attacks took place?  Yeah, there.  Understandably, it's got a lot of people upset.  There are those who think this is an insult to the people who died on 9/11. and there are others who say that not all Muslims are bad, and that we should look beyond our petty differences at the big picture here.  I can see both sides, though I definitely don't think a mosque should be built anywhere near the site of Ground Zero.
   Really, I don't think ANYTHING should be built anywhere near that site.  Build a memorial there, a testament to the innocent people who died, and call it a day.  Keep ALL business (and yes, I believe organized religion is a business) away from it, because it is sacred ground.
   However, if you ARE going to allow buildings near that location, at least be tasteful about what you're going to put up.  Building a mosque near ground zero is like building a giant statue of some Japanese guy overlooking the water at Pearl Harbor.  Most Muslims are normal people who just want to live their lives in peace... most Japanese are not war-mongering crazy people who crash their planes into ships or buildings.  But that doesn't change the fact that you're crossing the line by building either of these buildings, and spitting in the face of the people who died in both cases.
   I've heard the argument that foreign countries would never let us build a church near one of their sacred sites, and this to me is a very interesting argument.  It's also one that I think could shed some light on why some of these Muslims/Japanese/Neo Nazis/whoever hate Americans so much.  Building a church is one thing, but building a McDonald's, or a shopping mall, is quite another.  Especially in the case of the Muslims, these are societies who have existed for thousands and thousands of years... they have their traditions and norms and they're perfectly happy.  But then here comes the United States with all of it's freedom and democracy, and we cram it right down their throats.  There those people were, doing just fine without us, but then we show up to "help" and the next thing yo know Baghdad looks like Atlanta.  That's great for us, but it's completely taking a dump on them.  And so if we're not going to allow the construction of a mosque near Ground Zero, maybe we should halt construction of the Chili's on the Tigres River.
   The lesson here is that on both sides of the culture, we need to leave well enough alone.  We need to stop trying to push our lifestyles on each other, no matter what we believe.  We need to stop trying to westernize the middle east, and they need to be a little more sensitive to what happened here on 9/11 and maybe build the mosque around the corner or down the street some.  Leaving Each Other Alone is step one to world peace, because I believe when we don't have a real reason to kill each other, we probably won't.

Smokin' Aces
   So there's this dude named Buddy Israel, a card trick guy in Vegas who gets tied up in the Mob.  He gets big, but then he gets in over his head, and now the Mob wants him dead.  The mob puts a bounty on his head (or heart, actually).  The problem here is that the FBI wants this guy alive.  In fact, they want him testifying so they can bring the mob down.  So this Israel guy is holed up in a penthouse at the top of a hotel in Lake Tahoe, and all kinds of contract killers are after him.  Meanwhile, the FBI is in a race to get there first and protect him until he can give them the information they want.  In other words, it's a recipe for disaster.
   And unfortunately, that's kinda what this movie is.  Oh sure, it sounds great on paper.  Get a bunch of hitmen (the usual suspects: a group of crazy brothers, a couple angry femenists, some ex-cops who think they know everything, and a couple loners who are masters of death) and have them basically assault a hotel, while the FBI tries to figure out what's going on and gets thrown under the bus in the process.  The movie even starts out great, very "Snatch"-esque, introducing all of the main characters and their specialties.  But after the beginning, this movie quickly falls apart.
   I think the biggest problem here is the organization of the entire story.  You've got a great setup with this dude on an island in the hotel, but a lot of the killing stuff happens before we even get there.  You've got the good-hearted FBI agents who don't just learn a lesson, they get their asses kicked.  And you've got a bunch of conscientious murderers who feel sorry for what they're doing.  The movie quickly goes from awesome, to confusing, to way to deep for its own good, to just plain disgusting.  Throw in a "twist" that any moron can see from a mile away (the only way they could've made it more obvious would be to stop the movie and explain it to you), unconvincing actors, and a bunch of people who you just can't bring yourself to feel sorry for... and you've got a 2-hour crapfest that you'll never, ever be able to get back.
   Plus Jeremy Piven is a douchebag.
   So in case you haven't noticed (TWIST!), I'm giving this movie a huge thumbs down.  It's got a cool title, sure, but you will be disappointed.  Don't believe me?  Go ahead and rent it, all you Piven fans out there, see just how quickly someone can take a great conceptual idea, and in two hours crap all over it.

   Have a nice day.

Too Soon?

   One of the first things I was told when I got out of college and into my first job was, "whatever you do, don't burn any bridges... you may need them one day."  Well, I'd like to think that so far I've managed to avoid pissing off TOO many people, even though really it's unavoidable.  And what I'm about to say here could light the fire under another bridge, one I will hopefully never have to use, but you never know.  I'm talking about KIAH, our local channel 39, changing its format to something entirely new and different.
   Now normally words like "new" and "different" make you think of something better.  However, in this instance that is probably not going to be the case.  For those of you who opened that article and were like "whoa way too much reading," the short story is that 39 is dropping the whole traditional "newscast," and instead going with a collection of stories where soundbites and nats (the sounds going on naturally in the background) tell the story.
   So why am I all negative on this?  First off, the execution.  I've created my fair share of nat-sound promos, and while I do agree they can sometimes be more effective, they also take a lot longer to pull off, and if they're not done right they can be VERY confusing.  So it comes down to a question of whether or not the good folks at 39 have the skills to put something like that together.  And I have to say that sadly, judging by their normal newscasts, I'm a little concerned that they may not.
   Which brings me to my second point... I'm not sure I agree with the way 39 is going about this whole thing.  Check out their job listing for the person who is supposed to head up this new venture.  Not only does it seem a bit mean to the people who are currently employed there (does no one there posess the ability to do this?  Then why do it at all?)... it also insults the people who have worked hard to make tv what it is today.  Okay I get it, you want someone different, but there's no sense in bad-mouthing the people who have been doing it right for years.  Also, look at the requirements: "Gets it?"  "Thinks in stereo and lives in color?"  Not exactly something I would ever include on a resume, and if someone did, I don't know if I would really consider him serious about his job.  What's really funny about this to me, is that it's all about kicking the corporate culture of news and striving for more individuality, yet this was most likely written by some corporate lawyer or exec who has done most of the things made fun of on this list.  Irony!
   The bottom line is that KIAH is trying something that I think 5 to 10 years from now would be excellent.  Actually, and you may have heard me talk about this before, I believe all television news is going in this direction.  As on-air television merges more and more with the web, newscasts will take on a much less linear feel.  The user will be in control of the newscast, including which stories he wants to see, and when.  It's going to be pretty badass: no more sitting through half an hour of crap you don't care about just to see 30 seconds about something you do.  No more (traditional) commercial breaks.  No more having to listen to an anchor or reporter put extra emphasis on words like their name, or dramatic pauses before the name of the station.  It's happening now, but it's still waaaaayyyyy too early to go fully in this direction.  TV is still too linear, and what I think you're going to see happen with KIAH is 30 minutes of "what in the world is going on here?"  At this point, you still need someone like an anchor or reporter to explain what you're seeing, to tie everything together, to continue the "flow" of the newscast... without that, I think the viewer will most likely be lost in the first 10 minutes, and gone to another station soon after that.
   So have I just ruined my chances of getting this job?  Probably, but I'm not looking for it anyway.  It'll be interesting to see what KIAH can pull off here, but if you want my honest opinion, it's the last, desperate move of a station that should probably just have cut its losses and stopped making news months ago.  Still, best of luck 39, if you prove me wrong that would be awesome, because it'll get us all one step closer to where news will eventually be going anyway.

The Goods: Live Hard, Sell Hard
   Don Ready is a travelling sales consultant.  He and his team of misfits have an extraordinary gift: selling crappy cars to good people, and making the dealer a ton of money in the process.  However, Don has a thorn in his past that he just can't seem to shake.  Couple that with a hot chick who's dating a douchebag but kinda likes messing around on the side, and Don's going to need all the help he can get to save this dealership.
   It took a lot of work to put that description together, because honestly this movie is not very good.  Yeah it has a few good gags, the concept is there, and there are some very funny people on board... but for being something called "The Goods," goods are definitely something this movie is lacking.
   There is one absolutely hilarious scene, which requires no context, and which I have provided for you here.  It is absolutely NSFW, profane and disgusting... and hilarious.
   Maybe if Will Ferrell had been the leading man, or had even played a bigger role in this movie, it would have been better.  As is, Jeremy Piven or whatever his name is just doesn't cut it.  The guy is funny, but in a huge douchebag kinda way, not in a "I feel sorry for you and want you to succeed even though you're an idiot" way.  It was almost like HE shoulda been the douchebag boyfriend of the hot chick, but oh well.
   I'm not sure why Will Ferrell didn't want to act in this one... he produced it, but maybe he was too busy.  Anyway, he would have definitely saved this movie, but as it is, the clip that I posted for you up there is really all you need.  And if you do watch it, despite my warnings, be ready for that scene to be one of the very few where you actually laugh out loud.  LOLZ!!!!!!!11

   Alright homies, short one this week I know but I'm a busy man with things to do.  Speaking of do... DO me a favor and check out the Channel 11 Facebook page.  It's good for your health.

Coming Clean

   Ladies and gentlemen, I have a confession to make.  I am absolutely, completely, 100% terrified of bees.  Bees, wasps, hornets, any type of bug that looks like one of those things and has a stinger (and even some who don't have a stinger).  It's a fear that's gripped me since childhood, and one that I have to revisit every summer.  Every time I mow the lawn, every time I go out into the garage, hell every time I walk Frank, I am living in constant fear.
   The first time I was ever stung by a bee was when I was 7.  I was just getting out of the car in the parking lot at wal-mart, when the little fucker flew up and stung me on my hand.  My dad said it was a Yellowjacket, but I don't know he could have possibly known... that thing came out of nowhere like a bat out of hell, stung me for absolutely no reason, and was gone before I could even figure out why my hand suddenly wanted to fall off.  Up to that point, I'd never known pain like that... and I'd had stitches.  Twice.  I can't tell you how many more times I was stung after that, but it was a lot.  Once I stepped on a bumble bee.  Once a wasp got stuck in my shirt and stung me four times on my back.  Once I was just walking through the yard and one popped me right in the chest.  Once I was in my dad's truck, and when I reached into the back seat to get something there was one sitting on the seat that stung me on the arm.  It was like a horrible nightmare that lasted for years.
   You know what it is that really chaps my ass about bees?  It's not even the pain so much as it is the vengeful nature of those little fuckers.  It'd be one thing if I were messing with them, but that's just it.  After that first sting, I NEVER wanted ANYTHING to do with bees of any kind... and yet they somehow always managed to find me.  It's like they have little sensors in them that tell them when I'm close by.  Without fail, if a bee flies by me, he WILL backtrack and come at me with stinger poised for battle.  I don't understand it, it's like I'm marked for death.
   Actually bees aren't the real problem.  Bees more often than not die after stinging you... so they have a tough choice to make.  I'd like to think the only time they sting is in a life or death situation.  No, the real problem is wasps.  Wasps, hornets, yellowjackets, anything that can sting a million times and keep on ticking.  Wasps, as this image so beautifully illustrates, are built for war, and they will not hesitate to bring the pain.
   Just the other day, there was a wasp's nest outside of my apartment.  I asked the complex to get rid of it, which they did, but they didn't kill the wasp.  So I'm walking out the door with Frank, and what do I see?  A huge, angry wasp targeting me for destruction.  I promptly went back inside and waited for a few minutes while the wasp went on his way... but when I reopened the door that fucker was RIGHT THERE WAITING FOR ME.  I narrowly escaped.  What was he doing there?  Why was he waiting for me?  Because he knew, that's why.
   There was a time when I never left the house without a tennis racket.  Tennis rackets might just be the best weapon against wasps.  Sure you can use spray, but what if you miss?  A tennis racket is the only way to guarantee your protection... and even then it only works against one or two.  if you run into a hive, forget it.  But there was a time when bees, wasps, hornets... they all feared me.  They knew when I was coming and they retreated to their nests and hives until I was gone.  Seriously, it happened.  I killed more than a hundred bees that summer (yes I kept track), and I was never happier.  But that must have been something that stuck with them forever.  Something that their elders passed on from generation to generation... the story of the asshole with the tennis racket... along with a legend that one day he would put the racket down, and that was when they would strike.
   Well, that time must be now, because they are coming after me like crazy.  I have seriously considered going to Academy Sports and picking up a tennis racket, expressly for the purpose of beating the shit out of some wasps.  I'm going to get stung soon, I can just feel it.  And when I do, may mother nature protect bees and wasps everywhere, because I swear with everything in my body... I'm comin for ya.

Enough Already
   If there's one thing I've definitely heard more than I want to hear about lately, it's that bitch Lindsay Lohan and all of her trials and tribulations.  She's going to jail.  WHO CARES.  This is actually making network news people... a young woman who does drugs and makes really bad decisions, going to jail.  How many times a day does that happen, seriously?  And how many of those stories make the news?  None.  And yet, because this chick is (moderately) famous, she's getting coverage out the wazzoo for being a fuckup.
   Who is Lindsay Lohan, anyway?  She did some kids movies and one that looked maybe okay ("Prairie Home Companion" I think it was called).  Anything else?  Oh yeah, she used to be hot.  Now she's so drugged up she looks more like a tranny hooker you'd see at a cheap strip club in Vegas, but hey... drugs'll do that.  My point is, why does she get all of this attention from the media?  Why does she deserve it?
   You know my feelings on famous people, athletes, etc.  In the end, they're all just people like you and me.  Sure they've done some cool stuff... I can't say I wouldn't be in awe at the opportunity to shake Bruce Willis' hand, or to smoke a cigar with Mr. Shwarzenegger... but holy crap people, you all need to calm down.  How boring are your lives that you can be entertained by sitting there and watching a young woman ruin her life?  Do you actually feel sorry for her?  Do you feel sorry for a girl who has a ton of money and everything she could possibly want, and yet somehow STILL manages to screw it up?  Let me ask you this... do you feel just as sorry for the kid who grows up in the projects with nothing and doesn't stand a chance in this world, and falls to drugs just like mommy and daddy do?  Probably not, and there's something seriously wrong with that.
   The icing on the cake is that Lohan is probably going to be even MORE famous when she gets out of that wimpy jail (and by the way, don't count on her being there more than a week or two... her sentence was only 20 days).  Oh, and while I'm on her sentence... how many people do you know who get 20 days for repeated, major drug offenses?  Why is it that an actress, who really does nothing for this world's well-being, can get off the hook in weak-sauce jail after just a few days... while a garbage man, without whom society could not function, will be locked up in federal-pound-me-in-the-ass prison for years for the same offense?  There's also something seriously wrong there.
   You want to fix Lohan?  Ignore her.  Once she realizes she's not going to get attention (no matter how stupid she acts), she'll grow up and get on with here life.  Then the media can get back to reporting actual news, and I can sleep at night.

Butt Weight, There's More...
   Who am I kidding?  Some media outlets are NEVER going to report real news.  Shows like "Good Morning America" and "The Today Show" will never be hard, straight-up newscasts... and really, that's okay.  Sometimes you need to see the softer side of things, and when you wake up in the morning it's probably not a good idea to blast yourself with a bunch of death and depression.  Just a thought.  But there is one show which, despite being on the easier, morning side of things... which, despite having to worry less about timely news and more about interesting, even fun stuff to report on... STILL manages to screw it up.  And that show, of course, is the CBS Early Show.
   This week's (greatest) offense?  Butt Pads.  Yes, they're real.  They're little pads that slide into the back of a chick's pants and make her but look bigger, or ghetto, or whatever.  Give me a FREAKING break. First push-up bras, now butt pads?  You've got to be kidding me.  Right?  Please?
   Shame on you, butt pad makers, fo rmaking women think they can be something that they aren't.  By creating these butt pads, you are not only perpetuating the views of women as objects, but you are also increasing the amount of disappointment men will feel towards their women.  It's like makeup: women look pretty before they put makeup on.  Then they look pretty with their makeup on.  But then, if they take their makeup off, they don't look as pretty anymore.  A chick can have a nice butt, without it being a perfect butt... but when you score one of these chicks and she takes her pants off to reveal that she in fact HAS no butt, and that she's been putting on a charade... DIVORCE.
   And shame on you, CBS Early Show, for bringing this kind of stuff to the public's attention.  I realize that no one on earth watches your show in the morning, but still for the few people who do, you owe it to them to try to make their lives better (or at least NOT ruin it).  Someone up there needs to do some serious rethinking about their show.  Big time.
   As for the ladies... if you have a nice ass, show it off.  If you don't, that's okay too... but don't PRETEND like you have something you don't.  That can only lead to sadness.

Gran Torino
   Clint Eastwood is a Korean War Veteran who's seen things that would make you poop your pants, living in a neighborhood that once was nice but now has become a ghetto, full of gangsters and thugs of every race and age... namely asian.  Can this cold, unkind old man come to grips with his new life in this world full of people who he has an ingrown hatred for, or will he fall apart?
   If Clint Eastwood proves anything in this movie, it's that old people can still kick a lot of ass.  Eastwood is without a doubt, the hardest old man I've ever seen on film.  That guy can kill you with a look, and it's incredible.  What's really incredible is that the guy who did a million spaghetti westerns has been able to keep his career going, and he actually gets better in every movie he makes/stars in.  "Gran Torino" may not be the easiest movie to watch at times, but it does have a very powerful message and it delivers it well enough.
   For some people, that is.  I've heard some people say that this movie was so racist that they could hardly watch it, that it was just disgusting, and that they really didn't enjoy it.  Well, I really did, and let me tell you why.  There are two ways to look at this movie: from a race perspective (and there is plenty of racism to be had), and from a societal perspective.  Yeah, Eastwood is racist in this movie, but (spoiler alert) he learns to deal with it and even overcome it.  Race is not the real issue at hand in this movie.  The real issue here is tha downfall of American society.
   One of the first scenes of this movie explains it perfectly: we see Clint Eastwood's house; old, but well-kept and tidy, with a nice yard and fresh coat of paint.  But he is surrounded by a neighborhood that is absolutely falling apart.  No one takes care of anything anymore, no one has any pride in his home anymore.  He also sees children who don't respect their elders, who don't work for a living, and who have no concept of what keeps the world turning.  He sees kids who should be working, trolling around looking for trouble, and it disgusts him.  Rightfully so, if you ask me.
   Another perfect scene in this movie: Eastwood's neighbor, a Korean, is walking down the street with her thug cracker boyfriend, when the two of them run into some black gangsters hanging out on the street corner.  The black thugs push the white boy aside and start messing with the Korean girl.  Here comes Eastwood.  He gets an earfull of racism from the kids, and he returns in kind with his own.  Then he pulls a gun on the thugs until they back away.  When the white boy speaks up, Eastwood goes after him with plenty of racist remarks as well.  My point is, whatever you do, don't play the race card on this movie.  Race is a small part of this movie, yes, but it's just a small part.  Eastwood's racism comes more out of guilt for what he did in the war than anything else, and once he is accepted by the Koreans living next door, he quickly lightens up.  His hatred is toward the youth of the nation, and toward the lack of respect they show for everything.  That hatred doesn't see race, or rather it sees all races as inferior.
   So should you see it?  Well, I guess not if you get too hung up on racist stuff.  There is definitely some offesnsive stuff going on in this movie, but it all serves a purpose.  It's really a good story about a hardened, unfriendly old man learning that there's more to life than hate and that even in this shitty world we live in, there are still some good people left.  So in other words, my opinion is yes, you should watch this movie.

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus
   Doctor Parnassus is the head of a traveling circuis show, which invites people to step through a mirror for five quid.  But what seems like a scam is actually a trip into your imagination that you will never forget.  However, times are tough and people are skeptical... so the traveling troupe is having a rough time surviving... that is, until a strange man appears to them.  Through the course of the movie you learn a lot more about him and just who Doctor Parnassus really is, on this trippy journey through a fantasy world.
   I will say this about Terry Gillium.  That dude is one weird motherfucker.  One of the brainchildren behind Monty Python, Gillium has also created some other very interesting, if not as successful movies (Time Bandits, 12 Monkeys, the list goes on).  He's definitely an acquired taste, and not for everyone, but if you can give his world a chance, you'll really see some very interesting stuff go on.
   I was first interested in this movie because it was being made when Heath Ledger (who plays the mysterious man) passed away... so the film was finished with other actors.  Great actors too (Johnny Depp, Jude Law, Colin Ferrell... well, ALMOST all great actors).  I was interested to see how they did it, and if they were able to respect Ledger's last film in the process.  I'm glad to say that they indeed did, and in fact they were able to cobble together the rest of the movie in a way that made complete sense and was really entertaining to watch.
   There are truly some inspired visuals in this movie.  It almost has a Monty Python touch in some parts, but it never gets quite that weird.  From an artistic standpoint, this movie is really cool (I recommend the blu-ray version if possible)... but from a mainstream entertainment standpoint, I'm not so sure.  Gillium's never seemed to care too much about that, which I can respect, but I just don't know if this one's for everyone.  So before you rent it, take that to heart.  Then rent it, because it's great.

   Alright folks, I know I've been kinda out of the loop here the last couple of weeks, but I'm moved into my new place now and things are slowly returning to normal.  Speaking of which, party at the new place... let me know if you wanna get down.

Back

   These have probably been some rough times for you.  I get it, trying to survive without reading my entries every week is kind of like eating an Oreo Cookie with no filling.  Sure it's still tasty, but there's just something missing.  Well, fear not.  I've had an extremely busy couple of weeks, but I'm back and ready for action.  And being the nice guy that I am, I'm not even going to cheat you out of all the ridiculous crap that's happened in my absence.  In other words, some of the stuff I talk about today will be old news.  But it's still awesome.  So without further ado, let's get right to the good stuff, shall we?

The General
   Recently, an article came out from some douchebag reporter trying to paint our Commanding General in Afghanistan (General McChrystal) as a punk who badmouths the president and thinks he's above all the rules and can do whatever he wants.  Needless to say, B-Rock was less than pleased when he read it, and now McChrystal has stepped down and Patreus has taken over in Afghanistan.  Well isn't that great.
   First off, who the hell does this reporter think he is?  What qualifications does he have to write about anyone in a war time situation?  Doesn't he have better things to do than run around trying to make things even more difficult for the man who is supposed to be in charge of winning a war for our country?  If you're trying to be the next Walter Cronkite, give up.  You're not even writing for a newsworthy magazine.  Yeah you're getting a lot of publicity, but it's not really the right kind of publicity is it?  I've heard a lot more about "what business did you have being over there in the first place..." a lot more than I've heard "what a well-written piece, exposing the inner workings of an American General."  In fact, I haven't heard a single person whose opinion matters, compliment your article in any way.  Or did you do it for the fame?  While that might be a much more believable reason, you should be ashamed of yourself.
   Now to McChrystal.  You, sir, should probably also be a little ashamed of yourself.  Yes you're a badass, and yes you're a very capable general (I read the article, and there were actually some nice things said about the general as well)... but you of all people should know better than to badmouth the President, especially during a time of war, ESPECIALLY especially to a friggin' reporter!  You are completely entitled to your opinion, and believe me I have my issues with Obama as well... but come on man!  You're a general in the United States Military!  This is a time of war!  Surely you were taught back at Westpoint that you don't do this kind of stuff... right?
   And finally, a message to our President.  Mr. President, I know it's not really your thing to admit that you don't know everything about a certain topic.  I know you prefer to be the guy swooping in to save the day on every single crisis that affects us, even if you have no idea what you're doing (ahem, OIL)... but I really think you made the wrong decision on this one.  Firing mcChrystal (which face it, is really what happened here), makes you look weak, especially to our enemies.  If you come across as someone who fires or dismisses anyone who speaks against you... well that's just not really very American, is it?  I honestly think the better solution to this little article would have been a simple statement, saying that while McChrystal may not agree with you, that is his right.  And as long as he does what he is supposed to do (you are after all still his boss), and wins the war in Afghanistan, then he will have our support.  You don't have to like the guy, but you don't have to fire him either.
   Luckily we have a good general to replace McChrystal.  Patreus may not be as much of a hardass, but he definitely knows his stuff.  He fixed things in Iraq LONG before the press would have you believe (notice how you still don't hear anything coming out of there?  Now that Bush isn't President anymore?  Interesting, eh?).  He's a very capable man and a good leader, and I think he stands just as good a chance of getting us out of Afghanistan as McChrystal did.  I have to say, however, that I don't know of anyone who can get us out of that mess... best to just do like we did back when Russia was over there, and bail.

Drilled
   While we're on the subject of our President thinking that he knows everything about everything, let's talk briefly about his attempts to call a moratorium on deepwater drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.  Aaaaahhhhhh.  Bad idea, sir... bad idea.
   This BP oil spill is truly a mess, and it's rung home even clearer now that this oil is starting to wash up on Houston shores.  I could sit here and complain about all the screw ups Obama has caused all day long, but I would just be rehashing stuff that's already been said a million times.  I would like to comment on this SuperTanker though.  Why did it just now arrive in the gulf to start sucking up the oil?  Why wasn't this plan (which is a plan that has been proven to work in the past) initiated from the get-go?  Who knows how much oil they could have kept off our beaches?  Ridiculous.
   Anyway, as if all the past mistakes weren't enough, now our brilliant President has decided to call for a freeze on deepwater drilling.  So for all the other wells that are being drilled out there, all the ones who are safe and who have operated without incident for years, they have to stop because of one companies mistake.  This will cause a reduction in oil creation for our country, and increase our reliance on foreign oil... which I seem to recall was a big no-no according to this same President.  Not only are the companies being penalized, but the thousands and thousands of employees of those companies are also now facing layoffs.  This will increase our unemployment, which I believe was also a big no-no in Obama's campaign.  It's a classic case of saying one thing but meaning another, of blowing smoke up our collective asses, but then completely backtracking when the chips are down and you have to actually stand behind your promise.
   So what's the solution?  I can tell you what it's NOT.  It's NOT a bunch of hippies standing on the beach holding hands trying to make a statement about how we're destroying the earth.  No, that's not going to do much (hey why don't you clowns start cleaning stuff up down there instead?)  The solution is to keep the drills turning.  Increase regulations, tighten the inspections, and increase the punishment for those who don't follow the rules... but don't hurt our economy by reducing our oil supply and firing thousands of hard-working people.  Of course, the REAL solution is to get off of oil completely.  We have the technology.  We have the ability.  But we also have a government who is deeeeeep in the oil companies' pockets.  These are people who put extra money (as if they don't get paid enough already) over the well-being of our environment, our wildlife, and our people.  Even the president isn't above this.  Yes getting off of oil will cost jobs, but so will calling for a moratorium.  At some point we're going to have to get off oil, whether it's when we run out, or when we're tired of blowing each other up over it, or now, when everything is still peaceful but while we have a fresh reminder of just how dangerous this crap is, and why it usually stays miles below the surface of the earth.

You're not My Mom
   I'm sure by now most of you have seen the video of that little kid over in Asia who smokes like a million packs a day?  No?  Well, here it is, coupled with an article that makes me want to gag.  The CBS Early Show, which I'll admit I haven't made fun of in a while, has done it again folks.  They've managed to take a one-day story and blow it up into something absolutely ridiculous.  Kind of like they're doing with the Superfan (a douchebag who won a stupid bet with his friends and now somehow gets to be on TV and travel the world.  JOURNALISM!)
   Let me clarify off the bat that I don't condone this kid smoking a cigarette.  At least wait until your 10 years old.  Seriously though, I don't care how third-world your country is, surely you realize that smoking isn't good for you... and also you surely realize that a small child is not capable of making the right decision with a highly addictive drug like cigarettes (no matter how cool he looks smoking them).
   Okay so it's one thing to report about this.  It's another thing completely to milk the hell out of it and make idiots of yourselves in the meantime.  But, surprise surprise, that is exactly what the CBS Early Show people have managed to do.  Not only did they interview a psychologist about why children shouldn't smoke, but they've also now reported that some politician in that country is going after the kid's parents for letting him smoke.  Now hold up just a minute.  American "journalism" has caused this kid's parents to get in trouble?  There's just something not right about that.
   Who the hell are we, as Americans, to try to tell other COUNTRIES how to raise their kids?  It's bad enough all the crap that we put our own kids through (not to mention a big reason why this country is weaker than it has ever been)... now we're going to try to start telling the rest of the world what they can and cannot do?  That's just unacceptable.  You want to know why the rest of the world hates us?  It's because we think we're always right, and because we all think we know everything about everything and can just stick our noses into everyone's business.
   If this kid wants to smoke, let him.  If his parents don't care that they're killing their son, that's their problem.  NOT YOURS.  And not mine.  Yeah it's wrong by our standards, but most of the stuff Americans did in the 50s and 60s is wrong by our standards too.  Should we build a time machine and go back and lecture them about their errors?  No.  There were a lot of mistakes made here, but we survived them, and we're stronger for it.  It's just like if little Johnny wants to go out and play but gets his knee scraped.  Yeah he might get an infection and yeah he might cry, but he'll get over it, and his body will be much stronger for it.  Nowadays, we would just as soon not let Johnny go out and play, or put him in some kind of ridiculous protective gear so that he won't "hurt himself."  Well, sure he won't hurt himself, but he's also not building up any tolerance to infection or disease.  He's not developing his immune system.  And 50 years from now, guess who WE'RE all going to be paying for since he's so sickly and constantly in the hospital.  I'm on a tangent, I know, but the point is that we have no right to be mucking about in other people's business.  Stop trying to tell everyone else what they're doing wrong, and instead try to concentrate on doing things right for yourself.  Stop worrying about some kid on the other side of the world, and start worrying about your own kid who you hardly see and never talk to anymore.  In other words, be a parent.

Brothers Solomon
   Two brothers who have lived in the Arctic their entire lives, decide to enter the dating scene while nursing their sick father back to health in their own apartment.  Their goal: to carry out their father's wish and have a child.  At least I think that's what this movie was about... I didn't finish it.  It takes a lot for me to turn off a movie halfway through.  But I did with this movie, and I did it with great anger.
   I figured with Will Arnett and Will Forte (SNL, McGruber), there would at least be a couple of laughs in this movie.  I was wrong.  There were some potentially funny scenes, but they just never hit a punchline.  It's like all the jokes were written by a three year old.  Watching this movie was like having a child try to tell you a joke, but halfway through he gets lost and can't remember how it ends.
   And so, for this reason and another one involving Will Forte kissing a man on the lips and letting drool stretch between their two mouths, I turned this movie off about 20 minutes in.  And I'm also recommending that you don't even bother.  And if you find someone who says "oh come on that movie was great!"  Punch them for me.

Incendiary
   A slightly adulterous woman is miserable in her marriage, but loves her kid to death.  However, when both of them die in a terrorist attack, she has to try to pick up the pieces and come to grips with her new life.
   I rented this movie because I thought it was supposed to be some kind of love triangle conspiracy thing.  It had a hot chick on the cover, so hey I'm down.  Also Ewan McGregor is in it and I haven't been disappointed in any of his movies so far.  Anyway enough excuses, I rented the movie.  Deal with it.
   If that description up there sounds like it would be a rough one to watch, then you would be right.  There was a lot less love triangle here, and a lot more "shoot me because this is so depressing."  It was basically two hours watching a woman lose her mind over the loss of her child.  I will say, however, that it was extremely well-acted by everyone involved.  I couldn't understand everything (sometimes those British accents get pretty thick), but I could really feel the emotion coming from this woman.  I could also see the change in McGregor's character, and there was even a little hint of conspiracy.
   All in all, this movie was kinda sad, but it was also very entertaining.  A great story, some tough emotional stuff, and a good payoff in the end.  I may not have been happy while I was watching it, but when the credits rolled I'm glad I gave it a shot.  And I think you should too, especially if you like Ewan McGregor.  Or hot chicks.  Or being depressed.

Empire of the Sun
   A young British boy born and raised in China during 1941, learns that war isn't all fun and games when the Japanese invade and take his family away from him.  He's forced to survive on his own, and through his journey he meets some interesting people before winding up in a prison camp himself.  The movie follows his life through to the end of the war.
   I rented this movie for two reasons: Christian Bale and Steven Speilberg.  Great actor, great director, how could you go wrong?  Not to mention that Bale was about 10 when he made this movie, so I was interested to see if he was always as good an actor as he is now.  Turns out he was.  There were some very big names in this movie, including John Malcovich(!), Ben Stiller(!?!) and that Cypher dude from "The Matrix" (@!#%).  Yet even with all these main stream and big title actors, Bale outshined them all.  He seriously was the best actor in this movie, to the extent that he was one of the ONLY convincing roles I saw.  The ability of this kid to take his character from spoiled Brit to making-the-best-of-things-american-wannabe, to downright psychopath, was truly incredible.  And somehow through it all, he still managed to be a little kid.
   Areas where there HAVE been improvement since this movie, however, were in the directing and in the music.  There were some pieces of modern-day Speilberg in this movie... who knows, maybe this was the first time he came up with these ideas, camera moves and stuff that have stuck around even into his modern style.  The music, by John Williams, was for the most part simplistic and not very exciting... but again, there were some gems.  Despite the relative green-ness of both of these guys, there wasn't anything offensive or weird... it still flowed together and even managed to create some moments of true beauty and uniqueness.
   For those of you who are considering this movie though, be warned: it is kind of old school.  It's not super action packed, and there are some very obvious mistakes made throughout.  In fact, some parts play out more like a stage play than a movie.  But still, it is very entertaining, and if you'd like to see how Christian Bale got started, this is definitely a good one to watch.  For all you "Newsies" fans, he even sings a little.

   All right folks, we should be back to the grind now.  Talk to you again soon...

The Bigger We Are...

   ...The dumber we fall.
   I have a theory.  And this theory is based on the simple premise that history repeats itself.  If you look back, you should see that every empire, every huge republic to this point has gone to a very similar cycle: rapid growth, extreme prosperity and strength, complacency, and ultimately decline.  America is no different.  Once we established ourselves, we rapidly became one of the strongest and richest country's in the world.  However, if we're not careful, we're going to go down the same road as Rome, as Japan, as all of those other empires who crashed and burned.
   Take a listen to this.  I'll wait.  A special thanks to my friend Ashley for sending that to me.  Okay, got it?  Are you amazed?  You should be.  Are you surprised?  You shouldn't be.  Just in case you didn't know, Obama doesn't just snap his fingers and create money.  It comes from you, me, all of us who pay taxes.  And that money gets dumped right back onto morons like that caller, who not only have no idea why things are so easy, but aren't even greatful for the fact that they don't have to work and they STILL somehow get paid.  I'd be willing to bet this woman is overfed, and has no intentions of finding another job.  She, like so many other Americans, has discovered that you can get away with almost anything in this country now... and that doing less work actually pays off more for you in the end.  See, America has gone through the growth and strengthening phase, and unfortunately we're now on the downward spiral of history.  But why?  Why are we failing just like everyone else... and more importantly, can we stop it?
   First think about why we're failing.  The main problem we've run into here in this country is complacency.  Things have gotten so easy that, compared to past generations, no one has had to even lift a finger to get things done.  America has grown to rely on other countries to produce our goods, while we manage them from here.  We are an import-reliant country, meaning that if suddenly there were no other countries in the world to produce the goods we need, we would be screwed.
   And that unfortunately will be our downfall.  So many people in this country are so ignorant, so simple-minded, and so not-driven now, that we can't even stand on our own two legs.  I hear a lot of people complain about how the United States is a babysitter for the rest of the country and how we need to focus more on ourselves... well, we can't really do that.  Many of those countries that we "babysit" are actually providing the goods that we need every single day.  The only thing we can give them is money, which they in turn use to produce more goods.  It's a cycle, and if we suddenly stopped giving them money, they wouldn't be able to produce, and America would be on it's own.  "Great!" you might say, but you would be wrong.
   My question is, how did this happen?  How did America go from a country that prided itself on its self-reliance, to a country that can't even take a dump without the help of a foreign country?  Where and when did this change take place?  The obvious answer is Socialism, but really it's more complicated than that.  I think Capitalism is just as much to blame.  On the Socialist side, you've got Welfare.  The idea that every single person should be able to make a living, regardless of whether or not he's working, is just ridiculous.  I've complained plenty about welfare, but it really is a major driving force in why so many people in this country are ignorant, lazy bastards who think they're entitled to something that they very clearly are not.  But don't forget about the capitalists.  In our quest to make more money and spend less, to squeeze every last cent out of every last thing we make, we've outsourced so much of our labor and materials that you can't even call a Chevy an "American" car anymore.  Chances are, more of that vehicle was made in Mexico than America, and chances are more of that Toyota you see on the road was made here in the States than anywhere else.  Our greed has also contributed to getting us to this point.
   I will never forget the days after 9/11 for a lot of reasons, but a big reason is because for the first time since I've been alive, I felt like all of us Americans were on the same side.  For just a few weeks we all set our differences aside and had a "fuck the world" mentality that really made me proud of our country.  I thought to myself, this is what it must have been like to live in America in the 30's.  This is how it was when people felt a certain pride when "buying american."  This is what our country has lost over the years.  Of course, it faded, and soon we were back to watching Perez Hilton make a mockery of humans everywhere.  Sadly, the only way we're going to save this country is if we can get that mentality back.
   This is a two-pronged solution.  First, we all need to start taking responsibility for ourselves.  We need to realize that there's no safety net out there, there's no one to catch us if we fall, except for ourselves... and we need to be confident enough in ourselves to know that if we DO fall, we can make it right on our own without anyone else's help.  If that means getting rid of welfare altogether, so be it.  It certainly would save this country a lot of money.  And if it means that some people succeed and others don't, or that some people do better for themselves than others, so be it.  Those who don't do as well should strive to do better, not expect the government to step in and level the playing field.  On the other hand, people need to come back to reality and accept that we, as Americans, are all on the same team.  Of course American-made things are going to cost more... you get what you pay for.  Instead of sending that factory to Mexico to save some money, why not keep it here and take pride in the fact that you can still be rich and make a great product?  Instead of buying a toy for your kid that was made in China (most likely using Lead or some other kind of poisonous material), why don't you spend an extra dollar and buy an American-made toy that will help an employee of that toy company keep his job?  Why do we constantly try to screw each other over to get a leg up, when we could instead all try to help each other out knowing that in the end, it helps us as well?  And notice that in neither of these solutions is government involved (other than getting OUT).  Government cannot solve this problem, it's not designed to.  WE are the only ones who can do this, and it's our duty to make it happen.
   I guarantee you if we do these two simple things, America will return to greatness.  We will buck the trend and stop our downfall mid-fall.  We will turn ourselves around and get back on top of this world where we belong.  If we DON'T stop this right now, at the very worst we will be invaded or bought by another country (ahem, China anyone?), or at the very least, we will wind up breaking this country into smaller, more manageable pieces, with those of us who know what needs to be done in one part, and those who think money comes from nowhere in another part.  How long do you think that'll last before all out war?  It's going to be an interesting, messy future.  Assuming the world doesn't end in 2012.

All Talk and No Walk
   Our President made a surprising Prime Time speech the other night, all about "the worst natural disaster in this nation's history" (the oil spill).  He made a big to-do about how BP will pay for everything they've done, including damages to those people who have suffered along the coast.  He made it clear that he would hold BP reponsible until every last drop of oil was sucked up.  He also said that from the beginning, he's been working to solve this problem and get us all back to normal.  Oh yeah?
   Perhaps you don't recall anymore (since the speech was so mesmerizing I guess), but Obama and his crew were NOWHERE to be found at the beginning of this mess.  It wasn't until weeks into this that anyone from the government even looked in the gulf's direction.  And even then, there was almost no activity up there.  Say what you will about how much (if at all) the government should be involved in this whole thing... I'm just trying to point out that they weren't here.
   And sadly, that exposes what this Oval Office address really was: a PR move.  Obama for the first time is seeing some pretty serious decline in his approval ratings, and I'm sure his cronies freaked.  I mean, when it gets to the point where the (liberal) network news is telling you that maybe the (liberal) President should have done more to be present in this huge disaster... it's time to do something right?  Well, they did.  And I will say that Obama is a fantastic speaker, as I've said from day one.  But when you really drill down into his speech, what was actually said?
   The only actual actionable items that I heard come out of that address were that he's going to freeze deep-water drilling for six months... and that he's going to look into more regulation for oil companies who drill offshore.  Now both of these are terrible ideas, but I'm going to leave that alone for now.  Instead I'm going to try to figure out why he then proceeded to go on for almost 20 minutes posturing and filling us all with hot air about how he's been there from the beginning and how you can count on him to make sure BP doesn't screw this up.
   Don't get me wrong, I'm not siding with BP here, but I do think that's pretty low of Obama to try to act like he's been in charge of this whole thing from day one.  I mean how stupid do you think we are?  Very stupid, I guess, and unfortunately he's probably right.  I've already seen a ton of coverage recanting Obama's "strong words" and "stern warning" to BP... I haven't really heard anyone yet say "hey wait a minute... this is the same guy who was asleep for the first half of this disaster!"  Are we so quick as a country to forget Obama's transgressions?  Were we this quick to forgive George Bush when he screwed up with Katrina?  I don't think so.  And you probably need to think about why you and all of us continue to roll over for this President and his buddies, why the instant he makes a speech we all stop in wonder and forget why we were even upset in the first place.
   I'm just sayin'...

E-LEC-TRONIC
   It's one of my favorite times of year: time for E3, the Electronic Entertainment Expo.  The time of year when nerds come out of hiding and gather in Vegas, surrounded by disproportionately hot women and more videogames than you can puke out after a long night of drinking.  It really is pretty awesome to see what these videogame people have come up with after sitting in their caves for a year, and for the first time in I don't know how many years, I think we're starting to see some truly forward-thinking and futuristic stuff once again.
   For the past few years, E3 has been about what sequels were coming out, and how the big companies (Microsoft, Nintendo, Sony) were going to duke it out to make more money and get better videogames.  The Wii was really the last bit of true innovation to come out of E3, until now.  Now Sony and Microsoft both have motion solutions, and we're starting to see some truly functional 3-D stuff as well.  It's a very exciting time, whether you're a gamer or just a dude who likes to push a button and make things blow up.  So, here is my "casual dude's guide to what you should watch for at this year's E3."
--Microsoft Kinect/Sony Move (or whatever) - Microsoft and Sony both made a big deal out of their motion peripherals last year.  Microsoft's looked too good to be possibly true, and Sony's looked like a homosexual magic wand.  In other words, neither of them impressed.  Well, here we are a year later and games are starting to be developed for these peripherals.  I want to know if they're going to be any good, and if they're going to compete at all with the Wii.  I also want to know if Nintendo has any more tricks up its sleeve to keep their system profitable and cutting-edge.
--The Best Graphics of This Console Generation - We're finally reaching the end of life for these current consoles (unless you work for Sony, who claims the PS3 will last for another 10 years).  Developers have had a lot of time with these consoles, and they're finally starting to come out with some really impressive visuals in their games.  "Ghost Recon," "Halo," "Killzone," "Crysis 2," they've all received staggering graphic overhauls, and the results are absolutely incredible.
--3D Stuff - 3D is still a very big question mark in my mind.  3D gaming is running into the same challenges as 3D movies.  How do you make it cheap, and how do you make it enjoyable for more than one person?  The glasses are still the biggest barrier here.  Nintendo announced a 3DS, which supposedly doesn't require glasses, but from everything I heard it was pretty underwhelming.  It'll be interesting to see what they can figure out with 3D in the coming months.
   As you can imagine, there's a ton of other great stuff going on in Vegas right now.  Way too much for me to write about here.  But if you're at all interested in learning more about what's coming down the pipe, check out Gametrailers.com.  They do the best job of keeping up with stuff and putting it all there in video for you to see first-hand.  You're welcome.

The Hurt Locker
   In Iraq during the middle of the big war, one man stands alone against terrorists who create IEDs to try to blow up unsuspecting soldiers and innocent bystanders alike.  He's the bomb diffuser, a person crazy enough to strap on a kevlar suit and helmet, and walk within a few feet of a device that could instantly kill him and everyone around him.  Okay so now we know what a bomb diffuser is, so you can picture the type of guy who is the main character of this movie: someone with a deathwish.  So he and his two buddies go around disarming bombs, and you never know which one could be his last...
   Okay let's get this straight right off the bat: this movie was good and enjoyable.  But it did NOT deserve the Academy Award.  This is what I was afraid of.  Had this movie not won the award, it would have easily been one of my favorite war-related films.  Unfortunately, as the winner of an Oscar, it is now held to a much higher standard in my book.  I'm not saying that "Avatar" should have won it either, but (especially in 3D) "Avatar" was better than this movie.  Tangent: I think the Academy has gotten pretty ridiculous when it comes to judging movies.  It's like if the movie's not making some profound social statement, it's not worth mentioning.  I guess they've forgotten that the main point of movies is to entertain... right?  RIGHT?
   Back to the movie: this is an interesting story, about an aspect of the army I didn't know existed.  They actually have a dude whose job it is to go around trying to diffuse these sloppy bombs made by animals in the desert.  Sign me up!  No thanks.  I can't believe that anyone would want to do that, but I guess I shouldn't be surprised.  Some people truly do have a deathwish, and I think "Hurt Locker" does a real nice job of showing how that deathwish can have a profound impact on those around you.
   The acting in this movie was very impressive.  I was a little worried at first that it was going to be too "Top Gun" for its own good, but they pulled it off and I admire them for that.  There were some very tense moments that were incredibly believable and (I think) realistic.  There were also some surprises that I didn't expect, and some very VERY angering moments (I can't tell you how many times I yelled "JUST SHOOT HIM!").  If you want to know how stressful it is to be an American soldier, watch this movie.  If it were my call, I'd just drop a huge bomb on any suspected IED... unfortunately that's now how it works in the real world, and "Hurt Locker" does a great job of showing you the crazy rules our soldiers have to follow.
   So should you see this movie?  Yes.  You probably already have, but if you haven't, then yes.  However, don't go into this expecting an Academy Award Winning title.  You will be disappointed.  Honestly, for your entertainment dollar, I think you'd get more out of watching a movie like "Jarhead..." but "The Hurt Locker" was by no means bad and it was also education in its own twisted way.  Give it a shot, at least until they release a 3D Avatar on Blu-Ray...

THAT'S IT!

How Much Is Too Much?

   Alright, I admit that I've been complaining a lot about the oil spill lately.  Maybe a little too much.  But while most of my complaining has been about who's to blame and who should be doing more to stop it, I'm going to take a different approach today.
   A few nights ago I happened to catch the beginning of the CBS Evening News, and I saw some images that will probably stick with me for the rest of my life.  I found the stills here, but you really can't get the full effect without seeing them in motion.  Before you click that link, be prepared for some stuff that might shake you.  The most poignant to me is the poor little seagull, on his back in the oil.  The picture is bad enough, but in the video, you could see him struggling to get out of it.  Every time a wave would lap up, it would overtake him, and all you could see were his two little legs kicking as he helplessly drowned.
   Despite these heartwrenching images, I had to ask myself... is this too much?  Has media crossed the line here?  I know/hope that the photographer who shot that video was immediately after helping that little bird out of his mess, but should he have even shot it to begin with?  It's a tough question if you really think about it, and it applies to just about all of the most emotionally stirring images captured by media.  News people -- photographers especially -- are stuck in limbo with stuff like this.  Do you capture a shot like that, knowing that it instantly creates an emotional response and greatly increases the impact of your story... even knowing that by doing so, you're allowing an innocent creature to suffer or maybe even die?  Do you let the Tieneman Tank roll over that guy, knowing that it will become one of the most iconic visuals of all time... even though the guy will die in the process?  Is it worth that one life to affect (and potentially save) thousands of others?  For once, I will admit that I don't know the answer, but I think it's definitely something to think about.
   As I've said from the beginning, the really unfortunate thing about this oil spill is the impact it's having on wildlife.  I know thousands of people have lost their jobs and are now facing really tough times... but these poor animals who don't know any better, HAVE to dive into the oil just to eat and survive.  It's like asking you to bite your tongue off every time you eat.  And now I'm hearing that once scientist is saying that the "humane" thing to do is actually kill these oiled birds, as opposed to cleaning them off and letting them go.  His argument is that these birds just go plop right back into the oil, and even if they do survive (apparently less than 10% do), they will be poisoning the population.  Well, excuse me Mr. Scientist, but just who the hell do you think you are?  God?  I don't think so.  How can you (or any of us) decide whether something should live or die in a scenario like this?  I can think of quite a few people whose euthanization would actually improve the human population... but that doesn't mean they should be gathered up and killed.  Who are we to say that these birds should be killed, especially over something that's our fault?  If humanity has proven one thing throughout history, it's that anything we touch is going to be tainted or ruined, guaranteed.  Mother Nature has always found a way, so has natural selection, so has everything else that we didn't create and (for the most part) don't try to mess with.
   You know what?  Go ahead, Mr. Scientist.  Keep pushing your terrible, ridiculous ideas.  You're getting plenty of attention for them, maybe it'll cause 3 people (instead of 0) to read your next paper on the "impact of mitochondria when stimulated by a certain protozoa."  On second thought, Mr. Scientist, eat shit.

Shovin' Buddies
   I work in advertising, so I see every day how our industry is slowly dying.  I don't make it through a single day at work without seeing some article or email about how advertising is really hurting right now, how it's costing jobs, how no one's paying attention anymore and conventional ideas aren't working.  I also see a lot about "great" new ideas, that are actually only making things worse.  And so, in my constant attempt to help people make their lives better (and stop being such morons), here are some of the worst attempts at "creative new" advertising, and how they can be improved:
   In-Show Product Placement - This is actually an old, old method of advertising that is now starting to make a comeback.  In the 50s, your favorite sitcom housewife might take time out of her day to look at the camera and say something about a spiffy new cleaner she uses, or her favorite kind of detergent.  Now it's a little more nuanced, like say, a character in "Fringe" using the Sync system in his Ford to get directions somewhere.  I'm actually not too offended by this method, as long as it's done in good taste.  Sometimes it's painfully obvious that it's an advertisement, enough that it pulls you out of the show, and that hurts.  I think the next step here won't come until TV takes the next step (merging with the web), but I think it should involve creating hot-spots over the in-show advertising elements.  Imagine buying the same sunglasses that the dumbass in "CSI: Miami" always wears.  When he puts them on, you wave your remote at them, and voila... you're at the website (douchebags r us?).
   Invader Advertising: This is easily one of the most annoying types of advertising, especially when it's not done right.  You're watching your favorite show or movie, when all of the sudden half of your damn screen is taken up by a character from a show you've never even heard of and don't care at all about.  She saunters out, her hair waving in the breeze, and she stares longingly into the distance.  Oh yeah, there's a movie going on behind her too, don't forget.  The benefit to these, of course, is that you can't really skip them because you'll also be skipping your show... the downside is that they've just gotten out of control.  If you're going to make them take up half the screen, you might as well just pause the movie and let it run its course.  And some of these even have sound now.  Sound!  I'm trying to watch TV and you're going to have some asshole pop up at the bottom of the screen and start talking to me?  Get out of here.  The best way to improve this method of advertising is to get rid of it, or at least keep it minimal.  Discovery Channel is a great example of invaders done well... they're low-profile, they don't distract, and they look nice.  Well done, Discovery.
   Splitting Commercial Breaks: I've actually only seen one show do this ("The Ultimate Fighter"), but it's already stupid.  They will actually put a 30-second segment of their show right in the middle of a commercial break.  So you're skipping along, when all the sudden you have to stop, back up, and catch that little snippet.  I get what they're trying to do here, they're hoping in your efforts to catch that snippet, you'll also sit through the remainder of the promo before and the beginning of the one after.  However, in my experience, I'm more likely just to give that show snippet the middle finger and continue on until I get to the real meat.  Here's an idea for this one: stop making commercials a uniform length.  DVRs are set to either fast-forward or rewind normally, or to jump 15/30 seconds ahead at a time.  If your commercial breaks aren't a set length, those jumping DVR remotes become a lot less effective, and the odds of you seeing more commercials increases.
   Pre-Roll Ads:  These are becoming more and more prevalent.  Even YouTube is running them on their more popular videos.  I'm torn with these, because even though they can be a pain, they're not nearly as bad as pop-ups.  Usually when I see a pre-roll ad, I just open another window or do something else on my computer until it ends.  Don't be surprised though if you start seeing more of these take over your computer to a point where it's very difficult to minimize or ignore them.  So how do you improve on them?  Simply don't go overboard.  There's nothing worse than trying to watch a 20-second YouTube video, but you have to sit through a 30-second commercial first.  That makes no sense and in a lot of cases will kill any desire to watch the video.  Likewise with some videos that have so many ads triggered within them that you don't even know what you're watching anymore.  Just back off a little, keep the length of the ads down, and get them out of my face, and you'll be okay.
   Pop-Up/Under Advertising:  By far the most annoying thing on this list, pop-up ads have been around forever.  And it seems like while every browser out there has some kind of blocker, the advertisers are continuing to find ways around them.  You block the pop-up windows?  They put them UNDER the main window.  You block that?  They pop the ad up within your current window.  Not to mention the pop-ups that are now showing up over videos.  It's getting ridiculous, and for the most part they don't work.  Sure you might get some people with your "punch george bush in the face" game that actually is an ad, but are they really worthwhile visitors?  More than likely, you've now pissed them off and caused them to have an aversion to your online product.  Real nice.  The best way to improve these is to drop them.  They may look like billboards, but they don't work and they clutter up the internet.
   Sure in an ideal world, advertising would be gone completely.  But that's just not going to happen.  Content creators HAVE to make money, and other than charging you for their product (which some companies are considering), advertising is really the only game in town.  And in the end, there HAS to be a balance.  Think of it like Napster.  Napster was great because you could download any song you wanted for free.  But when you're not paying for those songs, the artists aren't making any money.  Well, I don't care how much you love to sing or perform, if you can't make a living doing it, you've eventually got to draw the line.  If there were no advertising, the companies and producers and performers wouldn't make ANY money, and it wouldn't be long before there was no more entertainment.
   On the other side of that coin, a lot of the onus here is on advertisers.  It's not enough just to be like "BUY ME BUY ME BUY ME!" anymore.  You've got to think of good, solid, creative ways to grab people.  You've got to sell them your product, but you've also got to entertain them.  It's not impossible to do, several advertisers out there have nailed it (Geico, Apple, Jack Links Beef Jerky, and Target come readily to mind).  I've actually backed up my DVR to catch a new Mac Vs. PC promo, or to see what Bigfoot is going to do to the guy who wouldn't give him a ride.  But you give me another "SALE SALE SALE!" promo and I'm out just as fast as I can punch that fast-forward button on my remote.
   I'm not saying you have to like advertising.  Hell it's my job and I still get annoyed by it.  I'm not trying to get you to click on pop-ups or to stop DVRing your favorite shows.  All I'm saying is that when you see a well-produced, interesting, even compelling or creative promo on the air or online, take a minute to be thankful that someone is finally stepping outside of the box in their effort to turn you into a consumer whore.

Get Him to the Greek
   In what I guess is a spin-off from "Forgetting Sarah Marshall," the rock star dude from that movie takes center stage in a story about his once glorious career and the following downfall of his entire life.  Now he's a washed up rocker so drugged up he can barely remember his name, but a loyal (fat) fan has decided it's time for this guy to make a comeback.  So said fat dude travels to said rock dude and tries to get him back to the states for his revival concert.  Along the way the two laugh, they cry, they do a lot of drinking, and they learn a little something to boot.
   I gotta be honest, I was not the least bit interested in seeing this movie.  "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" was great, don't get me wrong, but I think the rockstar guy was probably my least favorite part of the whole thing.  So now here we've got an entire movie centered around him... no thanks.  But I'm also not one to turn down a free trip to the movies, so how could I say no when a good friend of mine handed me the ticket?  In hindsight, I'm glad I saw it... though I certainly wouldn't pay to see it again.
   Let me just get this out right away: there is no male nudity in this movie other than a brief shot of Jonah Hill's ass.  While that was vomit-inducing, it certainly beats full-frontal.  Okay moving on...
   The story here is pretty standard.  Lame-o music industry guy comes up with a bold plan to save his company, but executing said plan isn't going to be easy.  What makes this movie great isn't the story.  It's also not really the writing, if there was any (most of this movie seems improvised to me).  No what makes this movie funny is the characters, and in that regard most of the casting was spot-on.  Be advised: the humor in this movie is not for the young, the squeamish, or anyone who thought "Superbad" was a little too racy.  But if you can get past that, there are some great lines and very awkwardly, painfully funny scenes.
   Normally in these reviews I'll mention the soundtrack, but I don't know if you can really call most of the music in this movie a soundtrack.  Sure there were some songs here and there in the background, but the main music was actually sung on stage, supposedly by the rock star dude.  I don't know if you ever get all the way through any of the songs, but I certainly hope the full versions aren't on the CD.  They were well performed, well mastered, but the actual songs themselves were just awful.  "The Clap?"  "Inside of You?"  Awful awful awful.
   Yeah, so, this movie was alright.  Not super fantastic, not terrible.  Not worth your money at the theatre.  A rental at best, and worth waiting for (thank you Netflix).  But if you're an Apatow kinda guy, and especially if you like Jonah Hill or "Forgetting Sarah Marshall," you should give this one a go and see what happens.

Oscar and Lucinda
   This guy named Oscar and this chick named Lucinda are born, right?  And they don't know each other, and they grow up very differently, but they both share one thing in common: they both love to gamble.  Well, eventually they meet and kinda sorta fall in loveish, but they're not sure, especially Oscar, who was raised religiously and who thinks everyone hates him an everyone is scrutinizing him.  Basically he's a nutcase.  Anyway, he and Lucinda kind of share an awkward relationship that may or may not turn into anything, depending on if you watch the movie.
   Actually, you may not want to.  I rented this movie solely for the soundtrack (Thomas Newman), and while I wasn't disappointed, it's certainly not something I would watch without the musical score to go with it.  It was odd, and kind of disjointed, but somehow it still had enough charm for me to finish it up.
   The interesting thing to me about this movie is that it has an epic feel, yet it retains its intimacy.  Several countries are spanned, and there's even a big and dangerous adventure, and yet you still feel like you're peeking into the very innards of the relationship between Oscar and Lucinda.  I honestly think the music had a lot to do with this.  This is one of my favorites from Thomas Newman so far.  It's quirky but it's big, a great score and one that I have yet to find for download on Amazon.
   But enough about that.  Should you watch it?  Meh.  Should you buy the soundtrack?  Yep.  Then make me a copy.

The Lost City
   Andy Garcia runs a club in pre-revolution Cuba, but it soon becomes the center of all the action as the country starts to get violent and Castro fights to take over.  Garcia finds himself in the middle of it all, trying to hold his family together and keep the peace both between them and inside of his club.  The revolution continues, but will Garcia be able to keep everything together?
   Let me just tell you how I found this movie.  I was flipping through channels, when I see Bill Murray sitting at a bar making a funny face.  Naturally, I'm intrigued, so I let it go for a little while.  Then I see Andy Garcia standing behind the bar and I think to myself "what are these two doing in a movie together?"  Then, Dustin Hoffman of all people, strolls in and starts playing tough guy with Garcia.  Now what the hell is going on here?  I check the Guide and discover this movie that I've never heard of, starring some of my favorite actors together.  So I set the DVR to catch it the next time it rolls.
   Turns out this movie is directed by Garcia, something that I guess he does quite a bit.  I don't know where he shot it, or how he got all these big actors to join up, but I will say that it's not really what I expected.  I know almost nothing about the Cuban revolution, but if there's any truth in this movie then it was pretty jacked up.  I can't imagne going through what Garcia's character did, seeing his country fall to pieces around him, finding members of his own family involved in things that he doesn't approve of... Garcia did a great job of showing you what this must have been like. 
   The acting was also great, though at times it did appear that there was a little to be desired from the script.  Bill Murray, for example, did his absolute best to play a character who could have been incredibly interesting (who is he?  What is he?  CIA?  Military?  Some joker?  Who knows?)... but in the end there just wasn't enough material and he winds up looking pretty goofy.  Garcia also seemed to ham it up a little bit... or maybe it's just that in my eyes, he'll never top his performance in "Ocean's 11."  I dunno, but the best performance I think came from Garcia's characters' dad.  That guy was very believable and I actually felt for him as he watched all of this unfold.
   So in the end, this movie is definitely interesting.  However, it's not for everyone.  If you've got some time or Netflix slots to kill, you might give this one a shot.  Otherwise, there's probably nothing really to see here.

   Well folks, keep your eyes on the gulf... can't wait to see what happens next.