Just North Of Crazy

   I'm trying to figure this out.  Maybe you can help me.  I'm struggling to understand how it is that we, as a country, will go after the Saddam Hussein's of the world... how we will intervene in the Bosnias or the Serbisa, or even the Malis or the Libyas, but we have allowed a radical, dangerous country like North Korea to be led by a series of madmen, make over-the-top threats to the rest of the world, and kill/starve/brainwash/manipulate its people, for more than 50 years.

   

   How does that happen?  Seriously?  That country is full of people who have suffered beyond just about what anyone has ever suffered in the history of mankind.  True, most of them don't know it (or at least do good job of pretending they don't know it), but all that does is add brainwashing to the list of charges.

   

   They have openly and brazenly threatened the destruction of the US for years, and now they finally have a nuclear weapon that could do some pretty serious damage. And yet, that only gets one sentence in Obama's State of the Union Address.  Can you imagine if it had been Iran that got a nuke?  How is this any different, except that unlike Iran which would do its best to hide a nuke, here we've got a country saying "we've got one, and first chance we get we're going to blow you all to hell with it."

   

   North Korea is led by one crazy mo-fo.  This guy.  Eesh.  And while he might not be as crazy as his dad or their predecessors, he is still a long way from sane.  He hates the United States and everything we stand for.  If we offered them food, they would throw it in our faces.  It's not even a sensible or two-sided argument... like the Middle Eastern countries that hate us at least have a reason for hating us (misguided and off-base as it may be).  There's really no reason for North Korea to hate us other than a 50-something-year-old war that no one over there was alive to be a part of anyway.

   

   And yet, we let them go.  We allow them to do their thing.  Until recently they've been a mild curiosity at best.  Oh yeah, North Korea?  Full of whackjobs.  Don't go there.  But now, suddenly, things have changed.  They have nuclear capability... and guess what?  They're aiming it right at us.  But has there been any fist pounding in Washington?  Any big words or posturing?  Well, not really.  It's still all about Iran, Libya, all these other countries that, I'm sure, would be happy to leave us alone if we just backed out of their affairs.  I'm not saying that's what we should do, I'm just saying UNLIKE them, North Korea is trying to pick a fight directly, openly, with US.

   

   For those of you who have been reading along knowing the answer to this conundrum, I'm going to have to burst your bubble.  Because I do know the reason why we haven't wiped that smug little dictator off the face of the earth.  Both reasons, actually.

   REASON #1: CHINA -- Just like we back up South Korea, China backs up North Korea.  It's been that way since the Korean War, but with this most recent spat concerning nuclear weapons, even China has had to call over there and be like "dude, relax."  Still, we know China would have to back up their homies if we went in there, and China is one sleeping giant nobody wants to wake up.  Sure, it's easy for us to intervene over in the middle east because who's backing up the bad guys?  More bad guys, and not with much.  The only ally we risk pissing off over there is Russia, and even they've started to come to their senses on a lot of this stuff.  China is a different beast.  They are much more closely related to North Korea, government-wise, and while they aren't going to give speeches about "death to America," I'm sure if we fell they wouldn't be shedding any tears.

   REASON #2: THERE'S NOTHING OVER THERE WE WANT.  I don't care what anyone tells you... the reason we're involved in the middle east, the reason we've been there since what, the 40s, is because it is still the richest part of the world for the natural resources we all need.  I would argue that our need for and desire to control those resources are what started us all on this road to hostilities there to begin with.  But I digress, that's a different topic for a different discussion.  My point is, we're over there because being over there directly benefits our country.  North Korea?  Well, that's different.  This is going to sound heartless, but I think it's absolutely true.  If we were to take out North Korea's leadership, we would wind up inheriting its entire population.  A population that is so downtrodden, so beaten, so useless, that it would wind up being a huge burden on any of the other countries in that region.  North Korea was allowed to go on for too long, to a point where the country cannot save itself.  It has nothing to offer the rest of the world.  Nothing really in the way of resources (at least not that they're telling us).  And so, from a completely heartless standpoint, no real benefit to fixing their problem.

   

   It's a really jacked up situation.  But it's one we need to take care of before they start dropping bombs.  And I honestly do believe of all the countries in the world who could and would, they are at the top of the list.  I will leave you with this thought.  Is it not possible that the reason we sanction Iran for developing nuclear technology, for launching satellites or rockets into space... is it not possible we punish them because we WANT them to stay relatively primitive?  Could it not be that we want to keep the entire middle east beaten down and behind the times so far so that they will always NEED us to help them?  Think about how much higher gas prices would be if Iraq could dig its own wells and didn't need Exxon or Chevron over there helping them out.  Just think about that... and before you dismiss it, consider that we have a country over here who not only has access to those modern technologies, but openly plans to use them against us... yet also has no natural resources and no real value, and we leave them alone.

Good luck sleeping tonight!

   

SOTU STFU

   So, did you watch it?  Like did you really watch the "State of the Union?"  Or did you have better things to do?  Like watch some shitty reality show?  Or maybe go buy something you didn't really need?  If you think I sound bitter, you're right.  Here's why.  I find most people who love to blab about politics and the state of the union really have no clue what they're talking about.  And do you know why?  It's because most people can't be bothered to sit through an hour-long speech, and instead they will listen to it filtered through their favorite talk-show host.  Notice how I said talk-show host, because whether you like it or not, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are NOT true journalists.  And neither are half the people on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, BBC, your favorite "news" website, etc.

   If you are one of these people, you are a mouthpiece.  You are a regurgitator.  You take what these opinionated people (who are paid to take a not-neutral stance on these issues), and you vomit it back out at your next dinner or wine function or whatever other pretentious activity you are taking part in.  You're the same if you repeat what I type here.  I'm flattered, but I'm also pissed.

   But this is unfortunately the state of our union.  We all love to bitch and complain about everything, but very, very few of us want to actually take the time to understand our problems, how we got here, and what our options are for fixing them.  We get so mad about our congresspeople, we post silly things on facebook about how we shouldn't pay them if they don't do the work, and then we turn around and refuse to pay attention to anything they are doing.  Imagine if your right to vote was taken away because you have no idea who your congresspeople are?  We are hypocrites, through and through.

   Which is why even though it's long and boring and sort of silly, I always make it a point to watch the State of the Union address.  It doesn't matter if I like the President, or if I voted for him, and it doesn't matter that most of what he's saying is rhetoric and chest-beating hot air.  It's like debates... most of what is being said is pointless, but you can still glean a lot of information out of it.  During the State of the Union, what I watch for is body language, both from the President and from the different people sitting in the chamber.  Their actions, their facial expressions, what they're doing while the President is speaking, it can teach you a lot about what the atmosphere is in Washington.  In some ways, it's kind of fascinating... I mean it's still politics, but yeah.  So through all the talking, here's what stood out to me:

Immigration

   I think this is going to be a big one in 2013, and probably 2014 as well.  Like it or not, the immigration situation in this country has reached a point where we can no longer ignore it.  We have to do something about all the people who are coming here illegally.  And I have to say, it sounds like for once, the sensible politicians on both sides of the aisle are willing to listen to each other and maybe even work together to get something done.

   There are plenty of good people who have come into this country illegally.  There are plenty of kids who were born here with illegal parents, and who had nothing to do with the fact that their presence here breaks the law.  There are also plenty of criminals, druglords, and gangsters who come across the border every day.  It's a mixed bag, and with such a wide variety and huge number, there is no way broad legislation can be fair to everyone.

   That's why I look at this strictly from a taxing and financial standpoint.  If you go at it that way, we should welcome every single person who comes here with open arms.  That's because every single person we grant citizenship to begins to pay taxes and contribute to the system that they are milking.  No more under-the-table cash payments for the undocumented... instead they get a legitimate paycheck (and are taxed on that paycheck) just like the rest of us.  Sure, give them healthcare, but tax them on it and make them pay into the system like the rest of us.  The more the merrier!

   Now of course that idea does introduce some problems.  Namely, our already-overcrowded jails will not be able to handle this new influx of criminals who will no doubt join the ranks of good people trying to get into this country.  But that's another problem for another debate.  In my opinion, we can't allow those types of down-the-road arguments to cloud the here-and-now.

   What I am NOT cool with is this idea of allowing people who do not pay into the system to benefit from it.  This hits especially close to home now that we're trying to get this whole Universal Healthcare thing up and running.  I already have my reservations about paying out of my own pocket to care for some asshole who has smoked his whole life, or someone who has never worked out and is now a fat blob who can barely breathe.  You add "someone who does not contribute and who is in this country illegally" to that list, and now you've crossed the line.

   We've got to do something about this problem, because it's just going to get worse.  And a damn fence along the border is NOT the right way to do this.  Not unless it's a forcefield fence that electrocutes anyone and anything that tries to cross it.  You know, star trek style.

Minimum Wage

   I didn't realize minimum wage was falling so far behind the poverty line, but I agree with what Obama was saying about making it match the cost of living.  What's the point of getting a job if you can't even live off it?  Why do you think so many people buy into systems like welfare and food stamps?  It actually makes more sense for them to collect from those systems than it does for them to go out and get a job.  You know how you fix that?  Make it worth your while to get off your ass and get a damn job.

   My grandfather worked as a Sears delivery truck driver.  My grandmother worked at AAA.  These two were able to raise three kids in a modest, but comfortable environment on these paychecks.  Can you imagine trying to do that nowadays?  I get (and have argued) that there is a stigma now in this country that if you can't be rich, you might as well not even try... but I have to say that if there's no way to survive on minimum wage, there's really no point in bothering at all.

   The way we strengthen this country is to empower people to take care of themselves.  Part of that is removing the safety net, or making it more difficult to use that safety net.  But first we must give people the ability to help themselves.  Give them a fighting chance, or else we're all going to pay for it.  Create a society where even the lower-end jobs can help people survive, and we will create a country where more people are working and willing to work.

Gun Control

   Like it or hate it, you have to hand it to Obama.  That guy knows how to work a crowd.  And the rhythm he got into when he started talking about gun control was very powerful indeed.  Of course it helps to have friendly media on your side, showing all the shots of people crying and affected by these violent crimes.  Now you can argue that using the tragedy in Newtown is not cool, or by bringing victims into the chambers you are aiming low... but I have to say I disagree.

   Why bother with gun control at all?  Because were shot and died.  Lives were ruined, families were torn apart.  Think about how you felt that day, watching those little kids scared out of their minds trying to understand what the hell just happened to them.  If I'm trying to make a point about gun violence, you're damn right I'm going to bring that up.

   Now this may sound like a departure from an earlier statement I made, but I disagree.  My first statement on this was that I was pissed about Obama's initial press conference, in which he talked about the tragedy and used it to open the door on gun control.  Take time to focus on the victims, don't sit in the wake of a tragedy like that and try to push a political agenda.  But now... now is the time to have this discussion, and I think the way he brought it up was effective.

"You Deserve It"

   My biggest problem with this State of the Union speech, with President Obama, and really with the entire Democratic position right now, is this whole idea of "you deserve it."  There was a lot of language in this speech about how you've worked hard and you deserve a "fair shake."  But what's ironic about that is Obama is not talking about being fair at all.  Taking money from the rich and redistributing it to the poor is not fair.

   Now don't get me wrong, I completely agree that there are people in this world who are making WAY too much money.  There are people who have stepped on other people, people who have cheated the system, etc.  But there are also a lot of people who have sacrificed and worked extremely hard for the money they've earned.  Take someone like Dan Cathy, the dude who owns Chic-Fil-A.  Good guy, nice guy, honest guy.  Runs a very successful company that does right by everyone who comes in for those sweet, sweet nugs.  And you're going to penalize him under this system?  That's not right.

   I believe in a system where the harder you work, the more it pays off.  But I also believe in a system where we the people take charge and force that system to work.  We should look at companies that don't do right by their employees, and we should work elsewhere.  We should encourage competition and help bolster those who do the right thing.  We should refuse to shop at places that mistreat or do what we don't want (like send work overseas).  We should stand up for those who hire American and who build quality products with the consumer in mind instead of profits.

   But we don't do that, because like I was saying above, none of us pay attention.  We don't want to!  We'd rather buy from Apple and forget the fact that they outsource all of their work.  We'd rather buy a Chevy because it SAYS it's American, when in fact it is a lot less American than a Toyota.  We don't want to truly learn about what we're buying or what we're doing or who we're working for... we'd rather just have all that done for us!

   And that is why the Democratic message is so appealing right now.  Unfortunately it's also why it's so dangerous.  We the People have reached a point of complacency that makes us ripe for being destroyed.  We are basically asking the government to do the work for us.  We are begging them to take control.  And then we complain about our lack of privacy and how companies (and the government) know too much about us.  We complain that there are surveillance cameras going up all over cities, and yet we want the government to determine which companies are best for us to shop at and penalize the ones who found a loophole.  We get mad that facebook caters ads to us by using our personal information, yet we would rather blanket-rob all the rich folks because it's not fair for them to have money when we don't.

   This "you deserve it" message is not good.  It's dangerous, and it will lead to trouble for all of us.  But you can't blame the Democrats for riding it.  It's what people want to hear.  It's what we're asking for... and whether Republicans are too dumb to realize that or won't buy into it out of principal, they are going to continue to lose as long as we, the citizens of the United States, continue to be lazy and complacent.  Wake up people.

   One last thing I want to say about the SOTU.  I was extremely disappointed in the response speech.  Not by the speech so much as the fact that Marco Rubio reached for that damn bottle of water.  The instant he did that, I knew that any effectiveness his speech had went right out the window.  I knew that the next day, all the news organizations would be talking about that drink of water.  The drink heard 'round the world.  Watergate.  Pathetic.

   What's sad about this is the cascade effect.  It's sad that Rubio had to so awkwardly reach for that waterbottle, instead of feeling comfortable enough to take a drink when he was thirsty.  It's sad that he knew that we as a country focus so much on appearance that he felt weird doing that.  It's sad that media would latch on to something like that instead of the content of his speech (which was actually pretty good).  It's sad that a reach for a water bottle trumped even the content of the SOTU speech.  And saddest of all is that we as Americans were completely, utterly gripped by a damn drink of water.

   Politics have become reality television.  We are treating these candidates and politicians like contestants on American idle.  I half expected a cutaway to Simon or Brittany Spears, and then an introduction by Ryan Seacrest.  That's what this has become for Americans.  We would rather see a young guy who is obviously nervous but trying to do right by this country falter, than actually pay attention to the important stuff he (or the President for that matter) have to say.  Awesome!

   Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go drink away my sorrows...

My Two Cents (Make No Sense)

   Over the years, we've covered a lot of stupid things the government has done.  Spending millions on ad campaigns for services like the post office or other PSAs... throwing money they don't have at people who take advantage of a system plagued with loopholes... the list goes on.  But last week, I was made aware of something that may just top all of these other idiotic moves.  Something that so simply points out the inefficiencies, the uselessness, the straight-up stupidity of our government.  Something so straightforward that I just couldn't pass it up.

   I'm talking about the fact that it now costs two cents to make a penny.

   Time Magazine had an article about this in one of its recent issues.  The article itself is not what I'm complaining about though... in fact, I thought it was well written and did a nice job of staying in the middle of this issue, despite the obvious stupidity.  I, however, will not be doing that.

   The fact that it costs two cents to create one penny, and the fact that our country still continues to churn out those pennies, is absolutely absurd.  We should all be ashamed of ourselves for allowing this to happen.  It's embarrassing, it's shameful, and it needs to stop.  But it won't.  Why?  Because, as this article so eloquently points out, the factory that produces the bulk of these pennies employs some 200 people.  So in order to help them keep their jobs, we as a country are now willing to spend twice as much money to produce something that usually winds up thrown in a tip jar or on the street anyway.

   Really, this just introduces us to the biggest problem we have in this country.  WE ARE LAZY.  Whether it's outdated, outpaced employees, or unions, or situations like this stupid penny thing... we have reached a point in this country where we will actually stop progress in order to help people keep their jobs and maintain the status quo.

   Do you want to know the real reason why this country was so powerful during World War 2?  Why for decades we raced ahead of the rest of the world, and why suddenly we have stagnated?  Why we're now being beaten by countries that couldn't hold a candle to us in the past?  This is why.  It's because we will tell the 200 people at this penny factory "hey, it's okay, you shouldn't have to train for another job or try to figure something else out, we'll all just spend a bunch of our own money to keep you employed and happy."  Preposterous!

   I work in a dying industry.  No matter what people say, television is going the way of the newspaper.  Fortunately we have the benefit of time... the current television model still has some years left in it.  For now. But working in this industry has given me a unique perspective on this very same situation.  I've worked at union stations, I've worked at stations where I was seen as a threat, I've worked in just about every scenario possible.  And while just about all of the people I've worked with have been hard working, kind, helpful, wonderful people... there have been a few that illustrate my point perfectly.  These are the people who refuse to learn a new product because "they're used to the old way," or the people who won't accept that we've moved on to a new medium, or the people who think that because I know how to code a basic website and edit a promo, I'm the "end of promotions as we know it."

   You almost can't blame these people.  Eventually, we all become outpaced and obsolete.  That is the nature of capitalism.  It's what keeps us going as a country.  You work as hard as you can, make and save as much as you can, and then one day you are replaced and you hope that you've done well enough for yourself that you can retire with some dignity.  I'm fully prepared for this to happen to me one day.  Now granted, it is becoming more and more difficult to retire with said dignity, but if we're going to stick with capitalism in this country, that model must stay in place.

   So like I said I don't blame these people so much as I blame our government.  By continuing to produce pennies, our government is sending a message to all of us.  "Don't worry about keeping up with the times, don't worry about continuing to work hard to better yourselves and others, don't worry about any of that!  We will continue to pay you, even when it becomes an absolutely terrible business deal for us!"  This is a horrible message, and it's one I think we can all agree that we cannot afford to make right now.  The correct message to these people should be "hey guys, look... it just doesn't make sense for us to continue buying pennies from you.  It's become too expensive.  So we're going to drop the penny, but hey, you guys can press metal, why not look in these other fields and see if there's anything available?"

   If you want to know why there aren't solar panels on top of every building... if you want to know why we're all still driving gas-guzzling cars instead of hydrogen or at least hybrid vehicles... if you want to know why computers only get better incrementally instead of racing toward perfection... if you want to know why a dude can walk into a Target and buy a flat-screen TV with cash, while during the same purchase buy food with food stamps... this is why.

   And it needs to stop.

Attack Of The Drones

   I have to say, I'm a little embarrassed that I didn't know this was going on... but are you aware that our government is using attack drones to kill Americans?  That's right, we've reached the point now where you could be going out to check the mail, hear a weird sound, and then suddenly have a missile hit you right smack in the face.

   But that would never happen.  ...Right?

   I've been reading up on this quite a bit, and what I gather is that it's now okay for the government to use drones to carry out attacks on Americans who have "known ties to terrorists."  So an American citizen can now be executed without a warrant, without a trial, without any due process... and that's okay.  Something just seems off about that, but I can't quite put my finger on... oh yeah IT'S THE CONSTITUTION.

   Now a lot of people I know are blaming Obama for this.  Even the media reports are saying that he is the one who authorized this.  But if you think about it, Obama really isn't to blame.  This door was opened in the days following 9/11 by none other than George W. Bush.  When that guy signed The Patriot Act, it opened a lot of doors to these kinds of things.  It's just now we're starting to see the real impact of that decision.  And honestly, you can't even blame Bush.

   WE are the ones who are to blame.  We allowed this to happen.  We stood in the ashes of 9/11 and cheered when Bush announced the Patriot Act.  We were more than happy to know that drones were carrying out surveillance missions and even attacks on terrorists in other countries (and we tended to ignore all the civilian casualties that came with those missions).  Further, we continue to allow our country as well as private companies to spy on us, day in and day out.  Ever wonder why the pop-up ads and the right column of your facebook news feed seems like it's catered to exactly what you want?  It's because they are all watching your every move.  Every single thing you do now is tracked, cataloged, and used for these purposes (as well as some purposes that are less savory).

   In some ways this is a good thing.  If you're going to hit me with pop-up ads, it might as well be for shit that I want.  But it opens a door for a lot of more dangerous possibilities, and I'm just as guilty as all of you for letting it happen.  The real question is, how do you fight it?  How do you say "no I'm not okay with this" and not get busted yourself in the process?

   The reality is, since 9/11 we as a country have been paralyzed by fear.  Our leaders continue to set more invasive and dangerous precedents, all in the name of "protecting us," though down the road I think we may all look back and call bullshit.  And we buy into this fear by listening to the hype, listening to the talking heads on the TV (Charlie Rose said on 60-minutes tonight that the terrorists in Algeria were Al Qaeda, when I think it has been more than widely questioned if they were actually associated with Al Quaeda at all, and not just using that name as a branding mechanism), and flat-out refusing to do any research or learn anything on our own.  God forbid... you might miss your Honey Boo Boo marathon!  Ain't nobody got time for dat!

   It's time to wake up people.  I'm not saying there's anything you can do about it... but you can at least realize that these are the days.  These are the days that we as a culture will look back on and say "yep, yep, that's when we lost control and that's when everything started changing."  Blame Obama if you want.  Blame the CIA.  Blame yourselves.  I don't care... we're all buying into it, and we're all allowing it to happen.  And if it doesn't stop soon, I seriously believe we will all come to regret it.

The Road

   From Netflix:  Set in a postapocalyptic future, this end-of-days tale follows two survivors, a father and son, who navigate an ash-covered wasteland in search of a better life, with only a sliver of hope that salvation awaits them at the end of their journey.

   My Take:  Phewwww man, what a tough movie.  "The Road" might fall short in some areas, but realism is not one of them.  Here's a world that was all but destroyed... we don't know what did it, we don't know why it happened, all we know is that it did happen, and it changed everything for everyone that was left.  While I usually hate being left in the dark in movies, I think it actually worked here.  In a situation like this, no one would know what happened or why.  You'd wake up in the middle of the night, or you'd walk out of the grocery store, or you'd look out the window, and suddenly the entire world would change in a matter of seconds.  And, much like this movie, most people would go utterly, batshit insane.

   I find it very interesting the way the minds work that were behind this movie.  Their idea of the post apocolypse is one riddled with cannibalism, a world where you can't trust anybody (or you shouldn't, anyway).  A world where there really is no organization, no group of people who continue to put their duty first and try to make the most of it.  No, I think it's much more realistic that when our backs are against the wall, humanity would instantly turn on itself.  It's gritty, it's desperate, and it begs the question -- why not just put a bullet in your head and call it all over?  Why even try to struggle through any of this?

   I guess the answer for that is the kid.  The kid is what this whole movie centered around... and unfortunately, the kid is also what ruined "The Road."  First off, this kid has to be the biggest bitch I've ever seen in a movie.  He's worse than the kid who saw dead people.  He's more useless than the Blanket character in "The Brave Little Toaster."  He lives in this world where he constantly acts like he has no idea what's going on, helpless, worthless.  He basically kills his dad through the course of this movie, and then whines like a little bitch because everything is so unfair.  Seriously, this one single character destroys what would have otherwise been a pretty cool and moving film.

   I can't say I recommend "The Road."  It's depressing as hell.  It's not fun to watch.  And that kid... that kid makes me just want to rent every copy of this movie Netflix owns so I can break all the discs in the hopes that Netflix can't or won't bother replacing them.

The Three Stooges

   From Netflix:  This contemporary take on the Three Stooges follows the iconic comic trio from their zany childhood in an orphanage in the 1950s, to their later accidental involvement in a madcap murder plot, to their bumbling into stardom on a hit television show.

   My Take: Terrible.

   How's this for a crappy feeling?  I go to Kohl's the other day, just sort of browsing around, when I notice that the boxer shorts I buy... the only boxers I've ever found that don't ride up too bad and are more or less cool and comfortable... the only boxers I wear... are clearanced.  It was like my entire world was flipped upside down.  I bought so many pairs, I should be good for a little while.  But it's like I have nothing to look forward to now.  I know that somewhere, some time down the road, I'm going to run out of boxers.  And where will I go?  What will I do?  WHAT THEN???

Aimless

   I'll admit, I've sort of lost my inspiration to write in here these past few weeks.  Maybe it's that I've been sick for the past week (damn flu got me).  Maybe it's that I haven't had enough time to really really pay attention to stuff that's going on, or maybe I hit on issues too early, and while those issues are still big in the news my opinions of them haven't changed.  Whatever the reason, I'm staring at a blank page with nothing to write except a couple of movie reviews.  I guess it's fitting though, since that's what got me started on this whole thing to begin with.  So that's all you get this week.  Sorry.

Sherlock Holmes: A Game Of Shadows

   From Netflix:  Robert Downey Jr. returns as the brilliant sleuth and Jude Law is back as Dr. Watson in this atmospheric sequel to 2009's Sherlock Holmes. Holmes resorts to occult theories and more to defeat the plans of his nemesis, the evil Professor Moriarty.

   My Take:  Here's a sequel to the original and highly successful Sherlock Holmes movie starring Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law... and yet it's not until now that we are introduced to his nemesis, the great Dr. Moriarty.  Honestly I think this was the right way to play it.  Use the first movie to establish your main characters, develop a love for them, and then risk it all in a high-stakes sequel.  Unfortunately, "Game of Shadows" doesn't quite live up to the expectations set by the first movie.

   I think the problem was that the first one was just too damn good.  It introduced all of these new features, like Holmes being able to predict how a fight will turn out.  It also had great music, and was incredibly well acted on all fronts.  The second movie it's like they just sat around a table and said "more more more."  I guess that's not particularly a bad thing, and "Game of Shadows" was still very entertaining.  It was also well acted, well directed, it moved along well (though I'll admit I did feel like it was dragging on a bit towards the end)... it just didn't quite reach the same level of magic as the original.

   Maybe this movie is destined to the same fate as the "Pirates of the Caribbean" movies.  The first one of those was awesome, but after that they almost became a farce of themselves.  I won't go that far with Sherlock Holmes... this second movie was still pretty damn good.  But I think they peaked with the first one and it's all downhill from there.

   If you haven't seen this movie, but you enjoyed the original Sherlock Holmes, then I think this one is worth watching.  But if you weren't really feeling the vibe of the first one, or if you feel like you got your fill, then I wouldn't waste my time if I were you.

The Box

   From Netflix:  In this eerie thriller, a disfigured man informs a couple that they have 24 hours to decide whether to push a button inside a box that will net them a million dollars but that will also cause the death of a complete stranger.

   My Take:  Here's a question: how do you top a movie like "Donnie Darko?"  Well, I don't think Richard Kelley (who directed that and this movie) knows the answer, because "The Box" doesn't even come close.  Don't get me wrong, the concept is intriguing.  Push the button, get rich... but someone you don't know will die.  I think that's a question we all might believe we know the answer to, but when we were actually presented with it we might think a little differently.  There's a great commentary here on the human condition, but unfortunately "The Box" never reaches its full potential.

   Maybe it was the producers... maybe there was a lot of material left on the cutting room floor... but judging by the mysterious nature of "Donnie Darko," I doubt that's the case.  "The Box" weaves this web of mysterious happenings, all of them seemingly tied together, but then it just ends.  And unless I missed some huge underlying meaning (which has happened before), it doesn't really resolve any of the problems that it opened the door to throughout its run.

   Who knows, maybe that was the point.  Maybe the whole idea here is that we as humans are stuck in a loop, and so far there's no one who has been willing to break that loop.  I seriously hope that's not the case though, because that would tell me this Kelley guy is a socialist.  Don't do that, man.  Just don't.

   I'm gonna give this movie an "ehhhhh" at best.  If you're looking for intrigue, there are a lot of better movies out there.  They move better, they're acted better, and they have a better idea behind them.  Hell, see "Donnie Darko" again... I think you'll be happy you did.

   Alright folks, here's hoping I can find some inspiration for next week.  As always, I am taking requests!