So Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes are getting divorced, which is strange because they seemed like the most dedicated couple in the compound. Even after the restraints and electrodes were removed.
It was Holmes who filed the papers. Must be she wants to focus on her movie career and walking around untethered.
June 29, 2012
June 28, 2012
It's All In How You Write It
This headline just in:
Racist Democrats Don't Care About Dead Hispanics, Walk Out On Attempt To Bring Those Responsible To Justice.
Over 100 Democrats walked out today as Congress attempted to bring contempt charges against Eric Holder, a man who has been withholding documents that could show just who is responsible for providing weapons responsible for the death of over 200 Mexicans, as well as that of a U.S. Border Agent. Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi had this to say about her choice not to pursue justice for the dead: "I thought it was so wrong that there was no question to take the opportunity to vote no."
In a letter released urging others to join them, those who participated in the walkout called the series of votes "appalling."
Now, clearly, I'm being facetious here, but does anybody think that we wouldn't be reading mainstream media headlines and stories exactly like this one if this administration had been a Republican one? Yes, I'm talking to you, MSNBC.
Racist Democrats Don't Care About Dead Hispanics, Walk Out On Attempt To Bring Those Responsible To Justice.
Over 100 Democrats walked out today as Congress attempted to bring contempt charges against Eric Holder, a man who has been withholding documents that could show just who is responsible for providing weapons responsible for the death of over 200 Mexicans, as well as that of a U.S. Border Agent. Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi had this to say about her choice not to pursue justice for the dead: "I thought it was so wrong that there was no question to take the opportunity to vote no."
In a letter released urging others to join them, those who participated in the walkout called the series of votes "appalling."
Now, clearly, I'm being facetious here, but does anybody think that we wouldn't be reading mainstream media headlines and stories exactly like this one if this administration had been a Republican one? Yes, I'm talking to you, MSNBC.
June 22, 2012
Also, Stay Out Of My Yard
So some communities (in this specific case, Middleborough, MA) are talking about fining people for swearing. To those communities, I say "go fuck yourself."
Seriously, though. This worries me. First of all, you have the question of what constitutes "profanity." You must have a list of forbidden words, otherwise, you're leaving it in the hands of law enforcement to decide, which I think is a dangerous precedent. In other words, if an officer doesn't like what you're saying, even if it's not creating a danger, you could be ticketed. If you do create a list of profane words, that seems to be in direct violation of the First Amendment, does it not? Not to mention that you then run into the problem of worrying about determining intent. Is a dog walker yelling "cut that shit out" to his dog the same as him saying "excuse me while I pick this shit up"?
There is no right to not be offended. In fact, in any truly free society, you are almost guaranteed to be offended at some point. That's just how it works. It is unfortunate that some people can't control their mouths, and curse publicly. But that's all it is--unfortunate. It's not illegal, nor should it be. I will say, though, that I would get behind this law if the "quality of life" aspect was applied universally. For example, go ahead and ticket those who swear in public and detract from my quality of life. But you know who else you have to ticket? The parents of those brats who scream at the top of their lungs in public. Now, I'm not talking about infants. They can't help it. I'm talking about the 5-11 year-olds who scream like they're being murdered when a) they can't have something they want, b) they're playing, or c) any other time. That's affecting MY "quality of life." I'd much rather listen to (and be less offended by, frankly) someone working up a good cussing, especially if he knows what he's doing, than some snot-nose who is just creating noise pollution. These parents ought to be held responsible. Yeah, fine, you've learned to tune your kids out. But why should I have to?
And if the kids who live in your neighborhood are anything like the kids who live in mine, the revenue generated could possibly single-handedly save the economy.
N.B.
Actually, the more I've thought about it, the more violators I've come up with:
Feel free to add more to the list..
Seriously, though. This worries me. First of all, you have the question of what constitutes "profanity." You must have a list of forbidden words, otherwise, you're leaving it in the hands of law enforcement to decide, which I think is a dangerous precedent. In other words, if an officer doesn't like what you're saying, even if it's not creating a danger, you could be ticketed. If you do create a list of profane words, that seems to be in direct violation of the First Amendment, does it not? Not to mention that you then run into the problem of worrying about determining intent. Is a dog walker yelling "cut that shit out" to his dog the same as him saying "excuse me while I pick this shit up"?
There is no right to not be offended. In fact, in any truly free society, you are almost guaranteed to be offended at some point. That's just how it works. It is unfortunate that some people can't control their mouths, and curse publicly. But that's all it is--unfortunate. It's not illegal, nor should it be. I will say, though, that I would get behind this law if the "quality of life" aspect was applied universally. For example, go ahead and ticket those who swear in public and detract from my quality of life. But you know who else you have to ticket? The parents of those brats who scream at the top of their lungs in public. Now, I'm not talking about infants. They can't help it. I'm talking about the 5-11 year-olds who scream like they're being murdered when a) they can't have something they want, b) they're playing, or c) any other time. That's affecting MY "quality of life." I'd much rather listen to (and be less offended by, frankly) someone working up a good cussing, especially if he knows what he's doing, than some snot-nose who is just creating noise pollution. These parents ought to be held responsible. Yeah, fine, you've learned to tune your kids out. But why should I have to?
And if the kids who live in your neighborhood are anything like the kids who live in mine, the revenue generated could possibly single-handedly save the economy.
N.B.
Actually, the more I've thought about it, the more violators I've come up with:
- People who keep the bass in their cars so loud you can hear it through the walls in your house as they drive by, because, apparently, they like their music so much they just can't help but share.
- Motorcycle drivers who feel the need to rev their engines, even though they're not actually in a race of any kind. Dude, you've got 50 feet to the stop sign on a 30 mph, residential street. This is not the time to be compensating for your small penis.
- People who use their outdoor voice for...well, for pretty much everything. This seems to happen most often in places like Wal-Mart, and it's always the most idiotic people. You never see some nuclear physicist doing this. "THE HEISENBERG UNCERTAINTY PRINCIPLE STATES THAT A SUBATOMIC PARTICLE'S POSITION AND MOMENTUM CANNOT BE MEASURED SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH A HIGH DEGREE OF ACCURACY!" Then, at least, I might learn something.
Feel free to add more to the list..
June 20, 2012
A Shameless Request
My friend Angela is in the running to be one of Maxim magazine's "hometown hotties." Now Angela certainly is a hottie, but she's also a great person, and I'd love to see her win this one. All you have to do to help her out is to click on the link below and then click "vote for me." You can vote every day until the contest is over. Go Angela!!
Vote for Angela, the hottest of the hometown hotties!
Vote for Angela, the hottest of the hometown hotties!
June 13, 2012
Yes We Can (And Still Have 130 Characters Left)!
From the L.A. Times:
Ha ha! What an excellent burn! Everyone knows you can't get elected by using messages of as little as 21 characters or even 10 characters!
President Obama said last week that the Republican message could fit on a bumper sticker. On Tuesday, he brought that classic political dig into the 21st century.
“You can pretty much put their campaign on a tweet and have some characters to spare,” Obama told a group of donors at a fundraiser in Maryland.
Ha ha! What an excellent burn! Everyone knows you can't get elected by using messages of as little as 21 characters or even 10 characters!
March 17, 2012
Just To Be Fair...
I don't want to sound like I'm slamming actors in general (see post below). To be fair, I want to point to George Clooney. Now, I first have to say that I disagree with him, politically, on just about everything. But I do respect him. By all accounts, he is polite and respectful to those with whom he disagrees, and he seems--to me, at least--to be a fairly nice guy. But what really impresses me about him is that he puts his Clooney where his mouth is. If you haven't heard by now, Clooney was arrested today outside the Sudanese embassy while protesting the atrocities perpetrated by the Sudanese government upon its own people (something Mr. Clooney and I agree on). It's one thing to narrate a video, or donate a portion of your wealth to a political candidate or SuperPAC, but it's another to sit yourself down, get arrested and booked to draw attention to the problem. That's not to say that he (or any of us) couldn't get even more involved, but it's more than most do.
UPDATE: According to the article linked to above, Clooney has himself traveled to the region. Good for him. I should have read all the way through before writing the post. Oops.
UPDATE: According to the article linked to above, Clooney has himself traveled to the region. Good for him. I should have read all the way through before writing the post. Oops.
Blessed Are The Starchmakers!
I've always thought Tom Hanks was a fairly decent guy, and played his political cards close to the vest. However, I recently saw some clips from the new Obama campaign video, and I was literally speechless as I heard Hanks narrate:
WHAT?!
Yes, that's right--no president in the last 65 years has had to deal with any significant hardships. Unless, of course, you count Truman having to decide whether or not to destroy two Japanese cities to end World War II. Oh, and the Korean War. I guess we can also dismiss JFK and the Cuban Missile Crisis. That's the one that brought us within a couple of miles of World War III, in case you were confusing it with some other Cuban Missile Crisis. And pshaw to LBJ and Nixon, who only had to deal with Vietnam abroad and the Civil Rights Movement at home. Carter had a fairly shitty economy and an arguably worse oil situation. (Anyone remember those gas lines?) Reagan? Two words: Cold War. George H.W. had the invasion of Kuwait, and George W. certainly didn't have anything falling on his shoulders, and certainly didn't have it happen on September 11, 2001. But other than that, I guess Hanks is probably right. Once you disregard nearly every president since FDR, he's spot on. (And I want it noted for the record that I resisted the obvious Clinton-Lewinsky joke regarding so much falling on his shoulders.)
A little farther on in the video, I caught this little gem:
Again, I say...wait for it....
WHAT?!
That's pretty much all he fucking did! I mean, his campaign slogan was "HOPE and CHANGE," for God's sake! You know, "change" from that shitty situation he kept blaming his predecessor for, and "hope" as in that dreamy idealism he's supposedly not dwelling in. I suppose they had to use an actor to narrate as actors might be the only ones who can say lines like these without actually laughing out loud.
Still, someone needs to tell Tom Hanks that just because he says something in his earnest-y actor's voice, doesn't make it mean shit. I mean, he's not Morgan Freeman. That man could start a new religion by reading his laundry instructions. "It's important to make sure to put plenty of starch on the shirts...."* Next thing you know, people are running around carving "Blessed are the Starchmakers" onto stone tablets, and smiting those wearing wrinkly shirts.
* It's important to read this in Morgan Freeman's voice.
"Not since the days of Franklin Roosevelt had so much fallen on the shoulders of one president."
WHAT?!
Yes, that's right--no president in the last 65 years has had to deal with any significant hardships. Unless, of course, you count Truman having to decide whether or not to destroy two Japanese cities to end World War II. Oh, and the Korean War. I guess we can also dismiss JFK and the Cuban Missile Crisis. That's the one that brought us within a couple of miles of World War III, in case you were confusing it with some other Cuban Missile Crisis. And pshaw to LBJ and Nixon, who only had to deal with Vietnam abroad and the Civil Rights Movement at home. Carter had a fairly shitty economy and an arguably worse oil situation. (Anyone remember those gas lines?) Reagan? Two words: Cold War. George H.W. had the invasion of Kuwait, and George W. certainly didn't have anything falling on his shoulders, and certainly didn't have it happen on September 11, 2001. But other than that, I guess Hanks is probably right. Once you disregard nearly every president since FDR, he's spot on. (And I want it noted for the record that I resisted the obvious Clinton-Lewinsky joke regarding so much falling on his shoulders.)
A little farther on in the video, I caught this little gem:
"And when he faced his country, who looked to him for answers, he would not dwell in blame, or dreamy idealism."
Again, I say...wait for it....
WHAT?!
That's pretty much all he fucking did! I mean, his campaign slogan was "HOPE and CHANGE," for God's sake! You know, "change" from that shitty situation he kept blaming his predecessor for, and "hope" as in that dreamy idealism he's supposedly not dwelling in. I suppose they had to use an actor to narrate as actors might be the only ones who can say lines like these without actually laughing out loud.
Still, someone needs to tell Tom Hanks that just because he says something in his earnest-y actor's voice, doesn't make it mean shit. I mean, he's not Morgan Freeman. That man could start a new religion by reading his laundry instructions. "It's important to make sure to put plenty of starch on the shirts...."* Next thing you know, people are running around carving "Blessed are the Starchmakers" onto stone tablets, and smiting those wearing wrinkly shirts.
* It's important to read this in Morgan Freeman's voice.
February 10, 2012
That's Low, George. Solo.
George Lucas has come forward to set the record straight for all those of you who were wondering--Greedo shot first. Of course some of us weren't wondering. I was one of the many who saw it in the theater when it fist came out. Lucas can talk about his intentions until the Death Star flotsam reaches the outer ridges of that galaxy far, far away, but what was there on the screen was large as life and pretty damn clear. Han shot first. Greedo didn't shoot at all.
Now I don't know why Lucas continues to fuck with his films. Honestly, I don't. If I had to make a guess, I'd say it was something psychological, some form of OCD. Or maybe it's just because he can. Whatever the reason, it doesn't matter. I'd even argue that Lucas' "intentions" don't matter. I've heard people argue that they're his movies, so what he says goes. But that's not entirely true, in my opinion. When an artist creates art, he can tweak it and fix it and reinterpret it as much as he wants privately, but once he puts it out there, it belongs--at least in part--to the public. If Leonardo was alive today, we wouldn't let him and his paintbrush back into the Louvre because he suddenly realized the Mona Lisa should have had bigger tits.
Authorial intent certainly means something, but it doesn't mean everything. If I write a short story, and you get something out of it besides what I intended you to, then good for you. It doesn't mean you're wrong, and it doesn't mean I've failed in writing my story. Lucas claims we shouldn't see Han as a "cold-blooded killer," but that just shows how distant he's become from these characters, because I'm betting that no one ever saw Han as that. After all, Greedo had his pistol pointed at Han, and had just told him that he was going to enjoy killing him! That's not cold-blooded; that's self-defense. Or look at it this way--if we see that scene as Han being "cold-blooded," what are we to make of Han swooping in out of nowhere during the final battle to destroy the TIE fighter that never fired a shot at him? Isn't that the equivalent of shooting someone in the back? Now, of course he was defending his friend, so we don't fault him, just like we don't fault him when he shot Greedo. First.
One last thought: even if you believe that Lucas has the right to "clarify" his original intentions for the character, it still doesn't change things. Lucas apparently forgot that he had a script. That's the thing about having stuff written down--it makes it pretty easy to see what those original intentions were. This is from the script:
See the part where Greedo shoots? Neither do I.
Now I don't know why Lucas continues to fuck with his films. Honestly, I don't. If I had to make a guess, I'd say it was something psychological, some form of OCD. Or maybe it's just because he can. Whatever the reason, it doesn't matter. I'd even argue that Lucas' "intentions" don't matter. I've heard people argue that they're his movies, so what he says goes. But that's not entirely true, in my opinion. When an artist creates art, he can tweak it and fix it and reinterpret it as much as he wants privately, but once he puts it out there, it belongs--at least in part--to the public. If Leonardo was alive today, we wouldn't let him and his paintbrush back into the Louvre because he suddenly realized the Mona Lisa should have had bigger tits.
Authorial intent certainly means something, but it doesn't mean everything. If I write a short story, and you get something out of it besides what I intended you to, then good for you. It doesn't mean you're wrong, and it doesn't mean I've failed in writing my story. Lucas claims we shouldn't see Han as a "cold-blooded killer," but that just shows how distant he's become from these characters, because I'm betting that no one ever saw Han as that. After all, Greedo had his pistol pointed at Han, and had just told him that he was going to enjoy killing him! That's not cold-blooded; that's self-defense. Or look at it this way--if we see that scene as Han being "cold-blooded," what are we to make of Han swooping in out of nowhere during the final battle to destroy the TIE fighter that never fired a shot at him? Isn't that the equivalent of shooting someone in the back? Now, of course he was defending his friend, so we don't fault him, just like we don't fault him when he shot Greedo. First.
One last thought: even if you believe that Lucas has the right to "clarify" his original intentions for the character, it still doesn't change things. Lucas apparently forgot that he had a script. That's the thing about having stuff written down--it makes it pretty easy to see what those original intentions were. This is from the script:
GREEDO: Going somewhere, Solo?
HAN: Yes, Greedo. As a matter of fact, I was just going to see your boss. Tell Jabba that I've got his money.
Han sits down and the alien sits across from him holding the gun on him.
GREEDO: It's too late. You should have paid him when you had the chance. Jabba's put a price on your head, so large that every bounty hunter in the galaxy will be looking for you. I'm lucky I found you first.
HAN: Yeah, but this time I got the money.
GREEDO: If you give it to me, I might forget I found you.
HAN: I don't have it with me. Tell Jabba...
GREEDO: Jabba's through with you. He has no time for smugglers who drop their shipments at the first sign of an Imperial cruiser.
HAN: Even I get boarded sometimes. Do you think I had a choice?
Han Solo slowly reaches for his gun under the table.
GREEDO: You can tell that to Jabba. He may only take your ship.
HAN: Over my dead body.
GREEDO: That's the idea. I've been looking forward to killing you for a long time.
HAN: Yes, I'll bet you have.
Suddenly the slimy alien disappears in a blinding flash of light. Han pulls his smoking gun from beneath the table as the other patron look on in bemused amazement. Han gets up and starts out of the cantina, flipping the bartender some coins as he leaves.
HAN: Sorry about the mess.
See the part where Greedo shoots? Neither do I.
February 04, 2012
A Good Way To Solveig Your Problem
As you guys know, I occasionally will deal with techie stuff here. Usually, it's how to fix something, but today I have a software review and a recommendation.
For a while now, I was using the SolveigMM AVI Trimmer + MKV to edit my various video files. It's a great program, and to top it off, it's freeware! That alone is enough to make me recommend their products. It's a very fast (and lossless) way to trim unwanted scenes from your AVI or MKV files.
I recently, however, got a chance to try the full version of their paid program, the SolveigMM Video Splitter, and as much as I like the freebie, I'll never go back to it.
To begin with, the Splitter works with more formats than AVI/MKV, so you can easily edit those pesky WMVs or MP4s, among others. (The full list of compatible files can be found at the above link.) That gives me more options when editing recordings made with my TV tuner card, which have to be converted from the WTV format.
In addition, with the splitter, you have a number of options when saving your edited segments. You can save individual segments, save all selected segments as one file, or use the built-in batch processor to edit now, process later. There's also an included video joiner that can join separate segments, assuming that the two files have the same characteristics.
The best thing about the program, though, is that for certain formats (not AVI, sadly) you can edit with frame accuracy. That is, instead of having to cut the segment at a K-frame (key frame), which could leave you with extra frames in your segment, you can actually cut a segment at an individual frame. Okay, let me just say that although that probably sounded like I knew what I was talking about, I'm not quite sure I did. I DO know, however, that it works, and works well.
The GUI itself is fairly user friendly, and if you've used any kind of editing software, you should have no problem figuring it out. the program window is resizeable, and you can preview your file as you work. There's even an optional "storyboard" function, which will show frames of the file to aid in finding that exact spot you need. My second complaint (the first being the lack of frame accuracy with AVIs) is that, while the storyboard is a great feature, the images are too small. I'm on a 22" monitor, and have a little trouble making them out. I hope that a resizeable storyboard is something they'll consider adding in the future because I'd much rather give up a little preview window size for an increased storyboard.
One other thing I should mention is the support. The response time to my inquiry was a quick two days (and that, I'm assuming, would have been shorter if not for the weekend), and they even sent a follow up email. There is also a user forum, and from what I could tell, it was visited regularly by the administrators.
I just can't stress how fast and easy using this program is. I managed to trim the commercials out of an hour-long program in a matter of minutes. (I recommend learning and using the key commands, as I've found them to be a lot faster overall.) I joined together two consecutive episodes of a show with no problem,as well. (Take that, cliffhangers!) The two minor issues I have with the program are simply that--minor. Ultimately, the SolveigMM Video Splitter is well worth the money if you do any kind of video editing.
Solveig also makes a number of other video-related programs, and if you go to their website, you can find descriptions, comparisons, screenshots, and some very clear "how-to" pages, to help you do exactly what you want to do. Very impressive.
UPDATE: While double-checking my info on the Solveig website, I saw that it looks like you can also re-index WMV files, as well. I haven't tried that yet, but if that's an available option, consider my thumbs up even higher.
For a while now, I was using the SolveigMM AVI Trimmer + MKV to edit my various video files. It's a great program, and to top it off, it's freeware! That alone is enough to make me recommend their products. It's a very fast (and lossless) way to trim unwanted scenes from your AVI or MKV files.
I recently, however, got a chance to try the full version of their paid program, the SolveigMM Video Splitter, and as much as I like the freebie, I'll never go back to it.
To begin with, the Splitter works with more formats than AVI/MKV, so you can easily edit those pesky WMVs or MP4s, among others. (The full list of compatible files can be found at the above link.) That gives me more options when editing recordings made with my TV tuner card, which have to be converted from the WTV format.
In addition, with the splitter, you have a number of options when saving your edited segments. You can save individual segments, save all selected segments as one file, or use the built-in batch processor to edit now, process later. There's also an included video joiner that can join separate segments, assuming that the two files have the same characteristics.
The best thing about the program, though, is that for certain formats (not AVI, sadly) you can edit with frame accuracy. That is, instead of having to cut the segment at a K-frame (key frame), which could leave you with extra frames in your segment, you can actually cut a segment at an individual frame. Okay, let me just say that although that probably sounded like I knew what I was talking about, I'm not quite sure I did. I DO know, however, that it works, and works well.
The GUI itself is fairly user friendly, and if you've used any kind of editing software, you should have no problem figuring it out. the program window is resizeable, and you can preview your file as you work. There's even an optional "storyboard" function, which will show frames of the file to aid in finding that exact spot you need. My second complaint (the first being the lack of frame accuracy with AVIs) is that, while the storyboard is a great feature, the images are too small. I'm on a 22" monitor, and have a little trouble making them out. I hope that a resizeable storyboard is something they'll consider adding in the future because I'd much rather give up a little preview window size for an increased storyboard.
One other thing I should mention is the support. The response time to my inquiry was a quick two days (and that, I'm assuming, would have been shorter if not for the weekend), and they even sent a follow up email. There is also a user forum, and from what I could tell, it was visited regularly by the administrators.
I just can't stress how fast and easy using this program is. I managed to trim the commercials out of an hour-long program in a matter of minutes. (I recommend learning and using the key commands, as I've found them to be a lot faster overall.) I joined together two consecutive episodes of a show with no problem,as well. (Take that, cliffhangers!) The two minor issues I have with the program are simply that--minor. Ultimately, the SolveigMM Video Splitter is well worth the money if you do any kind of video editing.
Solveig also makes a number of other video-related programs, and if you go to their website, you can find descriptions, comparisons, screenshots, and some very clear "how-to" pages, to help you do exactly what you want to do. Very impressive.
UPDATE: While double-checking my info on the Solveig website, I saw that it looks like you can also re-index WMV files, as well. I haven't tried that yet, but if that's an available option, consider my thumbs up even higher.
January 30, 2012
The Ratings Aren't As "Firm" As We'd Like
You mean NBC came in eighth place with a series based on a twenty-year-old novel (that was mediocre to begin with)?? Well, color me surprised!
January 29, 2012
I Never Thought This Song Was About Me
You know who's really so vain? Carly Simon, for thinking anyone gives a shit anymore.
January 28, 2012
Goodbye, Charlie
So after five years, "Chuck" has come to a close. It's been one of my favorite shows over those five years, and yes, I even own all available seasons on DVD. As sad as I am that it's over, I'm very happy that--unlike so many shows these days--they got to bring it to a proper conclusion. And what a conclusion. I never really realized just how much these characters had gotten inside me. Yes, it's a light-hearted action-comedy, but at its core it was a love story, and that's what made it so much fun to watch. I kept watching the clock, worried about how much time was left, and thinking that I didn't want these characters to go away. I think that's the best compliment I can pay to the cast. They all did an amazing job, and I'm looking forward to their next respective projects.
So Chuck, Sarah, Casey, Morgan, Ellie, Awesome, and all the rest, thanks for a great five years. We'll miss you.
So Chuck, Sarah, Casey, Morgan, Ellie, Awesome, and all the rest, thanks for a great five years. We'll miss you.
January 12, 2012
Somewhere, Tom Selleck is Laughing
Rosie O'Donnell and her kids killed a hammerhead shark on a fishing vacation. More than one, if the story is correct, as they say "hammerhead sharks."
So, apparently it's okay to kill an endangered animal, as long as you do it slowly with a sharp, barbed hook, and not with a gun.
So, apparently it's okay to kill an endangered animal, as long as you do it slowly with a sharp, barbed hook, and not with a gun.
December 31, 2011
My Top Ten Films of 2011
Okay, first of all, I did my top 11 films because it's 2011,
and also because I suck at choosing. Second of all, I didn't see a lot
of the films that many people are putting on their top ten lists, so
really this should be called "My Most Entertaining Films of 2011." Third
of all, this list was tough to put together. I just didn't feel as
strongly about any of these films as I have about films from
previous years. Maybe it's that those ones I missed this year were
knock-outs, but I felt it was a pretty weak year for films. Finally,
I'll probably change my mind about the list tomorrow, anyway. But here
it is:
11. Kill List: This is one of those films I enjoyed, but know better than to recommend it to anyone else. It’s a little like Pulp Fiction meets The Wicker Man. And there are more than a couple of WTF? moments. Be warned: some of you will hate this.
10. A Separation: I wasn’t sure I’d like it at first, but quickly found myself caught up in the lives of the characters, right up until the ambiguous ending, which I actually could have done without.
9. I Saw the Devil: Watching this, I felt like I was abused…but in a good way, I guess, because here it is on my list. Disturbing film.
8. Hanna: I thought this was a well-done action thriller, with a strong performance by Saoirse Ronan.
7. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows, pt. 2: A really, really great ending to a great series. I was never a huuuge fan, so I was really surprised at how moved I was by the film.
6. Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol: This might be on here just because I saw it so recently, but I doubt it. I love these kinds of films more than anything, and Mission Impossible does it really well.
5. We Need to Talk About Kevin: Of all the films on my list, this one got under my skin the most. I found it very difficult to watch, and very difficult to let go of afterwards.
4. X-Men First Class: With the talent involved, I would have thought Thor would have been the superhero movie of the year, but this one blew it away.
3. Martha Marcy May Marlene: Unlike A Separation, I felt this film’s ambiguous ending was justified. Great performances, especially by Elizabeth Olsen. John Hawkes, who I thought had one of the best performances of last year, as Teardrop, in Winter’s Bone, does it again here, as the deliciously creepy Patrick.
2. Drive: Unlike everyone else who liked this film, I didn’t care for the soundtrack. But man, did I like everything else.
1. Attack the block: I’m still not sure this should be at number one. But this film felt like the beginning of something, kind of like Carpenter’s Halloween. The feeling of a loving hand behind the camera, which should have been there in Super 8 (which didn’t make my list, despite some decent performances), but wasn’t. Also, love love LOVE Jodie Whittaker, ever since Venus (2006).
Honorable Mentions: The Help, Killer Elite, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, The Eagle, Paul, Straw Dogs
Not Seen, but probably should have: The Skin I Live In, 50/50, The Descendants, The Artist, The Tree of Life, Girl With the Dragon Tattoo
Most disappointing movies of the year: The Dilemma, The Green Hornet, Sucker Punch, Thor, Fright Night, and the worst film I saw all year: Abduction.
Final Note: Tucker and Dale vs Evil would be on my list, but I think that technically it's a 2010 release, even though it didn't get any release to speak of until this year.
11. Kill List: This is one of those films I enjoyed, but know better than to recommend it to anyone else. It’s a little like Pulp Fiction meets The Wicker Man. And there are more than a couple of WTF? moments. Be warned: some of you will hate this.
10. A Separation: I wasn’t sure I’d like it at first, but quickly found myself caught up in the lives of the characters, right up until the ambiguous ending, which I actually could have done without.
9. I Saw the Devil: Watching this, I felt like I was abused…but in a good way, I guess, because here it is on my list. Disturbing film.
8. Hanna: I thought this was a well-done action thriller, with a strong performance by Saoirse Ronan.
7. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows, pt. 2: A really, really great ending to a great series. I was never a huuuge fan, so I was really surprised at how moved I was by the film.
6. Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol: This might be on here just because I saw it so recently, but I doubt it. I love these kinds of films more than anything, and Mission Impossible does it really well.
5. We Need to Talk About Kevin: Of all the films on my list, this one got under my skin the most. I found it very difficult to watch, and very difficult to let go of afterwards.
4. X-Men First Class: With the talent involved, I would have thought Thor would have been the superhero movie of the year, but this one blew it away.
3. Martha Marcy May Marlene: Unlike A Separation, I felt this film’s ambiguous ending was justified. Great performances, especially by Elizabeth Olsen. John Hawkes, who I thought had one of the best performances of last year, as Teardrop, in Winter’s Bone, does it again here, as the deliciously creepy Patrick.
2. Drive: Unlike everyone else who liked this film, I didn’t care for the soundtrack. But man, did I like everything else.
1. Attack the block: I’m still not sure this should be at number one. But this film felt like the beginning of something, kind of like Carpenter’s Halloween. The feeling of a loving hand behind the camera, which should have been there in Super 8 (which didn’t make my list, despite some decent performances), but wasn’t. Also, love love LOVE Jodie Whittaker, ever since Venus (2006).
Honorable Mentions: The Help, Killer Elite, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, The Eagle, Paul, Straw Dogs
Not Seen, but probably should have: The Skin I Live In, 50/50, The Descendants, The Artist, The Tree of Life, Girl With the Dragon Tattoo
Most disappointing movies of the year: The Dilemma, The Green Hornet, Sucker Punch, Thor, Fright Night, and the worst film I saw all year: Abduction.
Final Note: Tucker and Dale vs Evil would be on my list, but I think that technically it's a 2010 release, even though it didn't get any release to speak of until this year.
December 08, 2011
November 15, 2011
I Do No Think It Means What You Think It Means
This has to be one of the stupidest comments I've seen on the Internet in a while:
Wait...what? Either you don't know the meaning of the word "abstinence," or you don't know where babies come from. "Abstinence" means to abstain. From sex. No sex. So unless you've been touched by an angel or by Zeus disguised as a swan or a shower of light, you can't get pregnant. Hold on, is this some of that Obama Administration math? "Babies created or saved?"
So, contrary to your statement, actually throughout ALL of human history abstinence has been more effective than a condom, in much the same way as, say, abstaining from getting in a car is the most effective way of avoiding unwanted car crashes.
"There has never been a period of human history where abstinence was more effective than a condom. Referring to Abstinence as a Birth Control is like referring to Donald Trump as a Presidential Candidate." --Michael Wolf
Wait...what? Either you don't know the meaning of the word "abstinence," or you don't know where babies come from. "Abstinence" means to abstain. From sex. No sex. So unless you've been touched by an angel or by Zeus disguised as a swan or a shower of light, you can't get pregnant. Hold on, is this some of that Obama Administration math? "Babies created or saved?"
So, contrary to your statement, actually throughout ALL of human history abstinence has been more effective than a condom, in much the same way as, say, abstaining from getting in a car is the most effective way of avoiding unwanted car crashes.
September 05, 2011
Touched By An Angel. (Hey, Shut Up! A Guy Can Dream, Can't He?)
I don't have high hopes for the new version of "Charlie's Angels." Let's face it--despite being the driving force behind my transition into puberty, the original wasn't exactly "Masterpiece Theater." But since I would watch Minka Kelly read from the phone book for an hour, you can bet your sweet speakerphone I'll be tuning in.
In fact, the only thing that would make me miss the season opener of "Charlie's Angels" would be that "24-hour Eva Mendes rope skipping" channel I've been working on.
In fact, the only thing that would make me miss the season opener of "Charlie's Angels" would be that "24-hour Eva Mendes rope skipping" channel I've been working on.
 |
| Now start with the "A"s...and speak verrry slooowly |
September 04, 2011
So...There's No App For That?
It appears that Apple has lost another of their iPhone prototypes in a bar. If you remember, the iPhone 4 prototype was lost a while back. This time, it's the iPhone 5. It was apparently left in the San Francisco bar, Cava 22. First of all, can I just say to Apple, STOP BRINGING YOUR PROTOTYPES TO BARS!! Lock. Your shit. Up. Or stop whining about it.
But that's not even the real story. The real story, and the reason this pisses me off so much is that Apple searched some guy's house, looking for the phone. That's right--I said Apple searched the guy's house. Not the police (although they "escorted" the Apple investigators). Not only did they not find the phone, they also declined to file a report, which means that they didn't even have to file a police report to get the cops to escort them there in the first place.
A couple of points:
"Apple had contacted the police claiming the prototype is invaluable, the report says."Yeah, but not too fucking invaluable to leave at home, I guess. This is like if Batman left the Batmobile outside a 7-11 with the Bat-keys in the Bat-ignition while he ran inside to take a Bat-dump, and then complained when someone drove off with it. At the very least, Apple, if you have to test the prototype in the wild, stop giving it to some idiot who's going to take it to the bar. You just know he was using that shit to get laid. "Hey, ladies! Look what I got!"
But that's not even the real story. The real story, and the reason this pisses me off so much is that Apple searched some guy's house, looking for the phone. That's right--I said Apple searched the guy's house. Not the police (although they "escorted" the Apple investigators). Not only did they not find the phone, they also declined to file a report, which means that they didn't even have to file a police report to get the cops to escort them there in the first place.
A couple of points:
- "Apple's team searched the home, car and computer files" Computer files? Is Apple making virtual phones now? Why on earth are they searching computer files looking for an actual, physical phone. Without a search warrant either, obviously, since no police report was filed.
- Why did they have to search the guy's house at all? You know what I do when I've lost my cell phone? I CALL MYSELF. How's that for genius, Apple? Yeah, just listen for the ringtone instead of tearing a guy's house up. Oh, I know what you're thinking--suppose it was on "vibrate"? My cell phone also has the ability to punch in a code from another phone and start an ear-splitting alarm. But then what do I know; my phone's not "invaluable." (It's also not an Apple.)
- "The man, who reportedly said he's a U.S. citizen who lives with relatives, told SF Weekly that the people searching his home questioned his family's immigration status." So apart from being douchebags that can't keep track of their shiny baubles, Apple is apparently also racist. No wonder so much of their stuff is white.
- "Nor did Apple enlist the Federal Bureau of Investigation." Nor should they, unless I missed something. Is "iPhone prototype" secret code for "dead hooker"? Last I heard, the FBI had real crimes to investigate, such as murder, kidnapping, and drug trafficking. I think "losing your phone in a bar" falls a little short of their jurisdiction. So Apple, you can just do what the rest of us do when someone walks off with our stuff: fill out a report and wait until Doomsday to hear something, because that shit is gone.
So you know what, Apple? I hope that your employee got shitfaced and dropped the phone on his way out of the bar, where it was found by some homeless dude who's now using it to level off the fourth corner of his refrigerator box under the highway somewhere. Good luck getting that back.
Hat tip to Ken.
August 21, 2011
Generosity is Awesome!
Scott Baio (yes, that Scott Baio) could really use donations for his non-profit charitable organization, Baily Baio Angel Foundation. It's a great organization that works at making life better for families and children dealing with GA1 and other organic acidemia metabolic disorders. I don't want to speak for him, so don't hold me to this one, but Scott has also suggested that he would "follow" on Twitter those who donate.
You can find out more about OA disorders here and here. Please give generously. And not just because "Happy Days" and "Charles in Charge" are awesome. Do it because generosity is awesome!
You can find out more about OA disorders here and here. Please give generously. And not just because "Happy Days" and "Charles in Charge" are awesome. Do it because generosity is awesome!
August 17, 2011
It's All About Who You Work For
Wow...that didn't take long. I see the media is already going after Rick Perry. This article from Time.com asserts that he once "Aggressively Pursued Federal Aid He Now Decries." How hypocritical of him...or is it?
I do think that there is a lot of hypocrisy out there on both sides of the aisle, but I'm not sure that these two situations are inconsistent, and therefore, not necessarily hypocritical. Today, Perry is running for POTUS, and part of that job would be to get federal spending under control. (Are you listening, Mr. Obama?) He should be looking out for U.S. citizens, and their future. Thus his current position on deficit spending.
This is an entirely different job than the one he held at the time in question. Back in 2003, Perry was governor of Texas. What was his job then? To represent the people of Texas. I don't think it's inconsistent in the slightest to say "hey, federal spending is out of control, and should be cut back...but as long as those programs are in place, I'm going to be damn sure to get benefits for the people I represent, because that's why they elected me." Turning that money down, or ignoring it only hurts the people he was elected to represent. Lobbying for it really only means he was doing a good job on their behalf.* It's no different than an individual saying "I think the welfare system is costly and inefficient and I think they could make some important changes; however, my family is in need and my primary concern is their well-being, so I will take the benefits." If that individual is put in charge of the welfare system eight years later, is it that strange that he or she would try to fix those issues from so long ago?
This is just Time trying to find some way to stem the flow of Perry's sudden popularity. Ultimately, though, the difference between Perry then and now? Simple--in 2003, he was representing a different group of people.
*full dislosure: I'm no Perry fan; I don't really know him well enough. I also hate lobbying and lobbyists and everything to do with that aspect of politics. But, as I said, as long as it's in place, I would expect my representatives to participate to the extent that they can.
I do think that there is a lot of hypocrisy out there on both sides of the aisle, but I'm not sure that these two situations are inconsistent, and therefore, not necessarily hypocritical. Today, Perry is running for POTUS, and part of that job would be to get federal spending under control. (Are you listening, Mr. Obama?) He should be looking out for U.S. citizens, and their future. Thus his current position on deficit spending.
This is an entirely different job than the one he held at the time in question. Back in 2003, Perry was governor of Texas. What was his job then? To represent the people of Texas. I don't think it's inconsistent in the slightest to say "hey, federal spending is out of control, and should be cut back...but as long as those programs are in place, I'm going to be damn sure to get benefits for the people I represent, because that's why they elected me." Turning that money down, or ignoring it only hurts the people he was elected to represent. Lobbying for it really only means he was doing a good job on their behalf.* It's no different than an individual saying "I think the welfare system is costly and inefficient and I think they could make some important changes; however, my family is in need and my primary concern is their well-being, so I will take the benefits." If that individual is put in charge of the welfare system eight years later, is it that strange that he or she would try to fix those issues from so long ago?
This is just Time trying to find some way to stem the flow of Perry's sudden popularity. Ultimately, though, the difference between Perry then and now? Simple--in 2003, he was representing a different group of people.
*full dislosure: I'm no Perry fan; I don't really know him well enough. I also hate lobbying and lobbyists and everything to do with that aspect of politics. But, as I said, as long as it's in place, I would expect my representatives to participate to the extent that they can.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)