The Unabashed Ravings of a Loudmouth Malcontent

My "Review" of "Watchmen"

2009-04-09T13:34:00.000-07:00

The reason I put "review" in quotes is because this is not an official review. There is nothing professional about it. This is simply a copy of an email I sent to a friend who asked me what I thought about the movie. Rather than writing a serious review, I'm just going to be lazy and copy/paste the email. So that is the reason for the constant references to director Zach Snyder as "dude," as well as the "lol"s and possible profanity. :) So here ya go:

"I didn't really care for the movie. lol I wouldn't pay to see it again. I won't buy the DVD. And I certainly wouldn't pay to see a sequel unless I read a summary of the script first and thought it sounded good. Here are my issues:

For one, the guy who wrote the book, Alan Moore, wanted his name removed from the movie altogether. He didn't want to be associated with the movie. He said that the book wasn't really movie material and that a movie should have never been made. I REALLY agree with that for a couple reasons. First, the book is very time specific. It was very relevant in the time it was released, the events were related to real life events at the time, and the characters/costumes were very 80's-like. Other comics are not very time specific, they can take place in any time without any changes needing to be made to them (i.e. Spider-Man). "Watchmen" was extremely loyal to the original material (which is another issue I will get to in a minute), which made the movie feel very dated. It didn't feel like a 2009 movie based in 1985. It felt like a 1985 movie based in 1985. At the same time, you can't update the material without damn near completely abandoning the novel. So I would guess that's why Moore said the movie shouldn't be made. Snyder made the best movie he could I suppose, but it just felt so dated to me. This would have been the shit in 1985, though. lol

Secondly, Snyder is called a "visionary" director. I know why, and I kind of agree, but he's only a "visionary" in the sense that he's great with visuals - and that's a complete misuse of the meaning of the word. A visionary is like a pioneer, or someone whose creativity is ahead of its time. Their imagination is unrivaled. Snyder displayed absolutely none of that in making this movie. He used the book as a storyboard, completely copying everything and using no creative license whatsoever. Normally this doesn't bother me, but when we're talking about a graphic novel, and dude is matching up shots in his movie with panels in the graphic novel, that is the complete opposite of a visionary. With books, we're allowed to use our imagination to create what the scene looks like in our head. A real visionary, if he's making a book into a movie, will present those images in a new and creative way. Snyder was already limited in making a movie based on a graphic novel, but to constantly copy entire panels is just really lame.

Third, since he was SO loyal to the source material, again, this made the movie EXTREMELY boring to me. I knew exactly what was going to happen next, down to a tee. It's not like I knew IN GENERAL what was going to happen... there weren't even any surprising shots since dude copied the friggin panels. Combine this with how 80's the movie felt, and you're set for a long 3 hrs.

Fourth, too much blue penis. There was a lot of gayness in "Milk," but it was necessary for the movie...it's about gay people. But why was Dr. Manhattan walking around naked for more than half the time? Sometimes, he had some sort of underwear thing on. So if it's OK some of the time, why isn't OK for the whole movie? This kind of plays into the whole "Snyder might be gay" thing. I didn't feel this way when I saw it, and I think it's necessary to the movie, but some critics of "300" say he was very "gracious" in the way he depicted the men and that the whole movie kind of had a gay feel to it. Again, I have no problem with this when it's necessary. But having Dr. Manhattan walk around naked most of the time doesn't make sense to me when it was apparently OK for him to have underwear on some of the time. It seemed like blue penis for the sake of blue penis, and that's not a good look. lol

There were things I did like though. 1.) His visuals ARE SICK. I will give him that. When he did add something, which was very rare, it was sick. (The extended fight scene at the beginning of the movie, for instance) 2.) The violence...very good shit. 3.) Rorshach. Dude who played him did a great job, ESPECIALLY when he was NOT wearing the mask. There's some criticism about the movie in regard to the way some of the important lines were delivered, most of them I agree with (Dr. Manhattan's decision to change his mind while on Mars, for instance. That was a really well written scene in the book, but it came off kind of lame in the movie). But every single cool Rorshach line was delivered as good, if not better, in the movie as it was in the book. (Particularly the line in the prison after he hems up that black guy. It was a sweet line in the book, but 10 times better in the movie.) 4.)The story in and of itself is the shit. It's a great story. I try to tell people it's not really a "superhero" movie. It's more of a whodunit/character study. The overall statement made at the end of the movie is a great topic for discussion. 5.)The ending change was AWESOME. Fanboys of the novel are pissed because it's the one thing Snyder changed, and it's an important thing. But the novel ending is COMPLETELY INAPPROPRIATE for a movie. The reviews from the average filmgoer have been average as is, they would have HATED IT if he kept the original ending. lol

So yeah, my overall thoughts are thumbs in the middle. I still haven't heard anything from people who did NOT read the book first, so I'd like to see what they think since my opinion is obviously tainted by me knowing the story/events beforehand."

Movie Review: The Wrestler

2008-12-20T12:31:00.002-08:00

Darren Aronofsky's 'The Wrestler' is short on flash and flair. There are no fancy camera tricks and no mind blowing plot twists. The story plays out chronologically, and there are very few action sequences and no special effects. 'The Wrestler' is nothing more than simple and direct story telling at its very finest.

'The Wrestler' stars Mickey Rourke as Randy 'The Ram' Robinson, a professional wrestler who probably should have retired about a decade ago. He's well past his prime and, despite being in great shape, is riddled with injuries. Randy lives in a trailer, and can barely afford his rent. Aside from a daughter he barely knows, he has no family. He's so lonely that his best friend is a stripper named Cassidy, played by Marisa Tomei. When your best friend is a stripper, how are you supposed to be sure that you even have a friend in the first place? The pay for over-the-hill wrestlers must not be too good either, because Randy has a second job (or is wrestling his second job?) at a deli.

The only place Randy gets any respect is in the ring. His fellow wrestlers are honored to work with him. They relish the opportunity to lose to him in the ring. His fans adore him, and boo his opponents mercilessly. They roar with anticipation as he climbs the ropes to perform his signature move.

Outside of the ring, Randy's life is not so glamorous. He gets no respect at his job at the deli, being forced to wear a name tag sporting his real name, Robin. His daughter, who he knows nothing about, loathes him. He attempts to reconciliate, only to fail yet again. Unfortunately, he does not have the success rate in real life that he has in the ring. Randy's also confused about his relationship with Cassidy. He thinks there's something between him, but Cassidy is quick to draw the line between herself and her 'customers.' Despite severe health problems and with no one to turn to, Randy returns to the ring, the only place where he is respected and wanted.

The power of 'The Wrestler' is in its simplicity and realism. Aronofsky puts us right into the middle of Randy's life, both figuratively and literally. The camera regularly follows around the film's protagonist, making us feel as if we're chasing Randy throughout the film. Most of the scenes are shot in medium to close range, and the wrestling matches are very intense. The camera gets right in there for every bit of the action, and we can almost feel every blow. When most people talk about wrestling, they refer to it as 'fake.' It's no secret that wrestling is staged, but Aronofsky makes it a point to show that nothing is fake about bodies hitting the concrete...or in some cases, barbed wire and thumb tacks. He then takes us backstage, and shows us how real wrestling actually is. There's nothing fake about sewing up open wounds and removing thumb tacks and staples. There's nothing fake about taking drugs, constantly working out, altering your appearance, and putting your body on the line, only to barely be able to afford rent. It's all very real to Randy, much more so than his life outside of the ring.

Mickey Rourke is astounding as Randy, and will probably earn himself an Oscar nomination. Rourke shows Randy as a man with a lot of pride on the outside, but a lot of pain and loneliness on the inside. Randy suffers from something a lot of us can relate to: feeling of inadequacy. He feels inadequate as a father, worker, and in his love life. We can see the pain in Randy's tear-filled eyes as he begs his daughter not to hate him. Randy's a simple man; all he wants is to be significant outside of wrestling. We feel for him when we realize, and he realizes, that he can never be a good father. Then, we understand, as he does it, that he must accept his fate. Acceptance of your place in life is another theme that we can all relate to, and Randy accepts his place and bows out gracefully. Most importantly though, he finishes on top, and we're happy for him.

Movie Review: Seven Pounds

2008-12-18T15:09:00.001-08:00

Do truly good people really exist? What causes a person to do a selfless act? Is any act truly selfless? Don't we all get something from every good thing that we do? Even if it's only the satisfaction of helping another human being, if we enjoy that feeling, are we truly being selfless? There are two reasons people do nice things, one reason is good, and the other is bad. The first reason is because they enjoy helping others. They like to make other people smile, and it makes them feel good when they make someone else feel good. They do it simply because they want to. The other reason is because they hope they will get something in return; or, they are afraid of what will happen to them if they aren't nice. They don't do the nice act for someone else, they do it for themselves. The truly good people do kind acts for the first reason; the pseudo good people do it for the second. So again, do truly good people really exist?

Will Smith's latest movie, "Seven Pounds," shows us that it is indeed possible for good people to exist. "Seven Pounds" isn't so much about Smith's character, Ben Thomas, being a good person; it's about his quest to find good people. Ben, an IRS agent who has probably spent most of his life doing bad things, is trying to do something good. He has something at his disposal that, as we hear in the trailer, can "drastically change someone's circumstances." So, Ben is on a quest to find seven people deserving of this gift.

Director Gabriele Muccino, who also directed Smith in "Pursuit of Happyness," masterfully takes what sounds like a simple and, frankly, uninteresting premise, and does a fabulous job of generating and maintaining interest from the opening credits. Muccino does this by constantly raising questions, and then revealing the answers at precise moments throughout the film. Not one answer need, or should, be given any earlier or later than it is. Why does Ben behave the way he does? Ben seems like a great guy one minute, but then is inexplicably cruel to a blind man over the telephone the next. Who are these people Ben has chosen to help? Why has he chosen them? Why is he helping them? Why seven people? We know Ben is going to help these people, but how? What is his gift? Muccino expertly answers these questions sporadically throughout the film, just in time to maintain your interest and then create more.

As has come to be the norm for Will Smith, his performance is marvelous. We can tell that Ben has something inside him, compelling him to do good things. We don't know what it is, but we can see that he struggles with it. Throughout the entire film, Ben tries to retain his composure. We don't know why he's so sad, or so determined, but we can feel his pain and his struggle. Ben's quest only becomes more complicated when he falls in love with one of the women he's attempting to help. He wants to tell her the truth, and we can see that as bad as he wants to, he knows that he can't.

Smith's career has been filled with great performances that did not get the credit they deserve, and this year will probably be no different. It seems as if every time Smith gives a great performance, someone else gives the performance of their career. Is Smith going to get an Oscar nomination? The answer to that question is not clear. There have been many great performances this year. However, there is one question that needs to be answered sooner than later. When will Will Smith get the Oscar nomination, and win, that he deserves?

"Seven Pounds" is a film that makes no secret of its intention to tug at your heart strings. It will undoubtedly touch many people, and it should. It is rare in today's world to see people being good, just because they want to. One man asks Ben why he was chosen. What did he do that made him so deserving of Ben's help? Ben tells him, "You're a good man…even when you don't know people are watching you." If only we all were…

Movie Review: Towelhead

2008-12-18T15:08:00.001-08:00

Speaking from personal experience, becoming a parent is a difficult time. There is much to learn, and no time to learn it. We learn on the fly. Once we grow up, there is little thought given to the difficulties of being a child. To say that "Towelhead" gives adults an idea of what it's like to be a child would be a drastic understatement. "Towelhead" gives us an in depth look into the life of Jasira, a 13-year old Lebanese girl, born in America. Jasira, like any other 13-year old, is just beginning to understand herself, her body, and her sexuality. At the same time, she has to deal with other external factors that make her life exceedingly difficult.

Jasira's mother has just shipped her off to live with her dad. She found out that Jasira had allowed her step dad to shave her, and blamed Jasira. She felt Jasira needed to live with a man in order to know how to act around one. Jasira's father is an extremely strict Lebanese man who is very traditional. He slaps Jasira for coming to breakfast in a t-shirt with no bra and boy shorts. He talks to her rudely, seems to have little to no care for her well being, and generally just treats her horrendously. At school, Jasira is constantly being made fun of for being foreign - she's called every dirty racial slur in the book - despite the fact she is American. When she finally finds a boy who likes her, her dad forbids her to see him because he's black. As most racist parents say, he's only doing this for her. He didn't create the world's rules. At the same time, her father hates their next door neighbor Travis, played by Aaron Eckhart, because Travis thinks he likes Saddam Hussein. He'd really hate Travis if he knew that Travis had an eye for his daughter.

Jasira's life is so complex, much too complex for a 13-year old. One can only hope that the average teenager doesn't have it this difficult, although if they do, it would go a long way into explaining all the teenager suicides and murders. Jasira is taught to respect adult men, but where she should she draw the line? Is it OK to allow Travis to touch her? Or does she know it's wrong, but her teenage hormones want to allow it?

Jasira needs help, but doesn't seem to realize how harsh and unfair her life is. Even if she did, she can't turn to her self-absorbed father. His trivial problems are much more important to him than her well-being; "just do this and you will be fine" pretty much sums up the extent of his fatherly advice. Jasira has one neighbor, Melina, played wonderfully by Toni Collette, who appears to be the only person concerned for Jasira. Unfortunately, Jasira grows to resent her because of her suspicions about the inappropriateness of Jasira's relationship with Travis. All of this may seem to be a lot to take it, but that is the life of the confused American teenager.

The performances in this film are all very well done. You hate Jasira's father, played by Peter Macdissi. Macdissi plays the father as a traditional Lebanese man, but only when being traditional benefits him. He has no semblance of an accent, sounding almost completely white, and carries all kinds of American beliefs. He's so disrespectful to Jasira, and we feel for her because we know what she's going through. Then we feel worse because we know that not only does her father not know, but he seems to have no interest in knowing.

Toni Collette is splendid as Melina, the only person looking out for Jasira. She's sees Jasira fraternizing with Travis, and wants to nip the relationship in the bud before it becomes inappropriate. You can see all the worry and concern in Melina's face as she chases Jasira from Travis' house.

Aaron Eckhart is yet again first-rate in his "other" role this year. Travis is someone who seems completely normal, like a pretty cool guy, until he's sneaking Jasira off to restaurants far away from their town in order to cut down the chances of anyone they know seeing them. Jasira, the naïve child that she is, calls herself Travis' girlfriend, "You touched me down there. I'm your girlfriend." Travis gives a shy smile and chuckles, and it sends a shiver down our spine. Eugene Jones III is also pretty good as Thomas, the black boy Jasira isn't allowed to see. He really seems to care for her, but of course has his own teenage boy agenda.

"Towelhead" is a very good film, and it gives its audience an idea of what it's like to be a teenage girl. However, it gives us very little new information nor does it explore any new territory. It's not like it's a surprise to find out that pretty 13-year old girls have boys their age, as well as grown men, trying to have sex with them. The fact that Jasira is Lebanese adds a different angle to the film, but again, racism is not exactly a new concept in film either. It's difficult to find any reason to recommend this film over any other film like it, for instance, "Thirteen." Director Alan Bell takes his material and does a great deal with it, making a very respectable film. Films about teenage angst are not in short order, so if you decide to make one, it should really find a way to stand out from the others. "Towelhead" seems to come off as a film that wants to be new and different, but doesn't want to put in the effort. The film may have benefitted from focusing on one or two teenage issues, and really building on those, rather than lumping them all into one 2 hour film.

Movie Review: Appaloosa

2008-12-18T15:07:00.001-08:00

Last year's "3:10 to Yuma" did more than its part in helping to rejuvenate the western genre in Hollywood. Ed Harris hopes to continue the resurgence of the western with his latest film, "Appaloosa." Harris directs and stars in "Appaloosa," a film about two vigilantes who travel from town to town, restoring order by any means necessary. They are hired by the sheriff of Appaloosa after Randall Bragg, played by Jeremy Irons, kills their current City Marshal and his two deputies. Bragg and his cohorts take over the town, doing as they please with no respect for the law. After all, why obey the law when the lawmakers are terrified of you?

So the town calls on Virgil Cole and Everett Hitch, played by Harris and Viggo Mortenson. Cole and Hitch agree to help them take back over the town, as well as subdue Bragg and his men. They two men come at a hefty, though. The sheriff must sign the town over to Cole; basically making whatever Cole says is the law, the law. Cole and Hitch then go about cleaning up the town, starting with two of Bragg's men, who seem to find it necessary to urinate on the floor of the bar. Once Bragg sees that he and his men can no longer do as they please, he has a meeting with Cole and Everett.

Cole: There's a set of bi-laws posted right outside the door here of this very saloon. Your boys do like they say, and everything will be muy bueno.

Bragg: And if they don't?

Cole: I arrest them.

Bragg: And if they don't go along?

Cole: Then I shoot them…or Mr. Hitch shoots them. That's the law.

Bragg: Your law.

Cole: Same thing.

A rather simple arrangement is complicated by the arrival of Allison French, played by Renee Zellweger. Allison immediately falls for Cole, and their relationship appears to cloud Cole's judgment. Cole must now juggle his questionable relationship with Allison, while trying to stay focused on arresting, or killing, Bragg and his men.

The main thing that keeps this film afloat is the fantastic performances by Harris and Mortenson. Their chemistry is great, and both men fully get into the roles, appearing as if they've been working together (in the movie, and in movies) for many years. Cole has many moments in which he can't seem to find the right word; and Hitch is right there to help him out in that "we finish each other's sentences" sort of way.

This film has all the makings of a spectacular western, but suffers from a few fatal flaws that make it difficult to fully recommend. For starters, the plot is extremely thin and the story suffers from a lack of depth. It's a very basic film, and you keep feeling as if it's about to incorporate some new and creative aspect or twist, but it just never seems to get there. After it's over, it leaves you with a "That's it?" sort of feeling.

The film also suffers from a lack of background information. It opens with Bragg killing Appaloosa's City Marshal, and then all of a sudden, the entire town is terrified of him. Was the City Marshall the only tough guy in town? Why was Bragg so intimidating that the sheriff was willing to sign the town over to Cole at the drop of a hat? Bragg may have come off as a more frightening character had we seen more than one instance of him displaying his wrath. Also, Allison appears out of nowhere. Her presence appears to be nothing more than a tool to help move along the plot. Allison and Cole immediately being seeing each other, without even as much as a brief wooing phase. Zellweger's performance and presence lend very little to the film. Finally, Jeremy Irons performance, while good, seemed to come directly out of the Daniel Day-Lewis playbook. Bragg seemed to be nothing more than a carbon copy of Day-Lewis' character Daniel Plainview in "There Will Be Blood," minus the genuine creepiness.

"Appaloosa" is a good film, definitely worth renting. However, if this is the direction Hollywood plans on taking the western, it may be a long time before we get another "Unforgiven."

Movie Review: The Day the Earth Stood Still

2008-12-16T11:47:00.003-08:00

Every year, Hollywood releases a generic group of films that are aimed at a certain audience. Usually in January in February, you get your generic dance film. The next month or two, you get your "athlete overcomes tremendous adversity" film. The athlete's obstacle can either be one of personal tragedy, racism, or overcoming incredible odds. Then, usually in the late spring or early summer, you got your alien invasion or apocalyptic film. "The Day the Earth Stood Still" is this year's combination of your incredibly generic alien invasion film AND apocalyptic film.

"The Day the Earth Stood Still" stars Keanu Reeves as Neo - I mean, Klaatu - an alien sent here to save Earth. The same empty and expressionless "style of acting" that Reeves has used so many times before is yet again his "go to move" in this film. He arrives in some sort of giant alien snow globe, accompanied by something that can only be describes as equal parts Iron Giant, Iron Man, and Cyclops from "X-Men." As usual, Reeves gives very little, if any, information on why he has arrived on Earth. After all, his face says more than enough, right? Jennifer Connelly co-stars as Dr. Helen Benson, someone the government inexplicably finds qualified to figure out why Klaatu is here.

Klaatu, against all common sense and logic, is taken to a secret government facility for interrogation. Here, he meets with the Secretary of Defense, Regina Jackson, played by Kathy Bates. Once Jackson realizes her primary method of bullying and intimidation doesn't seem to work on aliens, she moves on to the next logical step: drugging him and hooking him up to a lie detector machine. Brilliant. After Klaatu escapes, he somehow gets detained at a train or bus station, picked up by Dr. Benson, and meets with another alien to discuss the future of the Earth at McDonald's. You can't make this stuff up.

Clearly, this film's story is not worth discussing. It's a bad film, plain and simple. Any cliché character or story point is utilized, poorly, in this film. Kathy Bates plays your customary generic authority figure on a power trip who refuses to listen to logic and stubbornly sticks to own agenda, despite all evidence she should do otherwise. Will Smith's son, Jaden, plays the typical rebellious and disobedient kid who resents everything and everyone because his father has passed. He thinks he knows everything, and risks everyone's lives because he's stubborn.

The film is predictable, and the people make stupid and illogical decisions. Seriously, what purpose was there behind shooting Klaatu as soon as he emerged from his snow globe? Who would do that? He hasn't even posed a threat, unless "walking" can be perceived as threatening. Just like every generic disaster movie, all the characters are complete idiots who are incapable of seeing or doing the obvious, and continually put themselves at risk for no discernable reason. Finally, this film reeks of blatant product placement. Microsoft, LG, McDonald's, some watch company ... they're all present in this film, and you will NOT miss them. So in addition to watching a bad film, when it takes breaks from sucking, you have to watch commercials too?!?!?

Don't go see this movie. You'd be better served watching your paint dry or, God forbid, watching a Jack Black movie. This film has absolutely no redeeming qualities. The makers of this film thought so little of us, the audience, they didn't even compensate for the film's countless flaws by throwing in a nude scene or two. Don't support these selfish filmmakers by giving them your $10. Your world will stand still for an hour and a half if you see this film.

Movie Review: Gran Torino

2008-12-14T19:41:00.002-08:00

"Gran Torino" is the second film to be released this year, in only a few months, that is directed by Clint Eastwood. Now in his 70's, Eastwood has almost made more of a name for himself as a director than he has as an actor. He will only add to his legacy with his latest film, "Gran Torino."

Eastwood stars in "Gran Torino" as Walt Kowalski, a Korean War vet who still harbors ill feelings toward, well, everybody. Kowalski snarls and growls at everything and everyone who is young, different, or not white. He's a racist old man who, having done despicable things in the war, loathes all people, particularly Asians. They're all Korean to him. After the passing of his wife, Kowalski returns to his home in Detroit, only to find a Hmong family moving in next door. The grandmother of the family doesn't like him either. She can't help but wonder why the only remaining American in the neighborhood refuses to move. Kowalski mutters a seemingly endless variety of racial slurs under his breath as the two scowl at one another from their porches.

The teenage children in the family, Sue and Thao, are complete opposites. The family wants Sue to find a man because they feel that Thao will never be masculine enough to be "man of the house." Thao is quiet and keeps to himself while he washes dishes, does the gardening, and obeys his sister's every order. When a local gang decides they want to recruit Thao, he decides that this would be the best way for him to prove his manhood. In one of the best scenes of the year, and one that will undoubtedly go down in history as the "get off my lawn" scene, the gang attempts to kidnap Thao from his house, and the ensuing fight spills onto Walt's lawn. Walt's response is interpreted as heroic and Thao's family feels they are indebted to him. Thao is ordered to work for Walt in order to repay him, and the two eventually develop an interesting relationship where they both learn a lot about each other's lives and culture.

Eastwood, as usual, is great. Walt's character is a composite of all the bad asses he's played through his entire career. Walt is The Man With No Name. He's Harry Callahan, Josey Wales, and Bill Munny, all wrapped in one. Walt is a man who doesn't like, know, or care to get to know, his own family. They have nothing in common with him, and his own children don't understand him. Walt seems to have more in common with his dog than he does with his family. He has no respect for his local priest, a man he calls (to his face) "an over-educated 27 year old virgin who likes to hold the hands of old ladies who are superstitious and promise them an eternity." Young people infuriate him. He snarls and growls at every tattoo, piercing, and youthful act of ignorance or rudeness. Yet, for some reason, he realizes he has more in common with the people he hates the most than he does with his own family. Walt develops a relationship with Thao; a caring relationship in which Thao calls Walt "Mr. Kowalski," and Walt regularly refers to him as female genitalia when he can't think of a new racial slur.

Though on paper the film really appears to bring nothing new to the big screen, the script is elevated by Eastwood's performance and direction. The film is very entertaining and interesting, and it's refreshing to see a major Hollywood film starring unfamiliar faces. One also can't help but smile at the fact that Eastwood appears to be leaving the acting game just as he entered: a bad ass who always wins, even when he loses.

Movie Review: Cadillac Records

2008-12-13T11:26:00.003-08:00

After the success of "Dreamgirls," it appears that films chronicling the rise and fall of record labels and their artists are going to be the new trend. Despite the fact that the incredibly overrated "Dreamgirls" received all the Oscar buzz, "Cadillac Records," while still not a great piece of work, is the better film. "Cadillac Records" follows Leonard Chess, the creator of "Chess Records." In his quest to take advantage of all that America has to offer, he signs the best blues artists he can find on the streets of Chicago, and due to his ear for talent and a great sound, shoots "Chess Records" and its artists to the top of the charts. The label changes its name to "Cadillac Records" because they're so successful that "if you work there long enough, you'll get one." Chess buys all his artists Cadillac's, and they in turn bring him hit records. As they become more famous, they become more reckless with their lives, ruining their families and their careers.

Despite this film being based on a real label and real people, it is incredibly predictable. The story progresses in standard Hollywood fashion: Man starts label, finds unknown artists, makes them famous, they all have fun at the top, they become corrupt, and they fall from grace. The thing that keeps this film from being ordinary Hollywood drivel is the characters. They are interesting, entertaining, and all very well portrayed. Though they will receive little attention, the majority of the performances were top notch. Columbus Short steals the show as Little Walter, a fiery and passionate harmonica player with a slick mouth and an alcohol problem - not a good combination. Short, of "Stomp the Yard" fame, is nothing short of phenomenal. He does an amazing job of showing Walter's progression from the streets - he carries a gun on him at all times - to fame, his corruption from money and power, and finally, his deterioration because of alcohol and how it all causes him to hit rock bottom as an old man. Jeffrey Wright is also very watchable as Muddy Waters, as is Adrien Brody as Leonard Chess. Beyonce, in a misleadingly small role, is good as well when she is on screen as Etta James.

The film suffers greatly, however, from plot holes and unexplained events that happen in large gaps of time. Chess opens the film on the cusp or marrying one woman, then the next time we see him with a woman, it's a brand new woman and she is apparently his wife. Where did she come from? He's also incredibly faithful to her, despite the fact that she literally appears out of nowhere. We don't even see him meet her. Then, after Beyonce's character, Etta James, is finally introduced, despite her and Chess having literally no interaction, all of a sudden they're in love! She's crying as she sings to him. Didn't you just meet him in the last scene? How are we supposed to believe this love, with no prior evidence of it being built? There are also large gaps in time that, would they have been filled with some back story, the film could have been a little stronger. Chess goes from broke and destitute to buying a club. Where'd he get the money? How'd he end up in Chicago? Who goes from being broke in one scene, to buying a club in the next? If only that sort of instant success happened in real life! The movie makes it seem as if a lot of aspects of Chess' life instantly went from horrible to luxurious.

The filmmakers know that they're working with a film with few, but large, flaws. They attempt to cover this up and get people to come see the movie by passing Beyonce off as the headliner. She's all through the trailer, she's on all the posters, her name is all over the screen in the commercials - but her character isn't even introduced until nearly an hour and a half into the movie. Had the target audience known this, far fewer people would have gone to see the film. This is not to say that the movie is hurt due to a lack of Beyonce, it is just that one can feel very misled after seeing the film, and that makes the flaws more noticeable.

Despite the flaws, though, this film is still entertaining and interesting, thanks to the interesting characters and great performances. It's a shame that if you're not Denzel Washington, Halle Berry, or (for whatever reason) Jennifer Hudson, you don't seem to get much Oscar consideration. He doesn't deserve to win, but Columbus Short was exceptional in this film, and he can't even get his name on the poster or any attention because he briefly had to share the screen with Beyonce; they only have one scene together. The treatment of "divas" in the entertainment business is really becoming quite shameful and loathsome. "Cadillac Records" isn't the best film, but it's worth a couple hours and a couple of bucks if you're looking for a movie to see on a weekend night.

Movie Review: Frost/Nixon

2008-12-11T15:44:00.003-08:00

One might find it hard to believe that a film that about an interview, preparing for the interview, talking about the interview, and conducting the interview, could be entertaining. Ron Howard once again proves with "Frost/Nixon" that he is one of the great directors of our time and can literally take any subject and make it captivating. "Frost/Nixon" is little on action, but it's big on subtlety.

Essentially knowing nothing about David Frost and very little about Nixon (his Presidency was over before I was born); I entered the film with a blank palette. As the film opens, we see David Frost portrayed not as a journalist, but as a talk show host...and an average one at that. He's a slick talking Austin Powers-esque man with a charming smile who is never at a loss for words. He was already very well-known overseas and had met with a great deal of success. In the film, he appears to only want to interview the recently-resigned Richard Nixon for publicity purposes. At one point, he's asked by his producer if he has a "plan" for interviewing Nixon, and Frost essentially avoids the question. While understanding the importance of interviewing Nixon, he walks around with a swagger that screams "I'm in over my head!"

Frost was humbled when he came to the American television networks, asking for funding for the interview. He essentially had to pay for the interviews out of his own pocket. Despite having already convinced Nixon to participate in the interviews, American networks would not fund the interviews and advertisers backed out. They saw no reason to pay exorbitant amounts of money for a British talk show host to get eaten alive on national TV by one of the nation's fiercest politicians. After Frost finds the mean to fund the interview, and by "fund the interview" I mean "pay Nixon," he gets to work on preparing for the greatest, and toughest, interview of his career.

The film itself is done magnificently. Howard incorporates some documentary-style interviews into the film that help to give the viewer a closer look into the inner workings of the preparations for the interview, as well as to add some depth. Howard uses the camera magnificently, saying a great deal with very little, if any, actual words. He did, however, have a few moments that crossed the line between poignant shot and belaboring the point.

The performances on both sides were stellar. As I was told by a friend who worked on the film, Frank Langella was in character all the time as Richard Nixon. He had to be called "Mr. President," even when not filming. He was in character so much that, after the film wrapped, crew members were shocked to find Langella was indeed NOT Richard Nixon. The effort shows in his performance. From the voice to the mannerism to the walk, Langella has Nixon down to a tee. An Oscar nomination is certain to come in January. Sheen also does a phenomenal job as David Frost. He plays the character with a relaxed coolness that would be necessary to keep those around you calm in the face of a political figure like Richard Nixon. At the same time, we can see that Frost, too, is concerned, and questions his own ability to succeed with the interviews.

Unfortunately, the film is not without its flaws. While the film itself is still entertaining for anyone who doesn't lose focus without the occasional fight and/or car chase, I couldn't help while watching the film but feel as if Howard was being somewhat liberal with the facts. Upon arriving home and doing the research, my suspicions were found to be correct. In the film, Frost is portrayed as an under qualified joke in the eyes of the American media. He essentially has no plan going into the interviews, and it shows. During the first several sessions, he proves the criticism to be true, as Nixon dominates the interviews and Frost is left looking like a helpless victim. It is only after a phone call from Nixon prior to the final interview session (a scene which is one of the most powerful in the film), that Frost finds the motivation to really do his homework and get serious about the interview. Then, like Michael Jordan, he dominates the fourth quarter and steals the game with a resounding buzzer beating game winner. All of this is a very nice storybook ending, but apparently not how it really happened.

The phone call during which Frost found the motivation for his fourth quarter comeback, apparently never happened. This fact essentially tears down the entire way in which Frost is portrayed in the film. As mentioned earlier, he's portrayed as a screw up who has failed in the interviews up to this point. He then finds the motivation in the phone call, and gets his act together. If the phone call never happened, where did he find the motivation? To take it one step further, if motivation never came, was he ever really failing in the first place? Then that begs the question of whether or not he was ever really an under qualified talk show host in the first place. Was he actually a good journalist the entire time, and this whole concept of an average fellow beating the mighty Richard Nixon just done to add more human interest to the story? Whether or not any of this is the case really isn't even the point. It's the fact that without knowing anything about Frost, I was able to tell just watching the movie that the way in which he was being portrayed may not be accurate.

Upon reading a bio of Frost, it appears that he actually was a respectable journalist. Although he did host several satirical programs early in his career, he also had many legitimate shows to his credit prior to the Nixon interviews. He hosted a heavier interview-based show called "The Frost Programme," and a tribute to JFK following his assassination on "That Was the Week That Was" brought him some American notoriety. He's also the only person to have interviewed all six British Prime Ministers.

Having said that, all of this takes very little, if anything, from the film itself. If you're looking for some action, you might want to see "Quantum of Solace." But if you're looking for an in depth look into the greatest political scandal of all-time, as well as seeing one of the best performances of the year, look no further. "Frost/Nixon" is entirely entertaining and interesting, even if it did have to have a little extra thrown in to make it that way.

Movie Review: Milk

2008-12-11T15:43:00.004-08:00

"My name is Harvey Milk, and I'm here to recruit you."

It's a shame Harvey Milk didn't live to realize his potential. At the same time, were he alive today, he'd probably feel as if all of his time and effort had been wasted. "Milk" chronicles the last 8 years of Harvey Milk's life, starting from his move to San Francisco, until the tragic end of his life in 1978. Milk, played by Academy Award winner Sean Penn, was the first openly gay man to be elected to public office. His infectious personality and charming
smile served him well, both in his social life and in his political life. Although in his political life, his smile was not enough to combat his sexuality.

Milk moved to San Francisco in 1970 and opened up a camera store in 1972 with his boyfriend, Scott Smith, played by James Franco. In 1973, he ran for the prestigious position of City Supervisor in San Francisco. 7 supervisors would be elected to the position. Milk's way with words, along with his fiery and passionate speeches and charm, garnered him plenty of votes. However, in what would not be his first defeat, Milk placed 10th, despite winning his region by a gigantic margin. After yet another defeat in 1975, Milk's chances improved for the 1977 election when an ordinance was passed that allowed the city to elect Supervisors by district, rather than city wide. Milk easily won in his district in 1977, becoming the first openly gay man to be elected to public office.

While in office, Milk helped to defeat Proposition 6, a proposal that would make the firing of homosexual teachers mandatory. The biggest supporter of this proposal and a candidate for Governor, John Briggs, held several debates with Harvey Milk in an attempt to help pass the proposal. In one of the most powerful scenes in the film, Briggs asserts during one of the debates that gay men only want to teach so they can "recruit" young boys into their
gay lifestyle. Milk fires back, "If it were true that children mimicked their teachers, you'd have a helluva lot more nuns running around."

"Milk" is undoubtedly one of the finest films of the year. There have been few films in recent memory in which all performances, up and down through the entire cast, have been so exceptional. James Franco, in a very new and different role for him, is phenomenal as Milk's lover, Scott Smith. Josh Brolin, though only present for the second half of the film, follows up his astounding performance in "No Country For Old Men" with yet another amazing performance as Dan White, one of Milk's fellow supervisors and chief rival. Emile Hirsch also shines as Cleve Jones, Milk's protégé, and may earn himself a "Best Supporting Actor" Oscar nomination. The spotlight, however, definitely belongs to Sean Penn. Nearly unrecognizable as Harvey Milk, Penn is flawless in his performance. He has clearly studied Harvey Milk intensely, and has all of Harvey's facial tendencies and mannerisms down to a
tee. Milk is a man who is not only passionate about gay rights, but about helping gay people come to terms with themselves and their sexuality. At the same time, Milk struggles with his own sexuality. He's open with his sexuality, and proud of it. Yet, he never told his parents about Scott, and wrestles with the guilt of three of his four previous boyfriends having attempted suicide. Penn does an excellent job of conveying these conflicting ideas, and how much it would affect a person to have to be one way publicly, while hiding demons inside. He is certain to receive an Oscar nomination, and in my eyes, should be the front runner to win.

This film, however, is not for the faint of heart. Director Gus Van Sant is very frank and direct with his portrayal of the homosexual life in 1970's San Francisco. Initially, the film appears to be less a political film about a gay man, and more of a gay film featuring a politician. For the first 45 minutes, the film seemed to toe the line between being accurate in its portrayal of gay life, and merely making gay men look promiscuous. Not all gay men find all
other men to be "cute" or "adorable," nor do they spontaneously make out or have sex with men they just met. We know the characters are gay; we don't need this fact shoved down our throats (no pun intended).

Unfortunately, 30 years following Harvey Milk's death, gays have yet to make much headway (again, no pun intended). Were Milk alive today to see gay marriage outlawed in California, so long after he had begun his crusade for gay rights, he would probably begin to wonder why he should continue. Then again, were Milk alive today, who's to say that gay marriage would not have been legal a long time ago? Harvey Milk didn't become active in politics until he was 40. The fact that Harvey was able to do so much for gay rights in only 8 years is inspiring, and should be a reminder to all of us that it is never too late to make a difference in life.

Movie Review: Changeling

2008-12-11T15:42:00.002-08:00

One of the best movies of the year, "Changeling" stars Angelina Jolie as Christine Collins, a mother and supervisor at a telephone company. After agreeing to go in to work on her day off, Christine comes home to find her son, Walter, is nowhere to be found. Horrified, Christine reports her son missing to the corrupt LAPD. In an attempt to finally gain some good press, the LAPD finds another child and presents him to Christine as Walter. Christine knows this is not her son; and over the next several months, she attempts to convince the LAPD to resume searching for her real son. Not wanting to look like frauds, the LAPD fights back, declaring Christine an unfit mother and committing her to an asylum. Christine continues to fight the LAPD, and through the help of a benevolent reverend, clears her name and continues her struggle to find her son.

The thing that sets this movie apart from the majority of the other films released this year is that director Clint Eastwood does an amazing job of telling this true story. This is not merely a film "based on a true story." Eastwood uses actual court transcripts and facts from Christine's case against the LAPD to keep this movie as real as possible, and it works. It's an extremely touching and, at times, horrifying film. As a new father, the film really hit home for yours truly. Clint Eastwood is, simply put, one of the finest director's of all-time. When it's all said and done, he may go down in history for the film's he has directed more than the ones in which he has acted.

The cinematography, sets, and costumes are also exceptional, and they paint an excellent picture of 1920's Los Angeles. Jolie is difficult to recognize in her 1920's clothes, short hair, and signature hat that she wears throughout the film.

Despite being virtually ignored by the critics and the general public, the performances in this film are magnificent all around. Jolie is Oscar-worthy as Christine Collins. Mother of several children herself, Jolie probably reached deep into her own life in order to convey the desperate nature of someone who has lost a child. Her performance is heart wrenching, and one can't help but feel her pain, whether we can relate to or not. John Malkovich is excellent, as always, as the passionate reverend who is determined to expose the LAPD for the corrupt frauds that they are. The standout performance, however, goes to feature-length newcomer Jeffrey Donovan. Despite having few feature-length films under his belt - he's mostly only done TV shows - Donovan stole the show as Capt. Jones, the man primarily responsible for presenting Christine with another child, as well as her subsequent commitment into a mental asylum. You will HATE Capt. Jones. Though he briefly shows moments of regret, he is a loathsome and repugnant person who is only concerned with his reputation, not with finding Christine's son.

Though this film has not received much attention in the media, it will undoubtedly make this critic's best films of the year list. An emotional and entertaining thriller, and very true to the actual events of the case, "Changeling" certainly deserves more respect from the critics, and more viewings by the public. You all owe it to yourselves to see this film.

Movie Review: Slacker Uprising

2008-12-11T15:40:00.002-08:00

Michael Moore's latest film was released with little
fanfare, for free, over the internet prior to this year's Presidential
election. Moore released it for free not only because he wanted to reach as
many people as possible, but because he feels it's important that the American
people be GIVEN the facts about what is going in our country, rather than
having to pay for it or be force-fed falsehoods by the mainstream media. He may
also have given it out for free because it's the least interesting of his documentaries,
and it's also extremely outdated.

"Slacker Uprising" follows Moore's nationwide tour of the same name.
The purpose was to get people out to vote, new voters in particular, in hopes
that George W. Bush would not win another term in office. Moore makes stops at
various college campuses, and invites several celebrity guests and musicians to
speak and perform at his rallies.

A large part of what makes this film so...well, boring...is the fact that he
released it four years too late. The documentary was being filmed all the way
up until the 2004 election, which would make it impossible to release before
the election. How about stopping filming a month before the election and
releasing it the weekend prior to the election? Four years after Bush did indeed
win a second term; this film does little to invoke emotion because we already
know what happened. It is also peppered with too many musical performances,
none of which were entertaining. The film feels thrown together, and was
essentially only released so that all the time and money would not be a
complete waste. We can only hope that the film may have reached some people who
were still undecided on whether or not they were going to vote for Obama or
McCain, and were swayed to vote for Obama by this film.

However, the film was not an entire snooze fest. It actually offered up some
very insightful quotes, and had a particularly interesting portion that
documented the presence of Republicans at Moore's rallies. During a press
conference following his previous film, "Fahrenheit 9/11," Moore was
asked by a reporter if his films are propaganda. This is one of the biggest
criticisms of Moore and his films, and his answer could not have been better:

"The propaganda that exists appears every night on the nightly news. Night
after night after night before this war started, "There are weapons of
mass destruction! Saddam had something to do with 9/11!" And there were
all of you (the media), on TV every night, flying our flag all over the screen
as you told these misstatements and these untruths to the American people. How
much were we propagandized by the Bush administration and by our mainstream
media, over and over and over again? What if you'd done your real job? What if
you'd asked the hard questions and demanded evidence about this war? Because
the great thing about the American people is, once they have the truth - that
there were no weapons of mass destruction, that there was no connection to 9/11
- they flipped. 70% were for the war when you didn't do your job, and now when
they are informed, 54% are opposed to the war: the majority. Because they got
the truth. Because they got the information. What took so long? My movie exists to counter the managed, manufactured news, which is essentially a propaganda arm of the Bush administration. My movies are the anti-propaganda. The only
thing sad about that is that people have to pay 8 or 9 dollars, to come to a
movie theater, get a babysitter, to learn things they should be getting for
free, sitting on the couch, eating Tostitos."

Bravo, my good man. Bravo.

Another interesting segment takes place at the University of Florida. There are
many Bush supporters at Moore's rally, included brainwashed children who shout
"Michael Moore sucks!" at the camera. It's nice to see that
Republican parents are wasting no time instilling their own beliefs into their
children, who are too young to even know what Moore, or what their parents for
that matter, are even talking about. The Bush supporters decide to do
interviews for the film, and offer up various "facts," including, but
not limited to, the "fact" that Moore is a communist and all of his
supporters are anti-American. They bash his film, "Fahrenheit 9/11,"
saying that it is full of lies. Then, in typical Republican fashion, they admit
that they have actually not SEEN the film, but they've HEARD ENOUGH to know
that it's full of lies. They wouldn't pay to see a Michael Moore! What an
outrageous thought! Apparently they won't pass up on the opportunity to speak
on it, though. Viggo Mortenson also makes an interesting cameo during which he
points out that, unlike Canada and other nations; we don't get automatically
registered when we turn 18.

This film is free for a reason. It's not a bad film, it just has bad timing.
Maybe if it were released prior to the 2004 election, Bush may not have ever
seen that second term. As it is, we already know what happens, and it's
difficult to have interest in rallies for a goal that ultimately was not
accomplished. There are also too many musical numbers and the film drags on
much longer than is necessary. Seeing as how it was released four years late,
there is much that could have been trimmed from it. The best portions of the
film have already been outlined in this review, so unless you insist upon
seeing them for yourself, don't bother downloading this movie. However, it is
free, so it couldn't hurt.

Movie Review: Burn After Reading

2008-12-11T15:38:00.001-08:00

"Burn After Reading" is the Coen Brothers follow-up to the best film of 2007, and one of the best films in many years, "No Country For Old Men." "Burn After Reading" has an all-star cast comprised of Brad Pitt, Tilda Swinton, Frances McDormand, George Clooney, and John Malkovich. The film follows two personal trainers, Chad and Linda, played by Pitt and McDormand respectively, who stumble upon a disk belonging to a former CIA agent that holds what they deem to be "sensitive information." In order for Linda to pay for her cosmetic surgery, they attempt the blackmail the agent, Osbourne Cox, played by Malkovich.

The plot has many twists and turns, and all the characters seemed to be involved with each other in one way or another; and they all have their separate stories and issues. Linda wants cosmetic surgery because she's very self conscious and wants to find a man. She frequents social dating sites and has sex with the men she meets, presumably in order to feel that she has some worth in the eyes of men. Osbourne Cox, in addition to having lost his disk, has quit his job at the CIA and is being divorced by his wife, played by Swinton. Harry Pfarrer, played by Clooney, is a womanizer who just so happens to be married (one must wonder how much of a stretch this role was for him). He's also being followed, but does not know by whom, or for what reason. Chad, played by Pitt, well...he's just there.

All of these characters stories are intertwined and the plot weaves, fairly seamlessly, between all their stories. It even manages to poke fun at itself and how silly its characters and situations truly are. It's very well written, and has some fairly snappy dialogue. However, when it comes to comedies, the main factor in deciding whether or not to issue a positive or negative review is quite simple: Is the movie funny? In the case of "Burn After Reading," it mostly is not. There are a few chuckles here and there, and one should still be able to "get it" even when the joke does not make them laugh. However, this movie simply is not funny enough to be recommended. As a comedy, it is average at best; and that is the only factor worth considering when deciding whether or not to go and see, or rent, a comedy. The film does have excellent dialogue, and it is interesting to see how the convoluted plot plays out. But if you want laughs, you may want to look in another direction.

Movie Review: Ghost Town

2008-12-11T15:35:00.001-08:00

Bertram Pincus is my hero!

Ricky Gervais stars as Bertram Pincus in "Ghost Town," a comedic version of "The Sixth Sense." Pincus is a dentist who basically hates people. He intentionally closes the elevator doors as people approach; he shows blatant disregard for people's feelings; and he enjoys his job as a dentist because it allows him to put things into people's mouths in order to stop from them talking. We get the impression that Pincus, despite having moved to Manhattan, would prefer that he were the only person on Earth.

During a routine colonoscopy, Pincus dies for 7 minutes. Unaware of this fact, he leaves the hospital and finds that he now has the ability (or curse, as he would have it) of being able to see and speak with dead people. One of the dead, Frank Herlihy, played by Greg Kinnear, approaches Pincus in hopes that Pincus can help him stop his wife from marrying her new boyfriend.

The two main leads, Kinnear and Gervais, are exceptional in their respective roles. Kinnear, one of the more underrated actors in the business, continues to impress me with his comedic roles. "Stuck On You," "Little Miss Sunshine," and "Ghost Town," were all hilarious films, largely due to his presence; and "Baby Mama," which wasn't funny overall, was good whenever he was on screen. Gervais, although not having starred in many films, has a very successful career writing comedy. He's written many episodes of "The Office," as well as an episode of "The Simpsons.

Gervais and Kinnear work wonderfully together and have very good onscreen chemistry. The dialogue in this film is simply wonderful, and writers David Koepp and John Kamps should be commended. Gervais and Kinnear are given great material to work with, and they flawlessly deliver witty line after witty line. This film is recommended based on comedy alone, it's hilarious. However, what really sets this film apart from other funny comedies is that it managed to integrate some heart into the story, without coming off as overly corny or forced. A lot of comedies feel that they can't just be straight jokes throughout the entire film, so they integrate some sort of "lesson" for the character to learn, or a romance, or a forced heartfelt moment that simply doesn't FEEL right. "Ghost Town," does an excellent job of setting up these emotional scenes, so when they happen, you actually feel what the characters are feeling. Then they even manage to integrate some comedy into the serious scenes, rather than simply just going serious over the final portion of the film. While not on par with 2008's reigning comedy champion, "Forgetting Sarah Marshall," "Ghost Town" still holds its own and should definitely be rented or purchased on Dec 27th.

Why Trading Chauncey Billups Was the RIGHT Move

2008-11-03T14:20:00.002-08:00

I've seen a lot of confusion and anger regarding the Pistons trading Chauncey Billups today. Being the resident NBA/Pistons expert that I am, allow me to explain to everyone why this was not a good deal, but a great one. The people who are primarily upset with this trade must not have been paying very close attention to the Pistons the past few years. They must think we're trading the Chauncey Billups of 2004. 2004 Chauncey had passion and heart. He was Mr. Big Shot. He played hard every night and was the floor general for one of the most surprising teams in NBA history. He rightfully earned his NBA Finals MVP.

That's not the Chauncey Billups we traded today. Sometime around 2006, Chauncey Billups, and all the Pistons for that matter, got it in their head that they DESERVED respect and it was owed to them. As the leader of this arrogant team, early playoff exits were OK with Chauncey Billups. When they lost to inferior teams, he shrugged it off. "We'll be fine. We've been here before." These are the not words of a player who belongs on my team. If the Lakers lost to an inferior team, do you think Kobe Bryant would have such a relaxed response?

Chauncey's on-court performance fell off as well. All of a sudden, he was doing things that he normally didn't do: He forced bad shots, he turned the ball over more, he missed free throws in clutch moments. When was the last time Mr. Big Shot actually hit a big shot? I began to suspect, and still believe, that Chauncey was point shaving and/or throwing games. Then, to top it all off, after each enormous fuck up, Chauncey would just flash that "I don't give a shit, I'm still the man" smile that SICKENS me. Early playoff exit after early playoff exit, Chauncey would continue to blow it off. I don't know any athlete who accepts failure as well as he does. I don't play in professional sports (obviously) and I take losing much worse than this guy does.

The Pistons have had 7 consecutive 50-win seasons. They've made it to the Eastern Conference Finals 6 years in a row. They only have one championship to show for it. When it's all said and done, the Pistons could be remembered as one of the most colossal underachievers in NBA history, and that's OK with Chauncey Billups. It's not OK with me, and it shouldn't be OK with any of you.

So what do we get in Allen Iverson? Where do I start? First off, the major knocks against Allen Iverson are that he's old, banged up, small, and a ball hog. Allen Iverson is, in fact, only 7 months older than Chauncey Billups. So let's throw that argument out of the window. As for being banged up and small, both of those assertions are true. However, Allen Iverson has been banged up and small for his entire career. This has not stopped him from being one of the greatest scorers in NBA history. A.I. is tied for 5th all-time in career scoring average behind Jordan, Wilt, Elgin Baylor, and Shaq. He's tied with Jerry West. For his career, A.I. is averaging 27 ppg. A.I. has never averaged less than 22 ppg in any season of his career. I think that's pretty impressive for a small and banged up guy. Finally, as for A.I. being a ball hog, yes, that used to be true. In high school, that was my primary knock against him. However, I graduated high school 9 years ago. He's a different player now. Iverson actually has a higher career assist per game average than Billups (6.3 to 5.8 I believe). Last season, Billups averaged 6.8 assists per game. Iverson averaged 7.1. For a ball hog, that's not half bad.

Finally, Iverson brings some things to this team that they sorely need. He brings flat-out scoring. He's a player we can go to in the clutch who can just take over. He's a go-to guy. We haven't had that since Grant Hill left. However, the most important thing that Allen Iverson brings to the Pistons is heart and passion, two qualities that have been absent in this team for many years. Allen Iverson has never been afraid to send his small and banged up body into the paint over and over and over, several times a game, every game of the season, for every season of his career. The man is fearless, and will put his body on the line to win. He's never had a supporting cast around him like he will have now. Try to imagine what the man will be capable of when he doesn't have to be "the man."

Chauncey's time is over. He had a period here that will never be forgotten, and he was the 2nd most important piece of one of the greatest teams this city has ever seen. It's been a great ride, but we're not trading the Chauncey Billups of 2004. We're trading a man who no longer cares whether or not the Pistons win. He assumes that they will win, whether they play hard or not, simply because he's in uniform. It takes more to win a championship than suiting up a great starting five, you have to PLAY like you're great. Chauncey Billups has no desire to win anymore, and Allen Iverson, in addition to being a better player than Chauncey could even imagine himself being, has never won and has a burning hot desire to win. Welcome to Detroit, A.I. We welcome you with open arms.

Movie Review: "W."

2008-10-18T10:35:00.001-07:00

Oliver Stone, for me, has always been an extremely over rated director. He has a knack for taking good, sometimes exceptional, scripts and adding his own flair that takes from the movie from potentially excellent to powerfully awful. He likes to focus on making politically-themed movies, but even when he ventures away from that, he still creates massive failures. His last film, "World Trade Center," was nothing more than average. His last venture away from politics, "Alexander," was widely panned. "Any Given Sunday" was a disappointment, and his most monumental failure was his bastardization of Tarantino's wonderful script for "Natural Born Killers."

Returning to his most successful roots making films chronicling the lives of politicians, Stone returns with his latest film "W.," a film about one of the most controversial Presidents ever, our current President, George W. Bush. Not one to stray too far from the norm, Stone delivers yet another aggressively average film. While the man's talent is undeniable, his style leaves much to be desired.

For starters, Stone portrays Bush Jr. as a victim: A victim of religion, a victim of Dick Cheney and Karl Rove, and a victim of his father. All of Bush's accomplishments (or lack thereof) are done out of a painful desire to not only please his father, but surpass him. This is of course a very under-used theme in Hollywood. Anyway, Bush is jealous of his father's favoritism toward his brother. No matter how much he wants to please his father, his reckless behavior keeps causing him to screw up. He fails at essentially every single thing he does, from the military, to college, to an attempt to run for Congress. One of the few interesting moments in the film is Bush's devastation after his loss in the race for Congress. The Democratic candidate painted Bush as rich and out of touch with the common Texan and the common Christian. Afterward, Bush vowed that he would never be "out-Texas'd or out-Christian'd" again.

Bush then decides to give up alcohol and find God. Finding strength through God, Bush finds the motivation to run for Governor of Texas and finally succeeds. Seeing weakness in his father's handling of Saddam Hussein during his own Presidency, Bush says that God has decided it's his turn to give it a go in the White House. Unfortunately, the film paints Bush as a puppet, and I don't buy it. Once in the White House, it seems all of the decisions are made by God, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, and Donald Rumsfeld. Bush just blindly follows orders. The film essentially relieves Bush of all responsibility for his actions while in the White House. After all, he's too simple to know what to do on his own.

One of the few shining moments of the film is Josh Brolin's outstanding portrayal of the President. Following up his performance in "No Country For Old Men," Brolin is really on a roll. He's mastered all of Bush's mannerisms, his voice, and even his walk. Although Brolin has been around for quite some time, he's finally starting to hit his peak. His next film, "Milk," is very high on my list of must-see's. He does not star, but he plays a supporting role in a film about Harvey Milk, the first openly gay politician. A nearly unrecognizable Sean Penn stars, and the film takes place in San Francisco (surprise surprise). But I digress. Brolin has really been phenomenal as of late. Other than Brolin's performance, the film brings little else worthwhile to the table.

One of Stone's go-to moves is his tendency to feature symbolic, sometimes surreal, dream-like sequences in his movies. This is one of the many ways in which he ruined "Natural Born Killers," and he goes to the well too often in this film as well. The dream-like sequences are corny, unimaginative, and bash you over the head with an obvious point. We get it, Oliver. Dream sequences don't make you deep or intellectual, and when poorly done as in this case, they just trigger frequent eye rolls and deep sighs.

In addition to my previously mentioned point about his portrayal of the soon-to-be-former President, Stone also seems to not really be aware of what dialogue should stay in the film, and what should be left on the cutting room floor. I have never been one to complain about dialogue. The average film goer wants more actions and less talking. I, however, would almost prefer the opposite when it's well done. This film tries to find a proper balance and fails. There are long war room sequences that feature lengthy bouts of teeth-grindingly boring dialogue. These scenes weren't just boring, they were BOOOOOOOOOOORIIIIIIING!!!!!!!!!! I can't recall any time in recent memory when I had so trouble paying attention to the movie. I nearly walked out early in the film, completely prepared to come home and write a one-star review about how the film was so bad that I couldn't sit through it. I stuck it out, though, and the film did get better and managed to attain levels of mediocrity.

There are many other problems with this movie, including Thandie Newton's unintentionally comedic portrayal of Condoleeza Rice, but we all have other things to do. Basically, this is a two-star movie with four-star aspirations. If you're into politics, you won't learn much, if anything, you didn't already know. If you think this is a comedy, think again. A film about George W. Bush will of course have several funny moments, but Stone took this film in a far more serious direction. If you're a Stone fan, or someone desperately looking for a scapegoat on which to blame all of Bush's failures, you may like it. Otherwise, save your 10 bucks and wait until this is on DVD.

Presidential Debate Episode III: Revenge of the Simp

2008-10-15T21:44:00.000-07:00

Well, after two very under whelming debates, we finally got the debate we all have been waiting on. The first two debates seemed like poorly organized campaign speeches. We heard nothing we hadn't already heard on the campaign trail, and each candidate took every opportunity to recite their stump speeches. No hard questions were asked, and moderators went very easy on both candidates. Personally, I was greatly disappointed in the second debate. Touted as a town hall debate, I expected to see something similar to what I saw during the first ever town hall debate in 1992 between Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, and Ross Perot. Instead, I got a debate that was essentially the same as the first one, just with the audience asking the questions instead of the moderator. The questions were chosen by the moderator, Tom Brokaw, and the person only got to ask the question. They were not allowed to follow up or converse with the candidate.

Tonight, we saw a totally different strategy, both by the moderator and the candidates ... one candidate in particular. McCain came into this debate ready to throw punches. Like a boxer on the ropes, McCain came out fighting. He was ready to do any and every thing he could in order to get back into this race because, after all, he has no choice at this point. His back is to the wall. For the most part, at least to start off, I thought he was successful in his attempts. McCain came out tough and ready to throw punches. McCain's most successful part of the night is when he decided to totally separate himself from President Bush. "Senator Obama, I am not President Bush. If you wanted to run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago." Personally, I only thought the first sentence was powerful. He looked right at Obama when he said it, and he was very direct. The second sentence was not necessary. I don't think anyone thinks that Obama would have preferred to run against Bush.

Surprisingly, McCain allowed Obama back into the fold when the topic of the debate switched to the subject of attack ads. It is clear now, as it has been for many months, that the people are tired of hearing about things that have nothing to do with the issues. He forced Obama to speak on his relationship with William Ayers and ACORN, and Obama handled the situation very well. He seemed as if he didn't even want to respond to such ridiculous attacks, but was only doing it because McCain would not leave it alone. Then, when that should have been the end of it, McCain kept coming back to it. He kept the conversation on unrelated negativity. You could literally feel the nation rolling its collective eyes. He began to look flustered, and could barely contain his disdain for Senator Obama. He no longer listened to Obama's answers, and would repeat the same falsehoods about Obama's policies over and over, even after Obama had already cleared them up.

McCain then tried to play the sympathy card by essentially saying his feelings were hurt when a reporter tied him to racial segregation. He said that anytime someone has said anything bad about Obama, he's repudiated it. Yet, when this reporter essentially called McCain racist, Obama said nothing. This was a key point in the debate for me. I was interested to see how Obama would respond to what I felt was a valid point. Obama took this as an opportunity to first speak on all the wildly negative, and quite frankly, scary things that McCain supporters have said about him. At Palin rallies, people have called him "Osama," a terrorist, and many other horrible things, with Palin saying nothing. This prompted the reporter to say what he said, to which the Obama campaign responded by saying the guy was out of line. Then the guy himself apologized. Once again, this should have been the end of it. McCain then surprisingly went on to essentially defend his supporters because they wear Vietnam hats. OK.

After the long stretch in which McCain seemed to want to focus on negative and lies, his head no longer seemed to be in the game. In the final half hour of the debate, the moderator took the debate into a new direction, asking them to speak on subjects we had not yet heard them speak on. He asked the candidates about health care. McCain asserted that Obama would charge a fine to "Joe the Plumber," a man who Obama had spoken to on the campaign trail earlier in the day, for not providing health care to his employees. He challenged Obama to say just how much that fine would be. Obama then explained his health care for what seemed like the millionth time. He explained that if you had a health care plan, you could keep it, and he would lower costs. If you didn't, you would be able to buy into the same plan he uses, and the costs would be low since so many other politicians use that plan. Then, he looked directly into the camera and said "Joe, you want to know how much your fine would be? 0." He then explained that small business owners are exempt from that fine, and would receive money in order to help them provide health care to their employees. He said it was the large companies, the ones that can afford to offer health care, that would be fined if they didn't. McCain's response, and I'm paraphrasing here "He's gonna charge you Joe, let's find out how much." Was he not paying attention?

Obama then shed some light on McCain's plan. McCain has said that his plan will offer a $5,000 tax credit to families. Obama then pointed out that what McCain doesn't tell you is that his plan will cause millions of people to lose their health care with their employer, and that McCain was going to tax health care benefits. He said the average cost of health care is $12,000/yr, so if you lose your health care and you get $5,000, you're still $7,000 in the hole. McCain's response, and I'm paraphrasing here ... well, he didn't respond.

The moderator then took the debate to the highly controversial subject of abortion. He asked the candidates if they could ever appoint someone to the Supreme Court who did not agree with them on Roe v. Wade. Obama, who is pro-choice, supports Roe v. Wade. McCain, who is pro-life, wants it overturned. To be fair, Obama did not really answer the question. He just said that he would base his decision on their qualifications. McCain took a different, much riskier route. He did answer the question ... eventually. After being pressed for an answer, McCain said he would also appoint based off of qualifications, but that anyone who didn't agree with him on Roe v. Wade wouldn't meet his qualifications. There goes the female vote!

Now for those of you who were not aware of the whole "Joe the Plumber" thing, the candidates were referencing a dialogue between Obama and a plumber named Joe that took place on the campaign trail earlier in the day. Basically, this guy told Obama that he didn't like Obama's tax plan because, as a new business owner who is making just over $250K/yr, his taxes would go up and it would be difficult for him to expand his business. McCain attempted to use this to his advantage by pointing out only Joe's half of the dialogue, and parlaying that into a lie about Obama raising everyone's taxes. He insinuated that Obama is attempting to stamp out the American dream by not allowing Joe to expand his business. That moment, and this entire campaign, should teach McCain and all politicians about running a campaign based on lies. Obama pointed out that his goal is to help people who are aspiring to be like Joe. He wants to help the people who want to be able to start their own business. Then, yet again, Obama had to explain the lie about his raising taxes. McCain claimed, and has been saying throughout the entire campaign, that Obama is going to raise taxes for people making more than 42K/yr. Obama responded with what, for me, was one of the best lines of the night when he said that all major media sources have cited that as untrue ... even Fox News, who rarely refutes any negativity thrown his way.

Although I've been a proponent of ending what Barack has called "silly season" in politics, it was about time that he got the opportunity to speak on all of the lies that McCain and his campaign have said about him. He got to speak on taxes, health care, William Ayers, ACORN, being called a terrorist, and all the other negative attacks that are thrown his way. This was the most exciting portion of the debate, and it swung the debate HEAVILY in Obama's favor. McCain never really seemed to recover. Afterward, the results poured in, and the people overwhelmingly felt Obama won the debate. CNN reported that Obama's favorability has gone up with every debate. In fact, all of his numbers have gone up with every debate. They've started to call the state of Virginia for Obama, which is a huge swing state. Essentially, we've reached a point where McCain would have to win all the swing states, even though Obama leads in a couple of them, as well as win over some states that look like they're going to Obama. In other words, in about 19 days, we can bet on being able to close the door on the prospect of John McCain Presidency. The closer we get to election day, the more worried I become ... but the more hopeful I become as well. True change is less than weeks away from happening in this country, and we can only hope that things continue in this direction. If they don't, we can expect the country to descend into a state in which we have not seen since the Civil War. I shudder to think about what will happen if Obama loses this election, both in the White House and in the streets.

Presidential Debate Episode II: Attack of the Clods

2008-10-15T21:43:00.002-07:00

The second of three Presidential debates took place on Tuesday, and I can now officially say that I am no longer anticipating the third. This pseudo-town hall debate failed to reach expectations, and I see no reason to expect the third debate to be any different. A few days prior to the second debate, I saw a REAL town hall debate on CNBC2 between Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, and Ross Perot from 1992. I think this is the only time a Presidential debate has featured 3 people. Anyway, due to the more "relaxed" nature of the debate, the moderator, as well as the guests, were free to take the candidates up on their vague responses. No candidate was allowed to give a half-ass answer that failed to address the question. There was a moment when a guest asked one of the candidates how something specifically affected them, and the candidate gave a "political" answer that didn't really answer the question. The guest said "No, I said SPECIFICALLY YOU..." I was hoping for this sort of candor during this second debate between Barack Obama and John McCain.

Unfortunately, I did not get what I was hoping for. This debate was nothing more than a nationally televised opportunity for the candidates to recite the same old stump speeches and slogans we've been hearing on the campaign trail for the past several months. The guests submitted their question to Tom Brokaw, the moderator. Brokaw, I guess, reviewed the questions, and selected which ones would be allowed to be asked. Also, this debate was not as informal as I had hoped. The guests read their cards with their question on it, then the candidate RECITED his speech. There was no response by the guest. There was no dialogue. Brokaw did not take either candidate to task when failing to answer a question. I learned nothing new from this debate, and I saw nothing new from either candidate. I am GREATLY disappointed. Maybe on Wednesday we'll get some different questions that will prompt new responses, but I doubt it.

We did, however, witness some fairly controversial moments. The most talked about moment was when McCain referred to Obama as "that one." A lot of people, not surprisingly, are calling racism. I fail to see how that comment, while fairly disrespectful, could be construed as racist. I've been sick the past couple days, but while I was confined to my bed, did "that one" all of a sudden become a racial slur? Maybe if he said "that boy," (lol) I would understand. He didn't, though, so I don't see the big deal. I'm actually kind of surprised that the reference has been such a big deal over the past couple days. There was another moment that I found much more controversial.

One or two questions into the debate, a black man asked a question about the housing crisis. Prior to insinuating that because the man asked a question about housing that he must be losing his house, McCain said, paraphrasing him here, "I bet you never heard of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before all this happened." I, for one, would have been pretty offended if I were that guy. Whether I'd heard of them or not, you should not assume anyone to be ignorant of anything. I'm surprised this didn't bring forth many "Oh, because he's black he must not have heard of them, huh?!?!" This comment, however, went largely unnoticed.

This all does go to show that McCain really is out of touch and is just simply too old to be President. He frequently slips up and says inappropriate things. He displayed EXTREMELY poor judgment in selecting his running mate. He is without a doubt the least cunning strategist I've seen in a long time, making COMPLETELY OBVIOUS political moves in an attempt to pass them off as being a "maverick." He's just too old and senile to realize how stupid and out of touch he is. Hopefully on the night of November 4th, he'll be put out of his misery.

2008: The Year of the Comedy

2008-10-15T21:43:00.001-07:00

Over the course of the next few months, I will probably be writing several movie-themed blogs. These blogs may or may not be movie reviews, I haven't decided yet. But being the film connoisseur that I am, there are a great deal of film related topics that I would like to touch .. the year is out. This will all culminate in my best movies of the year blog, which will probably come in January of 2009.

Having said all that, the first of those blogs is being unleashed upon your eyeballs right now. (On a side note, forgive me if this blog is poorly written. It's very late, but I want to write this before I forget to do it altogether.) Let me start by saying that I never have been, and never will be, a fan of the comedy genre. Like the horror genre, it rarely succeeds in doing what it sets out to do. Horrors rarely scare me, and comedies rarely make me laugh. So, the fact that I'm even writing this blog says a great deal about the caliber of comedies that have come out this year.

Basically, in any given year, if I see one comedy I like, it's been a good year. If I see two, it's been a great year. This year, off the top of my head, I think I saw 6 comedies I liked, 2 of which I LOVED, and there's another potential one to be added to the list that comes out at the end of the month. This fact makes 2008, hands down, the winner of the best year for comedies in my entire life.

First off, I'll talk about the movie I liked the least, Strange Wilderness. It probably wouldn't get a thumbs up from me at all if it were not for two scenes. These two scenes made me laugh harder than I've laughed at anything I've ever seen in a movie. I'm talking about stomach hurting and crying levels of laughter. I NEVER reach that level watching a movie. I only laugh that hard at something that happened or was said in real life. One of those scenes was in the commercial for the movie, and to this day I still remember when I first saw that commercial and how hard I laughed. I've NEVER laughed that hard watching a trailer. So I figured the movie would have all kinds of greatness in store for me. I guess since I set the bar so high, I was destined to be disappointed, but whatever. While I didn't laugh too much watching the movie, I was blessed with another scene that elicited almost as much laughter as the trailer scene. The fact that this movie made my list because of two scenes says a lot about those scenes. So would I recommend checking out Strange Wilderness? Well, yes and no. No, because my opinion of the movie overall isn't that high (it isn't that low either). Yes, because, well, even though my opinion isn't high, I set my bar high. It didn't quite meet my expectations, but it may meet yours. Then of course, you owe it to yourself to see these two scenes. Then again, you may not find them as funny as I did. I have a sick sense of humor. lol

While nowhere near as good as its predecesor, Harold and Kumar: Escape From Guantanomo Bay was still funny as hell. If you liked the first one, you'll like this one too. It didn't come with as many laughs as White Castle, but a funny movie is a funny movie, and this one deserves to make the list.

A movie that surprised me this year, although it probably shouldn't have, was Get Smart. Now don't get me wrong, it's not legendary status or anything. But it was funny. A more important thing, though, that I'd like to focus on is the emergence of Steve Carrell. I typically find him funny in any movie I see him in, although to be honest, he does seem to play the same character all the time. Off the top of my mind, I liked him in The 40 Yr Old Virgin (obviously, who wouldn't?), Little Miss Sunshine, Evan Almighty, and now Get Smart. I can't officially say that I've seen his TV show, The Office, but I've seen bits and pieces and I thought that was funny as well. I should probably check it out. Anyway, the point is that Steve Carrell is funny, and so are his movies.

Now it's time to talk about someone else who has essentially come from nowhere to officially OWN the comedy scene right now, Judd Apatow. Thank Science that Mr. Apatow seems to have reached a point where he can crank out at least one, maybe two, movies a year. He has given me faith in comedy. His movies are some of the funniest movies I've EVER seen. It's amazing that the next movie I'm going to talk about, while still wildly funny, is probably the LEAST of his movies that I've seen. Pineapple Express, starring Seth Rogen (who I am going to probably have to devote an entire blog to in Nov) and James Franco, is yet another comedy that received two thumbs up from me this year. The surprisingly violent ending provided few laughs, and like all of Apatow's comedies, it ran a little long. But the complaints are far fewer than the number of laughs. Unfortunately, Pineapple Express didn't hit the "I LOVE this movie" level of greatness, but fortunately for me, another Apatow comedy that came out this year did.

Forgetting Sarah Marshall was THE SHIT, point blank period. Anyone who doesn't find this movie hilarious should immediately have their head examined. The only famous Apatow flick that DOESN'T feature Seth Rogen, didn't need him. As a matter of fact, Rogen's greatness was replaced by the greatness of "newcomer," Russell Brand. Brand is apparently a big deal in the UK, and I will begin a mission shortly to find other movies of his. Brand's character of Aldous Snow wasn't just the shit, but will probably go down as one of the all-time great comedic characters. I still don't know where I would rank this movie among the Apatow comedies, but I love them all so much that it doesn't feel fair to rank one as "better" than another. However, Knocked Up is still my favorite. :) I said "It's a girl, buy some pink shit" for the next few weeks after seeing that. lol That was funny AND cold-blooded.

The final of my six awesome comedies is another one that I was surprised I liked it as much as I did. I did just like it, I LOVED Tropic Thunder. As a comedy overall, it was top-notch. As a satirical look at Hollywood, it was legendary and genius and by far the best film Ben Stiller has ever directed (though that doesn't say much). I guess if you're not as into Hollywood and movies as I am, you may may not see all the humor or find the movie as genius as I did, but this was a truly outstanding film and was funny as hell.

On October 31st, what will undoubtedly be the 7th great comedy is going to be released, Zack and Miri Make a Porno. This flick has all the ingredients necessary to make a hilarious movie. It has the best of both worlds: Kevin Smith writing and directing, and an Apatow cast. Kevin Smith wrote and directed two of my all-time favorite comedies, "Clerks" and "Dogma," and has made several other films that I enjoyed. His script and direction, with Seth Rogen and other Apatow actors in the cast, makes sure that this will be the 7th great comedy of the year. 1 week later, there's a potential 8th flick in Role Models. If you haven't seen the trailer yet, look it up. It looks like good shit and stars Paul Rudd and Sean William Scott.

One of my all-time favorite actors has fallen off...

2008-10-15T20:59:00.001-07:00

So today, I finally watched a movie that I thought I'd been waiting on forever. My two favorite actors of all-time, Robert DeNiro and Al Pacino, had finally truly done a movie together. Of course, they were both in The Godfather II, but since their roles took place in two separate time periods, they shared no screen time. They also starred in Heat together, but shared very little screen time, save for one memorable scene. On September 12th, the world received the film they were waiting for, Righteous Kill. These two screen legends were going to share the screen throughout the movie. To top it off, it looked like a damn good movie.

Unfortunately, it didn't live up to the hype. The film was generic and predictable ... very predictable ... VERY VERY VEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERY predictable. But this blog isn't about Righteous Kill, it's about something much worse: the decline of the career of Al Pacino.

I've literally watched one of the finest actors of all-time fall from perennial Oscar favorite, to box office bust. Al Pacino used to be one of the most versatile actors in Hollywood. Over a 20-year time span, he played a myriad of different, yet equally amazing, characters. In 1972, he starred in one of our all-time greatest films, The Godfather. In 1973, he played Officer Frank Serpico in Serpico. In 1974, he returned to the role of Michael Corleone and won as Oscar. In 1975, he starred in one of my all-time favorite films and probably one of his most slept-on roles in Dog Day Afternoon. In it, he played a ... well, we'll call him "eccentric" ... man who royally bungles a bank robbery. The money from the robbery would have been used to pay for his wife's operation. In 1979, he played a lawyer in yet another one of his most slept-on roles in And Justice For All. In 1983, he starred in his most famous role as Tony Montana in Scarface. And in 1992, he won another Oscar playing a blind retired Army colonel in Scent Of A Woman. All of these roles very different, but equally outstanding.

What happened to the Al Pacino who played different characters? Now, he plays the same guy in every movie: the gravely-voiced hard-ass. Insomnia, Any Given Sunday, The Recruit, Ocean's Thirteen, 88 Mins, Righteous Kill ... all essentially the same character. I don't think he takes the role if he doesn't get to raise his voice in it. I keep waiting for that role that rejuvenates Al's career, the one that will provide him with his first Oscar nomination since ... well, 1992. How many more bad movies or bad roles is Al going to have to take before he stops getting work altogether? Can he even show diversity anymore? Robert DeNiro has shown he can be FUNNY. Al doesn't even seem able to change his voice anymore. I hope I'm wrong, but I have a sneaking suspicion that the inevitable failure of Righteous Kill will signal the end of the career of a screen giant.

This...THIS RIGHT HERE...is why I love Nick Jr!!

2008-09-25T15:49:00.000-07:00

Oh geez...my stomach is still hurting from laughing so hard at this. I SWORE I had heard this before, but never saw it again. Then, just now while I was on the computer, I heard this clip in the background. I immediately hit youtube looking for it, and SUCCESS!! I know I have a "unique" sense of humor at times, but if you don't find this funny as hell, there's got to be something wrong with you. lol Wait until it reaches 1:30 and be prepared to laugh. lol

I Needed This Day So Bad

2008-09-15T18:43:00.000-07:00

Those of you who read the blog that I wrote just last night are aware of how discouraged I am right now. I'm not enjoying myself in Bakersfield at all, and I was very depressed last night because I saw no light at the end of the tunnel. After writing that blog, I made up my mind that I was going to go spend the day in LA today. I asked Raena if she wanted to go, and she said no. I didn't care. I was going to go regardless. I'd take Michael with me if I had to, and she could have the house to herself for the day. But I needed to do something for me, and I was going to do it and nothing was going to stop me. I had to find SOME way to cheer myself up.

When she woke up this morning, Raena, still seemingly in a poor mood, said that she had changed her mind and was down with going to LA if I wanted to. That was fine with me. She could come if she want. If she did have an attitude, I was not going to allow it to bring me down and ruin my day. I had too much riding on it. I had reached my lowest point. I had to find a way to pick myself up. So, after packing up every thing we would need, we headed toward Los Angeles at about 11:45 am. I can say in all honesty that not only was today the best day I've had since I left Detroit, it was one of the best days I've had in YEARS.

I had a friend who lived in Hollywood, Jeremy. He said he was free for part of the day and would be cool with meeting up with me and showing me around a bit. I headed straight for Hollywood, specifically, Hollywood Blvd. Now, I have been to LA and Hollywood before. I was young at the time, but old enough to remember it. However, you all must keep in mind that this is the life I always envisioned for myself. As a kid, I was too young to appreciate it. After years of studying film, Hollywood, TV, and music...I knew this was what I wanted. I still don't know in what capacity, but I know now for sure that is the life for me. It was magical. As you can see in the pictures I uploaded, I got to walk around and take pictures of places I have always dreamed of being. I got to walk along the walk of fame and snap pictures of the stars on the ground that represented all the greats.I got to see the Kodak Theater and the Chinese Theater. I got to go in a ton of cool gift shops and get some great souvenirs. Basically, I got to spend my day taking in every bit of the atmosphere that I one day hope to immerse myself in. It was everything I've ever wanted and dreamed of.

Everything just seemed to go right today. In my previous blog, I had talked about how I was discouraged because I couldn't go to LA because our car seemed to struggle to get through the hills. Apparently, it was because of the fact that our entire lives were packed in the car on the way here. The entire trunk was full, as was the entire front of the car, save for my seat, Raena's, and Michael's. Today, with no load, the trip was a BREEZE. I was immediately in a better mood because now I knew that I could go as often as I like, with respect to the cost of gas. Secondly, Jeremy told me that he lives by himself and he's cool with me crashing over at his crib sometime. He's currently working on the new prequel to "The Da Vinci Code" and he said if I come on a Friday after he gets off work, maybe he can introduce me to some people in the biz. It's nothing special, but I GREATLY appreciate the gesture and it was wonderful just to hear. I'm COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY JEALOUS of him. Third, I got a free ticket to see Bill Maher!!!!!!!!!!!! I've always wanted to see him live. Now, on Thursday, I can go to Hollywood and see him rehearse for his show!!

Surprisingly, the thing that really sent the day through the atmosphere was the time we spent at Raena's aunt's house. She lives about 6 miles from Hollywood Blvd, so it was no big deal to go visit. Normally, I HATE being around other people's family. I ESPECIALLY hate it the very first time when I don't know them. Her aunt and cousin were sooooooooooooooooooooooooooo nice. I was so comfortable there, they were so cool. We were there for 4 hrs, and I didn't look at my watch once. I can't stress how unusual that is for me. I'm EXTREMELY anti-social, but I really enjoyed myself. We all talked, her aunt cooked, Jr seemed to love them. Everything went perfectly. To top it all off, her aunt likes Michael so much (and he likes her) that she said she'd try to make sure she was available to watch him so I could go see Bill Maher. That's an amazing gesture to make for someone you just met. But we were all so comfortable with one another, and I'm very thankful for that.

Overall, today was just a wonderful day. I have hope again. I can go to LA. I can visit Jeremy. I can go to a club in HOLLYWOOD of all places! I can have fun. I can meet people in the movie biz (possibly). Whenever I want, I can go spend time in a place that I've always dreamed of being. I can be around people who are living the life I want to live, and hopefully that will motivate me. I'm going to try to go see The Tonight Show, The Price Is Right, Real Time with Bill Maher, and any other show that comes to mind. I'm going to try to do it up as much as I can. Then, to top it all off, I feel as if I have more family out here. I just met Raena's aunt, but she's such a genuinely kind and enjoyable person that I'd happily welcome her into my life. I really enjoy meeting cool people. So as you all know, I really needed today. Hopefully now I can drag my heart of the mud and, as Renaldo recommended, focus on my hope for the future. Peep the pics, and I'll be sure to keep you all updated with all that is going on with me out here, because I know some of you have to be worried about my mental state. lol

I hope this isn't true, but I wouldn't be surprised if it is.

2008-09-12T09:26:00.001-07:00

Alaskans Speak (In A Frightened Whisper): Palin Is “Racist, Sexist, Vindictive, And Mean”

September 5, 2008

by Charley James –

“So Sambo beat the bitch!”

This is how Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin described Barack Obama’s win over Hillary Clinton to political colleagues in a restaurant a few days after Obama locked up the Democratic Party presidential nomination.

According to Lucille, the waitress serving her table at the time and who asked that her last name not be used, Gov. Palin was eating lunch with five or six people when the subject of the Democrat’s primary battle came up. The governor, seemingly not caring that people at nearby tables would likely hear her, uttered the slur and then laughed loudly as her meal mates joined in appreciatively.

“It was kind of disgusting,” Lucille, who is part Aboriginal, said in a phone interview after admitting that she is frightened of being discovered telling folks in the “lower 48” about life near the North Pole.

Then, almost with a sigh, she added, “But that’s just Alaska.”

Racial and ethnic slurs may be “just Alaska” and, clearly, they are common, everyday chatter for Palin.

Besides insulting Obama with a Step-N’-Fetch-It, “darkie musical” swipe, people who know her say she refers regularly to Alaska’s Aboriginal people as “Arctic Arabs” – how efficient, lumping two apparently undesirable groups into one ugly description – as well as the more colourful “mukluks” along with the totally unimaginative “f**king Eskimo’s,” according to a number of Alaskans and Wasillians interviewed for this article.

But being openly racist is only the tip of the Palin iceberg. According to Alaskans interviewed for this article, she is also vindictive and mean. We’re talking Rove mean and Nixon vindictive.

No wonder the vast sea of white, cheering faces at the Republican Convention went wild for Sarah: They adore the type, it’s in their genetic code. So much for McCain’s pledge of a “high road” campaign; Palin is incapable of being part of one.

Tough Getting People Who Know Her to Talk
It’s not easy getting people in the 49th state to speak critically about Palin – especially people in Wasilla, where she was mayor. For one thing, with every journalist in the world calling, phone lines into Alaska have been mostly jammed since Friday; as often as not, a recording told me that “all circuits are busy” or numbers just wouldn’t ring. I should think a state that’s been made richer than God by oil could afford telephone lines and cell towers for everyone.

On a more practical level, many people in Alaska, and particularly Wasilla, are reluctant to speak or be quoted by name because they’re afraid of her as well as the state Republican Party machine. Apparently, the power elite are as mean as the winters.

“The GOP is kind of like organized crime up here,” an insurance agent in Anchorage who knows the Palin family, explained. “It’s corrupt and arrogant. They’re all rich because they do private sweetheart deals with the oil companies, and they can destroy anyone. And they will, if they have to.”

“Once Palin became mayor,” he continued, “She became part of that inner circle.”

Like most other people interviewed, he didn’t want his name used out of fear of retribution. Maybe it’s the long winter nights where you don’t see the sun for months that makes people feel as if they’re under constant danger from “the authorities.” As I interviewed residents it began sounding as if living in Alaska controlled by the state Republican Party is like living in the old Soviet Union: See nothing that’s happening, say nothing offensive, and the political commissars leave you alone. But speak out and you get disappeared into a gulag north of the Arctic Circle for who-knows-how-long.

Alright, that’s an exaggeration brought on by my getting too little sleep and building too much anger as I worked this article. But there’s ample evidence of Palin’s vindictive willingness to destroy people she sees as opponents. Just ask the Wasilla town administrator she hired before firing him because he rebelled against the way Palin demanded he do his job, or the town librarian who refused to hold the book burning Walpurgisnach Mayor Palin demanded.

Ironically, Palin was pushed into hiring the administrator by the party poobahs who helped get her elected after she got herself into trouble over a number of precipitous firings which gave rise to a recall campaign.

“People who fought her attempt to oust the librarian are on her enemies list to this day,” states Anne Kilkenny, a Wasilla resident and one of the few Alaskans willing to speak on-the-record, for attribution, about Palin. In fact, Kilkenny actually circulated an e-mail letter about Palin that was verified and printed by The Nation.

For good measure, Palin booted the Wasilla police chief from office because, she told a local newspaper, he “intimidated” her.

Running on Extreme Fringe Evangelical Views
Sarah Palin drew early attention from state GOP apparatchiks when, during her first mayoral campaign, she ran on an anti-abortion platform. Normally, political parties do not get involved in Alaskan municipal elections because they are nonpartisan. But once word of her extreme fringe evangelical views made its way to Juneau, the state capitol, state Republicans tossed some money behind her campaign.

Once in office, Palin set out to build a machine that chewed up anyone who got in her way. The good, Godly Christian turns out to be anything but.

“She’s doesn’t like different opinions and she refuses to compromise,” Kilkenny notes. “When she was mayor, she fought ideas that weren’t hers. Worse, ideas weren’t evaluated on their merits but on the basis of who proposed them.”

Sound familiar? Palin may well be Dick Cheney’s reincarnate.

Something else has a familiar Republican ring to it: Her tax policies, and a “refund surpluses but borrow for the future” attitude.

According to Kilkenny and others in Wasilla as well as Juneau, Palin reduced progressive property taxes for businesses while mayor and increased a regressive sales tax which even hits necessities such as food. The tax cuts she promoted in her St. Paul speech actually benefited large corporate property owners far more than they benefited residents. Indeed, Kilkenny insists that many Wasilla home owners actually saw their tax bill skyrocket to make up for the shortfall. Two other Wasillian’s with whom I spoke said property taxes on their modest, three bedroom homes rose during the Palin regime.

To an outsider, it would seem hard to do, but an oil-rich town with zero debt on the day she was inaugurated mayor was left saddled with $22 million of debt by the time she moved away to become governor – especially since nothing was spent on things such as improving the city’s infrastructure or building a much-needed sewage treatment plant. So what did Mayor Palin spend the taxpayer’s money on, if not fixing streets and scrubbing sewage?

For starters, she remodelled her office. Several times over, as a matter of fact.

Then Palin spent $1 million on an unnecessary, new park that no one other than the contractors and Palin seemed to want. Next, Sarah doled out more than $15 million of taxpayer money for a sports complex that she shoved through even though the city did not own clear title to the land; now, seven years later, the matter is still in litigation and lawyer fees are said to be close to at least half of the original estimated price of the facility.

She also worked hard to get voters approval of a $5.5 million bond proposal for roads that could have been built without borrowing. Anchorage may not be the center of the financial universe but, like good Republicans everywhere, Sarah Palin knows how to please Alaskan bankers and bond dealers.

For good measure, she turned Wasilla into a wasteland of big box stores and disconnected parking lots.

Sarah Barracuda
En route to the governor’s igloo, Palin managed to land what Anne Kilkenny says is the plumb political appointment in the state: Chair of Alaska’s Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (OGCC), a $122,400 per year patronage slot with no real authority to do anything other than hold meetings. She took the job despite having no background in energy issues and, as it turned out, not liking the work.

“She hated the job,” an OGCC staff member who is not authorized to speak with the news media told me. “She hated the hours and she hated what little work there was to do. But she couldn’t figure out a way to get out of the thing without offending Gov. Murkowski” and the state Republican Party regulars, some of whom were pissed off they didn’t get appointed.

But ever the opportunist, Palin quickly concocted a way. First, she waged a campaign with the local news media claiming that the position was overpaid and should be abolished – despite the fact that she lobbied Murkowski hard to get it. Then, mounting what she saw as a white horse, Palin raised a cloud of dust by resigning from the OGCC and riding away with an undeserved reputation as a “reformer.”

But when a local reporter dared to suggest that the reformer Empress has no clothes, Palin tried to get her fired.

“She came at me like I was trying to steal her kids,” said the targeted reporter, who now works for an oil company in Anchorage. “I heard she had a wild temper and vicious mean streak but it’s nothing like you can imagine until she turns it on you.”

Not surprising since some of her high school classmates still openly call her “Sarah Barracuda,” Kilkenny insists.

Still, as a Republican Party hack Palin managed to get herself elected running under the false flag of a “reformer.”

And what did she bring to the job? No legislative experience other than a city council of a village of 5,000 people, which is smaller than some high schools in Chicago. Little hands-on supervisory or managerial experience; after all, she needed to hire a city administrator to run Wasilla. No executive experience, except for almost being recalled as mayor. A philosophy of setting public policy based on one word: No.

And what has she done since winning the job?

According to Kilkenny, nothing. Well, nothing other than suggesting the state’s multi-multi-million dollar, oil-generated surplus be distributed to residents and finance future state needs by borrowing money. Gee, doesn’t that sound precisely what George Bush did with the surplus he inherited from Bill Clinton in 2001 and we all know in what great shape Bush’s economic policies left the nation.

It may explain why, when asked by reporters, including me, what she thought about Palin being picked to be McCain’s running mate, her mother-in-law replied with a sardonic, “What has Sarah done to qualify her to be vice president?” Of course, when the woman – said by many I spoke with to be well-respected in Wasilla – was running to succeed Palin as mayor, Sarah refused to endorse her, so that may explain the family tension.

As Governor, Palin gave the legislature no direction and budget guidelines, according to the chair of a legislative committee. But then she staged a huge grandstand play of line-item vetoing countless projects, calling them pork. “They were restored because of public outcry and legislative action,” the aide said. “She vetoed them mostly because she had no idea what they were or why they were important.”

But it was enough to get the McCain, who is mostly unobservant of the world around him anyway, to think Palin has a reputation as being “anti-pork”.

In fact, Juneau observers note that Palin kept her hand stuck out as far as anyone for pork ladled out by indicted Sen. Ted Stevens. She only opposed the “bridge to nowhere” after it became clear that it would be politically unwise to keep supporting it, these same insiders assert. Then, Palin fell back on her old habits and publicly humiliated him for pork-barrel politics.

As for being “ready on day one” to be commander in chief, despite the repeated public claims she’s made, the Alaska National Guard commander said that, “she has made no command decisions, other than sending some troops to help fight a few brush fires and march in parades at county fairs.”

“Sambo Beat the Bitch”
“Palin is a conniving, manipulative, a**hole,” someone who thinks these are positive traits in a governor told me, summing up Palin’s tenure in Alaska state and local politics.

“She’s a bigot, a racist, and a liar,” is the more blunt assessment of Arnold Gerstheimer who lived in Alaska until two years ago and is now a businessman in Idaho.

“Juneau is a small town; everybody knows everyone else,” he adds. “These stories about what she calls blacks and Eskimos, well, anyone not white and good looking actually, were around long before she became a glint in John McCain’s rheumy eyes. Why do I know they’re true? Because everyone who isn’t aboriginal or Indian in Alaska talks that way.”

“Sambo beat the bitch” may be everyday language up in the bush. Whether it – and the outlook, politics and worldview Palin reflects when she says such things in public – should be part of a presidential campaign is another thing altogether. The comment says as much about McCain as it does about Palin, and it says a lot of things about Americans who overlook such statements (as well as her record) and vote anyway for McCain.

by Charley James

Am I The Only One Who Suspects This Election May Be Fixed?

2008-09-07T19:04:00.002-07:00

Not one to be quick to buy into conspiracy theories, I have always been hesitant to believe the phrase "Presidents are SELECTED, not ELECTED." At the same time, I've never underestimated what the government is capable of. I just never wanted to believe that, as much as we talk about how important it is to vote, that in reality, our vote doesn't matter. It is an incredibly depressing idea that, despite the fact we live in a so-called "democracy," our fate is entirely out of our hands. If the powers that be want something to happen, they will make it happen. There is nothing we can do about it. Why would anyone WANT to believe that?

Unfortunately, with every passing day, I become more and more cynical ... and I was cynical enough to start. Every day, the Republicans strategy seems more and more foolish, ineffective, and obvious. It has become painfully clear that they offer no real changes from the failed Bush policies, so they have shifted their strategy to highlighting things that are completely irrelevant and have nothing to do with whether or not one would make a good President. For instance, McCain continues to talk about his time as a POW. We can all acknowledge that his efforts during Vietnam make him worthy of our respect, but how do they make him worthy of being our nation's leader? He rarely speaks of what he will do to improve the economy, the environment, health care, etc. Instead, he spends his time attacking his opponent and touting his war accomplishments, thus deflecting attention away from the fact that he offers no change. More importantly, this strategy also deflects attention away from the fact that his VP choice was completely horrible.

This is a perfect segue into the issue that confuses me the most. How are the Republicans getting away with their blatant hypocrisy? How is this race still so close? How come these OBVIOUS atrocities are not being pointed out in the media? Let's start with Sarah Palin. As I mentioned in a previous blog, the Republicans started their attacks on Obama by saying that he was young and inexperienced. Then, they select a hockey mom from Alaska as their VP. They talked about Obama's lack of foreign policy experience, yet they select a VP who didn't get her passport until 2007. The Republicans would NEVER have let this sort of foolishness fly if the Democrats were doing the same thing. If the Dems selected a VP like Palin, would they accept "He/She is tough because he/she has 5 kids!" as a reason to justify the person's lack of experience? Of course not! Yet, they continue to use this same poor reasoning to justify their abysmal selection. Even worse, this sorry attempt at covering her inadequacies is not being pointed out either by the Dems or the media. It is also no secret that the selection of Palin was a feeble attempt to pander to the Hillary Clinton supporters and try to win them over to McCain's side. How come nobody is pointing out that Palin stands for everything that Clinton opposed? Palin is a gun-toting conservative. She's a religious nut that thinks invading Iraq was an order from God, and is opposed to abortion in all cases, including rape and incest. Why is this not all over the news? The Clinton supporters would probably stick with Obama, that's why.

Secondly, let's look at the fact that her 17 year old unmarried daughter is pregnant. Conservative Republicans would NEVER stand for this! Yet, for some reason, they are reaching for reasons to justify it. "It's so great that she's not aborting the baby!" If Obama had a pregnant unwed 17 yr old daughter, they would be going to town. On a side note, I am disappointed in the Democrats that they are not doing just that. Yes, Obama has been more aggressive. Yes, he has attacked the Republicans and forced them to have to answer to their mistakes. Yet I am still disappointed that he has not gone hard at them on their hypocrisy.

This is an excerpt from Levi Johnston's Myspace page. Levi Johnston is the father of 17 yr old Bristol Palin's baby.

"I'm a fuckin redneck who likes to snowboard and ride dirt bikes. But I live to play hockey. I like to go camping and hang out with the boys, do some fishing, shoot some shit and just fuckin chillin I guess. Ya fuck with me I'll kick ass."

Do you think that if Barack Obama had a 17 yr old daughter who was pregnant by a thug who had words like this on his Myspace page, that the Republicans would let this slide? Why aren't the Dem's pointing these things out? Why do the polls continue to show an increase in McCain's support, despite these things?

This brings me back to my opening point: Are elections fixed? Everything SHOULD be shaping up for the Democrats to win this year. The Republicans have nominated an old man, a man who would be the oldest President in history to start a first term. He appears to embody all of the characteristics of President Bush, a man who, when it's all said and done, will probably go down as one of, if not the worst, President in history. They have nominated a woman who, were the Democrats to nominate someone similar, would certainly spell doom. To top it all off, they are facing a man who is probably the most popular Presidential candidate in history. Yet, somewhere, there are McCain supporters quietly lurking. Somehow, the polls remain even. All of this seems to be very similar to how Bush got elected and re-elected. To this day, I can't find very many serious Bush supporters. He is ridiculed throughout the media and all across the country. Comedians, actors, musicians, talk show hosts...they all seem to agree that Bush is, and always has been, an awful President. Yet, somehow, the man was elected...twice! Now, we have a similar situation in which it seems as if everyone is a Barack Obama supporter. He's the most popular politician in history, yet today it was reported that McCain actually took the lead in the polls. Where are all these McCain supporters? Have any of you ever met one?

If McCain is elected, I will seriously have to rethink everything I thought I knew about this country and politics. I will seriously become concerned for my personal well-being because I will know for sure that we the people have no power. If the government wants something done, they will do it, and that is a grim and terrifying thought. The statement is thrown around a lot, but I'm really starting to feel that if McCain is elected, it would probably be a good idea to move to another country, because something is, as they say, "up."

Political Thoughts and Musings

2008-09-03T11:24:00.000-07:00

For starters, respect is due to Barack Obama for making history in officially becoming the first black person to be the Presidential nominee for a major political party. He further solidified his place in history by delivering a marvelous acceptance speech that proved why he should indeed become the next President of the United States. The purpose of this piece, though, is not to discuss the obvious. There are a few non-Barack related situations that need to be brought to light.First and foremost, why are the staunch Hillary Clinton supporters so fucking stupid? I wanted this piece to sound as professional as possible, but my anger with her die-hard supporters prevents me from being able to find any other way to describe them. Where does one begin? My problems with Hillary Clinton's campaign are numerous. She stayed in the race long after she should have withdrawn. She selfishly dragged Obama's name through the mud, saying that McCain would make a better President than he would. She put herself and her foolish pride ahead of the Democratic Party. Despite all of this, many of her supporters stood by her side, claiming that they would not vote for Barack, and may even vote for McCain. They claimed Barack had yet to "win" their vote, and needed to prove to them that he would make a good President. Apparently, for these so-called "democrats," McCain had done just that.Tuesday night, Hillary Clinton took the stage at the Democratic National Convention. We all knew she was going to implore all of her supporters to vote for Barack, it was only a matter of how passionate she would be about it. While the speech was good, it seemed as if she spent more time outlining how awesome of a President she would have been, rather than building up Barack's credentials. She did the bare minimum. The funny thing about it was all the respect she got after the speech, respect that, to me, was not deserved. She did what she was SUPPOSED to do. What did they expect her to say? "You know what? Fuck Barack!" She didn't say that, so now she deserves praise? Anyway, I digress. I do not hold this against her. I understand why she did it. I just felt that this should have been enough for the Hillary supporters. I was wrong. It seemed to have had the effect that I was hoping it would not. The first person they interviewed after the speech was a black woman. She was a delegate and Hillary Clinton supporter, who was near tears. "That was a Presidential speech! Tell me that was not a Presidential speech! And we're supposed to just SWITCH!?!?!" She said she would no longer vote for McCain, but that Obama still needed to win her over. She added that her entire voting life, she had been a die-hard voter. She voted every year, and implored her friends to do so as well. Now, she was considering not voting. For real? Really?? Just because your candidate didn't win? I don't understand her supporters. What is going on in their stupid, tiny, and feeble minds? This is important! This is no time to act like a child! Our country's future is at stake! How can they treat this as if it's a minor decision? They're acting like it's a family squabble in which being petty will have no serious repercussions. To have no better than reason to vote for McCain than "My guy didn't win" is petty, stupid, and insulting to all intelligent women because it plays directly into the idea that women think with their hearts, not their brains. To top it all off, when I watched The Daily Show later that night, he had on a bunch of Clinton supporters who are trying to start a "Vote McCain" movement. Don't believe me? Check out their websites:

http://www.democratsformccain.com
http://www.hcsfjm.com

The letters in that second address stand for "Hillary Clinton Supporters For John McCain." Disgusting.
After Obama's historic speech last night, I feel that Clinton's supporters should be won over. He did everything right. He told them about Barack Obama the person, not the politician. He gave them a glimpse into his life and the people who molded him as a person. He directly outlined all of his plans and policies, while comparing them to (and tearing down) McCain's. Only time will tell if it worked, but the Clinton supporters have given me no reason to believe that they have the mental capacity to, well, think and chew gum at the same time.
Then there is today's big announcement. John McCain has chosen Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. To me, this could not have been a much worse decision, or a much better decision, depending on your outlook. We all know that the number one criticism of Barack Obama is that he is too young and inexperienced. McCain then goes and undercuts his own message by selecting a running mate who is younger and more inexperienced than Barack. People have also questioned Barack's foreign policy experience. Obama then went and selected the head of the Foreign Relations Committee as his running mate. What did McCain do? He selected a woman who has probably rarely been out of her state, much less out of the country. This was all done in an attempt to win over the female Hillary Clinton supporters. It is now completely obvious that John McCain is not only senile, he is also painfully stupid.
This decision shows that he thinks very little of not only the Clinton supporters, but the average woman as well. Does he think he will win over votes merely because Palin is female? Palin has some credentials, but Hillary Clinton she is not. This choice may or may not sway the women, but it is blatant pandering and, if I were an intelligent woman, I'd be incredibly insulted that this old fart thinks he can win me over by selecting any old woman as his running mate. Now I know some people may say that she is not running for President, she is merely the VP. Barack is running for the highest office. This would be a slightly credible argument if it were not for the fact that McCain once played foosball with Jesus' step daddy. McCain has a history of health problems and would be the oldest President ever to be voted into his first term, should he win. If something were to happen to him, this woman with far less experience than Obama, would then be President. How would the Republicans look then? Additionally, they are using the same arguments to support their decision that they would refuse to accept to support ours. They are talking about how even though she may not be experienced, she is tough, and has kids, and blah blah blah. Would they have accepted that if we used those same reasons to justify Barack's so-called lack of experience? I doubt it. The funniest thing is, they want to act like what Barack says about Bush and McCain being the same isn't true. But doesn't this remind you of when Bush named Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, just because they were buddies? She had not even served as a judge before! Now, McCain goes and does the same thing, naming an inexperienced woman as his partner for a high office.
All in all, it has been a very interesting past couple days. Many speakers at the DNC were excellent, and have got my attention, should they choose to run in the future. Clearly, after such a great convention, the Republicans are throwing up that last Hail Mary pass in a desperate attempt to win over anybody they can. Ironically, they may win over some Clinton supporters, but will probably lose far more of their current supporters in the process. To me, this is a move that shows that the Republicans feel their chances are slimming. They are doing everything they can to eek out every measly vote possible, but they know their time is up. As Barack said, it is time for the Republicans to own their failures.

Obama/Biden 2008!

I Will Not Miss This

2008-09-03T11:23:00.000-07:00

I'm tired of the people who tell me "When your son starts walking around on his own and isn't paying attention to you anymore, you will miss this time." I'm tired of hearing "When your kid is embarrassed by you, you will miss this time." I'm tired of "When your son is independent, you will miss this time when he is dependent on you." I respectfully disagree. Those who say that do not understand what I'm going through. I will NOT miss this time.
Yes, there are some things I will miss. I will miss the times when he smiles at me. As angry as I get at him, I forget it all when he smiles at me. I almost cry. It feels so good, especially now that I know he is smiling AT ME and not just making a random facial expression. I will miss when he reaches to touch my face. I will miss when he lays on my chest and looks around. I will miss being able to tickle him and make him laugh.
There are, however, far more things that I will NOT miss that ultimately will lead to me eagerly saying "farewell" to this time of my life. I will NOT miss reaching insane levels of anger on a daily basis. I have a bad temper, and many things send me from 0 to 60 immediately. However, I've never gotten as angry as I get dealing with him. I will NOT miss getting angry at my son. I will NOT miss every day being harder than the last. I will NOT miss getting no sleep. I will NOT miss constantly having to entertain in order to prevent tears. I will NOT miss constant crying. I will NOT miss constant spitting up that people consistently tell me is normally. I WILL NOT MISS PEOPLE TELLING ME THIS SHIT IS NORMAL. I will NOT miss feelings of guilt for being angry over something I can not control. I will NOT miss the feelings of confusion over what is causing my son's frustration. I will NOT miss feeling lost and alone on what to do to fix it. I will NOT miss incompetent doctors who do NOTHING to help me. They can burn in hell. I will NOT miss constantly scouring the internet for new ideas on how to help him, then, becoming hopeful that I have found something that may help him, only for him to spit in my face. I will NOT miss fixing one problem, only for another to arise. I will NOT miss the feeling of "when it rains, it pours." I will NOT miss the constant self-loathing and hatred I have for myself when I look in the mirror because of all the weight I've gained during this time. I will NOT miss being able to do nothing to help myself lose weight because I have no time or money to eat healthy. Then, when he finally goes to sleep at night, I can't work out because I'm physically and mentally exhausted. Losing weight the first time was the hardest thing I'd ever done. It is now the second hardest, and I don't know if I can do it again. I will NOT miss that feeling of helplessness. I will NOT miss this vicious cycle. I will NOT miss spending most of every single day feeling miserable, for a few fleeting moments of joy. I will NOT miss the feelings of guilt for feeling this way.
I love my son so much. He's my best buddy. I know he loves me too. I think what makes all this so hard is that I don't FEEL like he loves me. How could he do this to someone he loves?? I know he doesn't do it on purpose. It just feels that way sometimes. I'm just looking forward to the day when he can appreciate all I've done him. I just want one day, one day, when we can get along as father and son. One day in which I feel I haven't fucked up as a parent and raised a spoiled and bratty baby who is only satisfied when things go his way. One day where I can rest. One day that signifies the end of days I won't miss, and the start of ones I will cherish.

Is Being A Parent Really Hard? Or Do I Have The Most Difficult Child In History?

2008-09-03T11:22:00.001-07:00

I am a lost father. I hate to use cliches, but I am at my wit's end. My son is 5 months old and has been a terror since birth. I know. I know. Most of you who have had difficult babies are probably thinking you know what I'm going through. I beg to differ and challenge anyone to prove that their baby is worse-behaved than mine. lolHe started by sleeping for no more than 2 hrs at a time during the night. Now, at 5 months, he still has yet to sleep the night. In order to quell any thoughts that I may be utilizing poor strategy in regard to getting him to sleep, I will tell you all what I do. He usually gets tired around 8 pm and goes to sleep. I will "wake him," so to speak, at around 11pm to feed him. He rarely fully wakes up, though. I give him 7 oz of formula, mixed with 4 and 1/3 tablespoons of rice cereal. I warm it up as well. He still wakes up at 4 am. He wakes up for good around 7. This I have become accustomed to. I feel he won't be doing this much longer, and I can deal with once per night. Any advice on getting him to sleep through the night will still be appreciated.By far, his favorite activity to do throughout the day is cry. Yet, I don't feel he has colic. He appears to be either spoiled or restless. Yes, sometimes he is hungry or needs to be changed. Yes, sometimes he is simply tired. I still wonder though, is it REALLY necessary for him to SCREAM as a sign of sleepyness? But I digress.Most of the time, he seems to be crying for one of three reasons. 1.)Just because. 2.)He's sick of doing whatever he is doing. 3.)To piss me off. My son has the attention span of well, a baby. lol My best friend has 4 kids. He recently had twins. His twins will sit in their car seat for long periods of time and simply sit and stare. They will fall asleep in their car seats, and they sleep through the night. My son, as previously mentioned, does neither. He feels the need to "alert" me of his sleepyness, via screaming. He also wakes up through the night.He won't do ANYTHING (except cry of course) for more than 10-20 minutes at a time. He won't play with toys. He won't take pacifiers. He won't watch TV. He won't sit in his car seat. He won't play with his activity games. He won't sit in his swing or bouncer for more than 30 minutes. All of these activities lead to crying within 20 minutes. The crying only stops when I pick him up. Needless to say, I can't walk around and carry him all day. I rarely find time to cook, nap, clean, or even use the bathroom. Sometimes he cries just because I left the room. The only reason I can even type this is because he's asleep now, after an hour of inconsolable crying. He seems to grow tired of doing anything, then cries to let me know he wants to do something else. He constantly needs to be entertained. He will SCREAM, as if he's pain, then become silent once I pick him up. It's flattering and angering at the same time.I am riddled with guilt as well. His behavior and my personality don't match. I am a logical thinker. For me, every effect should have a logical cause. His behavior is illogical. I can't figure it out. He appears to cry for no logical reason, and it INFURIATES me. I get so angry. I would never do anything to him, but I have a bad temper and little patience. So he can upset me very easy. I love him so much though. So when he's calm, I instantly feel incredibly guilty for being so angry at him. After all, he IS just a baby. To top it all off, his mother (as well as my friends) act like I'm over reacting and that tons of kids are this way. Really? REALLY!!??! I have trouble believing all parents go through this. I have personally seen and talked to several parents (friends and family) who have had things much easier than I do.Please forgive the length of this, but I needed to vent. I don't know what to do anymore. I never thought I could "meet my match" in an infant, but it appears I have. I'm out of answers and ideas. I think I'd be happy if someone convinced me that their baby was as bad, or worse, than mine. Then, I wouldn't feel so alone in this.

Homosexuality in Hip-Hop

2008-09-03T11:21:00.000-07:00

DISCLAIMER: I have no problem with gays, or homosexuality. I have a problem with fakeness and followers. So this blog is in no way intended to bash gays, but to bash the people who are truly gay (or gay acting), yet pretend they are the exact opposite and try to separate themselves, and hate on, the gays who are open about it.
For years, hip-hop has always been an aggressively testosterone driven industry. From the gangsta rap era of the 90s to now, rappers have always felt the need to show how "manly" they are. They are angry and fearless. They will kill cops, you, or failing that, your mother and kids. They've had numerous sexual conquests, and should they catch you with your guard down, your woman could ... strike that, WILL be their next conquest.
So how did they progress from "COP KILLER! FUCK THE POLICE!!" to "I swag it out, uh, felt my swag/ The shoes match the hat, the hat match my bag"? When did the focus shift from attempting to achieve Chamerberlain-esque numbers of sex partners, to making sure your rag was made by Louis Vutton? Have any of you noticed that rappers now promote the same brands as the women on Sex In The City? All of this under the guise of (I'm assuming) attempting to prove how much money they have. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
Now, since hip-hop has such a strong influence on black culture, we've got young black men dressing like...well, bitches. It all started with Cam'ron. Before him, a black man would have never been caught wearing pink. Seriously, PINK. Think about that fellas. Imagine how you would have reacted if you saw a guy in the mall wearing a pink t-shirt in 1997. If it was gay then, why wasn't it gay when Cam'ron did it? He's a rapper, that's why. And, unfortunately for us, young black men worship anything these stupid fucks do. All of a sudden, you find guys justifying the wearing of pink. "It works for some guys."
"If you wear a pink button up with a blah blah blah... it can look nice."
"Light skinned guys can pull it off."
To this day, I can mention the increase in pink purchases as a sign of the gay turn that hip-hop has taken and I have friends who will defend it. Let me make this perfectly clear: IF YOU STARTED WEARING PINK AFTER THE RAPPERS DID IT, YOU ARE A BITCH. YOU ARE A WORTHLESS FOLLOWER WITH NO INDEPENDENCE OR YOUR OWN SENSE OF STYLE. IF YOU NEED A RAPPER TO TELL YOU WHAT'S COOL TO WEAR, KILL YOURSELF.
Let's move up to 2007, when gay fashion really got it's moist and clammy hands around the throat of hip-hop. Playaz Circle came out with a song called "Duffle Bag Boy" (many people for some reason mistake this song for being made by Lil Wayne, eventhough he doesn't rap on it. Usually rappers rap on their own songs.). There was nothing wrong with this song, per say. It's mostly about keeping drugs and money hidden in a duffle bag. Nothing gay about that. Unfortunately, all the closet rappers took this as an opportunity to admit that, they too, have "bags." And not only do they have "bags," but their bags match their outfit!
This poses several "problems." First, isn't "bag" what women call their purses? (For that matter, what is the difference between a bag and a purse? Is it the cost? If it's Louis Vutton it's a bag, if it's from JCPenney it's a purse? lol) Secondly, how convenient that rappers dropped the vital "duffle" part of the word, and nobody bats an eyelash? We're supposed to ASSUME that they're still talking about dufflebags? So now they've been given a pass to freely talk about carrying "bags," no longer specifying whether or not we're talking about a dufflebag, a fanny pack, or a purse. Finally, once they were allowed to talk about carrying bags, now they talk about their bags matching their outfit. Matching your accessories with your outfit? What's next? Pearls? Now, T.I. has an entire song devoted to his ownership of designer rags. But is that gay? Of course not! Why? Because it's T.I.
So, let's look at the progression. We've gone from rappers who, in the late 90's, could usually be found in all black Dickie outfits, with a fitted hat reppin' their hometown, to rappers who are potentially wearing pink shirts, with designer head gear and "the bag to match."
In closing, let me point out the effect this has had on our youth, in all of it's gay irony. A forum that I frequent has an entire section dedicated to fashion. Guys will go in this forum and talk about the newest stuff in "hip hop" fashion. I have to clarify it's hip hop fashion, lest these guys appear to be gay. lol They will talk about the jeans Young Jeezy was wearing in his latest video, or the t-shirt that Kanye West was seeing wearing at the VMA's.
From the main page of this forum, there are various links that take you to separate sections. Usually they are the 5 most recent threads in about 8-10 different section. I saw a thread about Nas' haircut, and clicked on it. It took me to the fashion section, or as they call it, the "dress code" section. In this thread, the threadstarter made a post basically saying that he thinks Nas has the nicest fades of anybody in the rap game. Immediately following, there is a great number of posts in which people are saying this guy is gay for complimenting another guy's haircut. I decide to browse the section, and I find numerous threads in which the threadstarter is called gay. They typically revolve around a rappers haircut, line up, or how he shaves his beard. I started a thread in that section in response to all the gay accusations that are thrown around so much. Here it is, unedited, in its entirety:
I saw a thread on the main page from this section talking about Nas fades. For some reason, I check out the thread, and mad niggas in the thread is callin the thread starter gay and sayin the topic is homo. I see another thread talkin about chinstraps, with the same result. Puttin whether or not the topic is gay to the side, yall don't see the irony in all this shit? A bunch of niggas who devote an entire section of the forum to talkin about fashion and go there to discuss it daily, wanna be quick to call someone else gay?!?!?!? I got no beef with this section. I'm sure it's plenty of cool cats who come in here to ask questions or to get some advice. But it doesn't seem suspicious to yall the most "gay" threads take place in this section? You don't see people in the sportscenter section getting accused of gayness all the time. I'm just sayin. Personally, I think a lot of yall are such followers, that yall just wear and do whatever a rapper tells yall to do. Yall don't think whether or not the shit the rapper is saying might be gay. Rewind 10 yrs. Would niggas be wearing pink? Hell naw. But a rapper says it's OK, so now they do. Sounds kinda gay to me. Now you got rappers talkin about matching shit to their "bag." I don't care what the fuck is in the "bag," matching hats and rags with your bag? Isn't "bag" what bitches call their purses? And niggas are lettin rappers get away with all this gay shit just cuz they rappers. This nigga T.I. got a song about designer rags. lol But it's OK cuz it's T.I.

I've received no responses. lol Case closed.

The White Man's Fashion Sense

2008-09-03T11:20:00.001-07:00

I want everyone to close their eyes and imagine a world without black people. I'm sure a lot of you probably pictured a world with a lot less crime, spacious prisons, and no more Churches or Popeyes Chicken. Now close your eyes again and imagine the same world, this time, pay close attention to what all the white men are wearing. You saw one of two things. 1.) White men in polo shirts with the collars popped, cargo shorts, and sandals. 2.) Confusion and nudity.
As Paul Mooney once said, black people are the most copied people in the world. This could not be more evident than in the fashion sense of the white man. It seems that, like chameleons, they adapt to their surroundings, especially if they are surrounded by black people. God forbid there are no black men to be found! The white man is lost, and is left with no other option than to go out in the summer wearing a hoodie and shorts!
"Where did all the black guys go?!?! Ah geez...what am I gonna wear today!?! OK Taylor, you can do this, just talk yourself through it! Let's see, it's 90 degrees outside, so maybe I should dress appropriately for hot weather. I should put on a t-shirt and shorts...but gosh darnit, it looks so cool to wear a hoodie with shorts...I gotta do what's fashionable. Hoodie it is! After all, my upper body is always much colder than my lower body."
Then of course there is my favorite look: the douchebag. It starts at the crown, with the hair greased up to be as spikey as possible, lest someone attempt to pat them on the head. It is followed by the smedium sized yellow or white polo shirt, with the collar popped. The sleeves absolutely can not come past halfway to the elbow. If they did, we wouldn't be able to see the barbed wire tattoo going around the bicep. Then you have the cargo shorts, either brown or camouflage, with all the pockets packed to capacity. Finally, they top it off with the sandals, usually without socks, because after all, why WOULDN'T we want to see their feet? The highest quantity of douchebags can typically be found in cities such as Novi and Livonia.
Fortunately for the white man, black people do still exist. They can continue to come to us for guidance on how to talk, what kind of music to listen to, and how to dress. I, for one, am relieved. I wouldn't want to live in a world with a bunch of confused and naked white men.

My Proposal For a New Democracy

2008-09-03T11:18:00.000-07:00

Recently, I've been pondering the entire concept of a democracy. It's a wonderful concept that, in theory, should work quite well. It seems rather simple: We the people vote for who, or what, we like. The things that we vote on range from the insignificant ("American Idol"), to of the utmost importance (the Presidency). Yes, it can be brought into question whether or not the United States has ever really had a TRUE democracy, but that is not my point. My point is, or should I say "My question is...," are we really even worthy of a true democracy? Do we deserve it? Are we ready for it?
To put it quite simply, the average American is too stupid. We prioritize the wrong things. Let us look at the general election of 2000. Now of course, we all know that George W. Bush did not win the popular vote, but let's ignore that and focus on the fact that, yes, he was elected. We can save the debate on the Electoral College for another time. There are a number of reasons that Bush got as many votes as he did. 1. People vote based on their interests. Those people who Bush's policies benefited made sure to get out and vote for him. 2. Old people vote, much more than young people. They made sure to get out and vote for one of their own. 3. In addition to young people NOT voting, minorities tend to not vote as well.
However, one very important, frequently overlooked, reason that Bush got so many votes is religion. He made it a point to make sure it was known that he was a Christian, and people eat that shit up, ESPECIALLY religious people. They saw a fellow Christian, and gosh darnit, that's all they needed to know! To hell (no pun intended) with his policies, they knew that, come Sunday morning (and probably ONLY on Sunday morning), their President was going to be worshipping the same God they worship.
This leads me back to my main point: The average American is stupid. If one were to make a list of all the things that make up a great President, why should "Digging the same Jesus as me" even be on the list, much less at the top? What about jobs, taxes, national security, foreign policy, health care? What about intellect? Shouldn't those things be more important? This is why, for America, democracy simply is not working. We're too stupid to make the right choice.
Don't care for my President example? Let's look at another example, which is simpler, to which anyone can relate. Not too long ago, Major League Baseball and the NBA (and maybe the NHL, I'm not sure), adopted a policy in which the fans vote for the starters of their respective all-star games. At first, it seemed like a good idea. After all, the all-star game IS for the fans. So how come we never get it right? Every year, the fans vote in the biggest names. On numerous occasions, the fans have voted in players who are injured, haven't played a game all season, or are having a poor season, just because that guy is a big name player. It can even be argued that this yearly "faux pas" is as bad, if not worse, than our Presidential voting record. All kinds of people vote in Presidential elections, including people who know nothing about politics or what each candidate stands for. The people who vote for all-star games are supposedly fans of that particular sport! You don't see people who know nothing about sports voting for who makes the all-star team.
Not being one to simply complain without offering solutions, I have a suggestion. The system of a democracy, in and of itself, is a pretty good system. We need to change who we allow to participate in that system. Therefore, I am officially starting the movement to implement a minimum IQ requirement that must be met for any American citizen to partake in ANYTHING that affects other citizens. It's for the safety and well-being of our country, since we clearly can not handle it ourselves. Think of it as a nationwide "You Must Be This Tall To Ride" rule. All citizens will be required to take an IQ test. Your results will determine what aspects of life in which you will be allowed to participate. There will be a minimum score required to do such things as obtain a driver's license, vote, and speak in public.
My plan will benefit me, I mean us, in a number of ways. It will make it so that we no longer have to deal with poor drivers while I am on the road. We will no longer have to make me suffer through watching all-star games with teams comprised of replacement players. Most importantly, we will no longer have to deal with mentally-challenged Presidents (there will be a minimum IQ requirement for that job too), or Mayors who end up in jail. Thank you.

The Obama and Clinton rivalry has really opened my eyes...

2008-06-03T09:12:00.000-07:00

Let me first start by giving some background. This video was posted on a forum that I frequent. The video in and of itself, sadly, does not surprise me and is not the reason for this blog. The responses that this video sparked ... responses that I have seen all too often since Barack Obama became a seriously candidate for President ... are the reason for the blog. There are a lot of things that have come to light for me over the past several months, things that have troubled me a great deal. The main realization that I've come to, the one that is the purpose for this blog, is this: I thought that racism was finally starting to go away. It wasn't gone, not by any means, but I thought it was lessening. I realize now that it had never decreased, but that people had just started to restrain themselves more. They held back their true feelings because they knew what they could and could not get away with. With Obama likely locking up the Democratic nomination tonight, and Hillary set to concede, (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24944453/) people are no longer holding their tongues. Racism isn't gone, it isn't even fading. If anything, it's gotten stronger.

Let me remind all 6 of my readers once again that this video is not what caused me to write this blog, it's the responses this video got. So I will start by posting the video, then the responses.

In the thread in which this video was posted, someone gave this response:

"I said it before and I'll say it again. White Clinton supporters will vote for McCain, and there's only one plausible reason they'd cross party lines at a time like this.

Sorry white people, but until your dumbass grandparents die there won't be a black president."

That last sentence was powerful. It's harsh, and I don't think a lot of people, particularly white people, are ready to see something like that. That may be, however, some of the truest words I've seen spoken during this entire campaign. Can this point even really be argued? It's a well known fact that elderly people turn out in droves for elections. And there are too many white people, old and young, who feel the same as that woman in the video. There is no real reason to hate Barack Obama. He ran a great campaign. He never attacked Hillary. He focused on the issues. His goals, should he stand by them, would get this country heading in the right direction.

But this is not a blog about Barack Obama. If anyone wants to know why I support Obama, feel free to ask and I will respond at a later time. This blog is more about the reasons people have for feeling that he is, as that woman said, an "inadequate black man." I've always had issues with women's logic when it came to arguing. My issues is that, well, it's either very poor or they don't use any logic at all. They will argue just to avoid admitting any wrong. They will take that argument far off topic, just to avoid admitting any wrong. I have no problem with a female President, as long as she does not embody any of the negative stereotypes against women. Hillary embodies several of them. One of them is the use of poor logic. Her main, and really ONLY reason for Obama not being fit for President is his lack of experience. She's run her entire campaign on this idea, and has got all of her supporters to buy into it.

I will not argue against the idea that Barack Obama is inexperienced. He has only served one term in the United States Senate. My argument is this: Where is all of the experience that Hillary claims to have? She's only served two terms. Somehow that makes her vastly more experienced than him? I'm sorry, but I can not count her time as first lady as "experience." I don't think I can say I have experience as a mechanical engineer on my resume, just because I live with someone who does. And if we're going to go outside of time served in the Senate to go toward her "experience," why not do the same for him?

Once again, though, this is not a blog about Clinton or Obama's campaign. I said all this for a reason. I think the whole "Obama doesn't have experience" argument, is the argument that white people use because they know they can't say "We don't want him because he's black." The experience argument does not hold enough weight to be legitimate, it can be used against her as well. Now that Obama is about to secure the nomination, more and more enraged white people are coming out against Obama. I find it funny, and sad at the same time, that so many people can be against a man who plans to do so much good. With all the hatred against him, how can people think he's only gotten this far because he's black? Last time I checked, being black isn't an advantage. It doesn't help you achieve things that were previously thought to be impossible. If it did, there would be no such thing as affirmative action.

This is a perfect segue into my second point about racism. People feel that Obama has only gotten this far because he's black. This implies that he is essentially getting "pity" votes, and that people have jumped on him because he's a black man who is a halfway decent candidate. The #1 argument, among both blacks and whites who don't use the "experience" argument, is that Obama supporters only support him because he's black. To me, this is simultaneously the most racist and most overlooked comment that has been uttered during this entire campaign. And unfortunately, blacks are just as guilty of this one as whites.

The problem with this argument is that it suggest that black Obama supporters (since they are the main ones who would vote for him because of his race), are too stupid to find any legitimate reasons to support him. Granted, there are a lot of black people who ARE too stupid to find legit reasons. They don't pay attention to politics. They don't know anything about him. They see a black man with a legitimate shot at being President and go "OH SHIT!! A nigga bout to be President! I'ma vote for that nigga!!!" But do you really think these people go out to vote? Are these people the Obama supporters with whom you discuss politics and debate who would help our country the most? These people are not Obama supporters. They are loud mouths who will have no real effect on anything come November.

I can only think of one person I know in my entire circle of friends, associates, family, and casual acquantainces who pays anywhere near as much attention to politics as I do, or as I have since I turned 18. Just one. Not only have I done my research, I pay closer attention to this stuff than 90% of the people who want to slap an Obama or Clinton bumper sticker on their car and poke out their chests because they learned a politicians name for the first time in their life. These people, who want to imagine themselves as intellectuals because they know something about the election before November, have the gall to insinuate that someone such as myself, who actually CARES about what happens in this country and has done his research, has no better reason to vote for Obama other than because he's black.

Well I've got news for all of you. I've done my research. I'm not some ignorant nigga who sees a black man on CNN and does some chicken dance in his livingroom. You say I support him because he's black. I say you DON'T support him because he's black. I have legit reasons for my support, do you have any for your lack of support? If so, I'd love to hear them.

Keith Olbermann Ethers Hillary Clinton

2008-05-27T12:36:00.000-07:00

It's about time. Keith's tirade at the end of his show was so well-written, so expertly composed and delivered, and most importantly, so true, that I'm not even going to attempt to speak on the subject. I wouldn't dare sully his speech by putting my (by comparison) poorly written opinion next to his. I will say this: His opinion, while I do agree with it, is extremely biased and really has no place in journalism. With that said, take a seat and grab some popcorn. You are about to see one of the most ruthlesss, brutal, and well-deserved ether-ings of all-time.

Worst list ever??!?!?!?!

2008-05-07T12:14:00.003-07:00

I was browsing a forum that I frequent, and someone started a thread titled "Your Top 10 Superhero Movies." I don't have a Top-10 that I can immediately crank out, but I still went into the thread, not knowing what to expect. Maybe I was going to attempt to write a list, maybe I just wanted to see other peoples list. I was in for a shock. I've seen many list of the "top" something's of all-time: movies, albums, tv shows, etc. Upon entering this thread, however, I laid my eyes upon what might be the worst list ever created of anything...ever. lol This is the list made by the person who started the thread:

1-)Fantastic Four 1
2-)SpiderMan 3
3-)Batman Dark Knight
4-)Iron Man
5-)Ghost Rider
6-)Blade
7-)X Men 3
8-)Daredevil
9-)Incredible Hulk
10-)Superman Returns

This was my response:
"That just might possibly be the worst list of anything ever created. lol You have shitty moves in the list (Fantastic Four, Daredevil), movies that aren't out yet (Dark Knight), movies that are the worst out of their series (Spidey 3 and X-Men 3), and you left the best movies out of your list completely (X-Men 2 and Spider-Man 2). Wow. Just awful.

I don't know if I could rank a complete top 10 in order. It would take a lot of thought. But I know for a fact that there is a strong chance that none of the movies in your list would even make it into mine. lol Maybe since it's a top 10. But if it was a top 5, definitely not. The first two Spider-Man and X-Men >>> Your entire list. That's 4 right there."

That list had such a mind-blowing effect on me, that I had to write this blog and show it to others. Seriously, was that list even real? Was it meant to be a joke? Is that person retarded? Is he 12 yrs old? What sort of mental handicap could cause a person to make a list like that? I seriously can not say with any degree of certainty that any of the movies in his list would make it into mine if I made a list.

Let's give the list a closer look.

Fantastic Four, that movie just sucked. Plain and simple. There's not even really anything to discuss. How this could be his all-time favorite superhero movie boggles my mind.

Spider-Man 3, BY FAR the worst movie in the series. It wasn't a BAD movie, but the first two set such a high bar and were so much better. How is this even in his list, much less 2?

The Dark Knight, this isn't even out yet, and won't be for another 2 months. Huh?

Iron Man, this just came out this weekend. Shouldn't you need more than a day to fully absorb a movie to the point where it can be one of your all-time favs? Even if not, although this was a good movie, it's been incredibly over-hyped. When I compare it to what I feel to be the best superhero ever, it falls short in every way. What interests me the most about Iron Man is that the fact that it's got such a good reception from the common fan, yet is very similar to the first Hulk movie: Big on character and story, not so big on action. But nobody seemed to like the first Hulk movie. The fuck? Just goes to show you how powerful word of mouth is. If a lot of people say something is the shit, the average Joe will say it's the shit too, whether they truly enjoy or not, just so they don't appear to be going against common belief.

Ghost Rider, I didn't see this one, but I've heard nothing but average reviews. I've heard nobody who loved it, and I don't know anyone who hated it either.

Blade, this is the only one that might make my Top 10 list. And if it did, it would still be near the bottom, and I really liked this movie.

X-Men 3, once again the worst one its series. Better than Spider-Man 3, but still pales in comparison to the first two X movies. My problem with Spidey 3 and X3 making the list isn't so much the fact that they're on the list, but the fact that the first two movies in each series aren't.

Daredevil. Nuff said.

Incredible Hulk, as I mentioned earlier, this movie typically gets a poor reception from the common fan, so I'm surprised to see it on his list. Then again, why should I be? His list seems fully comprised of movies that people don't like. I personally don't understand everyone's gripe with this movie. Once again, I think it's just people being followers. The average fan came out saying this movie sucked (probably because it had some depth and wasn't completely full of mindless action), then everyone just followed suit so as not to appear different. I don't know if this would make my Top 10, probably not, but it doesn't deserve the bad rep that it gets.

Superman Returns, if you're gonna put a Superman movie in there, why not one of the originals? Once again, this wasn't bad, but I wasn't blown away by any means.

For me, a great superhero movie should have a lot of the same things that a great regular movie has: good characters, good story, good acting, and good character development and chemistry. Then, throw in some really cool action and special effects, and you've got yourself a winner. The movie that embodies these characteristics the most (Spider-Man 2), isn't even in this guy's list! Oh well, just thought I'd vent. Maybe I'll compose my list a little later.

Hillary Clinton: A Woman’s Guide to Destroying the Democratic Party

2008-05-07T12:14:00.001-07:00

Hi, my name is Hillary Rodham-Clinton. We are facing a very important general election this November. The decisions we make in November can potentially impact this country for the next 8 years, and many more thereafter. As one of the leading candidates for President of the United States, it is my goal to make sure that our country continues to move in the right direction. By "right direction," I mean the wrong direction.

We have had 8 long and arduous years of President George W. Bush, but is 8 really enough? Despite the fact that our country is declining at an alarming rate, it could be much worse. That, my fellow citizens, is my goal: To make things worse. Though we can not keep President Bush in office, it is my goal to make sure that we elect someone who will continue his work.

As a true blue Democrat, I see no reason why we, the Democratic party, should come together for one common goal. Sure, we could unite as one party and do everything in our power to get a Democrat elected as the next President of the United States. But why be so short-sighted? Yes, that could help us NOW. We may be able to help restore the economy, get our troops out of Iraq, provide competitive health care, and eliminate tax cuts for the rich. But would it not be better to do just the opposite? If we elect John McCain, a man who I believe, unlike Senator Obama, is qualified to be Commander-In-Chief, we can continue going in the right direction. By "right direction," I mean the wrong direction.

Therefore, my fellow citizens, I am going to lay out my detailed plan to make sure that we elect John McCain the next President of the United States. That way, he can help the country continue to move in the right direction. By "right direction," I mean...well, you get the point.

People have said this country is not ready to have a female President. I am out to prove my critics right. The first step of my plan is to make sure that I embody every negative stereotype against women. I will cry at the drop of a hat. It shows I'm human, not that I'm emotional and will be unable to think logically and level-headed in a crisis.

I will think only of myself and no one else. That way, I can ignore what the people want and what is best for our country. I can be better able to further my own goals this way. Would Senator Obama be a good President? Who knows? Would he better than myself? Maybe. Would he better than President Bush? Absolutely! But that is not what's important. What IS important is that I make sure that everything that happens from this point out benefits me, and only me.

Mathematically, it is essentially impossible for me to overtake Senator Obama in overall votes or delegates. Though I can not win the Democratic nomination the "traditional" way, that is no reason for me to quit! I am not a quitter, and I will not quit on this country or my supporters until John McCain is President! I will drag Senator Obama's name through the mud. I will do everything in my power to make him appear unfit to be President. Through this strategy, I can make sure that John McCain becomes President in one of two ways. 1.) I can win the nomination by winning over the superdelegates. The voting Democrats will rebel, either by voting for McCain or not voting at all, since I won the nomination despite losing the overall vote. That happened to them before, and they hated that. 2.) Obama may still win the nomination, but I will have made him so look bad that McCain will beat him, despite Senator Obama previously being one of the most liked and inspirational candidates ever.

I will not know defeat. It is not in my nature. As a woman, I will do everything I can to embarrass strong, intelligent and logically-thinking women. I will make sure that, rather than gracefully accepting defeat and bowing out of the race admirably and uniting behind my fellow Democrat for the better of the country, I will trudge on until everything, including Senator Obama and the Democratic Party, is destroyed in my path. Then, when the dust has settled, and Senator McCain is the new President of the United States, I can rest. I can rest because I know that the country is finally heading in the right direction. By "right direction," I mean the wrong direction.

Thank you.

Again I say: Fuck Chauncey Billups.

2008-05-07T12:13:00.001-07:00

He is the Pistons kryptonite. Not Rasheed. Ever since the 2004 championship, Chauncey has played arrogantly and carried himself with a cockyness that should be reserved for players like LeBron and Kobe. Last week, the Pistons held a 50th Anniversary ceremony at the Palace where the named the top 30 Pistons of all-time. After the players were named, a player from each era gave a speech: Dave Bing, Isiah Thomas, and Chauncey Billups. To make a long story short, the question of which team (the Bad Boys or the current Pistons) is better was raised. Chauncey had the nerve to say his team. Seriously? The Bad Boys would never allow a player like LeBron James to get to the hole at will. They would put him on his ass. The Bad Boys would never play down to their opponents level. The Bad Boys won when they were supposed to.

The current Pistons have won 50+ games 6 years in a row. They've made it to the Eastern Conference Finals 5 years in a row. All they have to show for all that regular season success is 1 championship and too many early playoff exits. 1 championship in 6 years, and this guy walks around with a swag that the San Antonio Spurs SHOULD have.

In all of our early playoff exits, he has played "questionably." He forces bad shots, hoping to draw a foul, then looks like an asshole when no contact is made. Why not just shoot the ball? He misses free throws down the stretch, something he never did in the "Mr Big Shot" days when the Pistons were still hungry for a title. He takes plays off. He misses layoffs. He makes uncharacteristic mistakes. Then, after it's all said and done. He walks around with a smug smile on his face and goes "We'll be all right."

Fuck that. As long as he's running the team now, we WON'T be all right. He doesn't care. He thinks that he, and the rest of this team, is so good that the championship should be handed to them every year. A truly great player would be ANGRY after losing to a team like Philly in the playoff home opener. He would be MAD that we've exited the playoffs early in the past 2 years and, as a true leader, would rally the troops and lead us back strong. He wouldn't merely shrug it off and go "We'll be fine." If the Lakers lost to a vastly inferior team, do you think Kobe would shrug it off? Can any of you ever hear Kobe going "We'll be fine" after a humiliating loss as if he doesn't care? I can't imagine it.

As far as I'm concerned, if we exit the playoffs any time before the NBA Finals, I want Billups out of here. He can take Rip with him too. Those two have let the comparison between them and Isiah/Joe D go to their heads. On their best day, they're not half the men, or players, that Isiah and Joe D are. They are no longer competitors. They are no longer hungry. No matter what Rasheed does, can you question his heart? He played hard from the opening tap in Game 1, then took responsibility for the loss because of one missed shot while Chauncey and Rip sat quietly after their piss-poor performances. If the Pistons don't win the next 4, they should be ashamed of themselves.

Martin Lawrence is the most over-rated comedic black actor EVER!!!!!

2008-05-07T12:12:00.000-07:00

I can't hold this in any longer. It has to be said. I can't stand Martin Lawrence. I never have, and I never will. He is CONSISTENTLY unfunny, yet for some inexplicable reason, gets treated like a trail blazer for black comedians. Whenever Martin goes on a talk show, he is introduced as a "genius." "Genius" is not a word that should be thrown around lightly. Additionally, one should be extra careful when using it to describe a comedian. A comedic genius knows the subtle nuances that are necessary to draw laughs. He not only knows HOW to make people laugh, he knows WHY they laugh. He knows what is funny about himself, life, and the way in which we interact with one another, and is able to present it in a humorous fashion.

I was flipping through the channels recently and saw Martin, Mo'Nique, and Cedric the Entertainer on Oprah, promoting Martin's latest movie, "Welcome Home Roscoe Jenkins." Mo'Nique and Oprah praised Martin as if he were to black comedy what GOD is to the Christians. I was disgusted. For some reason, it's become fashionable to praise him. Is it because of his longevity? Because he's been doing movies for almost 20 years now? Being able to still get work, especially when the work is deplorable, does not make you a genius. Why not just praise his longevity? Why fill his head with lies about how funny he is? What purpose does that serve? Are you going to ask him for money in the near future? You should just spare him (and me) the false flattery.

Of course, I would never go so far as to make such a bold assertion without providing some reasons and proof. So let's get down to the real meat and bones of this post. Let's talk about WHY I believe Martin is over-rated. As stated before, he gets the word "genius" thrown at him a lot. What makes someone a comedic genius? I believe consistency is the main factor. A comedic genius consistently does funny stand-ups. He consistently makes good movies (he may not have a flawless track record, but he is more often funny than not). Typically, anything he is affiliated with is funny.

Typically, anything Martin is affiliated with is loathsome. THE MAN HAS NEVER STARRED IN A FUNNY MOVIE. Point blank period. I know some of you have liked some of his movies. That's fine. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I am about to go to IMDB and make a list of every movie Martin has starred in, or played a major role. If you can find CONSISTENT funnyness in this list, feel free to post a comment "correcting" me.

STARRING ROLES (in chronological order):
Bad Boys
A Thin Line Between Love and Hate
Nothing To Lose
Life
Blue Streak
Big Momma's House
What's The Worst That Could Happen?
Black Knight
National Security
Bad Boys 2
Rebound
Big Momma's House 2
Wild Hogs
Welcome Home Roscoe Jenkins

Now keep in mind when viewing that list, that the Bad Boys movies aren't comedies. OK now…GO! Find consistency!! No…wait…I found consistency: Consistent SHITTYNESS. How could someone in their right mind call a man with that resume a "genius"? Now let's take a look at his supporting roles.

SUPPORTING ROLES (in chronological order):

Do The Right Thing
House Party
House Party 2
Boomerang

It seems to me that the only thing consistent about his resume is that, as long as he doesn't have a big role; you have a strong chance at making a good film. Are we redefining "genius" to describe someone who makes things better, the less they have to do with it? Can we make a graph? The less Martin is in a movie, the better the movie will be? Hell, let's try it and see! Martin played a HUGE role (no pun intended) in "Big Momma's House 2," and it sucked. Martin played absolutely no role whatsoever in the creation or filming of "Schindler's List," and it's one of the best movies of all-time! I knew it! PROOF! lol And these are the attributes of a genius?

Finally, let's take a look at Martin's most prized work, his TV show. "Martin" is probably the only positive thing that Mr. Lawrence has on his resume, and I would argue that show, too, is dramatically over-rated. I liked some of the characters he played, and I liked him roasting Pam, but overall, the show was quite average. By comparison, another show that ran at the same time was, in my opinion, MUCH funnier: The Fresh Prince of Bel Aire. I would compare the resumes of Martin and Will Smith, but I think I've already embarrassed Martin enough…and Will isn't even a primarily comedic actor. God forbid I compare Martin's work to that of true geniuses: Richard Pryor, Bill Cosby, Redd Foxx, or even Dave Chappelle and Chris Rock.

Martin has acted in approximately 20 movies in his career. He has done his own stand-up specials, hosted Def Comedy Jam, and had his own TV show. The best that can be said for him is that, when it's all said and done, his TV show will probably rank somewhere in the lower-middle of all-time funniest black shows beneath every show that came out in the 70's and 80's. lol I would list all the shows I think were better than his, but I have places to be today.

I am going to see "Welcome Home Roscoe Jenkins" in about an hour and a half. I figure that, like nearly every other movie he's ever starred in, that it will be shitty. If it's not, I will hurry back to my computer and type up an apology for dogging a good movie before I saw it. However, it's only going to cost me $3.25 to see it, and I will probably still feel cheated. And this is the man we call a genius?

The Top Movies of 2007!!! FINALLY!!

2008-05-07T12:11:00.000-07:00

The Top Movies of 2007!!! FINALLY!!

It is finally here! We are at the end of January, and I have finally come around to composing my list of the top movies of 2007. Why did it take so long, you ask? Well, for one, I am very lazy. I'm also a huge procrastinator. Most importantly, though, I took so long because 2007 was so jam-packed full of outstanding films! As most film enthusiasts know, in December of every year, the best films are released in a few major cities in order to be eligible to contend for that year's awards. Then, in January, those films will get their wide release. So during January, I spent a lot of time catching up on those films, as well as making use of my new DVD burner and burning copies of … well … everything.

Another bonus about December is that films released during that time often have what we call in the pirating world, DVD screeners, released for them. A DVD screener is basically a DVD of a film that is created for those who dole out awards, that way; they can watch the flick at home rather than going to the theater. This saves me (the bootlegger) money as well. I "acquire" a copy of the screener and make my own DVD of it. In January, at some point every week, I was about to start writing this blog. Then another DVD screener would come out of a movie I wanted to see, thus pushing back the creation of this blog. Now that I have pretty much viewed everything I wanted to see (I still haven't got the opportunity to watch Sweeney Todd, even though I do own a DVD screener of it), I am ready to compose this review.

Now, one final note before I begin. This list is not a list of the "best" movies. It is a list of my FAVORITE movies. It is a list which combines excellent filmmaking with overall "enjoyability." That means that there may be a film … let's say at 15 … that is a "better" film than the movie occupying the 12^th slot. The 15 film may have far superior acting, cinematography, story, etc. than the 12 film. I just probably enjoyed the 12 film more, while it still did a good job of those same things as well.

So without further "Apu," let's get started! Oh yeah…did I mention it's a top 20? :)

20. "Shoot 'Em Up"

"Shoot 'Em Up," for some reason, got a really bad rap. I think it is because the critics took it too seriously. This film is not meant to be taken seriously. The dialogue is intentionally corny. The action is intentionally ludicrous. If you can understand that, then this flick was one helluva ride. It's very similar to "Grindhouse" in the sense that it's "bad" on purpose….and it's badness is done so well, that it's good! The corny dialogue was hilarious, and the action scenes were just plain awesome. It's a great "popcorn flick" and definitely something you watch when you just want to have a good time.

19. "TMNT"

This movie made the list because it helped me re-live my childhood. The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles were my favorite cartoon growing up, and the dark tone of the comic books was amazing. I didn't know what to expect from this movie going in, but not only did it retain the darkness of the comic books, it featured a moment that true TMNT fans have visually been waiting on for decades. Without that scene, this movie may not have made the list. That scene, for me, was similar to how I felt right before I saw Yoda fight in Star Wars. As I saw Yoda's shadow approaching and realized what was about to go down, I thought "OH MY GOD!! AM I ABOUT TO SEE WHAT I THINK I'M GOING TO SEE?!?!" That is the exact same feeling I had about the aforementioned scene in this movie. The lead-up to the scene was awesome, and it fulfilled everything I could have hoped or wanted. I felt like a happy kid again.

18. "30 Days Of Night"

This movie reinvented the vampire genre for me. I haven't seen a vampire movie I've REALLY liked since the original "Blade." The concept was great, and this movie was just wonderfully shot. Although it still featured some of those "Why the hell would you do something like that?" stupid horror movie moments, it featured far less of them than your typical horror flick. It was smart, entertaining, dark, and seemed far more real than the average vampire movie. Another reason this movie made the list was because it surprised me. I didn't think it would be as good as it was. Shock value is always a way to get on my good side.

17. "The Simpsons Movie"

Ah yes…my movie that was 18 years in the making. Everyone who knows me knows me as the biggest Simpsons (and Pistons) fan alive. I was worried going into this film because The Simpsons has been on such a downfall over the past few seasons … though it has been MUCH MUCH better this season. I felt this was a film that should have been made a good 8 years ago, when the show was in its prime. So I was worried that a movie I had wanted for so long would be as much of a disappointment as the past few seasons. I was wrong. Would it have been better 8 years ago? Yeah, probably, but it was still REALLY good and funny as hell. Unfortunately, there was one animated movie that was better.

16 "Ratatouille"

It's Pixar. 'Nuff said.

15. "Juno"

Oh how the critics love this movie! I was a little disappointed when I saw it because, as much as the critics hyped it up, it wasn't nearly as great as they made it out to be. Upon reflection, however, it still was an awesome movie. Maybe it's because I got a kid on the way, I don't know. But it really hit home with me at times. In addition to being really funny (though I thought the dialogue was a little TOO snappy and clever coming from teenagers, which bordered on unrealistic since I can't see ANY teenager being THAT witty), Ellen Page OWNED that role and she deserves the Oscar nomination she got.

14. "Eastern Promises"

This is yet another Cronenberg masterpiece. David Cronenberg is fattening his resume at an alarming rate. A dark and evil Russian gangster movie, this film is carried by its two outstanding (and still under-rated) leads, Naomi Watts and Viggo Mortenson. Viggo got an Oscar nomination for his role in this film.

13. "Superbad"

Anything having anything to do with Seth Rogen or Jonah Hill seems to be money right about now. Although Seth played one of the supporting roles in this movie, his hand in the film can be felt throughout. This movie is flat out funny, and although not as funny or clever to me as Seth's "other" film this year, it was still awesome. I think this movie hit home for a lot of people because the humor was a lot easier to understand. "Knocked Up" and "The 40 Yr Old Virgin" were a lot more dialogue-driven, with clever and snappy jokes and a lot of pop-culture references. If you don't know who these people are that the jokes are referring to, they won't be funny to you. "Superbad" featured less of those sorts of pop-culture, so it appealed more to a wider audience. It was still funny as hell though, which is why it's on the list!

12. "We Own the Night"

This is probably the most slept-on film of the year to me. For some reason, nobody saw this movie, and I really liked it. I was drawn to it at first by the A-list actors involved: Joaquin Phoenix, Mark Wahlberg, and the great Robert Duvall. How could you not be interested in a film with that kind of talent?!?! Awesome acting aside, which was a given, the story was really engaging. Duvall and Wahlberg play Chief and Captain of police, respectively. They are also father and son. Phoenix plays a nightclub manager who deals with all kinds of seedy and shifty characters that Duvall and Wahlberg would love to get their hands on. Unbeknownst to all of Phoenix's shady friends, he is also the brother and son of Wahlberg and Duvall's characters, respectively. Without giving up too much of the plot away, Phoenix's character ends up in an "awkward" situation, to say the least, between his gangster friends who don't know he is related to the cops, and his family.

11. "Grindhouse"

It takes a special kind of filmgoer to appreciate a film like "Grindhouse," and that sort of person is exactly who Robert Rodriguez and Quentin Tarantino had in mind when they made the film. Well, it was either that person or themselves. Either way, "Grindhouse" was a hell of an experience. "Planet Terror," similar to "Shoot 'Em Up" is intentionally bad, to remind us of those old B-movies that used to show at the grindhouse, 2 for the price of 1. Of course, I was not around for those movies at the times they were showing, but I've seen my fair share. "Planet Terror" is not meant to be taken seriously, it's just meant to be fun, and it is. "Death Proof" completely flips the script and gives us a tense, dialogue-driven film as only QT can do it. Culminating in an awesome car chase, Quentin shows us why he is one of the best directors alive right now.

10. "There Will Be Blood"

Another film that is in most critics' top 3, it is without a doubt deserving of all its accolades. This is a powerful film that delivers the acting performance of Daniel Day Lewis' career…and that is saying a lot. DDL is probably the most underrated actor alive today. Everyone knows he is great, yet he fails to get the respect and admiration that is showered upon his peers (pretty much his only two peers, Al Pacino and Robert De'Niro). The only reason this film is not higher on my list is because I had 9 films that I ENJOYED more. This film did have some lulls, and it's not the most riveting story ever created, but it is a masterpiece nonetheless.

9. "3:10 To Yuma"
This modern-day western was slept-on a bit when it was released. I have to admit, that I didn't even see it until it came out on DVD, and I had great interest in it when it came out. It was well worth wait the wait. This was a great, great movie and hopefully can help bring back the western. There were great performances throughout as well, from Ben Foster, Russell Crowe and Christian Bale.

8. "American Gangster"

This was just a cool flick. I think I was more awe-struck at the great set-up that Frank Lucas had. I was literally upset that he got caught. He had such a sweet deal going. I wouldn't dick-ride him enough to make an album about him and shout out his name like a wannabe thug…but that's another story. Denzel, as usual, really carried the film, but the entire supporting cast did an excellent job. Russell Crowe, yet again, had another outstanding year in which he was essentially looked over. He is another actor who is continuously slept-on, but that too is another story.

7. "The Kingdom"

A riveting, action-packed thriller is a really good way to describe "The Kingdom." However, it leaves out the fact that it speaks a great deal about foreign relations in this country, post-9/11. I love movies that do a great job of combining a message, with action. Those of us who only appreciate action, have a great time. Those of us who can sift through the action to get the message, can appreciate both. Although there were a lot of films released this year that dealt with terrorism, "The Kingdom," I felt, did the best job of combining the message with great story-telling, acting, and action…which is the one thing that was absent in the other two political thrillers released this year. Now of course, action is not mandatory by any means, but if all three movies have great stories and acting, and one of them also has great action, that would make the one with action a little better, right?

6. "Transformers"
YEAH!! What is there to say about "Transformers" that hasn't already been said? If you didn't grow up in the 80's, you probably didn't like this film as much as those of us who did, but this movie was THE SHIT! This is a prime example of how my list is composed. Is "Transformers" better than "There Will Be Blood"? Of course not! Did I enjoy "Transformers" more? Hell yeah! Ground-breaking special effects, seeing my all-time favorite cartoon character in real life, incredible action sequences...as bad as this movie could have been, it was better than I could have imagined. This movie had the same effect on me as "TMNT," just more powerfully. While "TMNT" was my favorite show, Optimus Prime was my favorite character. I ADORED Optimus Prime. So to have him back was awesome enough. But I can't recall the last time I watched a movie with my mouth hanging open the entire time. This movie was AMAZING to watch. I can't wait for the sequel.

5. "Zodiac"

Without a doubt, THE most slept-on film of 2007. While receiving numerous 4-star reviews, it has garnered few, if any, award nominations, which is a horrible shame and a travesty. This was an EXCELLENT film. The acting was phenomenal, and despite being a lengthy 160 mins, did not seem to drag on to me. It was more of a detective movie than a thriller or a horror movie, but David Fincher, Director of "Se7en," did an excellent job of meshing the detective aspects of the movie with the thriller aspects. He also did a great job of making the killings seem real, and not "movie real," if that makes sense. You felt like you were seriously seeing someone get stabbed, not someone getting stabbed in a movie. I essentially found no flaws with this flaws with this film, and it's a shame that it hasn't got the recognition it deserves.

4. "Knocked Up"
The funniest film of the year, hands down. As I mentioned earlier, "Superbad" seems to get a lot more of the accolades, but I think that's because the humor in "Knocked Up" is not for your average filmgoer. There are a lot of subtle things that the average person may take for granted, as well as a lot of obscure references of which they may not be aware. "Knocked Up," with it's clever and witty dialogue, and a story that any man or woman can relate to, takes the 4 spot with no regret or second thoughts on my part. I can watch this movie over and over and it never gets any less funny. At the same time, I can appreciate the story as well, and enjoyed seeing the main characters go from where they were at the beginning, to where they ended up. I think this will probably go down, along with "The 40 Yr Old Virgin" as one of the all-time greats.

3. "Sicko"
I haven't seen a movie in a long time that made me feel this "sicko" after seeing it. Michael Moore's latest documentary was flat-out disturbing. "Sicko" is about the health care situation in our country. It shows that, not only is our health care system poor, not only are we getting ripped off, but MANY countries (even ones we consider to be "inferior" to us) have much BETTER health care systems. Also, it shows us how the media manipulates us into THINKING that our system is good and that everyone else's stinks. I had no idea that many other countries had free universal health care before I saw this film. I had no idea that the things I just assume to be "the way it is," are not that way in other countries. In many ways, I consider myself to be very knowledgeable about the differences between the U.S. and other countries, but I was in the dark when it came to the differences in health care. And like someone who finds out that something they've always believed to be true, is false … I was not ready learn the things I learned while watching this film. "Sicko" is this high on my list strictly due to the profound impact it had on me emotionally. I was ANGRY after seeing this film. I did not want to live in this country anymore (I still don't). And I became more passionate about politics than I ever was (and I'm much more passionate than the average person). This is definitely a film that EVERYONE owes it to themselves to see.

2. "300"

I bet you thought I forgot about this, didn't you? No sir! What can I say about "300" that hasn't already been said? Is there even anybody who hasn't already seen this movie who I need to convince to check it out? I doubt it. You've all seen it. You all know it's the shit and why. Never has the story of the Spartans been so beautifully told. Watching "300" was like watching a live action comic book, complete with action and violence that can only be seen in comic books. And if any of you guys watched this movie and were not inspired to work out for at least a week, I don't know what's wrong with you.

1. "No Country For Old Men."
Flawless. That is the best and only word that can be used to describe this movie. Flawless. Rarely have I seen a movie that I have absolutely no complaints about. There is no way this movie could be any better than it was. If the ending, which so many people have complained about, was different, it would lose its unconventional style and originality. It would become "just another great movie." "No Country for Old Men" is not just a great movie. It is an immaculate movie. This is not just the best film this year, this is the best film to come out in SEVERAL years. Acting? Flawless. Javier Bardem gives the 2^nd best performance of the year, and by far the best performance in a supporting role. Bardem's performance was so phenomenal, that it took the attention away from Josh Brolin's outstanding performance as well, which, if there were room, should have received an Oscar nomination as well. I could go on forever about what is "right" about this movie, because everything is "right" about it. It's easier to talk about what is wrong with it: Nothing. The Coen brothers have made their best film, topping their previous best, "Fargo," and probably have reached their peak. If this film does not win the Academy Award for Best Picture, it would be the biggest mistake in the Academy's history.

Finally, I would like to briefly talk about some pf the noticeable absences from the list. First, as I mentioned earlier, I have not yet watched "Sweeney Todd." I didn't bother to watch it before making this list because, despite being a huge fan of Johnny Depp and Tim Burton, I am equally NOT as big of a fan of musicals. So I highly doubt this film could crack my list. If I watch it and it does, rest assured I will write an apology in this blog later. "Atonement," the most noticeable film missing from my list, is missing by design. I think it is HORRIBLY overrated. While beautifully shot and acted, it is a love story. As a love story, they spent very little time establishing the romance between the two leads, and more time building up to the "event" that movie is based upon. Therefore, after the event took place, at about the halfway point, and it caused the two leads to separate, I didn't care anymore. I didn't care about the characters and whether or not they got back together. So as a love story, it didn't work for me. And I am not one who is opposed to love stories…I liked "The Notebook." lol Finally, "The Assassination of Jesse James By the Coward Robert Ford" is not on the list simply because it is too fresh in my mind and I want to watch it again before I give a final take on it. It was an EXCELLENT film however and I would recommend it to everyone, I just need to watch it again for a number of reasons before I can decide how I feel about it and place it firmly on the list. I can say with a large degree of certainty that, had I been able to watch it again before writing this, that it would have made the list.

2007 was a great year for movies, one of the best in a long time. Hopefully 2008 will be just as good.
RIP Heath Ledger, hopefully The Dark Knight will help your legacy live on.

I Think Chauncey Billups May Be Throwing Games

2008-05-07T12:10:00.002-07:00

I have been holding off on writing this blog for quite some time. I did not want to believe it. It's not because I'm some sort of huge Chauncey Billups fan. Players come and go. He's not my favorite player on the team, and he never was. I just didn't want to believe that someone on MY team could be capable of such a grievous atrocity. That is a crime for which beheading is the only adequate punishment. I have had several instances in the past in which I suspected that Chauncey may be fucking up on purpose, but I intentionally let it go. I was beginning to forget about all the things he had done in the past that bothered me, and I was ready to put it behind me…then came last Saturday night.

The Pistons were on top of the NBA. Boston had a better record, but everyone knew who the better team was. We had beaten Boston on their own floor, Boston's 3^rd loss of the season, and neither team had lost since. The Pistons were favored to win this game, and they should have. Much more importantly, however, they COULD have. But I will come back to the Boston game later. First, let us go back to last years Eastern Conference Finals versus the Cleveland Cavaliers.

In what turned out to be the final game, there was a crucial play that essentially helped me make up my mind that Chauncey was throwing the series. He had done several questionable things up to this point, but on a particularly vital play at the end of the game, his fucking up went to whole new levels. He got the ball at the top of the 3-point line for a wide open three. He passed up the open 3 (how often does he do that?), drove down the lane, and then passed up another open shot. He then made the cardinal mistake of jumping up in the air with no place to go (and no real reason for doing it) then passed the ball directly to Drew Gooden as if he were wearing a Pistons jersey. Then, to top it all off, Gooden, just happy to have the ball, actually turned in the OPPOSITE direction of Cleveland's basket just to make sure he could secure the ball and the possession. Then, for no reason, Chauncey fouled him while we were in the penalty, sending him to the line, when a foul was not necessary. Finally, to seal the deal with Satan, he laughed. What the fuck was so goddamn funny? We were about to be knocked out of the playoffs by a DRASTICALLY inferior team, it was all his fault, and he somehow found reason to smile. Rasheed should have left him where he stood.

Fast forward to last Saturday, Jan. 5^th, 2008 versus Boston at the Palace. The Pistons were up by 3 entering the 4^th quarter, Chauncey's sins of last season long forgotten. Midway through the quarter, Boston tied the game, and eventually took the lead. With the Pistons still down by a respectable margin, no more than two possessions, Chauncey decided he wanted to "take over." After several poorly run plays, resulting in no points, Chauncey decided he would take the game into his own hands, forcing several bad shots against multiple Boston defenders. After missing two free throws, and a three-pointer, Chauncey was not finished throwing the game. With the Pistons still only down by 4, with just under 1 minute left, Chauncey was going to the line. He made his first free throw, and then missed the second. Before we continue, I would just like to point out that, going into the 4^th quarter, Chauncey was 5-5 from the line with 16 points on 4-9 shooting. So anyway, after Chauncey missed his second free throw, now making him 1-4 from the line in the past 2 minutes, he took the ball back behind the 3-pt line, as if playing street ball. Rather than running a good play, or doing anything even remotely smart, he cleared the court as if he was going to take his defender one-on-one, then forced a 3 with a hand in his face, which he air-balled. 0-3 in the 4^th quarter, all from behind the 3-pt line. 1-4 from the free throw line. As the buzzer sounded on the Pistons loss, Chauncey, with a smile on his face yet again after SOLELY costing the Pistons game, congratulates KG with a tap on the back. Sound familiar?

Let us not forget these other interesting notes. During LeBron's breakout Game 5, Chauncey, pretending to be some sort of hero, asked Flip to guard LeBron, then proceeded to get embarrassed. Why the hell would he even entertain the idea of guarding LeBron James? Does he not know that Tayshaun Prince is FAR superior to anyone on the team, and most players in the league, when it comes to guarding players like LeBron, T-Mac, and Kobe? Rasheed and Rip were both visibly pissed after the series, and even Lindsey Hunter was heard to remake "Something ain't right."

So after Saturday's performance in Boston, I would like to officially state that I am now of the opinion that Chauncey Billups is throwing games. All I can really do is hope that the ultimate goal is still to win the championship and that he is only throwing insignificant games for an extra piece of change right now.

The Use of the N-Word

2008-05-07T12:10:00.001-07:00

The Use of the N-Word

I think it is about time that we laid out specific ground rules about the use of the dreaded "n-word." Things have spiraled out of control. White people have become much more comfortable with using the word. Black people are starting to revert back to the way they acted when the word was accepted. People of other races (other than black) are using the word too freely, simply because they work with, or are targeting their music toward, black people. The situation has gotten so out of hand that I think it's about time we decided, once and for all, who can use the word, who can not, and iron out definitions of its different variations.

The issue of the word's usage among non-black ethnicities quickly went from "barely noticeable" to "Is anyone else noticing this?" It got a little attention when Jennifer Lopez said it a few years ago, but then it sort of died down. I started to notice it when I realized that Fat Joe, a Latin-American, was saying it all the time in his raps. "Am I the only one that thinks this is a little odd?" Does Fat Joe get a "pass" because he raps? More importantly, SHOULD Fat Joe get a "pass" because he raps? Did he grow up in the hood? Was he in a gang? If the answer to both of those questions is "yes," I still say that "no," he should not get a pass. We have to draw the line somewhere, don't we? I guess I can let that go, though. I mean, Latin people do have a certain amount of credibility among blacks. So if Fat Joe can say it, where do we draw the line? What if an Arab person said it? Oh wait! There IS an Arab person who publicly says it all the time! DJ Khaled! That's right!

Come on now, black people. Seriously, an Arab person? This is OK now? Black people and Arab people have been at odds ever since the two bumped heads in one of black peoples most frequented places: the liquor store. I have nothing against Arab people myself, but in general, black people and Arab people have never really gotten along. Blacks don't like the fact that they can't buy anything in the hood from a fellow black person, it seems the Arab people own everything. Then, despite the fact that they make so much money from us, they still won't let us date their daughters! Then on top of all that, their men will consistently pursue our women! The relationship between blacks and Arabs has not been a match made in heaven.

So why are we letting DJ Khaled shout the n-word all over his CD? Why is he getting a pass? Because he affiliates himself with rappers? Then I think that, once again, the problem of the word's usage falls on the shoulders of rappers. At first, the fact that rappers were saying it all was a problem. Then that gradually became accepted. Rappers are going to say it, blacks are going to say it, that is not going to change. Now the problem is that rappers are allowing their peers to say it, peers who, were they not rappers, would get chin-checked if they said it. Why aren't DJ Khaled's peers going "Hey man, you're OK an all, but you can't go around saying that word."? Why are they allowing him to say it? And now that he does say it, and it's on records that are played on the radio, why are we, the consumer, allowing it?

We have to draw the line somewhere, and I'm ready to start now.

RULE 1: Blacks are allowed to say it. Should we be saying it? No. Is it confusing to other races that we say it so often among each other and to other races? Yes. The fact still remains, however, that we have earned the right to say it. It is part of our lexicon, and we never use it in a derogatory way. I am, of course, referring to "nigga." "Nigger," is not to be used by anyone, and we rarely use it ourselves. "Nigga," for the most part, is a term of endearment AMONG BLACKS. "That's my nigga." At worst, it is simply used to refer to another person. "Who's that nigga?" "Tell that nigga to watch where he's going." It's just black peoples way of saying "person."

RULE 2: NOBODY ELSE CAN SAY IT. Not Mexicans, not Puerto-Ricans, not Arabs, not Chinese, not Japanese. Nobody. End of discussion. If we can all live by, and respect, these rules, race relations should immediately improve.

If I could do it all over again...

2008-05-07T12:09:00.001-07:00

How many of us in this world are doing exactly what we want to do with our lives? Are you working that dream job? The job that you said you wanted when you were asked what you wanted to be when you grew up? Are you happy with your position in life and how far you've come thus far? I figure that very few of us are. Have you ever wondered why you are not where you want to be in life?

I have. I wonder it all the time. Where did I go wrong? I have so much potential. I have the intellect, the skills, and the personality, to do whatever I want in life. How come I'm stuck at a meaningless job that I loathe, and see people with half my potential smiling from ear to ear? How come I see black guys, in the streets of Detroit, driving $50,000 cars, who look like the only thing they excel at is peddling drugs? Well, I know why in that case, and I also know that they are destined for death or prison and will probably never reach Scarface levels of success. However, I still compare them to myself. These guys have no skills or intelligence whatsoever (although they may have street smarts, which are more valuable than one may think), yet they enjoy the sorts of things in life of which I can only dream. Why is this? Motivation.

These guys saw that they had nothing going for themselves. They probably dropped out of high-school, or at best, received a poor education. They probably grew up destitute, lower than middle-class, struggling to do the sorts of things that I took for granted... like eat. They grew up living this hard life and wanted a way out. Did they choose the right way? No, probably not. Did they choose the best way for them? Maybe so. What can not be argued, however, is that they chose a path and went after it. They said to themselves, "I want the best out of life. I want the big car. I want the expensive cars. I want the fast women." Then they went out and got it. Did they use the most wholesome methods? No, but they made a choice. They made a conscious decision. They decided what they wanted in life, and they went and got it. That is far more than can be said for me.

At what point did I come to the fork in the road and take the wrong path? Did I even take the wrong path? I'm still not quite sure. I do know, however, that my fork came around the time I was about to graduate from high-school. When I was a kid, I was destined for success. I was grown beyond my years. I was breezing through school, at least academically. I did have a tendency to "act out." I knew at a young age that, even though I did not know anything about "majors" and "careers," that I want to go to the University of Michigan after I graduated from high-school. I knew this before I had even entered middle-school. Once I got to high-school, I remained focused, and for the most, had not strayed from that path. Once I became a senior, however, I began to slack off. I skipped class. I didn't do homework. We only needed 3 years of math to graduate, so essentially, I could fail whatever math class I took my senior year and still graduate, and that's what I did. Ironically, I am exceptional at math and great with numbers. So that should give you an idea of the effort I had to put in to fail this class. I don't remember if I actually failed the class or if I got a D, but the damage was done. My GPA was too low for U of M, or even MSU. My test scores were phenomenal, far above MSU's standards. My GPA, however, was .1 below their standard, and because of this, I was not accepted.

Entering college at Wayne State, I was faced with yet another "fork." Do I want to proceed with a major that will lead to a job I enjoy, but that is not lucrative? Or do I want to choose a major that will lead to a well-paying job? I chose the former. As a fresh-faced and hopeful 18 year old with no responsibilities and my whole life ahead of me, this seemed like the correct decision. Now, a 26 year old adult with thousands of dollars of debt, a degree (which I technically do not have yet due to, you guessed it, money that I owe) that will lead to a job that pays less than my current one, I have to wonder if I made the right choice. The economy is horrible. Jobs are few and far between. I am living in an age (or at least a place) where a degree, of any kind, does anything but guarantee you a job. I think I chose the wrong side of the fork.

Browsing through job openings on careerbuilder.com, I see jobs that ask for candidates with a degree in a particular field, as well as x amount of years experience in that field as well…yet another fork in which I chose the wrong direction. I've realized that you can choose one of two paths upon entering the job market. You can choose a more retail/sales based path, in which you will work more with people, and will gain customer service experience. Or, you can choose a more labor-intensive path in which you may not have to work with people, but you will have to punish your body doing thankless physical labor. I chose the latter. Now, at 26, I realize that that path is for people who have no skills other than the body parts with which they born. Those people will never be able to do anything other than that. They are frequently uneducated, and are destined for a life of mediocrity. At the age of 18, I incorrectly chose to lump myself in with them. Now I have 8 years of job experience doing worthless work that anybody with all 4 of their extremities can do. If I had chosen the other path, yes, I may have started out making less money and would have had to deal with angry customers, all while keeping a smile plastered across my face. But I could have used my intelligence, personality, skills and hard work to move up in life or in that industry. Right now, I couldn't get a lousy $8/hr office job due to my 0 years experience in the field. Essentially, even though those jobs start off paying a lot less, there is so much more room for growth and advancement. With a physical labor job, you may start at $14-$15/hr and quickly (within the next 2 years or so) move up to $18-$20/hr, but that is all you will ever do with your life. If your dreams consist of "being able to live comfortably," then that is the path for you. If you want more out of your life, if you are capable of doing more with your life, if you want to have even the slightest chance of enjoying your job…you may want to do something else.

I suppose that, at this point, you are probably wondering where I am going with this. Well, I'm not quite sure myself. I'm still in the process of trying to figure out how to remedy my situation. I think it revolves around a process of trying to figure out what I'm good at, figuring out a logical end, then achieving that end. Before I can do any of that, however, I have to have motivation. I have that motivation now: my son. When I was by myself and only had to worry about me, my problems were my problems. Now, with a girlfriend of nearly 3 years and a son on the way, my problems are no longer solely my problems. My problems are her problems. They will soon be my son's problems. I have to get my life together and be happy with myself and my life so that I can be a good man for her and a good father for him. I have to know what I am going to tell him when he reaches his forks. I have to make a decision now, now that I have yet again arrived at another fork. I do know one thing for sure. If I could do it all over again, when I reached my forks, I would not have been so careless about which path I took. I will tell my son not to be as short-sighted as I was, and to look ahead and think about what will benefit him the most in the long run. If I could do it all over again, I would have set a better example for him to follow.

Are we REALLY ready for a female president?!? LOL!!

2008-05-07T12:08:00.000-07:00

Teary-Eyed Clinton Vows to Fight On

Reuters

Posted: 2008-01-07 17:16:44

Filed Under: Elections News

PORTSMOUTH, New Hampshire (Jan. 7) - A teary-eyed Hillary Clinton pushed for support on Monday as polls showed her poised for a huge New Hampshire loss to Democratic rival Barack Obama, but the former front-runner vowed to carry on with her presidential quest even if she loses.

Obama warned supporters against overconfidence as a flood of new polls gave him a double-digit lead over Clinton one day before the state casts the next votes in the race for the White House.

At a campaign event in Portsmouth, Clinton choked up and grew uncharacteristically emotional as she talked about her reasons for seeking the presidency in the November election.

"Some of us put ourselves out there and do this," she said, her voice breaking and her eyes glistening with tears, "against some pretty difficult odds and we do it each one of us because we care about our country."

OK now, seriously, I try not to be sexist. I really do...but straight up?!?!??! LOL!!! This is just BEGGING to be commented on. Crying already? Before the 2nd major PRIMARY!??! Of all the things she could have done to lose credibility as a SERIOUS female contender for President, this has to be at the top of the list. One of the major knocks against women in general is that they are overly emotional. If one hopes to be the leader of our country, they need to be strong and confident and not show weakness. If she's crying already, over this, how are we going to expect her to fare when things are REALLY difficult? IF I were a Hillary supporter, I'd be pretty disappointed right now. Shit, if I were a woman, I'd be pretty disappointed right now. Fortunately for me, since I am neither a Hillary supporter, nor a woman, I'm just finding this side-achingly amusing. :)