Shove it Up Your Mine Shaft

About three weeks ago I happened to be watching the news and I caught a bit of the story about the rescue of a bunch of miners trapped in a mine down in good old Chile.  I vaguely remember hearing about the story periodically during the past couple of months, but I didn't really pay much attention because I was either too busy A) working B) thinking about and/or watching THE DARK KNIGHT C) podcasting (check out Cylon Bingo dudes and dudettes) D) masturbating or E) some combination of the four (I won't spoil the fun by telling you which ones).  As I was watching the story unfold I realized two very important things: One, there aren't a whole lot of hot female newscasters, and; Two, the news is really fucking boring.  It occured to me as they were showing the miners being rescued after being stuck down a giant shaft (boo-yah!) for sixty-something days that the problem with the news is that the people involved in reporting it take themselves way too seriously and they have absolutely no idea how to construct a compelling narrative.                
                                            
There seems to be this misconception both by those that work in the media and among the common folk that in order to report "the Facts" with a capital F that it needs to be done with a complete disregard for entertainment value.  This is a load of bullshit that lets people involved in the news media (be it written, televised, or on ye olde radio) get away with presenting world events in the most boring and least engaging way possible because it is done in the name of "journalistic integrity."  "Journalistic integrity" is just a euphemism for "lazy" and "untalented."  Journalistic integrity and entertainment value are not inherently mutually exclusive.  The prime example that I can provide is THE DAILY SHOW featuring the lovable Jon Stewart.  Not only is it wildly entertaining but it is also arguably the most accurate and significant portrayal of news events that is being broadcast today.  For some reason because it's presented in a comedic way THE DAILY SHOW is looked down upon a lot of people as if soemthing being funny somehow mystically makes it less legitimate somehow.  But if you look at the way Jon Stewart et al cover American federal politics or the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and I mean closely look at the analysis they provide, you would realize that  THE DAILY SHOW is the most informative news show out there and that if America was smart they would elect Jon Stewart as president.  The simple fact of the matter is that comedy is analysis.  One of the keys of comedy is looking at the absurdity that already exists in the world and exposing it.  Jon Stewart didn't make the conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq land the American government's inept way of approaching it ook completely ridiculous - it already was completely ridiculous.  That's the great thing about THE DAILY SHOW: the writers have one of the best jobs in the entertainment industry because the situations and politians that they cover are so absurdly ludicrous that the jokes practically write themselves.  I don't think the fact that THE DAILY SHOW is presented as the archetypal news show -the newscaster behind a desk reporting on the stories of the day- is not intended to be ironic.  These people aren't pretending to report the news or reporting news that never happened.  THE DAILY SHOW is a legitimate news show that maintains journalistic integrity while making me laugh my ass off.

So one of my questions while watching the ordeal of the Chilean miners was: Why can't all the news be presented in such an entertaining way?  And it doesn't necessarily have to be comedic.  And it doesn't necessarily have to be in the typical newsroom fashion.  I'm talking about movies.  They are becoming a viable way to present important news stories.  And I'm not just talking about big political events like JFK's examination of the assination of JFK.  There's a movie that just opened this weekend called 127 HOURS.  The reason that's it's so prevelent in my consciousness right now is because not only is it based on a true story and it is a story that I am actually familiar with having (vaguely) paid attention to the story a couple years back.  127 HOURS basically covers the gruelling 127 hour ordeal of mountain climber Aron Ralston who goes out for a bikeride and somehow ends up with his arm trapped under a giant bolder.  Long story short, the baddass motherfucker has to cut off his own arm with a Swiss Army knife, climb out of a canyon, and make his own way back to civilization and, being in America, terribly overpriced and unaffordable healthcare.  All reviews I've heard about this movie so far make it out to be a work of cinematic genius.  It stars James "So Good" Franco and is directed by Danny Boyle and while I haven't yet seen the film I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that this movie will not only be more memorable than the original 2003 news story, but it will also be more emotionally engaging.  And I mean, really, what's the difference hearing about this story in 2003 and 2010?  The only thing that the purveyors of this information have now that they didn't have back then is greater perspective.

For some reason, again, movies that portray actual events are seen as somehow inaccurate.  Now in some cases this is true (looking at you U-571) but for the most part I don't think these movies aren't any more - or less- accurate than any story presented in most "legitimate" newscasts (THE DAILY SHOW aside).  Somehow we've been mind-fucked by the established to equate objectivity with truth and subjectivity with fiction.  The truth is that no matter who presents the news -whether it be Walter Cronkite or Oliver Stone- he is presenting it from a certain point of view.  And it's virtually unavoidable.  I say virtually because there is an objective reality that occurs independently of our perspective and it is possible to approach objective reality through language, just as it is possible to approach absolute zero under laboratory conditions.  But the truth is that real life is usually pretty fucking boring and we need to add something to spice it.  The media tries to spice things up without appearing to spice things up.  That's the conceit of journalism: we are expected to believe that they are reporting objective reality wholesale but at the same time they have to be the middleman and make it palatable for mass consumption.  Then you throw in individual biases of the reporters, mass biases of the networks or organizations putting out the story, incomplete facts, inaccurate sources, stress caused by deadlines, and good old fashioned human error and you can't help but be subjective. 

The thing with the movie industry is everybody knows that it's not objective.  It's completely subjective.  But that doesn't necessarily make what they say any less true.  A movie is generally acknowledged to be somebody's point of view so that tension between accuracy and entertainment that the media produces melts away.  This is why you can have a movie like BLOW which not only portrays an actual person and actual events and still have graphic portrayals of violence, drug use, and (if I remember correctly) nudity.  Besides which, most people are not capable of conveying their own story.  The simple fact of the matter is that Liam Neeson can be a better you than you.  You are most likely inarticulate in front of a camera.  You are most likely unable to emote effectively.  You probably aren't even all that attractive, or at least photogenic.  In all respects Liam Neeson is not only a better person than you, but he can captivate audiences, and if there's a nude scene I've also heard that he's hung like a clydesdale, which will reflect positively on your character.    

"So what does all this have to do with a bunch of dudes trapped in a mine in Chile?" you might be asking yourself.  Well, very little actually.  Or maybe a lot.  The other thing that really struck me while watching the coverage of this crisis was how media conscious we have become.  Almost every reporter who reported on the story made some reference to the fact that if these dudes survived the ordeal they were going to be able to sell their stories.  Now, whenever there is a traumatic event that occurs anywhere in the world and it reaches the attention of national and/or national media it's pretty much a given that any survivors (or the next of kin of the victims) are going to be able to sell the rights to their story to a reputable studio (or, as a last resort, FOX) for a bazillion dollars, buy an island somewhere in the South Pacific and spend the rest of their lives watching INCEPTION while doing blow off the fake tits of blonde strippers who can't speak English.  (Well, at least the bazillion dollars part.)  Even the dudes trapped down in that mine shaft knew the financial potential of their predicament.  One guy even kept a journal, a fact which in the media tended to overshadow other more pressing aspects of the story like: how were they dealing with going to the bathroom,  how were they getting food and air, the psychological effects of being confined in such a small space, and exactly how long does a group of heterosexual men have to be trapped a hundred (or so) meters below the Earth's surface in a hot, confined space before they resort to full-blown homosexual relations. 

All of this is fine, though, because I'm sure they'll touch on this kind of stuff in the inevitable movie adaptation.  And I'm sure the the film will be a lot more engaging and (more importantly) profitable than the news stories.  This story of the Chilean miners trapped in the miners is, above all, a message of hope: the hope that eventually something tragic will happen to me, hopefully without maiming me permanently (maybe being trapped somewhere underground), and I'll be able to live off the residuals for the rest of my life.  Now if I am attacked by a rapid jaguar, struck by a meteorite, kidnapped by terrorists or crash land on a mysterious tropical island with a giant smoke monster, the first call won't be to law enforcement or emergency services, it will be to my lawyer to immediately start shopping around my story to all major studios (even FOX).  The most important question in any emergency situation now isn't "How can I make every day count if I survive this?"  Now it's "Who should play me in the movie adaptation?"  Some people reading this might think that I'm being sarcastic or criticizing our hyper-media consciousness, but that couldn't be further from the truth.  I'm all for anything in our society which can potentially make me a multi-millionaire overnight.  I just hope that my crisis happens before Liam Neeson retires.

Need Another Hot Beef Injection? Thank You Expendables

As a born again heterosexual nothing gets me more excited than watching a bunch of bulked up, bulging, sweaty men, with rippling muscles engage in close quarters, MMA inspired combat after killing hundreds of less virile men with only dozens of bullets and then celebrate by smoking phallic cigars and not have sex with gorgeous, big-breasted women.  Imagine my delight, then, when I saw Stallone's latest moving picture THE EXPENDABLES.  This was Stallone's attempt to recapture/cash in on the 80's action movie archetype which he helped to create with his own RAMBO series.  It was this series of movies where Stallone actually helped define the absurd action movie cliches and stereotypes that he is now attempting to parody/satirize/emulate in what is now being billed as simultaneously both nostalgic and progressive (ie. the older generation passing the torch the slightly less older generation).  I briefly considered the philosophical ramifications before I went to see the movie but mostly I got excited for another installment of mindless gun porn (a term I recently heard and stole from a friend) and a large collection of giant muscle-bound action stars beating the shit out of each other.  Or, as Tobias Funke would say: "I can just taste those meaty, leading man parts in my mouth."

The plot of THE EXPENDABLES follows a group of ultimate badasses (except for, somewhat glaringly, Bill Paxton) who travel around the world independently contracting themselves out for covert military operations.  I suppose this makes them mercenaries, but I think the popular romantic vision of mercenaries differs from the hard reality (ie. badass motherfuckers with a conscious vs. soldiers for hire who kill who they're hired to kill regardless).  This troupe of wandering ass kicking machines is made up of a plethora of (mostly) movie action icons including Sylvester Stallone, his old arch nemesis Dolf Dundgren, Jason Statham, Jet Li, and real life UFC icon Randy Couture.  I won't list all their character names because they're not really that important.  This team is hired to overthrow a tyrannical government on a generic South American island. However, when they discover that they might be being set up by the CIA to solve a problem they themselves caused the proverbial shit hits the proverbial fan and this ragtag group of mercenaries goes into hardcore ass-kicking mode and cause a lot of big explosions and kill a shit-ton of people.  All in the name of peace and freedom of course.

What was really interesting about this film was the fact that it even exists.  The idea is so absurd that it could have come from a movie itself: an aging action star from the 80's tries to make a "modern," 21st century action movie with that 80's action movie sensibility and a gathering of action stars from the past thirty years the likes of which has never been seen.  I'm not sure how much of the "80's nostalgia" was Stallone's original intent and how much came about as a result of marketing, but in the end it doesn't matter.  The fact is THE EXPENDABLES now only exists within that framework and can now only be seen through that lens.  What made the film really interesting to me was the fact that Sylvester Stallone intentionally wanted to make an action film in the same vein as all of those old eighties action films.  Stallone is in a unique position as a filmmaker in this case because he actually starred in 80's action films.  That means that this film was not just another action extravaganza, it was Stallone's analysis/commentary on the "old" action films of that era, and therefore of the era itself, but ultimately of himself.

In this respect there a few ways to approach the movie.  THE EXPENDABLES could be Stallone's way of saying "This is the way those movies should have been made."  From this point of view the movie is a critique of 80's action powerhouses including his own FIRST BLOOD.  However, FIRST BLOOD was not just mindless violence, even though it helped establish the cinematic paradigm of the invincible superhuman protagonist.  Even though it was chock full of balls to the wall action at its core it was an exploration of the alienation that Vietnam veterens felt after returning from the war.  THE EXPENDABLES didn't seem to have any coherent plot or deeper themes and was more or less an excuse for Stallone et al to rock out with their cocks (and guns (or knives)) out.  The message here is that while the old school action movies might have had more coherent plots and significant themes, it all pales in comparison to the orgy of blood and violence they can come up with now.

Another way to interpret the film would be that this is Stallone's homage to a bygone era.  To a time when men were men and if they wanted to blow shit up with a bow and arrow or wipe out entire armies with a single clip of bullets and a couple of hand grenades and they had 36-inch biceps then by God they should be allowed -nay required- to do so.  I mean the hardcore Action film with a capital A that was born in the 1980's is pretty much extinct now.  I'm not sure what happened during the 90's but by the 00's quality action movies were an endangered species like the hooker with a heart of gold or the Guns n' Roses fan who "loves" Chinese Democracy.  From this point of view THE EXPENDABLES is Stallone's personal salute to the 80's as Stallone blows his wad remembering "the good times."  This of course idealizes the old and rejects the new, which could be seen as endearing or anti-progressive.

The third possibility is that this is how Stallone remembers 80's action movies.  This possibility makes me sad. While THE EXPENDABLES was by no means terrible, it was a far cry from perfect.  Gone was the archetype of the vulnerable lone superman who took on the Legions of Evil, be they terrorists in a skyscraper on Christmas Eve, or the faceless soldiers with terrible aim from some South American country that didn't exist (and, let's face it, was supposed to be Cuba).  John MacClane got the bad guys but he got royally fucked up doing so.  Even Sly and Arnie had time to bleed sometimes.  Now it seems that if you're "the good guy" you're fucking invincible which detracts from the tension in the movie.  Gone are themes and symbolism and social commentary which -although barely detectable sometimes- still gave action movies something extra.  I already gave the example of RAMBO, but even something like TOTAL RECALL had the whole reality vs. dreamworld theme going on.  Rescuing your daughter or your wife from gun-toting psychopaths may not have been on as grand a scale thematically, but they were still very visceral that gave the the characters some (a-hem) depth or at least put their actions within a context.  I mean, I realize that the old action films were filled with more than their fair share of cheese, which is actually one of the things that made them so memorable and allowed them to transcend their genres.  THE EXPENDABLES had its fair share of cheese but those old action films were loaded with finely aged camombert, while Stallone's newest effort seems to be suffocated with processed cheese slices from individual plastic packages.

The simple fact of the matter is that this film is nowhere near as good as it could have -or should have- been.  And I'm honestly surprised at this fact.  And I think my surprise is completely justified.  In the past couple years Stallone has put out a couple quality flicks.  I mean first we had ROCKY BALBOA which I just watched a couple of nights ago with my wife (a ROCKY virgin) and which was fucking great.  I vaguely remember THE EXPENDABLES being associated with this whole idea of passing the proverbial torch to the next generation of action movies.  This concept was already explored much more effectively and directly in ROCKY BALBOA.  I know that the rocky films are not action films in the traditional (or any) sense, but the fact remains they are inexorably linked to Sly Stallone who is an action hero archetype.  In Rocky's final ride there is this tension between the old (experienced) and the new ("untested") which is of course personified in the final fight between Rocky and Mason "The Line" Dixon (still trying to come up with my own Rocky-esque nickname.  I was thinking "The Meat Grinder."  Think about it. (Hint: masturbation)).  This made any passing of flaming phallic symbols by THE EXPENDABLES redundant and far less significant. Then there was the new (aptly titled) RAMBO in which Stallone once again reprises the role of everybody's favourite angry, semi-retired war vet.  RAMBO was a fucking great movie, not only because of the insane action and over the top violence, but also because it was set within the context of the tension between simultaneously wanting to preserve peace and kick serious ass and that sometimes the ends do justify the means.  I know RAMBO was not meant to be a philosophical opus, but it was trying to say something, which put the rest of the action and violence in context.  THE EXPENDABLES seemed like it was a series of action scenes looking for an excuse to happen instead of a situation that allowed for the action to occur, which is one of the prime reasons all the other movies I've mentioned were so much better than THE EXPENDABLES.

All of this might make it seem like I hated this movie, but I actually enjoyed it quite a bit.  There were a few action scenes, but the whole movie was obviously just a pretext for the final action sequence, which, for lack of a better word, was absolutely fucking nuts.  The fight between Stallone and Steve Austin is definitely one of the highlights, as is watching Randy Couture (added for some "realism?") get to bust out his MMA moves and actually see some of them -like the arm bar- through to the end (can you say "exposed bone" anyone?).  It was also amusing watching Jet Li and Dolph Lundgren pair off at one point and watching Jason Statham fucking dudes up with his hard-hitting style.  The only problem with the movie was when there was no action. There was no back story except somewhat bafflingly Statham's character, Lee Christmas.  The thing is even this didn't really tie in to the main plot.  There wasn't even some nudity to make up for the lack of violence and plot.  It's a scientific fact that tits make every movie ten times better.

The thing that really drew me to this film, and indeed the only real thing it has going for it, is the sheer spectacle.  Big explosions and big cameos in the way of Bruce Willis, Arnold Schwartzeneger, and even the resurrected Mickey Rourke.  There's just something satisfying (a slightly homoerotic, I suppose, but that's the subject of a whole other entry) about watching a bunch of ripped muscley men make widows out of thousands of men's wives and blow a lot of shit up.  I'm also transfixed by the sheer magnitude of Stallone's impressive physique even as he edges towards his seventies.  HGH is the fucking bomb, yo.
Overall I give THE EXPENDABLES a 6.5/10 = One Mercenary Head Rippling With Muscle And Carrying A Giant Fucking Gun

Cemetery Junction Surprisingly Full of Life

When I first heard the title Cemetery Junction my mind immediately jumped to zombies brought back to life by some ancient tribal curse with a little necrophelia thrown in for good measure (I'm really surprised there isn't a lot more dead sex in all these zombie movies these days.)  When it turned out to be a coming of age dramedy written and directed by the great Ricky Gervais, I wasn't sold on the idea.  When I think "Ricky Gervais" I immediately think "fucking hilarious" and "irreverent" and "witty" not "intense drama."  But being the true talent that he is I had no need to fear that the movie would lack consistent tone and a strong heart.  What Cemetery Junction lacked in sex with fresh corpses it completely made up for with excellent writing, a strong cast, and a nostalgic look back at 1970's England. 

The story basically follows three friends in their early twenties on the precipice of change.  Growing up in a small town they have an extra chip on their shoulders to match the one they carry from their fathers.  Freddie (Christian Cooke) is looking to escape the small town curse and try to make a name and life for himself by working for an insurance company.  Bruce (Tom Hughes) is a highly intelligent young man who could make a life for himself outside of the local steel mill, but seems intent on fucking things up for himself through excessive booze, barfights, and run-ins with the local fuzz.  Brucie-boy also has some very big, very unresolved issues with his father who he blames for letting his mother get away.  Snork (Jack Doolan) is the lovable retard of the group (every group of friends has one).  He's the guy who you're not sure why he's your friend, and you pick on for being stupid or ugly, but if somebody else attacks him you'd pound the other guy into a bloody pulp to defend him.  Snork lacks that something in his brain that helps him pick up on the subtle social cues the rest of us impicitly understand and who just wants a steady job and to get laid now and again.  As Freddie starts to succeed a little at his new job he falls in love with the boss's daughter Julie (Felicity Jones) who inspires him to "throw his heart out in front of him" and start living life the way he wants to.  As Julie is already engaged to a complete asshole Freddie and his two best friends decide to leave town and start travelling in search of themselves, but nothing ever turns out like you planned, except for the cliched ending of a coming of age movie, a conceit I was more than willing to forgive (overlook?) in this case.

Fuck, my plot summaries always end up dragging on way too long.  I suppose brevity was never my strong suit.  "What," you may ask yourself, "if anything does that have to do with Cemetery Junction?"  Nothing really, but the problem with reviewing a really good movie or a really bad movie is that one tends to run out of things to say after "This movie was fucking awesome," or "This movie was complete and utter dogshit."  I am happy to report that this movie definitely falls into the "fucking awesome" category.  Right off the bat as soon as I hear the name Ricky Gervais, my immediate gut reaction is to love whatever is associated with that name.  The Office alone earns him my Lifetime Respect Award which entitles him to A) stay over at my house whenever he wants and B) me automatically purchasing any movie and/or TV series with his name attached to it (when it goes on sale, of course).

Anywho, back to the task at hand.  Cemetery Junction was a really nice surprise right in the middle of a movie-watching slump.  That is to say that after watching a whole host of shitty movies recently (with the exception of Inception of course) my faith in movies was slightly restored.  It really had the perfect mix of drama and comedy with a little dash of "guy and girl face adversity but get together in the end" thrown in for good measure.  It really spoke to me for a couple of reasons.  One, I grew up in a small town so the whole idea of feeling trapped in a life of mediocrity no matter how talented or intelligent I might be struck a chord.  There's this weird magnetic pull that I find occurs more with people from small towns where they feel compelled or drawn to whatever shithole burg they were from no matter how much they hated it.  There's a certain fatalism that develops and people get caught in this cycle of living in the same place as your father, doing the same things as your father, and working the same job as your father like it was inevitable or some shit.  Being a janitor or a gas attendent is all well and good if that is the extent of your talents, but if you are one of the priveleged few who has been given the gift of intelligence then I believe you have an intellectual responsibility to contribute to the general development of humankind and not throw your life away because it feels comfortable or safe.

The second reason I really connected with this film is that idea of being at a major crossroads in your life and feeling like you're at the end of an era and feeling more lost than Lindsey Lohan in a spelling bee.  It's what I like to call the Smith Factor, referring of course to Kevin Smith's epic movies Clerks and Clerks II where the characters are in their 20's and 30's respectively and trying to figure out what the fuck to do with their lives.  The reason I think that sentiment resonates is because like so many young men of our time I have no idea what I'm going to do either.  I think that a lot of people from my generation have that sense of listlessness due to widespread disillusionment that cultivates a deep-rooted cynicism that is afflicting people at a much younger age these days.  We don't just walk into the family business get a wife and push out a couple kids.  There's no longer such a thing as a family business to step into and the myth of automatic stability granted by the Nuclear Family has been dispelled.  There isn't that same sense of purpose that our parents and grandparents had, that was engrained into them.  We no longer "establish a career" we just "work at a job until we get laid off or something better comes along."  I think Gervais really tapped into that sense of cultural and emotional disenfranchisement when we learn that life and the classic ideal of "progress" is a load of bullshit and a great deal of time spent in that strange realm known as "real life" presents very little emotional or spiritual fulfillment.

Having the three main characters portrayed by relative unknowns (definitely Ricky Gervais' MO) was a good move that really paid off.  Christian Cooke, Tom Hughes, Jack Doolan have a great chemistry on screen together and all the nuances of their particular group dynamics are brought out masterfully.  Ralph "call me Ray" Fiennes was great as the asshole boss/disconnected dad and husband.  Matthew Goode was equally goode (nope, not a spelling mistake biatch) as his asshole underling/asshole soon-to-be-son-in-law.  Emily Watson also put in an excellent performance as the emotionally-beaten down housewife.  I've been a huge fan of Watson ever since I saw Equilibrium and The Boxer and she continues to impress.   

The thing that really makes this movie work though is that it has heart.  That and the use of the word "cunt" which the British seem to love and which I've been trying (without somewhat limited success) to increase the usage of here in North America.  Mom's been a tough sell, but I think I'm starting to break through to that cun... ningly wonderful person.  Bottom line: if you love good movies you'll like this one.  I give Cemetery Junction a 9/10 = One Youthful Head With a Perfectly Quaffed 70's Head of Hair

I Bought a Hat

Simply reading the title of this post many intelligent, free-thinking individuals would simply write off (so to speak) the rest of this post and avoid it like twelve year old boys avoid Catholic preists.  For those of you who actually read this post you will be sadly let down when you discover that it contains no nudity, or hardcore violence, and disappointingly few erotic photos of animals dressed in various sexy outfits.  It's just a pointless story of a grown man and his hat.

Now fashion-wise I am admitedly not very "hip" or "with it."  My recognizable outfit is a pair of jeans, a (usually tight-fitting) t-shirt that may or may not be embelished with some kind of superhero paraphernalia, and a pair of crosstrainers (not to be confused with running shoes as a nice young man at a local Footlocker condescendingly pointed out to me one time.).  For colder days I accessorize with my trademark gray hoodie.  In the fall my trademark piece of fashion is a heavy, black leather jacket, which is quite awesome and could concievably be used as some kind of light armour n the event of zombie apocalypse.  This is not exactly cutting edge fashion here.

The thing is that for most of us not handing around with Heidi Klum or Derek Zoolander cutting edge fashion is not on the forefront of our minds.  Like most people I tend to get caught in a fashion rut.  I find a look that works for me and then just do it to death.  My fashion evolution has actually been rather stunted.  It hasn't really changed all that much since high school (from which I graduated just ten short years ago).  Oh sure there has been some micro evolution.  I've changed from straight leg jeans to boot cut.  I ditched the baggy t-shirt for something that shows off my incredible physique.  I started wearing undershirts.  My briefs became boxer briefs.  I even added some chords and khakis in there every once in a while.  For a while I tried to accessorize by wearing vests, but natural selection won out and they died a terrible death one winter thanks to my wife who fucking hates vests for some reason.  She never was the same after that alien abduction.  The point is that my fashion sense has remained radically the same for the past fifteen years or so.  This is not necessarily a bad thing.  I mean that rut gives me confidence.  I fucking know how to wear a t-shirt and jeans like nobody's business.  I can wear the shit out of a t-shirt and jeans.  A t-shirt and jeans is my power suit.  I absolutely in no way regret my t-shirt and jeans status.

But lately my personal fashion has been on my mind a lot.  I have no idea why.  Perhaps I'm nearing mid-life crisis mode.  In the popular media it's always depicted as a sudden jolt, but perhaps it happens slowly with the pressure building up for years.  I figure by the time I'm 35 I'm just going to drive home one day in the Batmobile wearing leather pants covering a tattoo of the Rebel Alliance symbol on my penis and a goat dressed like Marylin Monroe in my back seat.  But only time will tell.  Right now I'm trying -slowly but surely- to move into button shirt territory.  For my day job I usually wear a button up shirt, but they're all more formal.  Now I'm trying to move into casual button up zone.  I can tell you, it's not easy.  After being stuck with the same style for so long it's really, really difficult to feel comfortable in a style that you don't feel like you own.  It's like wearing somebody else's skin.  I'm having to ease myself into the fashion shift gradually.  This usually involves unusually long amounts of time in front of my bathroom mirror modelling my new duds.  I'm not sure if this is normal behaviour or if I am becoming a true product of our society and am becoming obsessed with my personal appearance.

Then about three or four weeks ago I was at Winners with my wife and daughter shopping for god knows what (I usually fuck off to the toy section to look for Star Wars figures while my wife does whatever women do when they shop) when we walked by the men's clothing section.  There was a display of hats and just for fun I started trying some of them on until I hit the hat pictured above.  I wasn't looking to buy a hat, I was just goofing around trying to make my wife and daughter laugh.  But my wife made some sort of passing comment about how it seemed to fit with my style.  I have not been a hat-wearer since about grade 3 so I put the hat back on the rack and we went about our business.  But the seed was planted.  Later on that evening after my daughter was in bed and my wife was taking a nap I snuck out of the house with the stealth of a ninja and headed back over to the store and bought the hat.  As I waited in line and then paid for my new hat I was nervous as hell.  I was sure the cashier would see through my ruse.  She would just somehow inherently know "This guy doesn't know how to wear a hat" and then begin to publically deride me while everyone in the store would point and laugh.  I barely got through the whole ordeal.  When I got home I  immediately went to the downstairs bathroom and started modelling the hat in the mirror so I could get used to the "new vibe" it would give off.  It was several days later before I even dared to wear the thing in public.

The point of the story isn't that my fashion sense has improved exponentially or that I somehow have better taste.  I really like the hat, but maybe I look ridiculous.  It doesn't matter though.  I didn't buy the hat to look better.  I didn't really buy a hat at all.  What I bought was an ideology.  I purchased a paradigm shift.  The moment the transaction took place my world view shifted.  See I bought the hat mostly because it was something I wouldn't do.  I was in danger of becoming complacent, as we all are.  Sometimes we just need to do something crazy - even if crazy constitutes something as seemingly mundane as buying a hat.  To quote a favourite film of mine: You have to shit or get off the pot.  I'm not exactly sure if that's entirely applicable to this situation, but it sounded poetic.  Now if you'll excuse me, I have a hat to wear.  But first... The Whores!

This one's for you Adam...

  

Ghost of Sparta Lives

I saw this video a couple weeks ago and found it fairly amusing. The good folks over at Gamervision have a fake trailer for a potential God of War movie were it imagined by Wes Anderson. While I would not consider myself a Wes Anderson fan (except, for some reason, Bottle Rocket, which I actually enjoyed) this faux trailer quite adeptly captures the neurotic, off-beat soul of the (limited) Anderson library. While this version of the brutally violent and eternally angry Spartan warrior turned god turned mortal again is in no danger of actually happening it would far and away be a better movie than the rumoured Brett Ratner incarnation. Fuck that guy makes some shitty movies. He could fuck up a cup of coffee. The other day I had to brush my eyes clean with boiling bleach and whip my own back with a cat o' nine tails in penance after realizing that A) Brett Ratner directed Red Dragon and B) I actually remembered enjoying Red Dragon. One of the constants of Hollywood is that Brett Ratner is always wrong (I don't even want to ponder the philosophical ramifications of liking a Ratner flick), which is reassuring in a twisted way. It's nice to have some stability in this crazy world. Enjoy the video and remember: friends don't let friends watch X-Men: The Last Stand.



 
They're my blades of chaos...

Shutter Island... What a Twist!

Before I begin my review of Shutter Island I first have to make it perfectly clear that I am a huge fan of Martin Scorsese.  And it's not just because he's a phenomenal filmmaker who has consistently made high quality, relevent films for over four decades... well, actually it pretty much is because of that.  Scorsese is a living legend of biblical proportions and pretty much everything he does is a masterpiece.  I am totally biased whenever it comes to any of his projects, and as a commercial whore I would immediately buy any product that was even remotely attached to his name.  I once read somewhere that Martin Scorsese preferred Tampax brand tampons I went out and bought a year's supply.  Upon carefully rereading the article I realized that it was Lindsay Lohan who preferred Tampax (which, in retrospect, made more sense) so I burned everything I had bought and decided not to include Lohan when mailing out the latest chain letter I had recieved guaranteeing "lifelong happiness, contentment, intellectual fulfillment, and sexual virility."  The point is that no matter what Scorsese does now I am going to love it regardless.  This is not necessarily a bad thing.

Shutter Island is about Teddy Daniels (Leonardo DiCaprio) and Chuck Aule (Mark Ruffalo), two "duly appointed" US Marshals called in to investigate the disappearance of an escaped mental patient from a facility for the criminally insane on a place called... you guessed it, Shutter Island.  The pair quickly discover that there is something more going on and not everything is as it seems.  The staff led by Dr.John Cawley (Sir Ben Kingsley) as well as the inmates seem intent on derailing Daniels' investigation.  As he is drawn even deeper into the mystery of Shutter Island he becomes intent on revealing whatever terrible secrets are being kept hidden and must content with the storm of the century, escaped inmates, haunting flashbacks of his dead wife Dolores (Michelle Williams), and his increasingly tenuous grasp on sanity.

This movie just proves yet again why Martin Scorcese is the best at what he does, which is make movies.  He is a living legend and there are currently no new directors -with the exception of Chris Nolan- who are in the same league or on track to being in the same league as this guy.  He is a living legend and when he's gone Hollywood will lose at least half of its already-strained credibility.  Shutter Island is a perfect example of what holds a Scorcese picture together: the characters.  Without a doubt Scorcese is the best at carefully and exactingly examining a character, peeling him away layer by layer until his raw core is revealed to the audience.  I also heard he's not too bad at wakeboarding either. 

While Shutter Island is not Scorcese's best work it was still engaging cinema.  The whole premise is pretty freaky, and right away the audience is put on edge.  A mental institution for the criminally insane.  On an island with no contact with the mainland and no possible escape.  An escaped "patient."  From the beginning the mood and tone are set and remain consistent throughout the movie.  Everything blended together perfectly, including the odd reactions from the staff, the secrecy of the lead doctors and the fucked up residents of the Shutter Island institution.  Even the weather was cooperating as it always seemed to be either A) raining and blowing hurricane force winds or B) getting ready to rain and blow hurricane force winds.  I can't recall any sunlight at all, which I suppose is the point as the subject matter of this movie is not sunny in the least.

The plot of the film centers around Teddy Daniels' investigation of the missing patient Rachel Solondo and the implications it holds for what goes on at these facilities, but the movie itself is about the character of Daniels himself.  We find out pretty early on that Teddy's wife Dolores (finally a female alumnus from Dawson's Creek who can act and not just read lines and try to fuck up Batman Begins.  You know who you are (It's Katie Holmes.  Fuck she's terrible)). is dead and that he is still haunted by this death.  Also intercut with the main story are Teddy's flashbacks of his time in the war (good old WWII) specifically his memories of when he and his platoon were part of the emancipation of one of the concentration camps.  This coninuing thread plays itself out in a gripping and horrifying way that really ties in with Leo's corny final line of dialogue in the movie, which we will examine shortly.

Leonardo DiCaprio once again blows this one out of the park.  What I love about this guy's performances -this one included- is the intensity.  This whole movie is pretty intense, but a few scenes really stood out in my mind.  When he was investigating by himself in one of the cell blocks with the power off and has to question Jackie Earle Haley (you know, Rorschach) I was shitting my pants.  The other I suppose series of scenes is at the end when he "discovers" that he is actually a patient at Shutter Island and he slowly accepts "the truth".  SPOILERS APLENTY.  When he finally realizes that his wife snapped and drowned their kids and he ends up killing her, well, let's just say that there are only a handful of actors in Hollywood who could have pulled off that kind of performance (well) and Leo is one of them.  Michelle Williams, as I mentioned before, does a pretty good job herself and has kind of come out of left field in the past couple of years to establish herself as a reputable actress, unlike some other female leads from Dawson's Creek who have only proven that they have practically no acting talent whatsoever (a-hem, Katie Holmes).  Mark Ruffalo is always pretty solid despite his foray into chick flic territory, but ever since Zodiac he is a-OK with me.  While his part didn't require the same intensity as DiCaprio's, it did require certain nuances which Ruffalo handled excellently.  Also of note are the always fantastic Sir Ben Kingsley, Max von Sydow as Dr. Jeremiah Naehring, an ex-Nazi scientist, and Buffalo Bill himself Ted Levine as the warden.  (Would you fuck him?  I'd fuck him.  I'd fuck him hard.)

Now while the movie's core was Teddy Daniels, it also explored some deeper, philosophical ideas.  Are Right and Wrong objective monoliths that sit on God's mantle and show's to dinner party guests on special occasions like Christmas or Chanukah or are they subjective principles that are unique to each situation?  How does one define reality (see: my Inception review)?  Who decides what is "sane" and what is "insane"?  It also explores the ethics of medical treatment as well as the nature of human interaction.  One of the key scenes to me was the eerie car ride with the warden and Daniels and their bizarre conversation about morality and the warden says something along the lines of "We wage war, we burn sacrifices we pillage and plunder and treat at the flesh of our brothers and why? Because God gave us violence to wage in his honor."  When Daniels responds by saying that "he thought God gave us moral order", the warden respons with "There is no moral orders as pure as this storm. There's no moral order at all. There's just this: can my violence conquer yours?"  To me that was really the core of the whole movie, the heart if you will, the anchor, the wind beneath its wings, the cinematic cockring.  It rang true in only the way a Scorcese-ism could, and it was presented in the format that Scorcese does best: dramatic monologue.

I should probably comment on the "twist" ending, because some chowder heads out there in cyberspace were probably complaining that it wasn't "twisty" enough or some such bullshit, but I don't think it was supposed to be a Shayamalan-esque twist.  I mean there were enough clues that it "gave away" the ending ie. the fact that Teddy Daniels is, in fact one of the inmates, (remember Andrew Laeddis) and is the subject of a radical procedure, a staged reality, to make him come to grips with the reality of what he had done ie. killed his wife.  I will tell you the reason this revelation wasn't a twist.  The reason this isn't a twist is because it's actually a funnel.  The whole movie Daniels is actually searching for Laeddis, who is actually himself.  So his figurative soul-searching is representing on-screen by an actual manhunt.  As the investigation proceeds, Daniels is brought closer and closer to becoming Laedus, from the medication he takes, to the clothes he wears, to the imaginary women he talks to.  So essentially, throughout the movie the realities of these two men are brought closer and closer together, until they meet and converge (the dudes are merging!) in the penultimate scene.

The final scene of Shutter Island, though, was the kicker.  DiCaprio exits on this really powerful yet extremely cheesy line: "Which would be worse: to live as a monster or to die as a good man?"  It's an interesting quandary, however in Teddy's case the point is moot: he's already done both.  It could be argued (quite persuasively given the time, resources and willpower to do so) that Daniels/Laeddis actually died during that fateful day at the concentration camp when he both witnessed and performed terrible deeds.  That's the kind of shit you don't come back from, metaphysically speaking.  And ever since that day, even before he killed his wife he was a monster.  He wasn't a monster of his own making, and in the same circumstances many of us would do the same thing he did.  And that's the point.  Daniels did not become a monster by choice or because of any internal defect: it was his involvement in one of the most horrifying and most deadly chapters of human history AKA World War II.  This was what the warden was talking about: the tension between human nature (violence) and human ideals (morals).  What happens when those two forces are put into opposition can tear a person apart.  The question isn't if it's better to live as a monster, it's how to live as both a monster and a good man at the same time because war makes monsters of men.

Alright, time for the final verdict.  Shutter Island was a great film, but definitely not Scorcese's best.  That being said, I give this movie an 8.5/10 = One Badly Beaten Criminally Insane Head Illuminated by a Match

The Perception of Inception's Perfection and Deception

It seemes that somehow the reality-bending Inception was somehow already having an effect on my own personal reality.  Last Friday I was in a tangible position to see Inception on opening night, which is rare these days for reasons that I'll explain later.  Due to forces beyond my control this did not happen.  So I decided to go to see it on Tuesday, for reasons which I'll explain now: on Monday I was podcasting and Tuesday night is cheap night and tickets are half price.  However, when we (my brother-in-law, Bonegod and myself) arrived at the theatre there was a problem: there was something "wrong" with the plumbing and they had no running water so they had to send the throng of people gathered in front of the theatre home.  This seemed odd to me because last time I checked the projectors did not require water to run (good old steam power) and I can piss in a garbage can.  In the context of watching movies running water is a luxury, not a requirement.  Anyway after we couldn't get in to see Inception we went back to the Bonegod's bachelor pad to watch a little movie called The Fourth Kind.  I arrived home completely freaked out and crawled into bed beside my wife and glanced over at the clock which read 12:34. 

Finally on Wednesday, July 21 I was admitted into Galaxy Cinemas and was able to witness Christopher Nolan's latest addition to cinematic lore.  I have no idea how or why Inception changed the course of my life so that I watched it at that specific time at that specific place, but I'm absolutely sure that it did and that it will ultimately affect every moment of the rest of my life.  If this is indeed my life, which I'm not sure it is because after watching Inception I am no longer sure of my reality.  My biggest piece of evidence that something is amiss is that when I crawled into bed on Wednesday I glanced over at the clock and once again the glowing red numbers shimmered 12:34.  Fucked up, right?

The plot of Inception follows a thief named Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) whose speciality is stealing ideas from people's subconscious via their dreams.  After a botched job Cobb decides to lay low lest his (now angry) employers decide to tear him a new one.  Before he can do this, however, he is offered a job by an industrialist Saito (Ken Watanabe) that will essentially end his troubles and let him go back to America and see his kids again.  The twist is that instead of Extraction -stealing ideas- Cobb and his team must attempt Inception - planting an idea in the subject's mind.  This is infinitely harder and Cobb and his team must delve deep into the subconscious of Robert Fischer Jr. (Cillian Murphy) and plant the idea to break up his father's company after he dies (from surprisingly natural causes.).  In order to make sure that Fischer accepts the idea Cobb and his team must go deeper into someone's subconscious than any of them have gone before, but with greater rewards come greater risks and the deeper they go the more dangerous it becomes and the more difficult to seperate dreams from reality.

OK, even though I have just described the basic plot I have not yet spoiled anything because the plot is infinitely more complex and layered (both literally and figuratively) so I will issue my SPOILER ALERT... now!  I can't tell you how much I've been looking forward to this movie.  Inception really was the only movie I wanted to see this summer and the only one I really had any hope left for.  After first becoming a fan of Christopher Nolan years ago after watching Memento, was rewarded for my loyalty with The Prestige and completely wowed with Batman Begins and The Dark Knight.  So it was with unrealistically high expectations that I went to see Nolan's latest,  and all I can say is: Damn!  Inception completely blew my mind and definitely exceeded any and all expectations.

The whole premise of the movie is just fucking cool and the way it is handled lends itself to philosophical debate.  The idea of being able to initiate lucid dreaming basically on a whim with the use of technology is tantalizing to say the least.  Then to expand it even further and dream communally is even more engaging and , of course, is an interesting take on the idea of a collective consciousness.  I loved the way that the movie sets up the premise immediately and doesn't waste time trying to explain the technology.  It is a simple fact that the technology exists to enter each other's dreams and what is actually in those crazy metallic breifcases is unimportant to the story.  The fact is it works and as a member of the audience you never feel like something is missing by not having it explained.  And that, ultimately, is really what helps make this movie so great: not everything is explained.  Now obviously some of the rules of this universe had to be explained to the audience and this is done (flawlessly, I might add) through the use of the "new team member" character Ariadne (Ellen Page).  She asks questions, of course, and she is answered by other members of the team but none of it feels extranious and really I was intrigued learning about the whole process.

Acting in Inception was top notch, just fantastic.  Leonardo DiCaprio can emote like a motherfucker, and he can do hardcore action as well.  As of this point in time I do not believe he has won an Oscar and this is a crime.  Joseph Gordon-Levitt who play's Cobb's pal Arthur is also fantastic.  He really won me over in Brick and continues to wow me with performances like this.  Ellen Page obviously isn't on the same plane as these two guys, but she's getting better and her performance here was solid.  Tom Hardy also played his character of Eames "The Forger" to perfection and I was glad to see Dileep Rao in there too.  I really liked him in Drag Me to Hell and he switches gears for this movie perfectly.  Cillian Murphy is just fantastic no matter what he does and just hearing his name now is an instant draw to a movie.  Also Marion Cotillard who plays Cobb's wife Mal does an excellent job and has some pretty intense scenes to work through.  I'm not a huge fan of Ken Watanabe, but he did a good job and Michael Caine, well it goes without saying he was excellent.  All in all an excellent cast with a shitload of combined talent. 

I've heard a lot of comparisons being made between Inception and The Matrix, however that analogy is simplistic and misleading and is based on two key issues.  Issue one is that both movies deal with the idea of realities within realities.  While this is true, both movies have very different takes on this.  The other detail which keeps getting compared is the action and special effect sequences.  This is also not really an accurate comparison because both movies had very different types of mind-blowing action sequences that were both awesome in their own right.  The main sequence I think that everyone refers to in Inception is the "twisting room/zero gravity" fight Joseph Gordon-Levitt has with a bunch of goons in Cillian Murphy's subconscious, which was totally awesome and fused with seamless special effects.  Just don't go in expecting The Matrix or you will find yourself sorely disappointed.  I'm not saying one was better than the other, just... different.  At certain points in Inception I felt like Ellen Page's character did after learning she was in a dream for the first time (literally, her mind was blown.).  And even if you were watching this movie just for the action (like going to a Chinese Buffet just for the wonton soup) you would definitely not be disappointed.  It was really fucking cool how external factors in the "next reality up" would affect what was going on in whatever level of the subconscious the characters were in which resulted in some crazy spinning rooms and zero-G fighting.

Oh, what a feeling..

I've read several reviews of Inception by this point and one of the criticisms that came up was the idea that for being in dream worlds there was nothing that was really, really trippy ie. the dreams lacked a certain dreamlike unpredictibility.  This is utter bullshit, however.  One of the key ideas that really fuels the audience's immersion in the movie is the idea that you don't really know you're in a dream until you wake up.  So a slightly-altered reality makes more sense in the context of this movie rather than flying elephants, swimming pools filled with eyeballs, or surviving a nuclear blast by hiding in a refrigerator.  (Now why does that sound familiar...?)  Something else I read also brought up some point about the defences in people's subconscious always being depicted in this movie by dudes with guns.  While I'm sure it would have been cool to watch adversaries duke it out over a game of backgammon, or through wet T-shirt contests (as I'm sure battles would be waged in my subconscious), the dudes with guns in crazy action sequences was a lot more engaging to watch and far more appropriate given the context of the movie.   

Now one of my theories surrounding what makes a kick-ass movie involves the cinematic holy trinity: Character, Plot, and Idea.  By keeping one or more of these basic concepts in mind and in balance one can make a great movie.  For example, Martin Scorcese would exemplify the Character aspect.  His movies are essentially character-driven, and at their core are driven by the characters rather than the plot.  Steven Spielberg exemplifies the Plot aspect.  Spielberg's stories are powered by series of events rather than the characters.  Christopher Nolan embodies the Idea aspect because his movies are centered around core themes or ideas he wants to explore.  Now, before you get your panties in a knot, let me clarify by saying that none of the above directors is completely devoid of the other two aspects.  Scorcese's movies have plot, and Spielberg's character's have arcs.  Nolan is primarily an idea guy and Inception is the quintessential example of this.  It offers various concepts to ponder while you're handcuffed to your bed while your hooker counts your money to make sure you "don't come up short this time."

As Cobb and friends ply their trade one of the tricks they employ is the old dream within a dream deal, prompting the audience to constantly question what was real.  The basis of the whole movie was really that question of what is real and perception versus reality (more on that later.).  There's a really interesting concept of the idea as parasite which comes up throughout the movie.  The subconscious is depicted as having it's own defence system almost like the body's immune system which manifests itself in some pretty cool ways (ever get that feeling everybody is staring at you?).  Something else that really stuck out in my mind was that at the core of the mission that DiCaprio and company are on is the relationship between a father and his son which to me was just as prominent as the relationship between man and wife, or rather lover and lover.  It was no coincidence that these two relationships were juxtaposed throughout the movie. Nor is it coincidence that outside of Cobb's possibly dead wife Mal there was virtually no female presence in any of these men's dreams, and even when Mal was around she was either locked away deep in Cobb's subconscious or she surfaced to fuck his shit up.  This all tied in with the idea of catharsis which was even addressed explicitly in the movie. 

The real treat here though is not what the movie is about it's discussing what the movie could be about.  There are several theories, however the relative accuracy relies on the theory of Plausible Interpretation (I just made that shit up!) which basically states that there is no one "correct" interpretation of any given text (yes, a text includes movies) and that texts can be read and interpreted in many different ways but that the accuracy of those interpretations is limited by textual evidence.  For example, one might reasonably and effectively argue that Field of Dreams was ultimately not about baseball but about the relationship between a father and his son.  This is no stretch and perhaps the most obvious interpretation.  On the other hand somebody might argue that Field of Dreams is about Hitler's rise to power and the birth of national socialism.  According to the tenets of Plausible Interpretation the second reading of the movie -while it was one individual's personal opinion- is highly inaccuracte and irrelevent because there is a lack of textual evidence to support this opinion.  This theory allows for everyone's opinions, no matter how stupid or misguided they might be, but ultimately gives more credence to coherent theories put forth by highly advanced individuals (yours truly included.).

This is one fucked up party

So now comes the part where we try to derive meaning and interpret Chris Nolan's latest masterpiece.  What's my take on this intricate narrative, you ask?  Well I would argue that Inception is even harder to pin down to one or two big ideas than the majority of other movies (even though that is exactly what I did two paragraphs ago), but I will tell you what I got out of this movie.  To me the core of the movie revolved around the cartharsis one gets from developing, realizing and finally accepting one's perception of reality.  The movie is ultimately about that emotional release that comes with letting go of and absorbing all of the negative shit in your past that you can't let go while turning your attention towards the future.  That may sound vague and even slightly cheesy, but it is also awesome.  For those of you who saw the movie you might refute me because it appears that by the end of the movie Cobb is still in some kind of dream state, so any catharsis he might have would not be "true" or "real" because he is not in a "true" or "real" place, merely a dream.  Well let me explain even further.         
There is no truth or reality - only the perception of truth or reality.  "Well that's just rhetorical bullshit," you might say.  And I will admit that you would be quite correct insofar as that is your perception of reality.  However, in the larger scheme of the universe and in the context of my theory of Plausible Interpretation, you would be the one who is full of shit.  (Well, it is my theory after all.)  To illustrate let me illuminate you on your preconcieved and (entirely) wrong understanding of truth. 

There is no ultimate, overarching Truth that is inherent and constant in all time and space in the universe.  Take language as an example.  If Truth were an intrinsic quality in the universe there would be only one language because every object, feeling, thought, action, etc. would have only one inherently conceivable way to define it.  Each would only have one set of phonemes that could only possibly be represented by one universally accepted set of symbols combined in only one concievable way.  As this is obvisouly not the case, I am proved right.  If there was only one ultimate Truth, there would be no wars fought over political or religious ideology: they would, instead, be fought for fun or out of boredom.  If Truth truly was intrinsic in the universe the entire judicial system would disappear and there would be no police because everything we said and did, by definition, would be the truth.  It there was an ultimate Truth then the world would not be subdivided into political units like countries or republics, our national (or I , suppose, planetary) anthem would be "Back in Black,"  only ugly people would be required to wear clothes (and because there is only truth there is only beauty so there is in essence no ugliness, which means we'll have to look at a bunch of naked, ugly people), everyone would drive a 1965 Stingray, fucking would become the (only) national pasttime because with inherent Truth comes the lack of guilt or remorse (even when fucking fat, ugly nudists), and all desserts would contain both chocolate and peanut butter in that order.  And since the basis for the argument of an objective, absolute reality rests on the notion of an objective and absolute truth, I have also disproved your notions of reality as well.   

I could even take that one step further and say (at the result of delving into pretentious ramblings about philosophy) that perception is reality.  However, the reverse -reality is perception- cannot be true, and I will explain why.  Reality by definition is static and absolute while perception is dynamic with no defined boundaries, therefore while perception is able to adapt to any reality, reality will never bend to the whims of perception.  This, of course, raises the question: if perception is indeed reality, which means that reality itself is dynamic and constantly changing, then what was it we percieved in the first place?  (And no, the answer is not "We percieve perception" smartass.)  The answer is: the question is its own answer.  And that answer is another question.  And each of us is both the asker ofer that Ultimate Question and, in the end, the only one who can answer it.  This brings us back to the counter-arguement of how can Cobb's catharsis be real if he is not in a real place?  The answer is because he believes it.  He accepts it.  He feels that emotional release, that peace inside himself, and that ultimately is "real."  It doesn't matter if you're in a dream, or if life (itself) is but a dream, if you feel happy that happiness is real.  If you feel sad that sadness is real.  Our perception of reality -and not reality itself- is ultimately what causes us to be happy or sad or violent or loving, and no matter what the context your emotional responses cannot be virtual or fake. 

The question is not what or even why we percieve and interpret, but ultimately how.  Do you accept your life and move forward?  Or do you hang on to guilt and past regrets and grow stagnant?  Of course this is all just speculation and opinion, but fuck if I wasn't inspired.  I think the greatest part of Inception is that it initiates and fuels dialogue which is something rare in movies these days.  Now the preceding was merely my own interpretation, but there are others that are equally valid.  I was reading one review over at Chud and that dude's whole theory was that that Inception was about filmmaking.  Cobb is the director, Arthur is the producer, Eames is the actor and Fischer is the audience.  The article goes on to argue that everything that happened in the movie happened within a dream, even the parts where they were supposedly in reality.  Both of these ideas I accept intellecually but deny viscerally.  The reading of Inception as allegory for Hollywood is a very valid reading and supported with textual evidence, however I think that narrows the overall meaning of the film which I choose to believe has more far-reaching implications.  This is not to say I disagree with the article in any way, because it makes some excellent points, it's simply another interpretation.  And pretty fucking clever, too.  Asshole.

Alright, I believe I have rambled on more than my fair share, and if anyone is still reading after all this time then you really have no life and I am forced to ask myself: Why the fuck are you reading this instead of out watching Inception?  From now on whenever I see the numbers 12:34 in any context I will be reminded of this movie and question my own reality.  I give Inception a perfect 10/10 = One Head Within a Head Within a Head of Awesomeness 

Miracle Whip Can Go To Hell

Alright this has been bothering me for sometime, and now I really feel the need to speak out on this bullshit.  I'm sure most of you have seen all those Miracle Whip ads on TV right now where a bunch of young, attractive people are living large while consuming mass amounts of flavoured mayonnaise and then at the end they flash this slogan: "We are Miracle Whip and we will not tone it down."  The whole ad is generally offensive to free-thinking individuals and I will tell you why. 

First of all the slogan is so pretentious.  "We will not tone it down?"  Really?  Tone what down Kraft?  All you're selling is a jar filled with a substance that has the same look and consistency as jizz and is about as bland as a cardboard box.  Of all the food products out there, or all the objects in the universe, Miracle Whip is about the last thing I would ask to be toned down.  Certain brands of hot sauce could concievably "tone it down".  McDonalds could "tone down" whatever the fuck they put into their food that makes it so addictive.  Mel Gibson could "tone down" his wild ranting.  The US government could "tone down" its invasions into whatever country in the world they feel like invading this year.  The point is in order to "tone" something "down" it first has to be "toned up" ie. have some level of intensity, which Miracle Whip does not have.  Miracle Whip is about as intense as sitting and staring at a blank wall not having sex with dozens of women.  Miracle Whip is the food world equivalent of having erectile disfunction.

That, in essence, is what makes this campaign so pretentious.  As if people were walking past the Kraft headquarters and having conversations like the one that follows.

"Hey man, what'd you have for lunch?"

"I had a sandwich.  But not just any sanwich."

"What was so special about this sandwich?"

"Well it was a turkey sanwich on rye."

"And?"

"Well, for a change I thought I would add... some Miracle Whip."

"Holy, shit man!"

"I know, right!"

"Miracle Whip?  You're fucking crazy man.  That shit is intense!"

"You're telling me.  That sanwich was nearly the end of me.  I really wish they would just, like, tone it down a little, you know?"

It's like Kraft is telling us that the word on the street is that Miracle Whip is too intense.  As if they have been called out and have to defend the integrity of their product.  It's like some poser kid at high school who's trying to score points with the cool kids by building up some situation trying to make himself look like a rebel.  "Yeah, my mom packed my lunch and gave me a bottle of water, but I saved my allowence and bought bought a Coke today.  Yeah everybody tells me it will rot my teeth, but I'm not changing for anyone.  I won't tone it down."  Miracle Whip is the ingratiating loser who like exactly the same things you and your friends like and feel the need to tell you so they'll gain cool points or something.  Bullshit, Kraft.  I'm inclined to drive down to head office and stuff these executives in some lockers after holding them upside down and shaking out their lunch money. 

The second reason why this ad campaign is bullshit is the whole idea of trying to make it seem that Miracle Whip is actually relevent to young people when the only people who would actually care enough about this product to discuss its merits are 60-something, widowed women named "Mable" who smell like mothballs and pickles and hang around churches as much as they can in their spare time.  You think god likes Miracle Whip, grandma?  Miracle Whip is for pussies.  When god makes a sandwich he tops it off with pure habanero puree, molten lava, and bullets.  An eternity eating sanwiches topped with a pale paste that might as well be human ejaculate: that sounds more like hell to me.  Blow me Miracle Whip. 

What the Hell Are You?

So I was talking to Andy, an old work buddy of mine on Facebook (yeah, apparently that's still a "thing") and he says he wants to get together sometime and "hang out."  Knowing Andy I know that "hanging out" in his mind means doing blow off the tits of some strippers, killing some homeless people and dumping their mutilated bodies in the river after eating their genitals to increase our sexual prowess, followed by a circle jerk with him and five of his closest crackhead friends during which time we all cum on a piece of bread, pass it to the left when finished and then everyone chows down.

"So how about it, Nathan?" Andy says.

"I don't know, Andy.  How about we go catch a movie instead?"

"Fine, whatever you pussy.  How about we go catch this movie Predators, biatch?"

"That sounds like a mutually agreeable heterosexual male bonding ritual," I said.

When I got to the theatre I found Andy yelling at the manager.  Turns out he thought Predators was about perverts in nondescript, unmarked vehicles stalking children waiting for the right time to strike, a subject Andy has a special interest in.  He was yelling at the manager about "false advertising" and "entrapment."  After twenty minutes Andy's friends and I were able to calm him down and we grabbed a seat in the theatres to see about the (as far as we know) non-child molesting Predators.  You know, the aliens with the cloaking devices, and crazy Wolverine-style blades, and crazy awesome dreads.

So obviously I wasn't going into this movie expecting it to be a cinematic masterpiece.  I didn't even have high hopes that Predators would succeed in any memorable way as an action showpiece.  I'm a total diehard fan of the original Predator made all the way back in 1987.  I mean that was Arnold Schwarzenegger during his action glory days and Predator was classic 1980's testosterone-filled, impossibly big gun toting, ridiculously repeatable one-liner delivering, gloriously gore-laced, action packed awesomeness.  I mean the magic from that film and others like it just can't be captured again.  There was some mix of ridiculousness and hardcore action that just seems to be lost to filmmakers these days, just like the methods of building without cranes power tools are lost in the sands of time.  There was something (maybe the minimum 40-inch biceps requirement) about Predator that just made it eternally cool.

I will say I wasn't totally right about Predators, but neither was I wrong.  I won't say that there was the same kind of magic that the original had that will make it transcend others in the genre like the original.  What I can say about Predators is: it was what it was.  This statement may seem kind of vague and a little bland, but then so is the movie it describes.

The plot follows a group of apparent badasses and Topher Grace for some reason who are dropped quite violently into the middle of the jungle.  These strangers are mostly military with a mix of mercenary, cartel enforcer and death row con mixed in for good measure.  With no memory of how they ended up in this jungle they quickly discover that they are being hunted by persons unknown.  They quickly realize that A) they are no longer on planet Earth and B) they are being hunted by a group of aliens who live for the hunt.  As they are slowly killed off one by one they formulate a plan of escape involving an alien spaceship and a final, climactic showdown with even bigger, more badass Predators than ever before.

There's not much I can really say about this movie.  It was a pretty standard group-of-strangers-from-different-backgrounds-who-must-grudgingly-work-together-to-survive scenario.  There was an adequate amount of action and gore but nothing really memorable.  There was some effort made to differentiate the characters but they turned out as little more than slightly amusing cliches, like the tough, solitary leader, the token black guy, the token woman, the token Hispanic, the token Asian who ends up wielding (surprise, surprise) a samurai sword, and the comic relief.  I mean it was amusing and all, but only two days after watching the movie and it's already starting to fade in my memory.  This could be chalked up to my terrible memory brought on by a lack of Vitamin E in my diet, an excess of alcohol, and brain damage brought on by numerous blows to the head... sorry I forgot what my point here was.

I wasn't sure how or if I was going to buy Adrien Brody as the tough guy lead and basically the new Schwarzenegger and to be honest I'm still not sure.  Just when he was starting to convince me he'd spout some really obvious tough guy dialogue in his gruff, supposedly tough guy voice and he'd lose credibility with me.  It's not about sounding tough, it's about exuding toughness, whether it be real or not and in my mind Brody just does not exude that toughness, at least not in this movie.  Or at least not consistently.   One thing I will say is that in the final showdown when Brody was shirtless he looked fucking huge.  He's got kind of a lankier build but he looked like he'd been hitting the gym pretty hard and damn I was impressed... in a totally heterosexual way of course. (A-hem)  I've always loved Danny Trejo and I'm glad to see him getting more work in higher profile projects.  Can't wait for Machete.  Topher Grace was, of course, the comic relief but most of the movie he just felt out of place.  There was a really weird and sloppily handled turn for his character late, late in the movie where he actually got to do something a little darker, but overall I could have taken of left him.  Honourable mention goes out to Walton Goggins who plays a convict who was two days away from his execution and if Grace's character had been left out entirely this guy would have easily covered the humour.  It wasn't just his lines which were funny ("Man let me tell you, if I get out of here... I'm going to do so much cocaine.  I'm going to rape so many bitches.  Yeah it's after 5:00.  Time to do some coke and rape some bitches.") but his delivery of them.  Alice Braga did a competent job as well, but really the only reason I mentioned her is so that I have some pretext to show some pictures.

  The predators themselves were handled very well and shown very sparingly which worked well.  They all had slight variations in their armour to differentiate them but they remained true to the original look.  The new bigger predators (aparently there's some racial tension amongst these gentle giants) looked pretty cool when one was finally unmasked at the very end and they felt threatening enough.  It just seems now that they're getting a little too easy to kill.  I mean in the original they have som much trouble dealing with just one, but these guys manage to take out a total of three.  Not a huge amount, but still. 

Another thing I liked was that that the characters were so quick to leave each other behind for the good of the group.  That was a fantastic touch.  It's so fucking annoying in movies when the characters walk into a trap so obvious even they know it's a trap and get themselves into even more trouble.  In this movie not only did they leave each other behind when it was pretty clear that they were fucked, sometimes they even but each other out of their misery.  You know, with a bullet.

There were lots of nods to the original Predator, which didn't really help this movie, but they were still cool.  Braga's character goes over a report that was obiously a direct reference to Schwarzenegger's charcter Dutch.  Then there was Adrian Brody covered in mud taking on a predator with low-tech means.  Then I suppose there's the whole jungle setting.  There was a predator ripping a dude's spine and attatched skull out of his victim's body, but I'm pretty sure Ozzy Osbourne did that at a concert once years ago.  Of course that could also be the acid talking.  Then there was the scene where Louis Ozawa Changchien's character stays behind to face this nameless terror alone with only sword for no aparent reason much like Billy (OK, exactly like Billy) from the first movie.  Although this time the the dude actually brings down a predator in a pretty cool fight, although at the cost of his own life.  Oh yeah, ths SPOILER ALERT thing.  I keep forgetting.

So overall, even though my friend Andy was expecting a much different, more risque movie, Predators was alright.  It was a highly forgetable piece of action fluff, that while moderately entertaining offers almost nothing memorable or highly unique.  It is another name on a long list of disappointing movies this season, but what can you expect when it's directed by a guy named Nimrod?  (I kid, I kid)  Also, what the hell was Laurence Fishburne doing in there?  Aside from some needless exposition his character serves no real purpose.  Just like this sentence (which is technically just a sentence fragment).  Really makes you think.  I give Predators a 5.5/10 = One Decapitated Alien Hunter's Head With A Mouth Like A Mutated, Murderous Vagina

What in the Name of Odin's Beard is Going on Marvel?

Anybody with even the slightest interest in the Marvel universe has probably heard about the propsed Avengers movie that's supposed to come out in the next couple of years.  Unless of course you're an evil dictator hiding out under a rock in the middle of the desert.  And even then you'd have some inkling.  The cool thing is that there a whole battery of movies like Iron Man 1&2, The Incredible Hulk, and the upcoming Thor and Captain America that are building towards the Avengers movie with little cameos and other subtle nods. 

Now of course it's the wet dream of a lot of fanboys out there to see all the actors from these movies appear in the Avengers movie project together, which would be totally awesome.  But somehow, for some reason Marvel is fucking the whole thing up.  I've been following the story over at JoBlo.com for the past couple of days and you can read about it here.  Now I don't know the whole story (nobody ever does) but from the comments I've read the good folks over at Marvel seem to be behaving like a bunch of douchebags.  The comments I have read make it seem like Marvel is caught up in Ed Norton's reputation for being reputedly as difficult to work with as an albino rhinoceros in heat.  But it seems far more likely that the production is trying to cut costs.  Paying a big A-list actor top dollar for twenty minutes of screen time may not be the most financially logical course to take I suppose.

But I mean it's such bullshit.  If you're going to make a decision just fucking make a decision.  Call it what it is.  I mean you want to save money, just say you want to save money.  Don't attack a man's character publically and prey on this mythology of Norton's difficulty to work with.  Maybe there is some truth to it, I mean I've heard a few rumours especially regarding American History X (kick-ass movie by the way), but I mean if he was really that terrible then explain to me how the hell he still gets work.  I mean what is so hard about saying Bruce Banner's part in the movie will be very small, you're too cheap to pay a phenomenal actor to play the part, and you want to shit all over your fans just for fun because you know they'll keep coming back no matter what.  And from what I've seen it's Marvel who's coming off as a bunch of ass clowns in this scenario.  I mean Norton's response on facebook makes him look like a rational, well-spoken professional, quite the contrast to the folks over at Marvel.  It really is a shame that it's just a matter of money that could potentially fuck up what could have been one of the greatest super hero flicks of our generation.

 But hey, even if we don't get Ed Norton -one of the hands down best actors in Hollywood today-at least we still have the superior "acting skills" of Scarlett Johansson.

Sorry, I got distracted, what was this article about again?