'Git offa mah lawn ya damned hooligans!!'

So I’m turning 30 this year, which of course warrants a supremely sober blog entry. If you’re in a happy cheerful mood, I would urge you to not read this (now at least).
I’ve noticed that as I grow older my attitude and opinion of things becomes more and more like ‘that old crotchety guy’ who complains that things used to be better in his day and blah blah, and ‘kids nowadays’ etc. Actually, I’m not really becoming that guy, but I do think that the World seems to be going to Hell in a hand basket in a lot of ways….
The thing I read that made me want to write about this is actually something in the news about, of all things, some new scientific discovery involving a chemical method of inducing weight loss. Great news, really, for all those who weight is an issue with. So why does it concern me? I guess it’s because like a lot of other things, it feels like yet another way that people can find a quick ‘fix’ for something that might be causing them some grief.
OK, before the few people who might read this take exception to that comment, I am fully aware that being overweight is sometimes (always?) NOT easily controlled, and it is an ‘affliction’ that could be genetic, or who knows what all else. For some, they might not consider it a problem, and I’m not gonna argue, nor should I. For those people, please ignore this (and feel free to call me an arrogant fuck if you like before closing the browser). But I have a point to make here, and I’m damn well gonna make it.
Same thing goes with antidepressants. Some people obviously benefit from taking them, that much is for sure. I heard about some study however (yes, very scientific) that basically came right out and said, that for people suffering from mild to moderate depression, antidepressants didn’t do a whole hell of a lot. I (occasionally) suffer from depression, and I’ve never taken antidepressants….because I’m a better person than people that do? Fuck no. Is it wrong to take them, or foolish? Not up to me to decide, obviously.
I don’t take them personally, cuz I have faith that whatever ails me I can overcome in other ways, or at least come to terms with eventually and bring into my realm of control. I also believe too that if I can find other ways, besides taking a pill or whatnot, to do so, that it will make me a stronger person - less dependant on other things.
Which brings me back to my earlier point – the quick fix. You’ve heard it a bazillion times before of course. Everything is rush rush rush nowadays, and nobody takes time to smell the roses and all that. People need what they need fast and aren’t willing to make sacrifices for anything anymore. Cliché-d out the ass, but does that make it wrong?
At some point I really came to terms with the whole issue of purpose, and specifically my own during my time alive. I mean really came to terms with it…the whole thing about dying, and am I doing all I can, etc. My conclusion of sorts was simply…everyone’s got their shit, nothing new there. I got mine alright. So how I look at it is, given my situation, my opportunities and my problems and everything else, how well did I fare? How much did I overcome my own crap and have the courage and determination to do what’s going to improve my well-being, and perhaps other people’s as well? There is no deadline for this while I’m alive.
While this blog entry is becoming disgustingly blah and preachy to me, and perhaps you as well, I honestly think people shy away from talking about this stuff now cuz it’s the equivalent socially of taking a shit on someone’s lap. I guess I just wonder how many people think that their problems are super complicated, and unique, and how many of these people would benefit from simply…doing the basic things that could lead to a healthy life. Eating right, exercise, abstaining from (excessive) drug use, finding balance, etc.
Sounds easy, but it sure as hell aint. But is it boring? Not so far…for me anyways – while I manage to stick to it that is.

Political type rant

Hmph. Well, got most of my work done for the day, so I am gonna take some time and write.
Man, it is almost clichéd to say so, but Obama’s speech the other day on race relations in America was just the kind of powerful move that a president should make. It seems to be the status quo nowadays for big-time front-runner politicians to be on the defensive all the time, spending what must amount to 90% of their energy trying to deflate rumors about them, or bolster their public image. Whether true or not, what never ceases to amaze (and infuriate) me is that these rumors and accusations come flying from people who, I would wager good money, are guilty of those exact same things – they have to be, as they are human beings (with a few exceptions perhaps in the media).
I fucking hate that double standard. While politicians should be role-models, the system has become so blighted and mired by this media-crazed bullshit that it is more common to see ‘good ol’ folks like G.W. Bush in office than someone with vision and a firm grasp on, well, how the fucking world actually works, cuz quite frankly very few of the latter type are bat-shit crazy enough to put their lives under the intensity of the public microscope.
To be fair, GW does have a vision, although it’s perhaps more apt to call it a delusion than a vision.
Anyways, no need to bash Bush anymore.
Say what you want about it, Obama’s speech just gave me the sensation of actually listening for once to a politician who meant what they were saying, and who was capable of taking a risk, or taking a stand, or just doing SOMETHING that wasn’t dictated to them by some wanker of an advisor who based their advice on some statistics compiled by their analysts on how best to deflate any and all concerns by all demographics of the populace and the media.
It’s been said many times before, and no doubt much more eloquently, but the world needs a lot more honest people. And while I could consider myself cynical for saying so (cheeky of me considering my last post) I’m sick to death of people who are so afraid of just telling the fucking truth. Like, what the hell are people scared of?
The truth can be scary at times, but if you don’t adhere to it and instead create whatever fantasy world to live in, whether it’s only you who’s living in it, or much worse you’re dragging others with you, what possible good can you do with that?
What ground can you gain? What can you base anything on?
Now the flip side of this of course is the danger of giving too MUCH away. Some things need to be kept to oneself I suppose, and quite frankly I don’t need the WHOLE truth all the time – a little bit of mystery is a good thing.
But mystery has its time and place, and putting on a front for the American people that is too squeaky clean makes me really wonder just who the fuck these people are who try to ascend to the most powerful position in the world. They make these bold speeches that really, when you boil them down, are the most tepid, un-inspiring posturings I’ve ever witnessed.
Well, recently I had thought that I’d be content with any of the 3 contenders for president. I mean, McCain IS a war hero, so how bad could he really be? With Clinton would come all that experience.
As for Obama, I always liked the youth and freshness that came with him, that many had likened to JFK. It seemed to me though that he just hadn’t quite lived up to those expectations.
The funny thing is, I didn’t even see the whole speech (in fact, all I caught were some highlights on the Daily show) but I didn’t even need to. What little I saw was plenty enough to convince me that this is indeed the right person for the job.

new stuff

Well, as I haven’t written anything in a long time on this blog, I decided it was time to change topics. I no longer really care about whether or not movies are good – at least not enough to write about it. Instead, I am broadening my horizons to write about whatever the hell I feel like.
I’ll start with some thoughts following a show I saw last night – Henry Rollins.
Wow, what an individual. The guy is the patron saint of all people who feel like outsiders. I’m not trying to sound like I’m some angst-fueled troubled individual screaming my loathing of the ignorant masses and blah blah blah. But I don’t exactly base my life on the status quo….
At any rate, he mentioned how as he grows older he is becoming less cynical.
He credited this change to his experience traveling to various nations (mostly impoverished or war-torn) and witnessing first hand both the tragic conditions that people live in, as well as how miraculous those people are who, in the midst of all this chaos and tragedy, fight to help or to survive day after bloody day.
And truly, it was a reminder I needed right about now. How petty and insignificant most of my problems really are in comparison with others.
Not that in their own context they are meaningless and such, but it made me realize that to truly see things for how they are, we need to embrace change so that we constantly have fresh perspective. Nothing exactly revolutionary in that, but it never ceases to amaze me how my natural tendency (and I’m sure it’s the same with most other people) is to gravitate back to old habits, old ruts, and eventually become frustrated at the same repetitive experiences. While most people really can’t afford to just up and leave whatever their situation is – and some are more stuck than others – I believe it is in most people’s power to embrace change of some sort or other. This could be anything from a new hobby, traveling to new places, meeting new people, etc. With all the shit that’s out there, why on Earth should we limit ourselves to such a small array of experiences?
Personally, if I had the time and resources, I would want to do so many things it would be ridiculous. People SHOULD be curious about the world. If you aren’t, I would really like to know why.
Back to the subject of cynicism though. In this humble bloggers opinion cynicism is fueled by repetitiveness. For example, when I have to drive for 30-40 minutes in rush hour traffic twice every weekday, and I see the same examples of people being selfish and ignorant on the road, through the consistency of this exposure it might gradually seep into my sub-conscious that the majority of people are selfish and ignorant. How in the hell am I justified in this conclusion? These people that display driving tendencies that I find infuriating are perhaps merely other people who are infuriated with the other drivers around them and are consequently acting what they deem to be an appropriate manner.
This whole driving thing is merely an example of course. The point is, we should periodically be questioning our conclusions about things, and if there is anyone we should ever be hasty to be cynical of, it should be ourselves. Well, perhaps not cynical, but certainly critical. I just wanted to say cynical cuz it was a nice little way to wrap up this article….

What a Snob Wants....

It's come to my attention recently, having been regularly reading blogs and comments on Cracked.com, that very few things are despised among internet nerds (myself included in that category) as a Negative Snob-Tard (myself included as well in that category). Consequently, in an attempt to shake that dreaded moniker, I will lay out carefully reasoned arguments that, if not justify, at least explain why I am so livid about movies that might seem perfectly acceptable, even enjoyable, to your average movie-goer.
First off, I wish to address the issue of snobbery. It seems to me that snobs are mainly reviled on principle, due to what many perceive them as standing for, namely, 'I am better/more knowledgeable/have a higher intelligence score in a Role-Playing Game scenario than you do', and with it of course, the assumption that this would lead to more sex with females than those beneath them, even if it is also in a Role-Playing Game scenario. (Sadly of course, this last part never seemingly works out.)
It is understandable then, that people who conceive of snobs exhibiting this mentality might resent them, especially when coupled with the fact that your typical snob's physical persona is not very inspiring.
And then there is the true snob. One who doesn't care for such intransient concepts as 'ego', 'accomplishment' or 'women', and is merely there (on the internet, etc.) to provide their humble, yes humble opinion on the subject in question. Not to belittle anyone, to make themselves seem intelligent (well, maybe a little...), nor even for the simple pleasure of stirring up trouble, no, merely because they care that much about the subject matter that they are compelled to say something when they feel it is being abused. trust me, most snobs are very shy, withdrawn people, who have a hard time even mustering the courage it takes to print a totally anonymous comment on a blog somewhere, for fear that they may be ridiculed by marauding packs of cyber-bullies.
Now, having descibed the sub-set of snob that I believe I am most akin to, I will now state my motives for carrying this burden.
I happen to enjoy a film, or a video game, or anything really, that displays some degree of effort, or completeness. I want to know that this product was put out, not as a good idea poorly realized, not as a bad idea never fully developed, not as a piece of rubbish exchanged for money, but as a work of substance. When one reviews or contemplates it, they will be content knowing that it is time well spent because the item in question is a good representation of the idea it developed, even if that idea is very simple or even low-brow.
It never ceases to amaze me how much better so many movies or videogames could be, if they had simply taken the time to work out a few kinks. The people making them don't have the time or resources, you say? Nonsense. If they merely cut their graphics or special effects budgets down by say, 30%, they could easily use the money left over to keep the project running long enough to refine some weak elements. Oh no! 30% less money on special effects?! Dear God....it might look like it came out in 2007 and not 2008! Seriously...all petulant sarcasm aside, it wouldn't detract that much from that aspect.
But the benefit....
Imagine, in movies you could have nice little details that would satisfy even the most hardcore nay-sayer, like making sure, first and foremost, that things actually make sense. Now of course, this is where people might cut me off, saying they don't really care about such mundane details. But I would challenge them to start caring, because if they constantly allow the bar to keep falling, pretty soon they'll find themselves watching movies with the same caliber of logic, style, and plot as Batman & Robin, only on a regular basis. And what's worse is, this change will happen so gradually that most people won't even notice it.
Think I'm kidding? Look at the top ten movies at the box office. Almost all of them are half-baked, brain-dead rehashings of earlier, better movies, and I daresay things are only going to get worse.
It's funny, I think I was going somewhere with this earlier, but as I re-read what I wrote, I'm right back to where I started.
Oh well, I still have an outrageously high intelligence score, and I have a date with an elvin princess next weekend (if she decides to show up this time....)

Beowulf: Could it be an all time low?

Well, I had my first glimpse at a full scene from the movie Beowulf today. It was painful.
All I'm going to say for now is, from what I saw, the movie is going to fall into the 'suffocate yourself for 20 minutes before going to watch it, so that you will be able to swallow the movie's complete abandonment of common sense' category, but will also fall into the 'you will want to suffocate yourself until you die after you see it' sub-category. At least it's consistent.
I dunno. Maybe the people in charge of making it were being suffocated when they were writing it. If not, they should have been.

A brief referral

None of the movies I have reffered to come even close to stinking as bad as the insanely horrible Batman & Robin. While I would love to bash this movie at length, there are two good reasons for me not to. The first is that I would really rather forget it even exists, and any attempt to remember scenes from it in detail might cause physical agony. The second is, I could never fully describe its ineptitude as succinctly and effectively as Albert Walker does in his extremely long, extremely funny review on the webiste www.agonybooth.com. If you are going to read it, I suggest you do so when you are alone, as the ensuing case of the giggles you will get might irritate those around you. (I speak from personal experience...)

'Crap Part 2: Recycled Crap' Part III

Admittedly I had expectations going into this movie, and not just because they were crammed down my throat by advertisement and hype. I thought 'wow, the story of Thermopylae brought to film, and shot in the stunning style of Sin City', which I actually thought was a very good movie. Little did I realize that the success of that movie was yet another tool to make money for 300. OK. Nevermind the hackneyed music. Now we progress into the actual movie. Starts not too bad. Shows how rigourous and merciless the Spartan training and culture was. Aside from the really crappy looking CG wolf, a passable 'coming of age' scene for Leonidas. From what I can recall, the movie is fine until the actual battle at the Hot Gates. While this battle begins in good fashion, with the Spartans adhering to the tactics discussed earlier in the movie that gave them so much success (i.e. the shield wall), it is after this point that the movie abandons in one fell swoop anything resembling consistency, originality, plausibility, and intelligence. It's as if, having proven that he acknowledged the Spartans tactics in battle, the director can then proceed to shoot battle scenes that are all style and no substance (or logic or taste or anything good). After the shield wall of the Spartans defeats the first wave of invading Persians, the Spartans proceed to all disperse and fight individually, exposing their flanks and rear to the enemy. But wait! Now they have more room to manoever, thereby freeing them to do real over the top moves, while the camera footage can slow down and then speed up, thus simultaneously ruining the realism of the scene and making me want to puke! This brings me to yet another tangent. Why can't directors nowadays just SHOOT THE FUCKING ACTION!!? Why do they feel this overwhelming desire to either a) apply some cheesy effects to the scene (i.e. speed up/slow down) or b) shake the camera around, 'cleverly' simulating for the audience what it would be like in the real fight, but consequently eliminating any chance they have to SEE WHAT THE FUCK IS HAPPENING!!? Grrrr......
If you want to see action scenes shot with real skill and effect, watch Conan the Barbarian, possibly the most underrated action film of all time.
The rest of 300 pretty much sucks, with some scenes that are gratuitous and ridiculous (I vaguely recall some Persian, possibly the executioner? who has two what look to be power saws instead of arms...) and a laughably horrible scene in which the son of one of the Spartan warriors is slain. This brings me to my next gripe about movies these days: what I'll call the Plausability Factor. OK. So the movie thus far has shown what astounding warriors the Spartans are, and how they are keenly aware in battle and have amazing self-preservation instincts. Now, in this 'dramatic' scene, some lone Persian horseman comes galloping up through some mysterious fog that appears out of nowhere, and stabs the Spartan dudes son in the back (or whatever, I can't exactly remember how he died, I was too busy groaning in pain), with the whole Spartan army watching. The rider then proceeds to gallop off, to God knows where, unhindered. Um....are we actually supposed to believe that this guy could manage to do this unnoticed by the entire force of Spartans? I'm sorry, I'm actually at a loss for words here...if you've seen the movie, tell me this scene isn't flat out ridiculous. So it makes me think, obviously this death of the Spartan guys son is important enough to justify a huge stretch of logic to bring it about. Uh...really? Why couldn't they have just killed the fucking guy off in the battle earlier? (something made more probable by the fact that he was gallavanting around doing somersaults for the camera in Slo-Mo)
As for the guy with power saws for arms...I mean, CMON!!! Like really, is this necessary? Does it contribute anything positive to the movie?
The bottom line is, the people who made this film just don't think about things like this, because, for some unknown reason, they aren't held accountable for not doing so. I swear, if directors simply hired someone full time to watch their movie while they're making it to point out things like: 'Um, I'm sorry (insert directors name) but if that person fell from that height and grabbed onto that ledge there, their arms would be ripped off', or, 'Yeah, I'm pretty sure that they didn't have the technology of power saws circa 300 BC', then even lousy movies would be much improved, in some cases even watchable. A good example of this is the movie Van Helsing. While this movie has many, many problems, (for one thing the actor playing Dracula - I have nothing against him, it's not his fault - has all the charisma of a turd that someone forgot to flush) it could have been made into a REASONABLE movie, instead of the gigantic mess that it is. Take out the stupid autocrossbow (which I'm pretty sure the crafting of which would be implausible even for modern engineers with modern tools) and the gatling gun and such, and consider things like the fact that vampires can't travel around in daytime (duh) and what you're left with is a movie that sucks only because of bad acting and a bad story line. Still a big improvement from what was put on celluloid.
Anyways, enough for now....