Film: G.I. Joe

Gi_joe_poster

I wasn't 100% percent sure about this movie until half way through it. That is when the Joes chased the Cobra operatives through the streets of Paris. That chase scene is so over-the-top absurd that it approached awesome. Seriously, SUV's that would make James Bond drool being attacked by a ninja wielding swords and a gun being chase by two guys running in Iron Man-esque suits that give them Spider-Man like abilities. That is totally silly and, therefore, a lot of fun.

G.I. Joe is not a great movie. You can argue that it isn't even a good movie. But it is entertaining, that's for sure. But the film does try to be anything else but a pleasant diversion.

This is not a subtle, nuanced film. It works in wide brush strokes and familiar tropes--the star-crossed lovers, the man looking for vengeance for his slain father figure, the cocky hero who can pretty much do anything, the comic relief sidekick.

The better actors in the cast know what they're dealing with and relax and ham it up. The lesser actors in the cast also relax and do the best job they can.

This is a mindless fun type of movie. If you are looking for a weighty film that you can dissect, examine and look for metaphor in, you will be disappointed. There are holes in this film that you can drive a Mack Truck through. But if you are looking for a fun action movie that you do not have to think for, then this is a good choice.  

 

Return of the Attack of the Friendster Spammers.

Sorry about not posting that often. Something has come up in my life that has occupied most of my time. I'll tell you about it in a future blog post.

But in the last few week, I have gotten an upswing in Friendster spam, from hoochies (or rather, the porn sites that employ them) trying to pry on my being a lonesome, awkward man (which I am, except I am married and not interested in Internet hoochies). The spammers have upped their game, which doesn't make it any less mock worthy.

The first spam message came from a "woman" named "Jaqueline" (note the name):

Hi, I'm Dani! I'm short and blonde and covered in piercings lol. Music and art is a huge part of who i am and I live for creative expression . I'm a rockstar on the outside and a hippie at heart. My friends would describe me as cute and loveable [LINK REDACTED] , and pretty darn freaky.

• First off, lonely, horny men are gullible, not stupid. When the name in the first sentence doesn't match the one on the profile, you have lost about 90% of your target demographic. Why even include a name if you are not going to make sure they match up!?! 
• Needless to say, the picture attached to the message shows a brunette woman with nary a piercing. As a matter of fact, the same picture was used in two other Spam e-mails I got this week, C'mon, spammers! Put some effort into it!
• Interesting that they kept it mostly clean until the very end, and even then it is not as bad as it could be.
• Yet, the whole message is her talking about herself with no provocation. Lonely men would even think this is a bit odd.
• And love how the link just comes with warning or no information what it is. Subtle.  

Second spam, from a "woman" named "Annemarie".

I've been married for a while now and the magic just doesn't seem to be there anymore lol. I would love to feel like I am lusted after again. I want a man who is going to lust after me all the time. I've been a very bad girl, I think you should spank me ... Please. I am very real, so please be real too! I have to tell you I've gotten very hot just writing this [LINK REDACTED], so please don't keep me waiting.

• That LOL at the end of the first sentence really sells the heartbreak of Annemarie's situation, doesn't it?
• Annemarie is big into lust, isn't she?
• Spanking? Very cheeky!
• Ah, the old "I'm Real so you be real" trick. It would be more effective if you didn't have the same photo as the message before and after you (and another one changed their photo to the same one so there is four different spam e-mails with the same picture. Do they ever get any business?)
• Yes, that's the kind of woman I want. One who gets hot by telling me how bad their marriage is.

Third spam, from a "woman" named "Alisa":

Ok people here goes, twenty five tight girl desperately wants plain fellow to engage in great gushing sex ^o^. Looking for a fun guy or couple to play with. I am not looking for a relationship. You must be willing to have an e-mail [LINK REDACTED], IM, phone relationship for a short time before I will meet you in person . I will respond to the emails with pictures of myself.

• Now, this is brilliant. Gets right to the point. Uses both the word "tight" and "gushing" in the same sentence. Willing to accept couples.Doesn't want a relationship. Offers the possibility for a face to face meeting.
• Too bad it has the same photo as the other e-mails. Kinda spoils the illusion right there.
• And I'm sure the picture she sends will be of herself. They'll probably not all be of the same woman.  Or of women.

Fourth spam, from "Colette":

I love the rain. I enjoy going to school ^o^. I enjoy speding time with my family and also going out with friends. Im going to school to be a chartered accountant . I want to start my own accounting office. Im in a relationship but we are looking for some fun to spice up our relationship [LINK REDACTED]

• Really, too much information. I doubt anyone said "wow, I have a fantasy about having anonymous internet sex with a chartered accountant. Who likes the rain."
• I guess the "I'm in a relationship" line was included to enhance the realism, but if this worked at all, I'd think you'd lose a bunch of your prospective clients right there.

Fifth Spam, from "Rebecca":

[LINK REDACTED] is an adult live site :p very nice :p If you are disgusted with the contents of this ..:p Please do not click on it ' and am sorry to disturb you

 

• Kudos for coming right out and saying what you are offering. I feel respected. You aren't trying to trick me with a crafty ruse. I might just click on your site if I had a scintilla of interest in that sort of thing.
• Point also to having a different picture than the rest of the spam e-mails. I like attention to details. It shows job enjoyment to me. 

And as a special bonus, two from April. Both with a subject of "Dear Friend, william Gatevackes,I Need you help!" The first from a "Devon".

hey! can i get your mailing address from ya? i've got something to send you :) [LINK REDACTED]

• Actually, it's "I Need Your Help". I make the same mistake all the time. 
• "Wait a minute, I don't know an Devo...she wants to send me presents? Let me click right away!" 

And from am "Evie":

Thanks! how are you all? [LINK REDACTED] Brody has surgery tomorrow

• I wish I could have been at the brainstorming session at spam central the day this one was sent out; SPAM BOSS: "Business is down and we need to step up or game. Think! What are some reasons that people send e-mails? SPAM WORKER 1: "To Thank people for stuff?" SPAM WORKER 2: "To ask how people are?" SPAM WORKER 3: "Inform them that someone they know is having surgery?" SPAM BOSS: "Perfect. Put all of those in an e-mail and send it out to every fat, ugly man on Friendster."
• I can't figure out if "you all" is refering to my family or just a failed attempt at that Southern colloquialism, "Y'all"
• And Really, is Brody that popular a name that these spammers would believe that every one in the world would know at least one? Really?

Book: Thirty-Nine Years of Short-Term Memory Loss by Tom Davis

39 Years of Short-Term Memory Loss: The Early Days of SNL from Someone Who Was There

Tom Davis

I am a huge fan of Saturday Night Live, especially the early days, so I eat up anything to do with that era of the show. This autobiography falls into that category.

Tom Davis, as few of you may know, was part of the comedy team "Franken and Davis" with current Minnesota Senator Al Franken. Both became writers on the first five years of SNL and were also featured performers during that time as well. They also came back for a second stint in the 80s-90s.

This autobiography is unlike any that I have ever read. It reads less as a form of narrative than Davis presenting the facts of his life as he thinks of them. He jumps back and forth in time at will where most writers of memoirs would present the facts in strict chronological order.

This gives the book the feel that you are sitting with Davis somewhere and having a conversation with him.

Davis has had an interesting life outside of SNL. The book details his friendship with the Grateful Dead and Timothy Leary, a trip to India, several run ins with the Rolling Stones. There are enough anecdotes in his life that he could fill seven books.

Davis is also an excellent writer. The first mention of John Belushi's death in book is so poignant and moving that you can't help but be affected by Davis' words.

If you are a fan of the early days of SNL, then this book is a must have. He might not have been a break out star on the show, but he lived one hell of an interesting life.

Film: UP

Disney-pixar-up-movie-poster-2

There is a 5 to 10 minute span at the beginning of this movie where the brilliance of Pixar and the filmmakers really shine through. They show us the life of the main character, Carl Fredricksen, from a child to an elderly man. The filmmakers show us how he became the man he is--his loves, his fears, and the tragedies he lived through. This segment is both funny and sad, heart warming and heart breaking. You could give other artists 3 hours of film time and you wouldn't get the same kind of character portrait you get here. And the boys at Pixar did it all in 10 minutes--with no dialogue and no narration. That was just brilliant.

It's bravura film making. That scene alone should qualify UP for an Oscar. And not an animation Oscar, a real, honest to god, given out at the end of the show Best Picture Oscar.

The story is about dreams and the pursuit of them. This plays out in many forms. About how you shouldn't delay in chasing after the dream. That no dream in impossible or unattainable. But, also, the difference between showing determination and obssession in the pursuit.

This being said, the filmmaker create a world of magic and wonder. It is a world where the implausible becomes the reality.Where imagination is key. Yes, you could go through the entire movie and pinpoint all the things that can conceivably happen, but you won't want to. You'll want to be swept up in the fantasy.

The script and plot is intelligent and engaging. There is a lot going on in this story, and where it goes is imaginative and unlike anything else you'll see this year.

UP is a great movie. I saw it almost 12 hours ago and I still smile when I remember seeing it. It's just perfect.  

 

This is Awesome!!!!!

V - Upfront Trailer

I was a major fan of the original V miniseries, and I have to say, I was a bit pessimistic when I hear that they were remaking it into a new series. But this trailer really changed my mind. It gave me goosebumps!!!! And it's good to see Inara from Firefly getting more work!

Movie: Star Trek

Star_trek_movie_poster_imax

A film reviewer friend of mine said that this movie "was not your father's Star Trek." That is 100% accurate. But it knows your father's Star Trek, realizes how many people like your father's Star Trek, and updates your father's Star Trek with this in mind so it does it without diminishing your father's Star Trek.

For me, as good as they got, the previous Star Trek films seemed to be big-budget, much longer episodes of the TV series. This is the first that feels like a film first, franchise extension second.

You opinion of the film should be determined with in the first half hour. The wife and I were moved to tears. This could probably be due to where we are in our lives right now, but it could also be due to the skill of the filmmakers.

This is a more viseral film than a cerebral one. The emphasis is more on action that the contemplation of weighty issues. But it is a movie, not an episodic TV show. It is a different animal.

Granted, this script isn't King Lear. It manages to be complex (as plots involving time travel usually are) yet simplistic (if you've seen a movie before, you'll be able to predict events before they happen), but it works.

This film moves along quickly and is never boring. Even with the exposition laden scenes, which are a necessity considering the plot, come across as unique and entertaining.

There are nods to fans of the original series. There is a reference to a plot point in the film which should allievate any long-time fans concern about the changes to the mythology. This is not a prequel to the TV series, but rather, a sequel to the other movies.

But you still have taglines and references from the original series thrown in to please fans.  

The acting is uniformly awesome. Each actor comes to inhabit the iconic roles they were given. Especially Chris Pine. His Kirk isn't a smooth or polished Shatner-ish Kirk (until the last few frames) but rather a younger, rougher Shatner Kirk. You believe this is the man who will become the hero of the Enterprise. And Karl Urban does well at channelling not only DeForrest Kelley's cantankerous McCoy but also the kind and human McCoy as well.

The film beefs up Sulu, Uhura, and Chekov, giving each of them moments in the sun. The only bad thing about this is that it takes away moments from Bones and Scotty, which is regrettable.  

This is not to say the film does not have its flaws. The predictability is an issue. And the reliance on slapstick is very disconcerting. The goofy chase scenes and other physical comedy breaks the narrative flow. And there are plot elements that are essentially MacGuffins which are never explained (Red Matter? What is Red Matter?) 

Some people criticize the film as being an ipso facto remake of Star Wars. And I'll admit, when Kirk was fighting that weird animal on the ice planet, I was expecting him to whip a lightsaber out of his boot. But I think the similarites is that both films are sci-fi actioners more than a deliberate attempt of mockery.

However, this isn't a deep film. The creators are actively moving away from that. But if you want a fun, popcorn summer flick, then you should be entertained by this film.  

Movie: X-Men Origins: Wolverine

New-wolverine-movie-poster_404x606

If I had to sum up my feelings about X-Men Origins Wolverine in one word, that word would be "meh". It more disappointing than downright bad.

The film is a brand extension for the X-Men franchise starring Hugh Jackman's Wolverine (I know, weren't the last three Wolverine movies too? Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk). It focuses on his history prior to joining the X-Men.

There is an artistic quality to the work that prevents it from being entirely awful. Gavin Hood has enough skill to shoot a good movie. Yet, there is a major problem of tonal changes through out. There is the Matrix-like beginning, then it shifts to more of a 1970s Clint Eastwood kind of flick, they it apes the look and style of the rest of the X-Men franchise. This results in a choppy viewing experience.

And the plot is lacking. It features two of the most annoying qualities any script can have--not explaining things properly (why did Stryker want to bond adamantium to Logan anyway?) and characters acting like idiots just to move the plot along (Gambit attacks Wolvie for no good reason right before he was going to take care of Sabretooth once and for all, conveniently allowing Sabretooth to escape).

The most annoying quailty of this film is the change in the character. In the other X-Men movies, Wolverine had the Han Solo-esque quality of being a bad man who does good things. Here, he's a good man who occassionally does bad things. You might not think that is much of a difference, but it is and it severely handicaps the character.

There are a lot of comic book characters appearing in this movie for the first time. The filmmakers do a good job of giving them all a reason for being there and not just shoving them in. This doesn't mean that they are not underused. But at least they have a plot worthy reason for being included.

The action scenes are good, inventive and exciting. And, for the most part, the acting is top notch. There are nods to a lot of the elements of the comic book history thrown in. And the plot does a good job of lining up the arrows with the rest of the franchise. This film ends about 20 years before X-Men, and does nothing to contradict that story.  

I guess you could enjoy this film if you put aside the flaws and just don't think too much about it. But it definitely could be better.

Oh Noes!!!!

Madden-cover

So, Troy Polamalu is on the cover of Madden 2010, effectively ruining the Steelers chance of a Super Bowl repeat. Yeah, I believe in the Madden Curse.

Movie Review: Watchmen

Copy of SecondWatchmenteaser

I've decided to give this review a couple days to let myself think about the movie. I saw the film on Friday, but I needed to get my thoughts in order. And I have decided I am totally bipolar about this movie.

As a comic fan, how can I not be impressed by the faithfulness of the film? Yet, as a movie fan, I found it lacking. It's a movie that what it got right, it got so perfectly right, that I can never hate it. But it's flaws are so damning that I can't love it.

Let's start with the good. The movie is not 100% faithful to the book. There's stuff added, stuff left out, and things changed. But this is as close to an exact copy we are going to get outside of the motion comic. Lines of dialog are taken directly from Alan Moore script, and scenes look like they stepped out of Dave Gibbons artwork.

You can see love and care in these moments. They almost glorify the original work, and the film does well capturing the mood of the graphic novel at these times.

The acting, with one major exception, is amazing, especially Jackie Earle Haley. He does an excellent job acting, both inside and out of the mask. He captures Rorschach perfectly.

Also great are Billy Crudup and Patrick Wilson as Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan and Dan Dreiberg respectively. They have a tough job, as they are the most subdued roles in the film, but they bring humanity and consistency to the portrayals. They might not get as much attention as the showier parts, but the excelled in what they did.

It should come as a surprise to no one that the ending was changed. However, and I might be going out on a limb here, I think the film ending works better than the comic version. It's the same style of Deus Ex Machina, but it makes more sense from a plot perspective. It is more tied into the narrative and makes more sense. The only qualm I have in it is who they use as a scapegoat, but even that makes a certain amount of sense.

Of course, since the ending is changed,, there needed to be scenes added to set up this new ending. This is where my criticisms come in. While they took such great care in transferring Moore's words to the screen, they didn't take as much care in making sure the new scenes matched in style, tone or timbre. The result is a jarring break from the action, it's like someone putting product placement in Hamlet.

HAMLET: Alas, poor Yorick! I knew him, Horatio, a fellow of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy. He...

HORATIO: Yo, Hamslice, you gonna be long? I gots me a hankerin to make a run for the border!

HAMLET: Yo quiero Taco Bell?

HORATIO: Yo definitely quiero Taco Bell. You up for it?

HAMLET: Mos def!

Cut to interior if the Elsinore Taco Bell.

HAMLET: These Cheesy Gorditas are off the hook!. Now, where was I? Oh, yeah, Yorick. He hath bore me on his back a thousand times...

The only way they could have made the fact it was added more glaringly obvious is if they used a siren and a red flashing light to alert us.

But the difference in tone isn't the only thing that is jarring. You can see the hands of studio executives. who, after reading the graphic novel, were disappointed in the minimal level of sex and violence. They got  a hold of Snyder and made him amp both up.

The result is what was a scuffle in the book became an all-out fight scene in the movie. And what was a fight scene became a festival of bloody, slow motion bone-breaking where even the non-powered cast members had the ability to atomize bricks by just punching them.

And the gore quotient is raised considerably. This is not a film for the squemish. Dr. Manhattan, who's comic book move was exploding people's heads, just wasn't gross enough, I guess. Now he explodes the entire body, leaving the people next to the victim, and the walls, and the ceiling, covered in blood and offal.

And then there's the sex scene, where the movie exchanges reels with its soft core porn ripoff, "Crotchmen". The scene goes on too long, and is an uncomfortably awkward break in the narrative. I'm no prude, but the scene just didn't work from a character perspective. And a note to Snyder, the scene in the comic when the couple accidentally hits the flame thrower is meant to be a metaphor for the orgasm. It becomes pointless when you show Malik Ackerman going through the throws of the orgasm right before it.

These breaks make the Watchmen, purely as a film, kind of bad. Add to that the only back story Ozymandias gets is a 20 minute monologue (which, we all know, if exposition or a character motivation is delivered in a 20 minute monologue, that's bad writing) and that Malin Ackerman is woefully miscast and completely one note throughout the movie (meaning her acting stays the same whether she is angry, sad, happy, flirtatious, or bored), and you have some seriously negative strikes against it as a movie.

But the good part were so good, it acted as a balance to the bad. It could have been much better, great even, but as it is, it is only good--and lucky to be considered that.

Attack of the Friendster Spammers!!!!

I have a Friendster account I never use. Back when social networking was new, yes, I was active on Friendster. Then I moved to MySpace and then to Facebook. But, now I hardly ever look at Friendster (or MySpace for that matter).

But the one charming aspect of Friendster is that their spam stoppers aren't as good MySpace or Facebook. So, in other words I get the occasional spam message from porn sites trying to trick me into visiting them.

And by charming I mean like a four-year old tying to pick up a barbell. I know that it will never work, but that doesn't stop them from trying.

Over the last few weeks, I got four messages from these spammers. Since I haven't posted here in a while, I thought a post mocking them would be an easy way to add content.

 

Here we go:

FIRST SPAM:

From: Pauline

MISTAKE #1: If you are trying to trick someone in to thinking this message was from someone they know, pick a common first name. Pauline isn't all that common. As a matter of fact, I don't think in all of my 37 years have I ever met a Pauline.

Subject: Are you ok? william Gatevackes

MISTAKE #2: Through a dunderheaded blunder, I forgot to capitalize the "w" in William when I made my Friendster. However, this has come in handy, because it automatically lets me know that this is just a spammer who copied my name off of Friendster's list.

MISTAKE #3: Outside of the strictest ironical sense, when do you ever refer to your friends by their full name?

MISTAKE #4: That's pretty wonky grammar there, isn't it?

Message: How long i can't see you? Are you ok? And then a link to a website called Adult Date Action.

MISTAKE #5: "How long i can't see you?" How. long. i (not lack of capitalization). can't. see. you. Even robots are smarter than the yabbo that wrote this line. It makes it sound like Pauline is in prison, which she probably is.  

MISTAKE #6:  I think the meant "How have you been?". "Are you ok?" makes me believe that maybe a nuclear power plant exploded in my back yard and I don't know about it.

MISTAKE #7: Not only is there no lead up to the website link, like "Hey, check out my picture of my cat!," they don't even mask the fact that it is for a porn dating site.

SECOND SPAM:

From: Minnie

MISTAKE #1: Minnie is even more uncommon than Pauline

Subject: Hi, william Gatevackes

MISTAKE #2: Simple, yet the small "w" still got them.

Message: hi i was surfing around profiles for guys near me and i stumbled on your profile. im sure you hear this alot but i think you are pretty cute and i was wondering if you'd want to perhaps get to know me a little bit better?  

MISTAKE #3: Decisive lack of capitalization.

MISTAKE #4: I am not cute. You can't even mistake me for cute.

MISTAKE #5: The biggest one of all. You expect me to believe that you have looked all around Friendster, and the thousands of men on it, and you expect me to believe that you think I'm a catch!?! Um...I'M MARRIED!!! IT SAYS SO ON MY PROFILE!!!! WHERE ANY MORON CAN SEE!!!!

My fear that there are morons out their who would fall for this and have an otherwise good marriage broken up because they decided to chase after a fake hoochie.

THIRD SPAM:

From: Sandi

Subject:Holy sh!t...

Message: i've been getting so many visitors from myspace on {ADULT SITE} here, it's unbelivable...I mean I spend 10 hours a day {ADULT SITE} and I damn like it...you better get your ass there too

MISTAKE #1: This one did pretty good up to the message. I know a few Sandy's, and a couple of them might use a subect line so vulgar. But when you. as a spammer, don't know which social messaging sit you are posting your spanm on, really, you don't deserve to be in the spam business. Where's the pride?

MISTAKE #2: And putting the link to the pornsite in twice? Tacky.

FOURTH SPAM:

From: Kami

MISTAKE #1: Unless you are a character in a video game, odds are that you will not know a person named Kami.

Subject: I like your profile.

MISTAKE #2: Flattery will get you nowhere.

Message: you like mine? I bet you like my pics :)..well don't bother with compliments,I get enough already. You can get your ass over [ADULT SITE} at my favorite place to hang out on the internet.  

MISTAKE #3: Bold choice, thinking lonely guys would like to look at pictures of an arrogant asshole, but doesn't really work with me.