Political correctness is not the reason for the season

I know this is an ages-old argument, but I really feel like I need to put in my two cents about "political correctness" around the holidays.

I'm back as a cashier at Stop & Shop for Christmas break this year, and as someone who works with customers all day, I'm almost obliged to wish them some sort of goodwill for the holiday season on their way out. And it got me thinking.

As you walk around almost any store, you'll definitely notice that the words "Christmas" "Hanukkah" or "Kwanzaa" appear far less than you would think. That's because the over-indulgent consumerist honchos that own all these major companies seem to be too scared to offend anybody, and instead stick everything that everybody is celebrating at the time under one, totally impersonal umbrella greeting, "Happy Holidays".

But really, how could you get more blatantly impersonal than wishing everyone who walks by you "Happy Holidays"? That's like wishing someone a great "existence". No other phrase could more accurately depict the consumerist focus of our holiday season than "Happy Holidays". It just shows that you obviously don't give a damn what holiday someone celebrates, and you're too impersonal to offer someone any insight as to what exactly you celebrate at this time of the year.

I don't celebrate "Holiday". "Holiday" to me means some sort of time off from work--a break or a vacation. While this may be true, it completely disregards the meaning of the season and why exactly I celebrate Christmas. Christmas to me is not just time off from school--it's a time to see family I don't see very often, a time to give presents to show our appreciation for each other, a time of remembering past traditions, and most importantly, a time to celebrate one of the most important events in human history--the birth of Jesus Christ. Calling all of this just a "holiday" seems a bit unfair right?

I would rather wish someone a "Merry Christmas" and have them correct me, saying for instance that they're Jewish and celebrate Hanukkah. Because at least at that point you've gained some deeper knowledge of the person and had a somewhat meaningful discourse rather than just some words that you throw at them on the way out the door that have little meaning for either you or them.

And most importantly, by saying "Merry Christmas" or "Happy Hanukah" or "Happy Kwanzaa" you have revealed something deeper about yourself--that you are a Christian and celebrate Christmas, or you are Jewish and celebrate Hanukah, or you are African and celebrate Kwanzaa. It shows that you understand that there is some deeper meaning of the time of the year other than just buying stuff for people. I believe that Christmas, Hanukah, and Kwanzaa share a similar spirit--that of being personal with those around you. Cheap, meaningless phrases like "Happy Holidays" do not adhere to the deeper meaning of any of these three celebrations, and the umbrella term of "Happy Holidays" just shows that this time of year means nothing more than the commercialism surrounding it.

Been a long time--AVATAR review

Okay guys, I'm super sorry for not updating my blog since September--the school year's been pretty crazy and I just never really got around to it. So I figured that now that Christmas break has started, I can kick things back into gear with a good ole movie review of a movie I saw at midnight last night. Ladies and gentlemen: my review of James Cameron's AVATAR.

First, a clarification: this movie is NOT...I repeat NOT based on the Nickelodeon cartoon of the same name. There is in fact a movie coming next year out based on the Nickelodeon cartoon entitled The Last Airbender. But this is entirely different. The original script for this movie was written all the way back in 1994 by writer/director James Cameron, only a few years after his smash hit and action movie revolution film Terminator 2 and only a few years before he created the current box-office record holder Titanic. However, Cameron decided to wait on actually making Avatar, as the budget would have been more than he could afford at the time and he felt that the CGI technology necessary to do the script justice just wasn't there yet. But a couple of years ago, Cameron felt that the time was finally right to make his masterpiece. Using some of the most advanced CGI and 3-D technology seen yet (more on that later), revolutionary filming techniques, and a budget of over $300 million, Cameron has finally brought his dream project to life. So just how good is it?

The answer: simply amazing.

I don't even know where to begin, but I guess I can start talking about the plot. It is certainly a very complex plot that I won't spoil for you, but just to give you the gist of it, Avatar takes place in the year 2154 on the fictional forest planet of Pandora, where an alien race (the Navi) reside. However, humans from the outside world are deeply interested in accessing some sort of extremely valuable mineral located under Pandora's surface, and the Navi living right on top of the largest deposit of the mineral on the entire planet. Using a breakthrough scientific technology, humans have begun creating "Avatars", which are bodies made up of a mix of human and Navi DNA. They have developed a technology that allows humans to actually shift their consciousness into these Avatars, allowing them to live inside these bodies and more easily interact with the natives. The story follows Jake Sully (Sam Worthington), an ex-U.S. Marine, who is assigned to become one of these Avatars and go into the dense forests of Pandora in order to discover what it will take to get the natives to relocate so the humans can access the mineral deposit. However, not everyone agrees with the science community's diplomatic policy: the Military, led by Colonel Miles Quaritch (Stephen Lang), is all in favor of simply wiping out the Navi in order to gain access to the deposit. Without giving too much away, Jake Sully, as an Avatar, is in a race against time to fulfill his mission for the humans, but on the way discovers new things about the Navi, the forests of Pandora, and himself.

It really is an incredible story and is done extremely remarkably. It has close ties to stories we've all heard before, including everything from Pocahontas to the U.S.'s westward expansion to the Iraq War. And it's really one of the only thing that you can fault this movie for: the simple fact that we have heard this story a million times before and it is fairly predictable. But it's really hard to not like the movie because of this fact, as the story is so incredibly timeless and relevant to us today. Though the movie has an obvious bias, it never feels like it gets too preachy, and it really does hold your interest the whole way through, even if you can probably guess what is going to happen.

Now let's talk about visuals. This certainly isn't a movie that you can just brush off the visuals on; the visuals are a MAJOR component of the movie. It's so easy to see why such an incredibly high budget was needed to make this movie. The CGI (Computer Generated Imagery) is easily the most advanced seen in a movie yet. The entirely CGI jungles of Pandora are so incredibly lush and lifelike you'd swear it was a real place (that is, perhaps until you witness the awe that is Pandora's floating mountain range). But where the movie really makes HUGE leaps is with the entirely CGI Navi and Avatar characters. The creatures are so lifelike, their expressions so accurately portraying every last drop of human emotion, that it's hard not to think that these creatures really exist. The way they move and act doesn't look so obviously fake like the billions and billions of other CGI creatures out there. This is the leap that CGI in movies has so desperately needed since it began being used in the mid-90s. We're going to look back and laugh at the so obviously fake CGI that existed prior to this movie. It's really no surprise that such a leap came from James Cameron--after all, the T-1000's morphing ability in Terminator 2 was one of the first major examples of CGI used in movies.

And after seeing Avatar in 3-D, I'm totally convinced that it's the ONLY way to truly experience this film. As one of the first feature films to be fully FILMED in 3-D using special cameras that actually capture depth, it really really delivers. This definitely isn't the gimmicky 3-D where it's blatantly obvious that many shots were catered to making you go "woah!" when you see it in 3-D. Cameron just tells the film the way it should be told, and uses the 3-D effect to greatly enhance it. It really makes it feel more like you're looking out a window into the vast Pandora forest rather than simply viewing it on a flat movie screen. The depth provided by the 3-D is simply stunning. The movie really comes alive in 3-D, and working together with the incredible CGI effects, really transports you into the world of Pandora. I honestly think I would be really disappointed viewing the movie in normal 2-D now that I've seen all three dimensions of it.

The acting is all top notch too. Worthington's character is a really likable guy, and you can really see and entirely understand the conflict he's going through. The villain is also someone that you really really hate by the end of the movie. All of the other actors, including the voice acting and motion capture work done for the Avatars and Navi, is all absolutely top notch.

Overall, Avatar really is a spectacular movie. I really feel like this movie is very comparable to Cameron's original Terminator: a plot that isn't entirely original, yet it just works so well because of the incredible new take on it, combined with some fantastic visual effects. Cameron has already stated that he plans on making sequels if the movie does well in the box office, and it's really one of those movies that I would be totally okay with there being a sequel for. If Cameron DOES make a sequel, I really hopes he does what he did with Terminator 2 and create a sequel that combines an entirely original concept to all of the amazing things done in the first movie to create a movie that will be the standard to which every other movie in the genre is held up to. But for now we have Avatar, which is an absolutely incredible movie in it's own right that may not completely change the way in which movies are written, but will most certainly change the way in which they are presented.

I give it 4.5/5 stars.

Movie Review: Inglorious Bastards

So tonight me and my friends decided to go see a movie.  We were tossed up between two movies:  Inglorious Bastards, which I hadn't seen yet, and District 9, which judging from my review, I really liked.  We decided on Inglorious Bastards.  Let's just say I wish I saw District 9 again.

Inglorious Bastards is definitely not a bad movie in the traditional sense of a bad movie.  The characters are interesting, the actors are great, and the idea definitely has solid background.  But the style of the movie and scenes are just so all over the place that what could've been a great idea is just made into a boring mess of a movie.  

By far the biggest problem with this movie is that it has a SEVERE case of identity crisis.  Before I walked into the theater, I was expecting a comedy.  I sat down expecting to laugh, and was completely thrown off by the horribly tragic first scene, in which a tiny little farmhouse in Nazi-occupied France is visited by Nazi officers because of suspicions of a family of Jews hiding out there.  It's not that the scene isn't well done--the dialogue and acting are all spot on, and it's actually builds up quite a lot of tension.  It's just the furthest thing from funny; not in one of those "all the jokes are falling flat" type of way, but because this scene is supposed to be completely serious.  Then the next scene takes us to Brad Pitt making a bunch of dumb jokes as Lt. Aldo Raine, who is leading a group of vigilante American officers in France who are out to kill and scalp the Nazis.  Then it goes back to a more serious drama about one of the girls who escaped the Nazi attack in the first scene and is trying to rebuild her life as a French citizen.  The movie just can't decide what it wants to be.  There are way too many scenes when I was trying to figure out if I should be laughing or not.  Some scenes are dead serious, some are totally comedic, and some are a poor hybrid of both.  I just didn't know what to make of it.

"Inglorious Bastards" is kind of a misleading title, because we only actually see the Inglorious Bastards and their associates for less than half the movie.  There are two major plot lines that run throughout the movie and meet at the end.  The first is about Lt. Raine and his group of Inglorious Bastards bent on the killing and scalping of Nazis.  The other is a drama about the girl who escaped in the first scene, who has just been put in charge of premiering a new Nazi propaganda film at her cinema.  But this isn't one of those movies that cuts back and forth between the two story lines.  Instead, it gives us these two stories in huge chunks.  It'll spend a half hour or so on one story, then a half hour or so on the other, and it goes back and forth until they eventually meet at the end.  However, the movie focuses so much on one story that you almost completely forget that the other even exists until it comes back to it again.  Also, both stories are filled with so many ridiculously boring dialogue scenes that just feel completely unnecessary or dragged out far beyond what they need to be.  And like I said, it's not that the characters aren't interesting, it's just that there are so many scenes that just feel so unneeded.  

However, the final scene (the last 20 or so minutes of the film) is so wonderfully paced and plotted that you almost forget about the messy bore that was the rest of the movie.  ALMOST.  The last scene really leaves you wishing that the entire movie was like this.  Unlike the rest of the movie, the last scene is great at mixing both humor, seriousness, and suspense.  I almost wish that I had just walked into the movie at the beginning of this scene--I would've liked the movie much more.  As it stands though, a great ending cannot make up for the fact that the rest of the movie was so poorly paced and edited.

In the end, Inglorious Bastards is a two and a half hour mishmash of a movie that easily could've been condensed into an hour and a half or shorter movie that was either a comedy or a serious drama loosely based on historical events.  You just can't go from scenes showing Nazis graphically butchering Jews to Brad Pitt acting like an idiot.  It's a shame too, because the very interesting characters and great acting in the movie had so much potential.

I give it 2/5 stars.

And if you want to see a good movie about the events of World War II that can blend humor and seriousness, look no further than the 1997 movie "Life Is Beautiful". 

Movie Review: District 9

District 9 is for us today what movies such as "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" and "The Day the Earth Stood Still" were for the 1950s.  Like those movies, "District 9" unquestionably a social commentary, and it does a fantastic job of driving the point home and giving us a great movie experience at the same time.

The movie feels like it's really divided into two parts.  The first half is done in an extremely convincing mockumentary style.  While many other movies in the science fiction genre may have done something like this, not too many have really dedicated this much time to it. *Minor spoilers--but nothing not shown in the trailer*  The mockumentary explains how, in the early 1980s, an alien mothership from an unknown planet came to a stop over a South African city.  Humans waited for months for the alien invasion to occur, but nothing happened.  Finally they decided to break into the mothership, and what they found were tons of freezing, starving aliens.  The aliens were taken and put into an internment camp (District 9--basically an alien slum) where they were treated very poorly and hated by humans.  The company Multi-National United (MNU) was put in charge of the aliens.  The mockumentary follows MNU field operative Wikus van der Merwe, almost thirty years after the aliens first arrived, as he attempts to get the aliens in the internment camp to sign an eviction notice in attempts to move them to another camp away from the city population, District 10.  While on this mission, he discovers an alien chemical tube which he accidentally sprays himself with.  The contents of the tube...well you're just going to have to see the movie to find out...

The documentary-style film done in the first half of the movie is extremely convincing, with nice shaky amateur camera work from the cameraman following van der Merwe, and other visual sources (including security cameras and home movies).  They also include numerous interviews with different people involved with the alien internment, which really brings the documentary to life.  It's all very convincing, and doesn't make the alien internment seem far fetched at all.  The social commentary about real life slums and the treatment of people in them is always clear without being too over-the-top.  The acting is all top notch, even if all of the actors are relatively unknown.  The entirely CGI aliens are also very believable, and the movie does a good job of making them feel almost human.  On a side note, Star Wars fans like myself will be quick to notice the erie similarities between the alien race from District 9 and the Geonosian race from Star Wars Episodes II and III, not only in the way they look, but also in their language and speech (Coincidence?  Or is George Lucas pulling strings around the science fiction genre?  You be the judge). 

The movie takes a sharp and fairly unexpected turn towards the second half, from sci-fi mockumentary to sci-fi action movie.  I was admittedly very nervous when I realized that the movie was going in this direction, as this could have easily completely ruined the awesome setup of the first half of the film.  Luckily, I was not in the least disappointed.  I can't say too much about it without some major plot spoilers, but I will say that the action is absolutely top notch and always intense.  These are action scenes that make you sit up and pay attention, not lean back and sleep.  It is also perfectly paced, as not one action scene drags on so long that it gets boring, unlike the CGI noisefest from earlier in the summer that was Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen.  I wouldn't believe I would be making this comparison before I saw the movie, but I actually think that District 9 succeeds more as an action movie than Transformers, and District 9 has so much more going for it outside of the action.

This is one of those movies that's really hard to say a lot about without spoiling the plot, which is probably the main reason why I found that most people really had no idea what the movie was about before walking into the theater.  But believe me when I say that this movie has all the makings of a true science fiction classic--social commentary, almost believable plot and characters, and an intense, somewhat disturbing ride the entire way through.  This is unquestionably one of the best, if not THE best movie of the summer, and something that is well worth the price of admission for anyone above 17.  It's thought provoking and mildly disturbing in all the right ways, and delivers a solid action movie on top of all of that.  

I give this 5/5 stars.

Support your local video store!

In the days of ON DEMAND movie rentals, video rental stores seem to have become a thing of the past for a lot of people.  Video rental stores are really hurting with new things like Netflix and ON DEMAND.  I see less and less video stores in my city all the time (only a few years ago there were 4 or 5, and now there is only one).  The point is, video rental stores are dying, and we have to make sure they stay in business.  The selection offered by video rental stores is above and beyond anything ON DEMAND has to offer, especially when you're looking for older movies.  Plus, you get the DVD with special features and can keep the movie longer.  The price is usually about the same too, and most video stores now offer movies both in standard definition and in blu-ray.  And where do all those copies of new movies go when they're not new releases anymore?  They get sold to us a rock bottom prices at the store!  You can't get that anywhere else.  The point is, next time you're about to click "buy now" to rent a movie on your TV, think about how much you already pay to your cable/satellite provider, and consider driving a couple minutes in your car to support a dying industry instead.  

The "Freedom of Choice" Act

Personal freedom and liberty has always been the backbone of what makes America so great.  Patrick Henry's famous words "Give me liberty, or give me death!" are a testament to just how important personal freedom is to Americans.  But exactly how much are we willing to sacrifice for the personal freedom to choose?  

Enter the Freedom of Choice Act, a bill first considered in 1989, newly revised and being considered by many state Congresses across the country, including the Rhode Island Congress.  The Freedom of Choice Act would lift pretty much all state and federal restrictions on abortion, including:

- State abortion reporting requirements in all 50 states 
- Forty-four states’ laws concerning parental involvement 
- Forty states’ laws on restricting later-term abortions 
- Forty-six states’ conscience protection laws for individual health care providers 
- Twenty-seven states’ conscience protection laws for institutions 
- Thirty-eight states’ bans on partial-birth abortions 
- Thirty-three states’ laws on requiring counseling before an abortion 
- Sixteen states’ laws concerning ultrasounds before an abortion 

And one bill is going to overturn all of those laws.  Think about what's going on here.  I know the freedom to choose is incredibly important, but is the freedom to choose really worth so many innocent human lives that don't even have a say in it? 

There are so many laws in this country protecting the freedom of life.  There's laws against homicide, abuse, suicide,  etc.  So why are there no laws protecting human life inside the womb?  How is it that a human life inside the womb is worth less than a human life outside the womb?  Many would argue that a fetus inside the womb isn't technically a life at all.  Science seems to think otherwise:

"There is no more pivotal moment in the subsequent growth and development of a human being than when 23 chromosomes of the father join with 23 chromosomes of the mother to form a unique, 46-chromosomed individual, with a gender, who had previously simply not existed."--Dr. Fritz Baumgartner, MD.

Going by this definition of life, it is hypocritical to think that the government should be able to protect life outside the womb, but not be able to interfere with life inside the womb.  How is it worse if a mother kills her child still in the womb versus killing her child while outside the womb?

May argue that a woman should be in charge of her own body.  That's all well and good, but if the thing inside of her is truly another life, than it is no longer her body is it?  Many argue that it's a matter of viability.  Viability is defined as:

"having reached such a stage of development as to be capable of living, under normal conditions, outside the uterus."

A child inside the uterus is completely dependent on the mother for its life.  I get that.  But what's the difference once the child is born?  If you give birth to a child and just leave it somewhere and ignore it, it will still die.  It is still just as "viable" and dependent on the mother as it was when it was inside her.  

And the Freedom of Choice Act would lift so many bans on partial birth abortion.  There are a few ways to perform partial birth abortion, but one common way involves turning a child around inside the mother so it is born feet first.  Because the child is still technically unborn when its head is still inside its mother, they can give birth to the baby up to its neck, and then insert a knife into the back of the baby's skull in order to severe its brain stem and quickly kill it.  The practice is disgusting and barbaric and should not be allowed in a country that holds the right to life so sacred.  But then again, if pregnancy termination is allowed during earlier stages when the fetus (still a life with its entire genetic makeup) what's the difference if it's allowed to be terminated at any stage?  

The Freedom of Choice Act also lifts laws requiring counseling before an abortion.  A decision as big as abortion should not be made alone, and the ability to just walk into a clinic without first talking to anyone about it and considering alternatives is definitely not the right way to go.  In this way, rash decisions that will likely be regretted later will be made.  

I know that was more of a rant against abortion in general, but since this bill pretty much attacks all laws regarding it, there's really no other way to address it.  Feel free to post your opinions on the topic.

"Holy Matrimony"

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote an article about my feelings on the legalization of same sex marriage from a very secular perspective.  Now I'm going to look at marriage from a much less political perspective.  I just finished reading an article by Diocese of Providence Bishop Thomas J. Tobin.  In this article, he takes a look at how religious marriages are viewed by our modern secular society.  The article can be found here (the rest of this is just going to be my thoughts on the article, so I would read it if I were you):

http://thericatholic.com/news/detail.html?sub_id=2350

I really think that Bishop Tobin brings up some fantastic points about marriage today.  Marriage today is a hollow shell of what it was intended to be.  Instead of marriage being the start of a fully committed bond between two people, marriage is just seen as an ages-old ceremony that you go through with the person you probably want to live with and have sex with for a long period of time.  "Till death do us part" has little to no meaning anymore as the divorce rate in the country, even among religious marriages, is in the 50% ballpark.  People do not see marriage for what it truly is: an undying commitment to your spouse, with an emphasis on commitment.  It's not a business deal, and it's not a sex permit.  It's a commitment that you make to someone in which you promise that you'll always be looking out for nothing but the best for them for the rest of your days.  It's a promise that you will help them live out their lives to be the best that they can be.  Just as priests take a vocation to their Church, a bride or groom takes a vocation to their spouse.  

The first, and I think biggest problem that the Bishop proposes is the fact that a huge number of couples live together and have sexual relations before marriage.  This already shows a complete misunderstanding of the marriage vow.  I'm sure that somewhere down the line, I'm going to write an article about my views on sex, but for now, I will say that in order to understand the commitment made in marriage, one has to understand that sex is something that should only be done within the boundaries of a commitment as strong as Holy Matrimony. Without the understanding of that, Matrimony has already lost most of its meaning.

The bulk of this article seems to focus on how marriages today on trying to be the Princess's enchanted wedding to Prince Charming.  It's a ritual that has lost most of its meaning.  It's all about how the wedding looks, and not at all about what it means.  There are so many Catholics out there who make their Confirmation simply because they "want to get married in a Church".  If that's all you care about in your marriage, than why even bother?  Weddings are so full of things that "have to be done".  Why does the bride always have to throw the bouquet?  Why do the bride and groom HAVE to feed each other with their hands and look like idiots?  While I'd argue that these are not bad things in and of themselves, they certainly prevent the wedding to be anything but going through the motions.  

One minor thing I will have to disagree with the Bishop on is his paragraph about how he feels that Catholics should only look to Catholics to date.  While Catholic to Catholic dating is certainly ideal, I do not feel like it is always necessary.  There are great people that can have beliefs that differ from your own.  What I believe is important in inter-faith dating/marriage is your ability to accept each other, and to never give up your beliefs just for the other person.  A strong commitment to God is always more important than pressure put on you by the person that you're dating or are married to.  I understand how having the same faith makes marital decisions much easier, but I think that a person who is committed enough to their faith and an understanding spouse will be able to overcome these obstacles and live out these vocations.

That's all I have to say for now.  Let me know what you think! 

Should Same Sex Marriage be legalized?

Ok, before I start writing, let's get the inevitable personal opinion out of the way:  I believe that marriage is, and always will be: a Holy Sacrament of total commitment made by three persons: a man, a woman, and God.  But my opinion on whether same sex marriage is morally wrong or right is not what this article is about.  This is a look on whether or not same sex marriage should be legalized. 

I view the legalization of same sex marriage as a freedom of religious practice issue.  Amendment 1 of the U.S. Constitution clearly states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Also, the general rule in America is that we have the right to do whatever we want as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others.  Since same sex marriage does not infringe on the rights of others, and is also the exercising of one's personal beliefs, than I see no reason why the government can prohibit same sex couples from getting married.  

Even though I don't believe that a same sex marriage is a true marriage, there's nothing for me to stop people who do and I absolutely understand that.  However, my problem here is that we cannot simply redefine the legal definition of marriage to include members of the same sex.  Because if we can just wake up one morning and change the laws regarding the sex of each member of a legally married couple, why can't we just change the laws regarding, say, the number of people in a single marriage?  If we can change one variable in our definition of marriage (the sex of each member), why can't we also change another equally important variable (the number of people) at the same time?  If we can recognize same sex marriage as a legal form of marriage in this country, than why can't we recognize something like polygamy as a legal form of marriage?  If we can only redefine marriage in regards to the sex of each member, than all we're doing is keeping the same rigidly strict barrier we put on the definition of marriage in the first place and just moving it slightly.  That is still nowhere near true marital freedom, so what's the point of moving it in the first place?

What it all comes down to is this:  can the law define what marriage is or is this something that should be left up to individual belief?  If the law can define marriage, than there's no real reason to change anything, as no change of the definition of marriage will allow for true marital freedom.  If the law shouldn't be defining marriage, than people should be free to define it however they want, and practice it freely just as the constitution intended it.  But the middle ground argument that marriage should be limited to a couple of either homosexual or heterosexual persons really makes no rational sense, as all you would be doing is moving an old barrier and solving nothing in the process.

I know this is extremely controversial, but feel free to post your opinions on it!

Celebrity Deaths

I have no idea what is up this week, but 4 celebrities have died. 

I really don't have a whole lot to say about this, but I just find it weird that four very famous people all die within a week of each other.  Ed McMahon died at 86 on June 23 from a yet unknown "variety of causes", Farrah Fawsett died at 62 on June 25 after a battle with cancer, Michael Jackson died at 50 on June 25 after cardiac arrest (though there is new evidence to suggest that drugs were involved), and Billy Mays died today, June 28 also at 50 years old from what is now believed to be a head injury he sustained when his US Airways flight into Tampa blew out its tires upon landing.  Anyway, my best wishes go out to all the families of these celebrities.  Each of them has left their own legacy that will not be forgotten anytime soon.  

Random Youtube Video time

So all of you know who Billy Mays is, right?  That guy that yells at you to buy things like Oxi Clean, OrangeGlo, and Mighty Putty?  "HI BILLY MAYS HERE!" is how every single one of those commercials start.  Well I've seen the greatest thing ever--Billy Mays Ordering from a Drive Thru at McDonalds.  Check it out:



Also, anyone who has seen "David After Dentist" on Youtube will definitely love this hilarious spoof:



Also there's this really, really funny skit from The Whitest Kids You Know about a sure to be successful advertising campaign:



That's all the random Youtube videos I have for this time. Enjoy!

Movie Review: Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

Warning: Minor Spoilers

Ok so I saw Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen last night at midnight (at least, it was supposed to be midnight, but after the biggest line I've ever seen at a movie theater flooded in and found seats, it was at least 12:30 when the previews started).  And it was epic.

Transformers is one of those franchises that has such a huge following to begin with that a studio could almost slap any piece of crap together and throw it on the screen and make a killing.  But luckily, they didn't choose that route.  Instead, they manage to craft an incredible action movie with breathtaking special effects that should keep both fans and non-fans of Transformers well entertained.  

I'm sure the first thing you're wondering about with the new Transformers is: "How's the action?"  Well, I have to say, it was PHENOMINAL.  This movie seriously blew my expectations away with its intense action scenes.  Some of the action scenes are so well shot, animated, and completely breathtaking that it really has to be seen to be believed.  I know we've seen CGI creatures beating the crap out of each other in like every action movie for years now, but Transformers manages to take the whole thing a step further with some truly incredible blend of live action and CGI.  The shots are also great at showing off exactly how massive these giant alien robots are.  And I'm pretty sure this movie should hold some kind of record for most explosions in a single movie, because during the action scenes (which was about 90% of the film), the explosion average was about one every two seconds.  

As far as plot goes, it is pretty much what you'd expect from a movie like this.  The Decepticons are back and once again hell bent on taking over the Earth, and the Autobots are ready to try to stop them.  Meanwhile, the government is trying to pass a law that would make Autobot presence on Earth illegal, believing that their very presence is why the Decepticons are attacking.  It's all very standard for an action movie like this, and the whole government-making-autobots-illegal thing feels like a watered-down Watchmen ripoff.  But if you're walking into the movie "Transformers" for an excellently-written plot that will emotionally move you, then I'm not sure what rock you've been under for the past 30 or so years.  This movie understands what it should be--an action movie--and doesn't make any huge attempts to change that, which is perfectly fine with me.

But this movie is definitely not without its faults.  First off, this movie, like its prequel, suffers from some of the most badly-written, smack your hand into your forehead "love scenes" this side of Star Wars Episode II (and surprisingly, this wasn't the only similarity to Star Wars this movie had).  I have no idea who the person is who keeps approving of the writing on these scenes, but the dialogue between Shia Leboeuf's character and Megan Fox's character is so disgustingly bad written that it really makes you want to throw up.  Its such an obvious tarnish on this otherwise pretty well-written movie that you almost have to wonder why these scenes ever made the final cut.

Secondly, I will not argue with any man, woman, or child on this planet that Megan Fox is absolutely GORGEOUS.  But as absolutely stunning as she is, I can't help but feeling that a lot of her scenes were just way too over the top sexually explicit, especially for a movie rated PG-13.  For example, the first shot of her in the movie really makes you feel like you accidentally just walked in on her having sex with a motorcycle.  There's also a scene not far after in which she literally strips in front of the camera for no real reason at all.  The movie takes it so far that there's actually a tiny Decepticon robot humping her leg for a good minute near the end of the film.  I know sex sells, but I can't help feeling like some of the writers on this movie were a bunch of college frat guys who made every attempt they could to see Megan Fox in less and less clothes in the most sexual positions possible.  If you just took out every shot in the movie that Megan Fox is not in, you would basically have an hour long Megan Fox porno.  While this might be more acceptable in other movies, I felt this was way too over the top for a PG-13 movie based on a cartoon.

This movie was also really, really long.  I thought the movie was almost over at least four times throughout it, only for it to take another turn that felt like it was just to show the robots beating each other up just a bit longer.  Giant alien robots beating the crap out of each other is undeniably cool, but it's like a magic trick--it's really cool the first few times, but every time you see it after that it gets progressively less cool.  There were so many times during the last 45 or so minutes of this movie where I just wanted to shout "END!  PLEASE!!"  Though I have to admit, the final battle was nothing short of spectacular, but I wish that we had just gotten to it a lot sooner.

But in the end, Transformers is, at its heart, an action movie, and a great one at that.  It also managed to be downright hilarious at times.  It's absolutely a movie worth seeing, but I don't think it's one worth seeing again and again and again.  

I give it 3.7/5 stars (yes, I can give it 3.7 stars)

Anyone else who saw it have any comments?  Do you agree/disagree?  Feel free to post your thoughts under the "Comments" section.

Bringing someone from the past...

Ok now we're getting into the meat of my brain.  This is something that just randomly pops up in my head every once in a while when I see something that would be strange to previous generations:  What would someone in the past think of our present time?  And if we could bring someone from the past, who would we bring?  How would we explain our present customs and the way things we take for granted as everyday objects work?  

To begin with, if we could time travel and bring someone from the past to the present, who would we bring?  To me, that would really depend on what time period we are bringing them from.  If we're talking about anytime after the 1920s, I don't think it would be much of a problem to bring anyone we wanted, because they would probably be able to grasp our consumerist society and rapid growth in technology no problem.  However, before that we would have to be much more selective of who we brought.  We would need to bring a very open-minded person, someone who can accept that the world could have advanced far beyond what they're used to.  If we're talking, say 200 years ago or earlier, we would have to bring an intellectual.  An average person from that far in the past witnessing what our world has become today would probably shock them, and they would be unable to adapt to our society because they do not understand the immense progress we've been through.  However, if we brought an intellectual: someone who would sometimes have thought about where society was going in the future, it would be much easier for them to accept our technological changes and learn to adapt to them because they already have accepted that the world won't stay the same forever.

Now the question is, who would we bring?  I don't know why, but the person that almost always popped into my head was Benjamin Franklin.  I have always wondered what he would have to say about our society today.  He is obviously an intellectual--I don't think anyone who's not extremely wise could have written something like Poor Richard's Almanac, which has proverbs in it that not only applied to Franklin's present time, but to all time.  I just wonder what he would have to say about what our society has become.  Would he approve of our consumerist society?  Would he understand why so many people buy so many things they really don't need?

And what about things we take for granted in our everyday lives?  If I walked into a room and turned on a light switch for example, he would probably be scared shitless, and wonder what is going on.  Could we offer him an explanation of what exactly was happening that satisfied him?  Let's take it a step further.  Supposed we turned on a computer and showed him the internet.  I think the simple fact that we have something that could project thousands of tiny pixels of light would completely surprise and confuse him to no end, never mind the fact that a computer consists of tons and tons of chips that store and read information using electricity and convert it into a visual display for us, or even the fact that every computer in the world is connected together by the internet.  I'm sure he wouldn't understand it, but could he grow to accept it?  Would it scare him?  

And how about our customs?  Could we get him to understand our concept of sanitation?  Could we explain to him that there are billions of tiny little one celled creatures everywhere called germs that can potentially do us harm if we do not control them by keeping clean?  People back then did not take a bath even close to once a day.  Washing up was to remove visible dirt, not germs, which is something that wouldn't be discovered until more than a hundred years later.  Would he understand our strict concerns for sanitation, or would he just not get it?

And what if we were to get someone from say, a thousand years ago?  Two thousand?  How much different would that be?

But all this is obviously just food for thought right now--just something that takes my attention every once in a while when I see how quickly our society grows and changes.  Let me know what you guys think.

Healthcare in the U.S.

Ok, so I've done music and movies, so what's next for my amazing new blog?  Time for politics!  To begin--my thoughts on healthcare and healthcare reform.  

Ok so close to 50 million Americans have no healthcare and are forced to pay for their healthcare out of pocket (or not pay at all if they cannot afford emergency treatment).  That, ladies and gentlemen, is a sin.  You can't put a price on someone's health.  Yes I know it's a capitalist society, and people should make their own money and spend it on health insurance.  But there are too many people in low income jobs that simply cannot afford the added expense of health care.  And, like I said, you can't put a price, or even a capitalist ideology, over someone's health.  So where do we go from there?

There are many different solutions to this problem, with pretty much all involving government intervention.  The first, and seemingly most popular approach around the country right now, is Social Health care.  In a social health care system, the government would provide basic healthcare for each and every citizen of the United States.  I have discovered that there are two ways to approach this.  The first of these would be for the government to offer the ability for a private healthcare company to sponsor the healthcare program in the entire country.  This private healthcare company would be chosen by whichever one can offer the best deal.  The second way of doing this would be to bypass private health insurance companies altogether, and created a government-funded organization, or even an entirely new branch of government ("Department of Healthcare" anyone?) that would completely organize and provide all of the government-funded healthcare.  In both of these scenarios, there would be an option for anyone with the money to opt out of the government-funded system, choosing instead to purchase their own private healthcare.  

This all sounds great on paper.  It would definitely provide the healthcare services we need, and be able to insure the close to 50 million Americans who are currently uninsured.  It would leave no one without healthcare, and hospitals would no longer be forced to suck up the bills of patients who cannot pay.  But there is one major, major flaw with this system.  If we went with the first option, where the government sponsored health insurance is provided by the private insurance company that can give the best deal, a huge monopoly over the insurance industry would be created.  There's no way that any other healthcare provider could compete with a company that provides all of the government sponsored healthcare, and they would all go bankrupt, leaving one health insurance provider.  However,  the second option poses the exact same problem to all of the private health insurance companies, as a government-funded program that provides health insurance would almost certainly force all of the private insurance companies into bankruptcy, leaving the government in complete control of the industry.  With the way our economy is right now, the last thing we need is for some of the biggest businesses in our nation to go under, leaving thousands more unemployed, and hurting both wall street and our economy in general.

However, I believe that there is an option in which we could avoid this horrible inevitability.  I call it the "John McCain option".  Now I only realized how much sense this plan made after the election, but looking back on it, it really makes a lot of sense.  In this plan, the government would provide money to citizens that would have to be put towards health insurance (there could be a points system or something so that people don't go spending the money on other things).  In this option, people can go out and search for the healthcare plan that best fits their needs, and would be able to choose from a variety of companies with a variety of healthcare plans.  This would spread the money across the different private insurance companies, and would restore competition between the companies, in effect keeping their prices down and preventing a monopoly over the industry.  Different amounts of money (or points) could be given to different families depending on their need and current income level.  This option would provide healthcare to all citizens, while keeping these private healthcare providers (and our economy in general) intact.  

And that's my thoughts on healthcare.  Feel free to post your opinions on it under the "comments" section.

First movie review: "This Is Spinal Tap"

Picture this: a movie about a 1980s hair metal band that never existed.  It hits on every hair metal band stereotype:  the sex, drugs, costumes, ridiculous stage props, the makeup, things they put in their pants to enlarge themselves, out of control guitar solos, etc etc.  Now picture that it's filmed in the style of one of those bad TV rockumentaries, with the camera following the bands every single move both onstage and backstage, and camera angles that always seem to be too zoomed in and really poorly focused.  Now picture that the members of this band and the crew that's with them are completely clueless and constantly high, and everything that could go wrong does.  Sounds like a hilarious idea for a movie, right?  There's only two major problems:

It's already been made, and I wasn't laughing.  

Now before you obsessed Spinal Tap fans spam me with all kinds of hate mail, just listen to what I have to say.  "This Is Spinal Tap" seemed like it cared too much about making and authentic-looking rockumentary that it almost seems to forget why it was made in the first place:  to make FUN of rockumentaries.

There are absolutely funny moments in "This Is Spinal Tap".  The discussion about how their amps actually go up to 11 was absolutely priceless.  There's also a really funny scene in which the band can't seem to find the stage their supposed to be performing on.  And you can't forget the discussions about how their drummers keep dying in the most ridiculous ways (most notably spontaneous combustion).  But the biggest problem in this movie is that in between these genuinely funny moments we have to watch scene after scene of stuff that looks like it was literally recorded right off of a VH1 documentary about a real band.  We're forced to watch stage performance after stage performance of rock songs that, with a few exceptions, feel like genuine 1980s hair metal songs.  It's like they geared these sections towards an audience who finds VH1 classic as hilarious and well-written as Monty Python and the Holy Grail.  There's scene after scene of them talking about gigs getting cancelled, scene after scene of them just sitting around their dressing room, and interview after interview with the director in which they just talk about how the band got together and how they're really tight.  While it's all very convincing, its not necessarily funny.

What disappointed me even more is the fact that they saved many pretty funny bits for DURING THE CREDITS.  I think I laughed more in the short interviews during the credits than I did while watching the movie (which really isn't saying much).

Maybe I'm being a bit too hard on Spinal Tap.  After all, it was one of the first ever mock rockumentaries.  Maybe it's just that many more movies and TV shows have improved on this concept of a mockumentary, and watching the first of its kind is like trying to amuse yourself with an hour and a half of Pong in 2009.  Whatever the case, watching "This Is Spinal Tap" today certainly made me question why the film was so raved about upon its initial release in 1984.

I give it 2/5 stars.

And I know people out there will disagree with me.  Feel free to voice your opinions under the "Comments" section.

Nine Reasons Why Classic Rock....ROCKS!

Ok so anyone who knows me knows I LOVE Classic Rock.  Here's my top nine reasons why I think Classic Rock (60s, 70s, and 80s mainstream) is the coolest stuff around:

9) MORE HAIR

Seriously, how can you rock out with short hair?  The Beatles started the long hair rock trend, and rock shouldn't be any other way.  When the hair is flying, you know its rocking.

8) Vocal harmonies

No, I'm not talking about when the Jonas Brothers singing at the same time.  I'm talking about true vocal harmony, when different singers from bands sing very different parts that, put together sounds like angels on Earth.  Bands like The Beatles, Kansas, Boston, and Journey were incredible at this.  When there's more than one great singer in the band, its time to hear em.

7) Choose your rock

It seems today that when we choose what type of rock we listen to, there's only two actual choices:  Alternative or Metal.  So I have to choose between some whiny goth punk and bands that sound like all their instruments (including vocal chords) are made out of dying airplane parts?  Where has pop rock gone?  Where has southern rock gone?  Where has lite rock gone?  Where has our choice in listening style gone?   

6)  Power ballads

There was a time when almost every band had its own power ballad.  REO Speedwagon had "Keep On Loving You", Journey had "Open Arms", Kiss had "Beth", Cheap Trick had "The Flame", Styx had "Babe", Boston had "Amanda", Foreigner had "I Want to Know What Love Is" and the list goes on and on and on.  Sure some were cheesy, but they were all catchy and extremely romantic.  Where have these amazing ballads gone?

5)  Guitar Solos

Rock today is missing out on epic face-melting guitar solos, or solos of any kind for that matter.  Don't worry, the singer won't pass out if he stops singing for more than four measures.  Give that guitarist time to show off his awesome skills!  Cause what rock fan doesn't freak out when they hear the last four minutes of "Free Bird" or Van Halen's "Eruption"?

4) The Beatles

These guys practically invented what we know as rock today.  Its impossible to state the impact that this quartet from Britain has had on rock as we know it today.  They popularized the full length album.  And almost every rock subgenre can trace its roots back to one or more specific Beatles songs.  These guys did it all, and even though they were only together for less than ten years, they made such a big impact on popular music that I don't believe we'll stop feeling their effect any time soon.

3) Not just power chords

Too many punk and alternative bands today make a living off playing simple power chords over and over and over and over and over.  Gee that takes all the talent of a first year guitar student. You know you don't HAVE to bar all six strings for the guitar to make a sound right?  Prove to us that you're as awesome as you say you are and let's work the guitar like you mean it!  

2) Classic songs

Classic rock has songs that everybody knows and everybody will know generations from now because of their incredible impact on our lives.  How many people can you find that can't sing a part of "Don't Stop Believing", or couldn't sing the outro of "Hey Jude"?  Who do you know that can't hum the riff of "Smoke on the Water", or sing the chorus of "Sweet Home Alabama"?  These are songs that will go down as classics, and will probably be more well know by future generations than our own national anthem.

1) Legends

There are way too many classic rock legends who have completely changed the way we think about rock:  Jimi Hendrix, Paul McCartney, Mick Jagger, Ozzy Osbourne, Eric Clapton, Steven Tyler, Jimmy Page, David Bowie, Slash, Eddie Van Halen, and Sting are just scratching the surface of the absolutely legendary list of classic rockers who have become household names.  Their influence on music and on society in general make them much more than passing fads, which is why we're still listening to their music all their years later.

And those are just some of the many reasons why I think Classic Rock is the coolest stuff around.  Feel free to comment!

 

Welcome to my blog!

This is my new blog!  I'm brand new at blogging, and I'm really excited to get started!  Here I'll share my opinion on all sorts of stuff-- from video games, music, and movies to deeper stuff like life, religion, and the future.  Here's your first ever opportunity to journey to the center of

NICK'S 

BRAIN!!!!