Posts
This post is dedicated to everyone with an IQ over 90. My experiences in the past few weeks leads me to believe that there are fewer of them then it would seem. (dialogue in Italic is yours truly)
(Book Store Clerk) “We can exchange this product for the one you need, but unfortunately the only way we can do that is to give you a refund on the difference?”
Oh.... okay? Ah? Well..... Excuse me? Isn’t that standard protocol? No, please keep my money and donate it to the save the dinosaurs foundation.
(Clergy on Youtube[.com]) “The Atheists are DESTROYING AMERICA!!!11@L0l!”
How?
(Same Clergy on Youtube[.com]) “Atheists are the manifestation of TH3 DEV!Lz!”
If I was the devil I would not be wasting my time arguing with you. Besides I thought that was the talking point you used against the gay rights movement, but thats not a religious issue at all. Oh wait. So basically the devil is anyone who disagrees with you. OH NO! NOT PEOPLE THAT HAVE DIFFERENT BELIEFS!
(Generic claymation blockhead) “7 in 8 Americans are starving. Don’t send aid abroad”
Source please! Last I heard 6 in 8 Americans are overweight. I pulled statistics out of my ass BEFORE it was trendy. If your numbers are correct then I would think that there would be less room in the average americans budget for the internet and cable. I don’t see Comcast having any financial hardships. I think its fair to say that If 7 in 8 Americans are starving then 1 in 8 americans can’t afford to watch American Idol. Go look at their ratings sunshine.
(Daddy’s Junky Music employee) “Schecter and Ibanez guitars are awesome bro!”
Turn off the distortion. See! I can tune my radio into a dead station too!”
(Cookie Cutter emo fanboy) “You listen to jazzzz!? How is that, not, like, yeah know, boring as hell?”
You listen to pre-pubescent boys who wear eye liner, moan on about imaginary girlfriends breaking up with them... again. How do you like, yeah know, not want to shoot yourself in the head!?
(Attractive female mall zombie) “i just want like a guy who is funny and smart and understand and wants me for me and i don’t really care about looks but i cant date like geeks or nerds or people who even have a little fat cuz fat is gross and if they like star trek or wont watch reality tv then i don’t like them like i can never find a guy who wants me for me”
Excuse me, at what point in your punctuation forsaken moaning did you think that I was going to conjure a person like that. If you want to make a meaningful connections with people you need to be a little bit flexible with peoples life style chooses and interests. If you want ‘tha h0t guyz’ then don’t expect then to meet your emotional needs. In short stop operating on a double standard. Now if you will excuse me, trek is on.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
RE: Miller Brewing Company commercial
(watch it on Youtube[.com] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qe3xbO_24M)
If you find this scenario believable, you have clearly never had alcohol before. If you feel so strongly about watered down beer that you would pass up a steady relationship with an attractive woman, then LUUUV isn't the only word your screwing up.
This video is protected by Fair Use. DMCA me and I will make sure the court notice is printed on the back of a postcard. Read the law children.
Monday, January 25, 2010
Blamology/A stir fry recommendation
Blamology:
Dear Musicians,
Sometimes its alright to play lots of notes and play them very fast, but you can’t do that exclusively. Music is an art not a sport. What your telling me when you blam a non-sensical sequences of notes in every song you play is that you are more interested in wanking your instrument then expressing something, and that you got your sense of melody from playing guitar hero. Basically what I am trying to say is this: Silence is worth 1000 notes. Not every book needs pictures.
Stir fry recommendation:
Don’t look for any hidden meaning in this part of the post, because there isn’t any. This for all of you home cookin’ types (all 3 of you that read my blog). Why can’t I make another post on the topic, you ask? Because brevity is the soul of wit, and because I don’t wanna so stop complaining.
Next time you make a stir fry with noodles, do the following:
1) Put several chili peppers (the smaller the better) into the boiling water with your noodles.
2) When you strain the water, leave the peppers in, and have them cook with the rest of the ingredients when you add the noodles to whatever you fried.
3) Cut 3-4 fresh peppers (again, the smaller the pepper the better) and put them into the frying pan, seeds and all.
4) Add a shot or two of tabasco sauce.
5) remove the whole peppers you boiled and enjoy!
I used rice noodles, for my spicy peppers I used jalapeños. I sauteed bite sized red bell peppers with some garlic powder, chicken, and a few pieces of tofu for texture. I added teriyaki marinade after I put the noodles in the frying pan. I did about 2 shots of tabasco sauce.
Dear Musicians,
Sometimes its alright to play lots of notes and play them very fast, but you can’t do that exclusively. Music is an art not a sport. What your telling me when you blam a non-sensical sequences of notes in every song you play is that you are more interested in wanking your instrument then expressing something, and that you got your sense of melody from playing guitar hero. Basically what I am trying to say is this: Silence is worth 1000 notes. Not every book needs pictures.
Stir fry recommendation:
Don’t look for any hidden meaning in this part of the post, because there isn’t any. This for all of you home cookin’ types (all 3 of you that read my blog). Why can’t I make another post on the topic, you ask? Because brevity is the soul of wit, and because I don’t wanna so stop complaining.
Next time you make a stir fry with noodles, do the following:
1) Put several chili peppers (the smaller the better) into the boiling water with your noodles.
2) When you strain the water, leave the peppers in, and have them cook with the rest of the ingredients when you add the noodles to whatever you fried.
3) Cut 3-4 fresh peppers (again, the smaller the pepper the better) and put them into the frying pan, seeds and all.
4) Add a shot or two of tabasco sauce.
5) remove the whole peppers you boiled and enjoy!
I used rice noodles, for my spicy peppers I used jalapeños. I sauteed bite sized red bell peppers with some garlic powder, chicken, and a few pieces of tofu for texture. I added teriyaki marinade after I put the noodles in the frying pan. I did about 2 shots of tabasco sauce.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Non-secular science
I am getting sick and tired of explaining this to people. Intelligent design is NOT science. For those of you just learning about it, intelligent design (ID for short) is basically an attempt to make creationism secular (remember that, it will be important later). Intelligent design proponents are pushing for ID to be taught in science classes. They argue that evolution is “just a theory” and that the alternative theories should be taught. The way we use the word theory colloquially is different from what it means in science, and if you don’t know the difference between them then go look it up. If you do and you continue to say that evolution is “just” a theory then stop being a disingenuous prick.
Does anyone spot the problem with intelligent design being taught in science classes? Intelligent design is NOT a scientific theory. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying or didn’t pay attention in science class. I am going to lean toward the former because every science class I have ever taken explained in the first unit how science is done and what constitutes a theory. You can’t just think of something and start calling it a theory, and start complaining because it isn’t taught in science classes in contrast with a theory that is widely accepted and actually has *gasp* evidence!
Generally the scientific process starts with a question or an observation, lets say you notice that trees closer to a stream are taller then those that are farther away. Next you develop a hypothesis. A hypothesis is often explained to as an “educated guess”, but really its just a potential answer to your question. A hypothesis MUST be testable. Then you test your hypothesis and gather data. If the data supports your hypothesis then you draw a conclusion and submit your findings for peer review. If you disprove your hypothesis then you alter it or come up with a new one and continue to experiment or observe until you find an answer to your question. And then you submit your findings for peer review. So what’s so difficult about that Mr. Intelligent design? Middle school students execute this process almost everyday. If you want intelligent design in science classes, you go use the scientific method like everyone else.
And another thing. I don’t know how some of you got the idea in your head that disproving evolution automatically makes ID the winner by default, because it doesn’t. Ask a legitimate scientist and they will tell you that there is not really competition between evolution and ID. ID isn’t even a contender for reasons I already explained. They don’t even deal with the same things. Evolution by way of Darwinian natural selection deals with the diversity of life. ID is about the origins of life and the universe.
Every time I explain all of this to someone trying to push intelligent design they pull the religious discrimination card. But wait a minute, I say, I thought intelligent design didn’t have anything to do with religion? Usually they then go on about how evil science is for keeping them out of the conversation because they are religious and so forth. Of course thats a load of crap, there are plenty of scientists who are theists. I have a question about religious censorship while we are at it. If your so sure that your believe is the one true religion, then why are you so offended when someone disagrees with you? I know not all religious people are like that, but some peoples reactions are way over the top.
Back on topic. When people complain that this group or that group are trying to keep intelligent design out of schools, it makes no sense. Intelligent design has no place in a science curriculum, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be taught in another class, now does it? There are lots of classes in which students could be exposed to ID. Here is an idea, have an intelligent design proponent do a speaking tour at schools with a scientist. Have the ID person explain ID to the students. Then let the scientists explain the widely accepted scientific theories on the origins of life and the universe, and we can let the students choose for themselves.
Does anyone spot the problem with intelligent design being taught in science classes? Intelligent design is NOT a scientific theory. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying or didn’t pay attention in science class. I am going to lean toward the former because every science class I have ever taken explained in the first unit how science is done and what constitutes a theory. You can’t just think of something and start calling it a theory, and start complaining because it isn’t taught in science classes in contrast with a theory that is widely accepted and actually has *gasp* evidence!
Generally the scientific process starts with a question or an observation, lets say you notice that trees closer to a stream are taller then those that are farther away. Next you develop a hypothesis. A hypothesis is often explained to as an “educated guess”, but really its just a potential answer to your question. A hypothesis MUST be testable. Then you test your hypothesis and gather data. If the data supports your hypothesis then you draw a conclusion and submit your findings for peer review. If you disprove your hypothesis then you alter it or come up with a new one and continue to experiment or observe until you find an answer to your question. And then you submit your findings for peer review. So what’s so difficult about that Mr. Intelligent design? Middle school students execute this process almost everyday. If you want intelligent design in science classes, you go use the scientific method like everyone else.
And another thing. I don’t know how some of you got the idea in your head that disproving evolution automatically makes ID the winner by default, because it doesn’t. Ask a legitimate scientist and they will tell you that there is not really competition between evolution and ID. ID isn’t even a contender for reasons I already explained. They don’t even deal with the same things. Evolution by way of Darwinian natural selection deals with the diversity of life. ID is about the origins of life and the universe.
Every time I explain all of this to someone trying to push intelligent design they pull the religious discrimination card. But wait a minute, I say, I thought intelligent design didn’t have anything to do with religion? Usually they then go on about how evil science is for keeping them out of the conversation because they are religious and so forth. Of course thats a load of crap, there are plenty of scientists who are theists. I have a question about religious censorship while we are at it. If your so sure that your believe is the one true religion, then why are you so offended when someone disagrees with you? I know not all religious people are like that, but some peoples reactions are way over the top.
Back on topic. When people complain that this group or that group are trying to keep intelligent design out of schools, it makes no sense. Intelligent design has no place in a science curriculum, but that doesn’t mean it can’t be taught in another class, now does it? There are lots of classes in which students could be exposed to ID. Here is an idea, have an intelligent design proponent do a speaking tour at schools with a scientist. Have the ID person explain ID to the students. Then let the scientists explain the widely accepted scientific theories on the origins of life and the universe, and we can let the students choose for themselves.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Crackers for your chowder
You walk into a restaurant. Its dimly lit, warm. The walls are painted a dark color, you can’t tell exactly what. Avant garde and abstract art are on display on the walls, and the floor. New-age fusion music plays in the background. This location is a popular meeting place for counter culture collectives.
You sit down at the counter. The waitress approaches you and you order chowder. She brings you the chowder and charges you for your meal. $4.99. You open your wallet and find that it contains only a $5 bill. You hand her the bill. You dip the spoon into the chowder and bring it to your lips. It is warm. It is well seasoned. You taste hints of pepper and garlic. The chowder has more milk in it then is to your liking, and the contents are spread too thin. You ask the waitress for some crackers. The waitress explains that crackers are $2.00 extra. You express your outrage at the price. You could get a box of crackers for $2.00, you say. Filled with frustration and contempt, you climb up on the counter. You begin to shout. You spout grievances to the masses. After your breath is spent and your diatribe concluded, you sit.
If you would have just order the crackers, the chowder comes extra, the waitress explained.
Life without money is like surgery without a knife: less painful and more difficult.
You sit down at the counter. The waitress approaches you and you order chowder. She brings you the chowder and charges you for your meal. $4.99. You open your wallet and find that it contains only a $5 bill. You hand her the bill. You dip the spoon into the chowder and bring it to your lips. It is warm. It is well seasoned. You taste hints of pepper and garlic. The chowder has more milk in it then is to your liking, and the contents are spread too thin. You ask the waitress for some crackers. The waitress explains that crackers are $2.00 extra. You express your outrage at the price. You could get a box of crackers for $2.00, you say. Filled with frustration and contempt, you climb up on the counter. You begin to shout. You spout grievances to the masses. After your breath is spent and your diatribe concluded, you sit.
If you would have just order the crackers, the chowder comes extra, the waitress explained.
Life without money is like surgery without a knife: less painful and more difficult.
Call on lane two
You were born with a mouth in your head, not a cell phone. I know it may seem out of date to you, but please speak to me in a manner that doesn’t cost 20 cents a minute. While we are talking about money: texting costs money, email is free. You don’t need to be constantly communicating with everyone all the time.
Stop texting while driving. Its obnoxious, and in case you didn’t notice there are 4000+ pound metal subcompacts traveling at 60 miles an hour around you. I would think you should be more focused on avoiding a collision then chatting with your BFF about how you ROLF’ed at the homeless guy on main street because he was being mugged by an accountant. So when you drive off a bridge while texting, at least you will get the last lol.
The thing that irritates me the most are these yuppies that complain about there being to much materialism in America, but they can’t put their phones down long enough to say hello. If your spending time with me, but your more focused on texting other people then the conversation we are having, the message your sending me is that you would rather be talking to them, and your just giving me lip service.
Stop texting while driving. Its obnoxious, and in case you didn’t notice there are 4000+ pound metal subcompacts traveling at 60 miles an hour around you. I would think you should be more focused on avoiding a collision then chatting with your BFF about how you ROLF’ed at the homeless guy on main street because he was being mugged by an accountant. So when you drive off a bridge while texting, at least you will get the last lol.
The thing that irritates me the most are these yuppies that complain about there being to much materialism in America, but they can’t put their phones down long enough to say hello. If your spending time with me, but your more focused on texting other people then the conversation we are having, the message your sending me is that you would rather be talking to them, and your just giving me lip service.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Bad Advertising
“Bad Advertising”
A dog in love with his bone seeks security. First he buries the bone, and no one touches it. But due to his stupidity and paranoia he seeks a more expensive method to secure his bone. So he puts his bone in the bank. No one touches it. But because of his stupidity and paranoia he seeks a more expensive method to secure his bone. Buy our insurance today.
A dog in love with his bone seeks security. First he buries the bone, and no one touches it. But due to his stupidity and paranoia he seeks a more expensive method to secure his bone. So he puts his bone in the bank. No one touches it. But because of his stupidity and paranoia he seeks a more expensive method to secure his bone. Buy our insurance today.
"Hey Youtube!"
“Hey Youtube!”
Dear Youtube users,
Lets set the record straight for those who missed it the first time: Youtube[.com] is a website. What Youtube[.com] isn’t is a euphemism for everyone who participates on Youtube[.com]. If you want to address the Youtube[.com] using community as a whole, you could say: “Hey Youtube[.com]er’s”, or “Hello Youtube[.com] using community. When you say “Hey Youtube!” you are addressing a website. You may as well say “Hey a location connected to the Internet that maintains one or more pages on the World Wide Web!” Additionally, trying to address everyone on Youtube[.com] is a waste of time. At time of writing Youtube[.com] has an estimated 124 million registered members. The odds that 124 million people are watching your video at the same time leans a bit toward... well I don’t know maybe statistically impossible? Next time try “Hey viewers” instead.
Dear Youtube users,
Lets set the record straight for those who missed it the first time: Youtube[.com] is a website. What Youtube[.com] isn’t is a euphemism for everyone who participates on Youtube[.com]. If you want to address the Youtube[.com] using community as a whole, you could say: “Hey Youtube[.com]er’s”, or “Hello Youtube[.com] using community. When you say “Hey Youtube!” you are addressing a website. You may as well say “Hey a location connected to the Internet that maintains one or more pages on the World Wide Web!” Additionally, trying to address everyone on Youtube[.com] is a waste of time. At time of writing Youtube[.com] has an estimated 124 million registered members. The odds that 124 million people are watching your video at the same time leans a bit toward... well I don’t know maybe statistically impossible? Next time try “Hey viewers” instead.
Movie Rant 1
“Movie Rant 1: Sequels”
They always do better opening day and most of the time they piss me off. In the first installment of movie rants I intend to focus on two great movies, and why their sequel suck more then that blonde chick from fox news.
The first movie I would like to talk about is The Mummy (1999) staring Brendan Fraser and Rachel Weisz. Some of you might be skeptical because I classified The Mummy as great, but bear with me. The Mummy takes place in Egypt, and boasts just enough special effects to make the movie come to life, reasonable comic relief, subtle sexual tensions, and a tasteful dose of mythology. As an added bonus it is paced at a rate that most people can tolerate. Pacing is very important if your making a movie that is meant to be accessible, and is something many people over look.
The Sequel to The Mummy, is the Mummy Returns (2001). At this point I am going to assume that you have seen The Mummy and you know the characters. If you don’t feel free to bug off to a synopsis or watch the movie. The Mummy Returns is bearable at best. It has two issues that make the movie the lessor of the first. First and for-most, the child actor. Im going to get it out in the open: I hate child actors. I have never seen a movie with a child actor that I enjoyed. Child actors are basically hollywood robots that don’t behave at all like children. In the case of the little prick who played Rick and Evy’s son, if you look close enough you will find a slot in the back of his head labeled ‘insert lines here.’ I think it would have been a better call on the writers part if they had Jonathan put on the bracelet and get kidnapped. I liked the actor that played Jonathan and I would have liked to see him play a role that isn’t comic relief and we can do away with the child actor. Everyone wins. The second issue is that the pre-filming leg work, casting, writing and so forth, was over all weaker then the prequel’s. The entire film feels rushed. Additionally, the movie didn’t contain any elements that made me care about the characters.
Number three in The Mummy series is called The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor. Just from the title, we know that there is something wrong. The movie takes place in China. There are no god damn mummies in China. The title mentions a tomb, but the characters really only spend 5 minutes of the film in a tomb, and its really just establishing the back story. Pharaohs in Egypt where Mummified, Emperors in China where not, so why are we dealing with an emperor in a movie called The Mummy? And what the hell is a dragon emperor? This is never explained, so I can only assume this it is a hook for the impressionable. If you think this oversight is bad, then you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.
The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor is the worst movie in the series, by leaps and bounds. Lets start with the continuity errors. Rick and Evy’s son in The Mummy Returns has blonde hair and an English accent. In the Tomb of the Dragon Emperor he has brown hair and an American accent. I suppose its possible that after the events of The Mummy Returns Evy could have acquired a time machine, gone back in time to collect her pregnant self and then traveled to the future where science has mastered pre-implantation diagnostics and gene therapy and then bring her pregnant self back to the past to give birth to her genetically altered son. But Im not a film writer, what do I know? The biggest problem with this movie is that Rachel Weisz (Evy) isn’t in it. The chemistry between Brendan Fraser and Rachel Weisz is what made the original Mummy
work. Their contrasting acting styles and the varied approaches they took to their characters creates the odd couple feel. Earlier in the film this underscores the romance that would later occur. The worst part of the movie was the actress is who took up the roll of Evy. They replaced Rachel Weisz with an actress I can’t be bothered to research and who can’t take off her panties because she is afraid of bats. Im not just attacking her looks, she is also an awful actress. Sometimes I feel that Brendan Fraser is pulling her through the scenes. Speaking of bad acting, the rest of the cast was very disappointing. Basically, if you haven’t seen this movie, don’t.
Some of you may argue that the Mummy is a film series targeted at kids, and a film maker has to make some sacrifice of quality to make it accessible to pre-teens. While I acknowledge that the target age group is 13 year olds, its important to remember who your audience really is. Most of the people who watched and enjoyed The Mummy and The Mummy Returns where 13 years old when they came out, and are now grown adults. Grown adults, by the by, who have no interest in watching a fucking children's film! The film makers never make an attempt to explain the backstory or who the characters are and how they got there. The only people with any knowledge about the story are the aforementioned adults, so it makes sense to make the movie accessible to a wide age group.
The second film series I would like to talk about is The Matrix (1999). I would like to apologize to those of you who pretend The Matrix doesn’t have any sequels. Im not going to spend as much time on The Matrix because most of us already know how crappy the sequels are (however I will gladly rip apart The Matrix 2 and 3 if asked to). For those of you who don’t know let me explain it to you. The Matrix one: Sci-fi thriller and existentialism. The Matrix two: Sex and politics. The Matrix three: Explosions and CGI. Not that I don’t appreciate a good explosion, but it needs to mean something. The explosions of the death star in the original Star Wars, for example. It represents a new phase in the galactic struggle for freedom. The Matrix is a text book example of Sequel failure. It starts out as a great film, and get progressively less artistic and more superficial with each new movie. I liked seeing Keanu Reeves get beaten up, however. Even if it did look more like a cartoon that an actual fight seen.
Do you see what Im trying to get at here. A good movie isn’t good because of its name, it has to be judged by the merit of its content. Just because the original was good doesn’t mean you can add a few words to the title and expect the new movie to be groundbreaking. You can dye a turd purple, that doesn’t make it smell any better.
They always do better opening day and most of the time they piss me off. In the first installment of movie rants I intend to focus on two great movies, and why their sequel suck more then that blonde chick from fox news.
The first movie I would like to talk about is The Mummy (1999) staring Brendan Fraser and Rachel Weisz. Some of you might be skeptical because I classified The Mummy as great, but bear with me. The Mummy takes place in Egypt, and boasts just enough special effects to make the movie come to life, reasonable comic relief, subtle sexual tensions, and a tasteful dose of mythology. As an added bonus it is paced at a rate that most people can tolerate. Pacing is very important if your making a movie that is meant to be accessible, and is something many people over look.
The Sequel to The Mummy, is the Mummy Returns (2001). At this point I am going to assume that you have seen The Mummy and you know the characters. If you don’t feel free to bug off to a synopsis or watch the movie. The Mummy Returns is bearable at best. It has two issues that make the movie the lessor of the first. First and for-most, the child actor. Im going to get it out in the open: I hate child actors. I have never seen a movie with a child actor that I enjoyed. Child actors are basically hollywood robots that don’t behave at all like children. In the case of the little prick who played Rick and Evy’s son, if you look close enough you will find a slot in the back of his head labeled ‘insert lines here.’ I think it would have been a better call on the writers part if they had Jonathan put on the bracelet and get kidnapped. I liked the actor that played Jonathan and I would have liked to see him play a role that isn’t comic relief and we can do away with the child actor. Everyone wins. The second issue is that the pre-filming leg work, casting, writing and so forth, was over all weaker then the prequel’s. The entire film feels rushed. Additionally, the movie didn’t contain any elements that made me care about the characters.
Number three in The Mummy series is called The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor. Just from the title, we know that there is something wrong. The movie takes place in China. There are no god damn mummies in China. The title mentions a tomb, but the characters really only spend 5 minutes of the film in a tomb, and its really just establishing the back story. Pharaohs in Egypt where Mummified, Emperors in China where not, so why are we dealing with an emperor in a movie called The Mummy? And what the hell is a dragon emperor? This is never explained, so I can only assume this it is a hook for the impressionable. If you think this oversight is bad, then you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.
The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor is the worst movie in the series, by leaps and bounds. Lets start with the continuity errors. Rick and Evy’s son in The Mummy Returns has blonde hair and an English accent. In the Tomb of the Dragon Emperor he has brown hair and an American accent. I suppose its possible that after the events of The Mummy Returns Evy could have acquired a time machine, gone back in time to collect her pregnant self and then traveled to the future where science has mastered pre-implantation diagnostics and gene therapy and then bring her pregnant self back to the past to give birth to her genetically altered son. But Im not a film writer, what do I know? The biggest problem with this movie is that Rachel Weisz (Evy) isn’t in it. The chemistry between Brendan Fraser and Rachel Weisz is what made the original Mummy
work. Their contrasting acting styles and the varied approaches they took to their characters creates the odd couple feel. Earlier in the film this underscores the romance that would later occur. The worst part of the movie was the actress is who took up the roll of Evy. They replaced Rachel Weisz with an actress I can’t be bothered to research and who can’t take off her panties because she is afraid of bats. Im not just attacking her looks, she is also an awful actress. Sometimes I feel that Brendan Fraser is pulling her through the scenes. Speaking of bad acting, the rest of the cast was very disappointing. Basically, if you haven’t seen this movie, don’t.
Some of you may argue that the Mummy is a film series targeted at kids, and a film maker has to make some sacrifice of quality to make it accessible to pre-teens. While I acknowledge that the target age group is 13 year olds, its important to remember who your audience really is. Most of the people who watched and enjoyed The Mummy and The Mummy Returns where 13 years old when they came out, and are now grown adults. Grown adults, by the by, who have no interest in watching a fucking children's film! The film makers never make an attempt to explain the backstory or who the characters are and how they got there. The only people with any knowledge about the story are the aforementioned adults, so it makes sense to make the movie accessible to a wide age group.
The second film series I would like to talk about is The Matrix (1999). I would like to apologize to those of you who pretend The Matrix doesn’t have any sequels. Im not going to spend as much time on The Matrix because most of us already know how crappy the sequels are (however I will gladly rip apart The Matrix 2 and 3 if asked to). For those of you who don’t know let me explain it to you. The Matrix one: Sci-fi thriller and existentialism. The Matrix two: Sex and politics. The Matrix three: Explosions and CGI. Not that I don’t appreciate a good explosion, but it needs to mean something. The explosions of the death star in the original Star Wars, for example. It represents a new phase in the galactic struggle for freedom. The Matrix is a text book example of Sequel failure. It starts out as a great film, and get progressively less artistic and more superficial with each new movie. I liked seeing Keanu Reeves get beaten up, however. Even if it did look more like a cartoon that an actual fight seen.
Do you see what Im trying to get at here. A good movie isn’t good because of its name, it has to be judged by the merit of its content. Just because the original was good doesn’t mean you can add a few words to the title and expect the new movie to be groundbreaking. You can dye a turd purple, that doesn’t make it smell any better.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
