tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3541749434920476602024-03-05T10:31:56.523-05:00The House of MunchMassively invading this world of the internetUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger166125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-354174943492047660.post-26401526389524615552015-09-11T12:41:00.001-04:002015-09-11T12:41:51.920-04:00Let's Talk About Beer: Evil Twin - Bikini Beer<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgzS3tbhMXLE8lOO0S9Epju70X2LbhgQgWf4N1qa1y3lFuRTmoMG10q2qr0Hvx09wE3KYdPHuDNKKmcCHfoasJeWOxREbvFYt-LK-wZLqFd0I03shIaxhbvz8gXg2-S-lZy82tImmlw2Zc/s1600/et_bb.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgzS3tbhMXLE8lOO0S9Epju70X2LbhgQgWf4N1qa1y3lFuRTmoMG10q2qr0Hvx09wE3KYdPHuDNKKmcCHfoasJeWOxREbvFYt-LK-wZLqFd0I03shIaxhbvz8gXg2-S-lZy82tImmlw2Zc/s400/et_bb.jpg" /></a></div>I have written before about a man's quest for a good light beer and the <a href="http://thehouseofmunch.blogspot.com/2015/03/this-is-what-you-give-people-when-you.html">horrendous pitfalls</a> one encounters along the way. At best, the light beer is inoffensive. At worst, I believe the phrasing I used was "hydrochloric acid spiked with urine".
<br><br>
So. Is it possible for a stout fellow to find a good beer that doesn't pack on the calories?
<br><br>
Yes. Yes it is. And it is all thanks to the mad genius at Evil Twin Brewing, Jeppe Jarnit-Bjergsø.
<br><br>
Bikini Beer is a light IPA. That, in and of itself, it pretty amazing. The overwhelming amount of light beers on the market are
lagers. To have a light IPA is a rare thing indeed.
<br><br>
Now, I dont want to oversell the hopiness of the beer. It is a light beer, after all. It is as if they have dialed back the hops of your standard IPA about 50%. Definitely still there, but more like it is saying "hey" as opposed to smacking you in the face.
<br><br>
Frankly, it can do double-duty as a session IPA. It's a got a nice citrus-y zing to it and at 2.7% ABV you can drink it all day if you are so inclined. Especially when it is warm. It's a perfect summer beer.
<br><br>
And if you are looking to shed a few pounds in your middle-age, as I am, it's only 81 calories.
<br><br>
Yes, you read that right. 81 calories. 30 calories less than Bud Light. 15 less than Miller Lite. And about 100x more taste than both.
<br><br>
Really, the only possible drawback to this beer is if you are a guy who is somehow threatened by being seen drinking an IPA called Bikini Beer. If you are, then not only are you a fool, but you are missing out on what may be the best light beer today.
<br><br>
Find it. Drink it.
<br><br>
------------------
<br><br>
<strong>Beer:</strong> Evil Twin Bikini Beer
<br><br>
<strong>ABV:</strong> 2.7%
<br><br>
<strong>Style:</strong> American IPA / Light
<br><br>
<strong>Price:</strong> Between $10 - $13 for a six-pack
<br><br>
<strong>Recommendation:</strong> Strong BuyUnknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-354174943492047660.post-75427889852343526122015-09-08T14:24:00.000-04:002015-09-08T14:38:18.577-04:00No Letters from a Kentucky Jail for Kim DavisU.S. District Judge David Bunning has proven to be a master of situational control when dealing with the case of Rowan County Clerk (Who Doesn't Understand Her Job) Kim Davis.
<br /><br />
Ms. Davis, who was jailed on contempt charges after refusing to do her job and issue marriage licenses to couple of both different and the same sex, <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/08/politics/kim-davis-same-sex-marriage-kentucky/index.html" target=blank>was released from jail</a> by Judge Bunning just mere hours before two of the dumber members of the GOP Candidate Clown Car were supposed to <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/08/politics/kim-davis-kentucky-clerk-2016-candidates-chris-christie/" target=blank>visit her while behind bars</a>
<br /><br />
This was after Judge Bunning jailed Kim Davis as opposed to fining her daily, so right-wing activists who are threatened by the mere concept of same-sex couples couldn't donate money to pay her fines. At every turn thus far, Davis has been denied her very obvious wish to be some kind of ersatz martyr, suffering for all of us so that we might be spared the idea of two men or two women having a loving, committed relationship sanctioned by the State.
<br /><br />
Oh, the horror.
<br /><br />
This will likely go on for a while. Because if it isn't Davis pulling this BS, it's a low-level judge in Tennessee <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/09/04/tenn-judge-refuses-to-grant-straight-couple-a-divorce-because-of-gay-marriage/" target=blank>refusing to sanction divorces</a> in some muddled protest against same-sex marriage (or as I like to call it...marriage). Stupid is as stupid does, and this country has plenty of stupid to get out of its system.
<br /><br />
But the bottom line is that same-sex marriages are legal and people like Davis need to get that through their thick heads. While they're at it, they should also stop using religion as cover for their bigotry. Jesus had this to say about same-sex marriage:
<br /><br />
<blockquote>
" ... "
</blockquote>
<br /><br />
Oh yeah. Nothing. But when it came to His Commandment for all of us?
<br /><br />
<blockquote>
"This is my commandment, that you love one another as I have loved you."
</blockquote>
<br /><br />
Oh yeah! We're supposed to treat each other with love and as equals. As opposed to, say, substituting our bigotry for the law.
<br /><br />
If you personally don't like same-sex marriage or certain people or S'mores or 65 Ford Mustangs, I don't give a damn. That's your baggage that you have to handle. But you don't get to impose that crap on other people and then claim "religious freedom" as your excuse for it. <em>Especially</em> when you are a government official and beholden to enforce the law.
<br /><br />
Keep your idiocy to yourself.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-354174943492047660.post-15874649004993403342015-08-03T16:07:00.001-04:002015-08-03T16:11:47.435-04:00Let's Talk About Beer: Evil Twin - Fire Water<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhP68zMV5eGLZWbHUjRAxr7ZAsnuMTs1T4dYZ6wPrRRLiUxcunLJNNsIw10fd5jN6X2WbSC1UDiCYqh4bM26krj-2MQ79_GnNN7wwhCde6UGtZ-hptpF6Ui1gA4Ww2AxSjqjKN8gpGFfxk/s1600/firewater.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhP68zMV5eGLZWbHUjRAxr7ZAsnuMTs1T4dYZ6wPrRRLiUxcunLJNNsIw10fd5jN6X2WbSC1UDiCYqh4bM26krj-2MQ79_GnNN7wwhCde6UGtZ-hptpF6Ui1gA4Ww2AxSjqjKN8gpGFfxk/s400/firewater.jpg" /></a></div>I have a few loves in my life. First and foremost my family. But a close second and third are beer and spicy hot food. And at least those two don't hide my car keys after they finish eating dinner in their high-chair.
<br /><br />
Most times when it comes to beer and that kind of heat, if you are enjoying them both it is as two separate elements. Beer and BBQ. Beer and hot wings. Beer and some crazy-ass Thai dish that feels like it's burning a hole right through your tongue.
<br /><br />
But sometimes the most enjoyable way to consume beer and heat is as a cohesive, single beverage. One of my favorites was the Stone 11.11.11 Vertical Epic Ale which used anaheim chiles and cinnamon. Now anaheim chiles are not all that hot, so the 11.11.11 was mild but quite enjoyable. On the other end, also from Stone, was Punishment. The heat in that was akin to a nuclear blast and such that you needed another beer at the same time to quell the heat.
<br /><br />
I don't find that quite as enjoyable. With beer, the only thing I enjoy in an "overpowering" fashion is hops. When you allow outside flavors to completely take over a beer, I feel like you lose part of what makes beer so enjoyable. The real trick with heat (or anything extra) when it comes to beer is to have one complement the other. That goes for fruit, bourbon barrel aging, whatever.
<br /><br />
Which brings me to Evil Twin Brewery and their new release called Fire Water. If you aren't familiar with Evil Twin, it's a gypsy brewery started in Copenhagen, Denmark by Jeppe Jarnit-Bjergsø, who has since moved to Brooklyn. If the name Bjergsø sounds familiar, it's because Jeppe has a twin brother Mikkel. Mikkel Borg Bjergso runs Mikkeller. Oh, and because <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/30/magazine/a-fight-is-brewing.html?_r=0" target=blank>they hate one another</a>.
<br /><br />
Fire Water is a pale ale that has had jalapeno peppers added. Now, that may sound intimidating to some but you have to remember that the jalapeno isn't that much hotter than the anaheim chili. So you aren't talking about tear-inducing heat with this beer.
<br /><br />
The first taste is that of any finely-crafted pale ale. And then the jalapeno hits. But it's interesting; the jalapeno gives you a hint of sweetness at first. That tails into a heat that isn't overwhelming at all. It lingers on the back of your tongue and while you notice it, it is not an unpleasant sensation. Even as it builds over drinking the bottle, it never reaches a point where it becomes uncomfortable.
<br /><br />
Jeppe has really found the right balance with Fire Water. You notice the heat, but it never overwhelms the beer or the experience of drinking the beer. Which is the problem I had with Punishment. This is a good beer to drink while relaxing in the shade on a summer's day or while eating a burger. Or just because you like good beer.
<br /><br />
Fire Water is a limited release. So if you can find it, buy it.
<br /><br />
------------------
<br /><br />
<strong>Beer:</strong> Evil Twin Fire Water
<br /><br />
<strong>ABV:</strong> 5.5%
<br /><br />
<strong>Style:</strong> Pale Ale / Chile
<br /><br />
<strong>Price:</strong> Between $10 - $12 for a 22 oz. bottle
<br /><br />
<strong>Recommendation:</strong> Strong BuyUnknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-354174943492047660.post-25062451868353326852015-08-03T10:11:00.000-04:002015-08-03T10:11:14.618-04:00Review: Time Bandits (1981)<em>“God isn't interested in technology. He cares nothing for the microchip or the silicon revolution. Look how he spends his time, forty-three species of parrots! Nipples for men!” – Evil Genius (David Warner)</em>
<br /><br />
<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://thehouseofmunch.blogspot.com/p/top-100-science-fiction-films.html"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0ZLbWvROnDG7JaNMJ5Z75vP_mnaeMggXOPRDJa-Z9NEuUPpbt6vaAjnwmtkp-GVoDVwK9Tt2lehLQobtOTPfcGeoKeQpsxbUS9HXCXW67UaGbQbmRfXqH7XNAfMnWNJA-13RXaPjbKCEv/s320/scifi_best100.jpg" alt="" title="The best in Science Fiction" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5070154316902556514" border="0" /></a><strong>Director:</strong> Terry Gilliam
<br /><br />
<strong>Writers:</strong> Terry Gilliam and Michael Palin
<br /><br />
<strong>Producers:</strong> George Harrison, Denis O'Brien, Terry Gilliam and Neville C. Thompson
<br /><br />
<strong>Studio:</strong> HandMade Films
<br /><br />
<strong>Major Stars:</strong> David Rappaport, Sean Connery, Ian Holm, John Cleese, Michael Palin, Katherine Helmond, Shelley Duvall, David Warner, Kenny Baker, Ralph Richardson, Craig Warnock
<br /><br />
There are few directors that take more risks than Terry Gilliam. He is uncompromising in what he wants to show and how to show it. His films reward careful viewing and punish the lazy movie-goer. If you only watch <em>Time Bandits</em> with a casual eye, you'll miss out on an unique sci-fi film that is loads of fun to watch.
<br /><br />
Gilliam tackles a theme no less than the evils of modernization. From the get-go, we see our protagonist, 10-year old Kevin (Warnock), ignored by his parents because they are obsessed with their television or the latest kitchen gadgets. Kevin is a dreamer, who reads books about ancient Greece and the Middle Ages. After a bizarre dream, he stays awake to see if it was a dream. Instead, a gang of dwarfs fall out of his closet.
<br /><br />
They are on the run from the Supreme Being because they stole his map. A map that shows holes in time and space that one can use to travel anywhere. And when the Supreme Being finds them, Kevin joins them as they flee. Gilliam sets all this up in less than 10 minutes, which is how a film should work. It's amazing how many films screw around for 20-30 minutes before they get to the story itself.
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhLi0tol6yR75tzF6goPV3JQS1Rcd_-rHy-bueB35tQNFdvvNlhhIS8nZfA_lpVwM_k_t5VHtrBvWuLGJ23bxbZms5TowTX1KNXYvAsPc0jbhOuKaEw2nu-4pjpDzO08879YOP-M6gv-mo/s1600/TimeBandits_quad_UK_Gilliam-1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhLi0tol6yR75tzF6goPV3JQS1Rcd_-rHy-bueB35tQNFdvvNlhhIS8nZfA_lpVwM_k_t5VHtrBvWuLGJ23bxbZms5TowTX1KNXYvAsPc0jbhOuKaEw2nu-4pjpDzO08879YOP-M6gv-mo/s400/TimeBandits_quad_UK_Gilliam-1.jpg" /></a></div>
<br /><br />
The dwarfs are led by Randall (Rappaport). They worked for the Supreme Being until he demoted them, so they stole the map and decided to commit robberies in different times to become rich. Kevin is looking for something else; a father figure that pays attention to him. As they travel through time, they meet various people like Napoleon (Holm), Agamemnon (Connery) and, unfortunately for them, the Evil Genius (Warner). He wants the map to break free from his castle and destroy the Supreme Being, so he tries to lure the group to his castle that is stuck in the Time of Legends.
<br /><br />
It's no mistake that Kevin finds the father figure he wants in Agamemnon; it's the time period in the movie most removed from modern technology. Just as it is no mistake that the Evil Genius is obsessed with technology. Gilliam makes the case that technology binds us and denies us our freedom and he hits that theme throughout the movie. Even the ending, as abrupt, shocking and arguably cruel as it is, is about liberating ourselves from technology and embracing the freedom our minds can provide.
<br /><br />
There are parts of the film that are genuinely hilarious. Napoleon is obsessed with the height of great military leaders. Warner plays the Evil Genius so well that every scene with him gets a laugh or two. Ralph Richardson, as the Supreme Being, steals the end of the movie with his portrayal of the Almighty as a slightly absent-minded but all-powerful bureaucrat.
<a name='more'></a>
<br /><br />
I think there are also moments where the film drags a little. As funny as moments were when the gang was captured by the Ogre and his wife in the Time of Legends, it all seemed kind of pointless. Although, to be fair, the boat they used (and the gang then steals) lines up one of the most awesome visuals I have seen in a movie; a moment of pure, creative genius. And the reappearance across time of Vincent and Pansy (Palin and Duvall) as lovers always finding themselves in a bad way was cute, but it felt superfluous to me.
<br /><br />
But that is more than outweighed by all the great stuff in this film. The gang singing "Me and My Shadow" to Napoleon on a stage in a bombed-out Italian city. A bumbling Robin Hood (Cleese) and his band of less-than-merry men. And the interactions between the dwarfs themselves are hilarious. All that is thanks to a really good script written by Gilliam and Palin.
<br /><br />
Peter Biziou's great cinematography on a small budget brings a lot of realism to scenes that could have easily looked cheap. He does a great job in making deserts look endless, castles appear ominous, and a bombed-out city looking like a bombed-out city. He went on to win the Oscar for Best Cinematography with <em>Mississippi Burning</em>. He also DPed one of my personal favorites, <em>Richard III</em>. <em>Time Bandits</em> was one of his earlier films but you can see that talent already present in his work.
<br /><br />
Another important element is the costume design by James Acheson. This was his first film after doing <em>Doctor Who</em> for the BBC. The gang wears a hodgepodge of various uniforms with bandoleers slung across their waists. The Evil Genius' costume is this wicked design of black and crimson red. The scenes in ancient Greece are full of colorful robes. The costumes so perfectly evoke the personalities of the characters. Even the Supreme Being's classic suit says as much about him as his words. Acheson has won three Oscars for costume design since then, so Gilliam found a gem in hiring him for the film.
<br /><br />
And kudos to Palin for writing the movie with idea of casting little people in the role of the Bandits. He didn't have to do that. And he played the film straight; they weren't mocked or used for a cheap laugh a single time. They had a genuine opportunity to act without all of that preconceived bullshit some people have and to a man they knocked it out of the park. <em>Time Bandits</em> is a forgotten film without Rappaport and his co-actors in those roles. They are the reason for its success.
<br /><br />
I cannot say enough good things about <em>Time Bandits</em>. It's a funny, thoughtful sci-fi film that has a serious theme but delivers it with some laughs. On the current list I would put it between <em>Rollerball</em> and <em>They Live</em> with it being closer to the former. Not too many sci-fi films can talk about free will and the dangers of technology while being entertaining and funny. But <em>Time Bandits</em> does it with ease. Definitely a must-own for anyone who loves sci-fi or movies in general.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-354174943492047660.post-21153092589669854702015-05-22T09:00:00.001-04:002015-05-22T09:14:32.248-04:00The Right and Wrong Way To Make CiderFor all that America loves her beer - and we do - cider was in many ways our national beverage back in the day. With water as likely to give you dysentery as hydrate you, cider was a safe drinking alternative in the early days of our nation. It wasn't until the waves of immigration in the 19th Century - where the newly-minted Americans came from regions in Europe that preferred beer - that cider slowly fell into relative obscurity.
<br /><br />
That has changed recently, however. Hard cider is making a big comeback. And the ingenuity that small and micro-breweries have applied to beer is also being applied to cider making.
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3frF3vq_DhlFhXpp8zMb1WCUpYQuzpoffSHrCFRkgg3_SDEFRRX0vjVYNxrALOqNrN4V39sMIrbwixTqzMOCXKRtLui2-ajKndZYKB_knfo06Fdqp5dhKDpuKWplm7jZZWLawCauaN7Y/s1600/image2.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj3frF3vq_DhlFhXpp8zMb1WCUpYQuzpoffSHrCFRkgg3_SDEFRRX0vjVYNxrALOqNrN4V39sMIrbwixTqzMOCXKRtLui2-ajKndZYKB_knfo06Fdqp5dhKDpuKWplm7jZZWLawCauaN7Y/s320/image2.JPG" /></a></div>A good example of this new cider revival is Bantam Cider out of Somerville, MA. They make three ciders right now. The one I had is called Rojo. It is a simple cider, made with only four ingredients: apples, ale yeast, sour cherries and peppercorns. It is, without a doubt, one of the most delicious beverages, let alone ciders, that I have ever had.
<br /><br />
It is crisp like a cider should be, but with a touch of sour cherry and a hint of spice at the end. You could drink this with dinner or watching the game. I really cannot recommend it enough. Not only because of the taste or because we should support small breweries/cideries*/distilleries (Which we should). It's also important because of the lack of crap in the ingredients.
<br /><br />
As a comparison, here is a label from Johnny Appleseed Cider. This brand is owned by Anheuser-Busch, so you can probably see where this is going.
<Br/><br/>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjtNlkkB6-7zKRt2hKmGeLXE2jmEXpqzUgpRYnR6Xslw5MdoIIpBS9GeQnEOJUz5jIPqh0CgI4axNqNRyuM7JfEE9sczGyvCPviVGTMoWLyQWAko0QU9H2AU_0o7POb1Dsw4tOFT9s3pik/s1600/image1.JPG" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjtNlkkB6-7zKRt2hKmGeLXE2jmEXpqzUgpRYnR6Xslw5MdoIIpBS9GeQnEOJUz5jIPqh0CgI4axNqNRyuM7JfEE9sczGyvCPviVGTMoWLyQWAko0QU9H2AU_0o7POb1Dsw4tOFT9s3pik/s400/image1.JPG" /></a></div>
<br /><br />
Dextrose AND Sucrose. Call me old-fashioned, but I have always felt that if you have to add sugar to your cider, <em>you're doing it wrong</em>. Yes, I understand that adding sugar ups the alcohol content. You know what else does? Honey. Maybe this is a personal objection more than anything else, but throwing all that sugar into cider is simply not appealing to me. A good, natural cider (like Bantam's Rojo) will hit 5-6% all on its own because of the natural sugars in the apples. Which is plenty good for a bottle of cider. If you want to get ripped, maybe a pint of Majorska vodka is what you're looking for.
<br/><br/>
And what, exactly, is "flavor"? How is "flavor" an ingredient? I honestly don't know this, so I went to the FDA site to see what "flavor" actually is. Here is their answer:
<br /><br />
<a name='more'></a>
<blockquote>
<strong>How are spices, natural flavors or artificial flavors declared in ingredient lists?</strong>
<br/><br/>
<strong>Answer:</strong> These may be declared in ingredient lists by using either specific common or usual names or by using the declarations “spices,” “flavor” or “natural flavor,” or “artificial flavor.”
</blockquote>
<br /><br />
So basically, who knows what the hell they put in there. It could be one thing, it could be a catch-all of chemicals. But as a rule of thumb, you shouldn't have to visit the FDA website to figure out what is in your beer/cider/liquor. And if you do, then maybe you shouldn't be drinking that beverage to begin with.
<br /><br />
But A-B has an advertising budget of billions and Bantam Cider does not and so the proliferation of crap cider like Johnny Appleseed will continue across America like the blight that it is.
<br /><br />
But allow me, in this small, small corner of the Interwebs, to sing the praises of Bantam Cider's Rojo.
<br /><br />
It is simple. It is delicious. It kicks the ass of any mass-produced cider I have ever had.
<br /><br />
<a href="http://www.bantamcider.com/">Check them out</a>.
<br /><br />
As for locations, if you live in MA, RI, NH, Southern ME or Northern CT you should be able to find it. The rest of you in America, either make the trip to taste or start bugging your distributors to carry it.
<br/><br/>
<strong>Cider:</strong> Bantam Cider - Rojo
<br /><br />
<strong>ABV:</strong> 5.4%
<br /><br />
<strong>Price:</strong> Not sure. My wife bought it for me. But if you charged me $3 a bottle, I would pay it.
<br /><br />
<strong>Recommendation:</strong> Strong Buy
<br /><br />
-------------
<br /><br />
* Is "cideries" a word? I think it should be a word. Let's make it a word.
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-354174943492047660.post-81448460995419378382015-04-08T11:32:00.000-04:002015-05-22T13:42:10.142-04:00Movie Review: On the Beach (1959)<em>“Who would ever have believed that human beings would be stupid enough to blow themselves off the face of the Earth?” – Julian Osborne (Fred Astaire)</em>
<Br /><br />
<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://thehouseofmunch.blogspot.com/2015/04/movie-review-on-beach-1959.html"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0ZLbWvROnDG7JaNMJ5Z75vP_mnaeMggXOPRDJa-Z9NEuUPpbt6vaAjnwmtkp-GVoDVwK9Tt2lehLQobtOTPfcGeoKeQpsxbUS9HXCXW67UaGbQbmRfXqH7XNAfMnWNJA-13RXaPjbKCEv/s320/scifi_best100.jpg" alt="" title="The best in Science Fiction" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5070154316902556514" border="0" /></a>
<strong>Director:</strong> Stanley Kramer
<Br /><br />
<strong>Writers:</strong> Nevil Shute (novel), John Paxton (screenplay)
<Br /><br />
<strong>Producer:</strong> Stanley Kramer
<Br /><br />
<strong>Studio:</strong> United Artists (later bought by MGM)
<Br /><br /><strong>
Major Stars:</strong> Gregory Peck, Ava Gardner, Anthony Perkins, Fred Astaire
<Br /><br />
When I re-watched <em>On the Beach</em>, I was struck by the similarity in theme with another movie on this list: <em>Children of Men</em>. Both, through different disasters, deal in part with how humanity would face a slow, inevitable end. <em>Children of Men</em> used the concept of global infertility while <em>On the Beach</em> used approaching lethal radiation from a nuclear war. But while <em>Children</em> ended with a guarded up-beat ending, <em>On the Beach</em> gives the viewer no such comfort.
<Br /><br />
The story, adapted from Nevil Shute’s novel of the same name, is a simple one. Nuclear war has irradiated the Northern Hemisphere and killed everyone there. As the radiation moves south, the only pockets of humanity left are in Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and the southern extreme of South America. In the film, though, only Australia is mentioned as still having a human population.
<Br /><br />
An American sub, the <em>USS Sawfish</em> is stationed in Melbourne under the command of Captain Dwight Towers (Peck). When a mysterious Morse code is detected coming from America, Towers is ordered to determine who is sending the signal. That story is the spine of a larger tale; how a society handles its inevitable end.
<Br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgE8y6f26Oi0AQOf1h_VY6cLqSD8vfcERSwXQA8DjeyoJCSDzxK8bueKltcqztwdTHx6qUhYXENtvRJcWRfMUnbea4SLI4_mdpx-XAW_pOo1wyYoZ1w5eERyMPeiuI7KS5OxWXdbH0eWaE/s1600/onthebeach.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgE8y6f26Oi0AQOf1h_VY6cLqSD8vfcERSwXQA8DjeyoJCSDzxK8bueKltcqztwdTHx6qUhYXENtvRJcWRfMUnbea4SLI4_mdpx-XAW_pOo1wyYoZ1w5eERyMPeiuI7KS5OxWXdbH0eWaE/s320/onthebeach.jpg" /></a></div>
It’s probably the most civilized “end-of-civilization” movie ever made. With few exceptions, people face their end with dignity, lining up to receive their suicide pills (also a shared idea with <em>Children of Men</em>) rather than face a painful death from radiation. The pills tie into the most poignant tale in the movie, that of Peter Holmes (Perkins). He’s an Australian naval officer with a young daughter and wife. When he leaves with the American crew to determine the source of the signal, he has to teach his wife how to kill the baby and herself if the radiation comes while he is gone. It’s heartbreaking to watch as his wife recoils at the idea. Ever more heartbreaking is near the film’s end when they accept the inevitable.
<Br /><br />
When you consider that this film was made in 1959, at the height of the Cold War, it took a lot of guts to make a film like <em>On the Beach</em>. It is unflinching in its condemnation of nuclear weapons and the testing of them. That is what society was debating at the time; the atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons. Put into that context the film takes on even more weight.
<a name='more'></a>
<Br /><br />
Stanley Kramer did a masterful job in shooting this film. He worked in little moments that make the whole film so much more poignant. One such moment is when Perkins is presented with his new daughter. He is overjoyed but then looks away with anguish all over his face. Only much later in the movie do we discover that there was a calendar on the wall he turned to look at, destroying any happiness he had at that moment.
<Br /><br />
The whole film is understated and all the better for it. The material could have easily been turned into a tearjerker and played over the top like a melodrama. Instead it is restrained, which makes the moments of pure emotion so much more powerful.
<Br /><br />
This was the second in a string of good films from Kramer. Before this was <em>The Defiant Ones</em>. Following it was <em>Inherit the Wind</em>, <em>Judgment at Nuremberg</em>, <em>It’s a Mad Mad Mad Mad World</em>, <em>Ship of Fools</em> and <em>Guess Who’s Coming To Dinner</em>. That’s a pretty impressive string of films no matter how you cut it. But <em>On the Beach</em> is still my personal favorite out of all of Kramer’s films.
<Br /><br />
So where to put it on the list? I actually debated whether it should be classified as a war film rather than a sci-fi film for a while. But I think the near-future post-apocalypse setting trumps the military aspects of the film. If the only criterion was poignancy, it’d be top of the list. But I think it slots in nicely right behind <em>Aliens</em>. It’s a masterful film, but it didn’t redefine the genre or push beyond the limits of previous films.
<Br /><br />
Nonetheless, <em>On the Beach</em> is a must-own, must-see movie. Even though Shute wasn’t fond of the film (think Alan Moore and the adaptations of his works), I can’t recommend it enough.
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-354174943492047660.post-76564991366629053152015-03-31T09:09:00.001-04:002015-03-31T09:18:04.178-04:00Bye-Bye Bourbon? <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQR-leqGoV8Ee5Uoo2slFm6AXDYezEuKz8zO1FwqBBMm5jtB0DQB49qc1Ffh4h9DsN08BZr7_gYx2cj3Scoz34YaQ3KPv2kh1crVztEJfNBm1sbmXn6pOHJ5L3MbVXf0Dc9geJwS7410A/s1600/pence.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiQR-leqGoV8Ee5Uoo2slFm6AXDYezEuKz8zO1FwqBBMm5jtB0DQB49qc1Ffh4h9DsN08BZr7_gYx2cj3Scoz34YaQ3KPv2kh1crVztEJfNBm1sbmXn6pOHJ5L3MbVXf0Dc9geJwS7410A/s400/pence.jpg" /></a></div>
<P>
Before you think I have lost my mind or have decided to start drinking <a href="http://pandawhale.com/post/1537/ron-swanson-clear-alcohols-are-for-rich-women-on-diets-gif" target=blank>clear alcohol</a>, hear me out.
<br><br>
The odious asshat pictured at the top of the page is Indiana Governor Mike Pence. He is a not-very-smart man. He recently proved this by signing a bill into law which, under the rubric of "religious freedom", <A href="http://bigstory.ap.org/article/b523ec03be43445eaddb48486a744117/indiana-state-lawmakers-address-religious-objections-law" target=blank>allows for discrimination on the basis of religious belief</a>. Not surprisingly, a lot of the country <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/29/1374141/-The-epic-fallout-of-Indiana-s-anti-LGBT-religious-freedom-law" target=blank>is calling this bullshit out</a>.
<br><br>
The snark in me wants to say the best way to protest this would be for companies in Indiana that are opposed to this law to use it to refuse service to right-wing Christians. Because they always seem to be shocked that a good portion of their poorly-written laws can be used against them.
<br><br>
But no. There is another way. That dovetails nicely with a pet peeve of mine.
<br><br>
When it comes to booze, I am a stickler for truth. If you say your scotch is aged 12 years, it damn well better be 12. If you say your beer has three different kinds of hops, you best not be lying about it.
<br><br>
And if you are going to say your bourbon is "hand-crafted" like you spent a decade+ making it? Well, you had better be telling the truth.
<br><br>
<A href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/07/28/your-craft-whiskey-is-probably-from-a-factory-distillery-in-indiana.html" target=blank">That is where Lawrenceburg, Indiana and MGP enter the story</a>.
<br><br>
<blockquote>
<em>Lawrenceburg, Indiana (not to be confused with bourbon-locale Lawrenceburg, Kentucky) is home to a massive brick complex that cranks out mega-industrial quantities of beverage-grade alcohol. The factory, once a Seagram distillery, has changed hands over the decades and was most recently acquired by food-ingredient corporation MGP. It is now a one-stop shop for marketers who want to bottle their own brands of spirits without having to distill the product themselves.</em>
<br><br>
<em>Their products are well-made, but hardly what one thinks of as artisanal. And yet, much of the whiskey now being sold as the hand-crafted product of micro-distilleries actually comes from this one Indiana factory.</em>
</blockquote>
<br><br>
I encourage you to read the whole piece as it is quite enlightening. And you can also find out <a href="http://recenteats.blogspot.com/p/the-complete-list-of-american-whiskey.html" target=blank>the companies that use MGP as their source of whiskey</a>. And then stretch the truth about where it comes from. And there are some big names on there as well, like W.H. Harrison Bourbon, Breaker Bourbon and Hooker's House.
<br><br>
So you have a state wanting to legalize discrimination in the name of God (which I personally think He is not cool with, BTW) and that same state housing the source of a lot of whiskey-laced lies. What to do, what to do, what to do...
<a name='more'></a>
<br><br>
Not buying or drinking the whiskey made at MGP (or any other Indiana distillery) may or may not change what is going on in Indiana. It may or may not change the practice of buying whiskey and then telling tall tales about where it came from. And it's going to hurt, because I like Breaker Bourbon. But I am done with it as of right now.
<br><br>
Because doing what is right...you do it <em>because it's right</em>, not because it is easy or guaranteed to work all at once.
<br><br>
Yeah, boycotting bourbon brands because some companies muddy the waters about its origins is kind of snooty. It's a real "first-world problem" in every sense of the phrase.
<br><br>
But discrimination is bullshit. And cloaking discrimination within the lie of "religious freedom" is blasphemy. And bullshit.
<br><br>
So as of right now, those brands on that list...they don't get another dime from me.
<br><br>
Hopefully you'll at least consider doing the same.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-354174943492047660.post-26799641608112422952015-03-03T12:28:00.000-05:002015-03-03T12:28:04.670-05:00This Is What You Give People When You Wish They Were DeadI am blessed to live in a part of these United States where the craft beer movement is deep and strong. Within a 15-mile radius of where I live I can access some of the best beer being made in the US, if not the world. And we have the specialty dealers who can get us the beer from further away.
<br><br>
I am less blessed in having a physique that rivals Pablo Sandoval's, but without the innate ability to hit a baseball for millions of dollars a year. And as I move firmly into middle-age, it's become apparent that has to change.
<br><br>
I could stop drinking beer. But let's be honest, that's insane. There's a reason it's one of the oldest beverages created by Man. Not drinking beer is going against a biological imperative passed down through the ages.
<br><br>
So you have to find the <em>right</em> beer to drink. A good one you can find in stores is Founders All Day IPA. It's not a light beer, but it is lower in calories than most other craft beers. There is a style of beer called Berliner weisse that is pretty low-calorie. It's tart but light (a German sour to be precise), definitely a warmer-weather beer. This is much harder to find but there are a few breweries in the US (New Glarus in Wisconsin, Bear Republic and The Bruery in CA among others) making this beer.
<br><br>
Then there are the mass-produced stand-byes. If you grew up in the 70s and your dad drank beer (told you I was middle-aged), then Miller Lite is a part of your childhood memories. If you want to go foreign, then Kirin Light is actually pretty-damned tasty. You can drink these and still be satisfied, even if it is not up to the quality of a craft light beer.
<br><br>
And then there are the evil beers.
<br><br>
Let's be clear - I am not talking about Keystone or the Beast here. Those beers never pretend to be more than they are; cheap alternatives for broke college students. You can't hate on a product that is honest about what it is.
<a name='more'></a>
<br><br>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEilBKyx4-qIOVjW2ElZdI7dgd7IoTeoRIryqRhDXbA2f88cYrd3uY4U7PqdjooEa60lj95Xm9NrxwnqR-q6LHNLYGiE1_44lVtv_vucKW3zoanBh8x8l4QSc0XOdpRgR90ZOg18kTj5JXQ/s1600/64.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEilBKyx4-qIOVjW2ElZdI7dgd7IoTeoRIryqRhDXbA2f88cYrd3uY4U7PqdjooEa60lj95Xm9NrxwnqR-q6LHNLYGiE1_44lVtv_vucKW3zoanBh8x8l4QSc0XOdpRgR90ZOg18kTj5JXQ/s400/64.jpg" /></a></div>No, the evil beer is the one that pretends to be a quality alternative and is actually comparable to bile. And that beer, my friends, is Miller 64.
<br><br>
Miller 64 is Satan in brew form. Miller 64 is hate and anguish in a can. Miller 64 is what you give someone you wish was dead. If the President gave Vladimir Putin a can of Miller 64, World War III would happen tomorrow.
<br><br>
Miller 64 gave you snappy songs and happy, pretty people. They work hard and play hard! And at night, they unwind with a light beer that satisfies.
<br><br>
Lies. Dirty, dirty lies.
<br><br>
I tried this out of a desire to have a beer and not kill my attempt to lose weight. After drinking it, I'd rather be fat and enjoy the shortened, likely-diabetic years I have left than drink this swill until I die bitter at 90.
<br><br>
Miller 64 tastes like someone peed in a can and spiked it with hydrochloric acid. And that is being charitable.
<br><br>
If you see someone drinking this, you have a imperative as a human being to knock it out of their hands.
<br><br>
For the love of all that is decent in this world, never drink Miller 64. And then maybe Miller will take all the remaining stock and bury it a hundred miles underground in Nevada next to all our nuclear waste.
<br><br>
------------------
<br><br>
<strong>Beer:</strong> Miller 64
<br><br>
<strong>ABV:</strong> 2.8%
<br><br>
<strong>IBU:</strong> I assume it is 0. Possibly a negative number.
<br><br>
<strong>Price:</strong> You should be paid if you actually try to drink this.
<br><br>
<strong>Recommendation:</strong> It should all be loaded onto a rocket and shot directly into the sun.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-354174943492047660.post-68097939625970791742015-02-12T08:48:00.001-05:002015-05-22T13:42:40.879-04:00Movie Review: Highlander (1986)<em>“I am Connor MacLeod of the Clan MacLeod. I was born in 1518 in the village of Glenfinnan on the shores of Loch Shiel. And I am immortal.” – Connor MacLeod (Christopher Lambert)</em>
<br><br>
<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="thehouseofmunch.blogspot.com/p/top-100-science-fiction-films.html"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0ZLbWvROnDG7JaNMJ5Z75vP_mnaeMggXOPRDJa-Z9NEuUPpbt6vaAjnwmtkp-GVoDVwK9Tt2lehLQobtOTPfcGeoKeQpsxbUS9HXCXW67UaGbQbmRfXqH7XNAfMnWNJA-13RXaPjbKCEv/s320/scifi_best100.jpg" alt="" title="The best in Science Fiction" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5070154316902556514" border="0" /></a>
<strong>Director:</strong> Russell Mulcahy
<br><br>
<strong>Writer:</strong> Gregory Widen , Peter Bellwood and Larry Ferguson
<br><br>
<strong>Producers:</strong> E.C. Monell, William N. Panzer and Peter S. Davis
<br><br>
<strong>Studio:</strong> 20th Century Fox
<br><br>
<strong>Major Stars:</strong> Sean Connery, Christopher Lambert, Clancy Brown, Roxanne Hart, Jon Polito
<br><br>
<em>Highlander</em> always struck me as a film that just needs to be remastered to become a very good movie. Better special-effects, clean up the film stock, and get rid of the wrestling intro (the latest version cleaned the film stock nicely). There has to be a better way to get MacLeod and Fasil into that parking garage.
<br><br>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkP084GpgMtN27eM5dNTEmeHfCgPQApYJ8HZuxuAoqqqssiZSspkqonYZ84NcvM1_dHqNuE1o7X82IEvPHLDaTvfg7YXZc3Vi2sfm-DGog7kfc5EWNUONeIJAkYfzWNfXW8k2U2ed42ok/s1600/highlander.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhkP084GpgMtN27eM5dNTEmeHfCgPQApYJ8HZuxuAoqqqssiZSspkqonYZ84NcvM1_dHqNuE1o7X82IEvPHLDaTvfg7YXZc3Vi2sfm-DGog7kfc5EWNUONeIJAkYfzWNfXW8k2U2ed42ok/s1600/highlander.jpg" /></a></div>
<br><br>
Despite the horrendous sequels that followed it (and a moderately-decent television series), <em>Highlander</em> remains a fun little film about Immortals, the price they pay for eternal life and why they all want to kill each other. We aren’t talking classic here, but it’s not crap either.
<br><br>
You all know the story, yes? So I don’t have to re-hash the anguished tale of Connor MacLeod? Good. Suffice it to say, Christopher Lambert’s almost-lazy, sometimes undecipherable speech works very well in this role. If you were a 400-year old Immortal, wouldn’t life bore you to tears as well?
<br><br>
Clancy Brown is fantastic as Kurgan, one of the best movie villains ever. Completely evil and insane, he steals every scene he is in. I love Brown as an actor. If you want to see him absolutely kick-ass on-screen, check out HBO’s <em>Carnivale</em> on DVD, where he played Justin Crowe. Or, for a more kid-friendly product, he’s also the voice of Mr. Krabs on <em>Spongebob Squarepants</em>. A multi-talented man is Clancy Brown.
<br><br>
Then there is Sean Connery as Ramirez, the Spanish-named Egyptian with a Scottish accent via Japan who’s over 2000 years old. It’s definitely a one-of-a-kind role. Connery hams it up a bit but it works because he has so much fun with the character. And Ramirez is an interesting guy, willingly training a fellow Immortal whom he may have to fight someday in the future.
<br><br>
The sword-fights are fun to watch (if basic), as are the vignettes of Connor’s life. My favorite is the duel where he is repeatedly run through with a sword without effect. And there is the undercurrent of the pain he suffers as an Immortal, watching his wife grow old and die, with no children to their name. And how that has made him a bitter and distant man.
<a name='more'></a>
<br><br>
The soundtrack is kick-ass. <strong>Queen</strong> rocks and that’s all there is to say about it.
<br><br>
Russell Mulcahy did a nice job directing <em>Highlander</em>. Some of the scene-cuts are well-done and prevent that sense of dislocation a flash-back sometimes hits you with in a film. I still don’t know why he opened with the wrestling, though. It dates the film in a big way.
<br><br>
And the special-effects...that is where the film really shows it age. For 1986 they were fine but now they are just painful to watch. Sad but true.
<br><br>
Plus, even if you are a fan of the film you have to admit the whole thing is a bit silly. But unlike a lot of people who think that’s a reason to hate it (even after they loved it when they were younger), I disagree. As long as the film remains true to the logic it establishes, then I’m fine with that. Or can someone really argue that Immortals lopping off each others heads is crazy, but the idea humanity is actually plugged into a global machine as batteries (<em>The Matrix</em>) makes perfect sense? <em>Highlander</em> doesn’t violate its internal logic or cheat to get where it’s going, which is more than a lot of films can say.
<br><br>
When I reviewed <a href="http://thehouseofmunch.blogspot.com/2013/10/movie-review-independence-day-1996.html"><em>Independence Day</em></a> I mentioned my concept of “foundation films” for a list like this one. Those are films that create a minimum standard but will likely fall off the list as more films (100+ for this list) are reviewed. Is <em>Highlander</em> such a movie?
<br><br>
It’s not a classic, but <em>Highlander</em> is an enjoyable, fun film. It will never be a Top 10 selection, but it’s a lot more logical and honest than <em>Independence Day</em>. And I never get tired of watching Kurgan.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-354174943492047660.post-31585932376515180862015-01-23T10:14:00.001-05:002015-01-23T10:14:24.361-05:00Movie Review: Inglourious Basterds (2009)<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://thehouseofmunch.blogspot.com/p/top-100-war-movies.html"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhMYLu-qvFXsfljTMOlyQA-VmD-QuzFgz8tlA_CmX7S2D21sfHqNaqltjbuWRi7SYSf-tbNWi4eAank-bFvOcFHK4eO0gYjn4yFnbM5AqpMKXNcSOgza-f-0A0XSR7qegyd3HLb6UZ9jMF6/s320/war100.jpg" alt="" target="Seal of Approval" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5061284704165648994" border="0" /></a><em>"You probably heard we ain't in the prisoner-takin' business; we in the killin' Nazi business. And cousin, business is a-boomin'."</em> – Lt. Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt)
<br /><br />
<strong>Director:</strong> Quentin Tarantino
<br /><br />
<strong>Writers:</strong> Quentin Tarantino
<br /><br />
<strong>Producer:</strong> Lawrence Bender
<br /><br />
<strong>Studio:</strong> The Weinstein Company (USA)
<br /><br />
<strong>Major Stars:</strong> Brad Pitt, Christoph Waltz, Michael Fassbender, Diane Kruger
<br /><br />
In the genre of exploitation films, there are numerous sub-genres. The blaxploitation film, rape-revenge, splatter, sleaze...the different types seem almost endless. But one that hasn't been explored yet is the World War II exploitation film*.
<br /><br />
That has changed. In Quentin Tarantino's <i>Inglourious Basterds</i> we have been given our first exploitation film covering WW2. And it kicks ass.
<br /><br />
The multi-pronged story should be familiar to most of you by now. A unit of Jewish-American soldiers, led by Aldo Raine (Brad Pitt), are air-dropped into Occupied France to terrorize the Germans. They take scalps and bash in heads, the bashing courtesy of "The Bear Jew", Sergeant Donny Donowitz (Eli Roth) and his bat. They even have a German soldier who murdered Gestapo officers (Hugo Stiglitz, played by Til Schweiger) in their band. At the same time, a cinema owner in Paris who happens to be a Jew using a false identity is forced to host a German film premiere attended by the Nazi hierarchy, which is targeted by an Allied OSS operation. And tying all these different stories together is SS Colonel Hans Landa, "The Jew Hunter", played by Christoph Waltz.
<br /><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7NKcPnyqgjFvQ9PhHRAcRNjFE9KxEnVPXtaRO3NBb4gLPDLNfJezxyDEbGvI654xvSVj3fjDgQGT2PNw724hyphenhyphenuSk2jDsUzHOFhTBeAIQL1cC742YxLVeCQQLdYNIPnK5OhlsMw5eWXoI/s1600/Inglorious-Bastards.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh7NKcPnyqgjFvQ9PhHRAcRNjFE9KxEnVPXtaRO3NBb4gLPDLNfJezxyDEbGvI654xvSVj3fjDgQGT2PNw724hyphenhyphenuSk2jDsUzHOFhTBeAIQL1cC742YxLVeCQQLdYNIPnK5OhlsMw5eWXoI/s400/Inglorious-Bastards.jpg" /></a></div>The title may say "Inglourious Basterds", but the story is Landa's. He ties it all together. Nothing in the story would happen (except for one scene) without his involvement. And Waltz plays him to perfection. He is smooth, polite, intelligent and deadly. The opening scene where a Jewish family hiding under the floorboards in a French farmhouse are discovered and killed by Landa's unit is some of the best film-making you will ever see. Landa is exceedingly polite to the French farmer, but you know from the first how dangerous Landa is. From beginning to end, no other character grabs your attention like Landa. Waltz won the Best Supporting Actor Academy Award for the role, and he deserved it. In a perfect world Waltz would have won the Best Actor award. That is how good Waltz is in <i>Inglourious Basterds</i>.
<br /><br />
The sole survivor of the Jewish family massacred in the opening scene is Shoshanna Dreyfus (Melanie Laurent), who becomes the aforementioned cinema owner. She is the second most important character to this film. Dreyfus puts the climactic scene into action, an act of Jewish revenge upon the Nazi elite that is stunning and beautifully shot. But it begins to make you wonder why Tarantino named this film <i>Inglourious Basterds</i> when they are, in many ways, tangential at best to the unfolding story.
<br /><br />
This isn't to degrade their performances. Pitt chews a bit of scenery as Raine but is a very enjoyable character, one that reminded me more than a little of Lee Marvin's Major Reisman in <i>The Dirty Dozen</i>. Roth is obviously enjoying his role as Donowitz, even as he mangles a Boston accent**. And Schweiger's Stiglitz is memorable in the short time we get to know him. But by and large, the Basterds are mostly ciphers who appear only a few times before the film's conclusion.
<a name='more'></a>
<br /><br />
And while Tarantino plays it straight for the most part, there are moments that sort of stick out. The British OSS scene is pretty camp, with the British officers (Michael Fassbender and Mike Myers) really playing the effete, snobbish stereotype to the hilt***. While the two scenes with a narrator (Samuel L. Jackson) are okay and are very much in Tarantino's style, they don't exactly fit in with the film he has created here.
<br /><br />
But those are very small points against what is a great film. The dialogue is sharp and enjoyable, a contrast to the overly-wordy <i>Death Proof</i>. The memorable scenes are numerous (the two that stand out for me are the opening scene in the farmhouse and the climax in the theatre). And there are the moments of violence that every war film needs. And they aren't there simply to <i>be</i> there; every act of violence has a reason for coming into existence. This film is one of Tarantino's best. And if you wanted to say it is his best film, you wouldn't necessarily be wrong.
<br /><br />
Personally, I enjoyed all the nods to German cinema in this period. The mention of Leni Riefenstahl and the Pitz Palu. The appearance of Emil Jannings, one of the great actors of the 20s and 30s (and Nazi sympathizer to his lasting damnation). And the "film within the film" <i>Nation's Pride</i> (directed by Roth) looks like the kind of film Goebbels was funding at that time****.
<br /><br />
There is some criticism that must be addressed. Some people slagged <i>Inglourious Basterds</i> for ignoring the Holocaust, or for turning Jews into Nazis. All you can say in response is that...you missed the point. This is an exploitation revenge flick, not a serious look back at World War Two. Tarantino wasn't making the next <i>Downfall</i> or <i>Defiance</i> here. Who in their right mind thinks that Tarantino is going to make a meaningful film about World War Two? Are these critics familiar with his work? That'd be like complaining that <em>Django Unchained</em> didn't address the Fugitive Slave Act.
<br /><br />
So where does this go on the Top 100 list? Good question. Craft-wise and quality-wise, it is a really good movie with a really good cast. But it is unlike just about every other movie on the list so far because of the exploitation/alt-history framework. I can't put it ahead of <em>Where Eagles Dare</em> but is really better than <em>M*A*S*H</em>. At the end I can't quite put it ahead of M*A*S*H because that film has an emotional depth that gives it a little more. But right behind it? Absolutely.
<br /><br />
If I was giving out numerical grades, <i>Inglourious Basterds</i> would get a <b>9.7 out of 10</b> from me. Just a fantastic film all the way around. It's just over 2.5 hours and hardly drags at all. And Christoph Waltz is just amazing as Hans Landa. For that performance alone this film is worth seeing. And if you haven't seen this yet...what is wrong with you? Get moving!
<br /><br />
<br />--------------------<br />
<br /><br />
* This is different as opposed to Nazi exploitation flicks. No one would call <i>Ilsa, She-Wolf of the SS</i> or <i>One by One</i> a WW2 exploitation flick. Or if they did, they'd be wrong.<br /><br />
** Which is amazing considering Roth grew up in Newton, MA. Still, it's better than those "Pahk the cah" jokes that are nothing like a real Boston accent.
<br /><br />
*** That said, the scene with Fassbender in the tavern basement is off-the-charts great, in part because of the very "Britishness" of his character.
<br /><br />
**** As a complete aside, there is a quick scene in the film that show Goebbels having sex with his female French translator. This is actually a very accurate depiction of Goebbels. The man was a serial adulterer and earned a rep for trying to get actresses on the casting couch, so to speak.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-354174943492047660.post-32159988992222765082015-01-15T08:23:00.000-05:002015-01-15T08:23:12.565-05:00Poor Have Plenty of "Skin In the Game"<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjU7RzVNi5ejnq_IPXO2MeEFfnSFqcvTCpeCKchU4Zv0NK31HymSov1x7pJcc4pmSGoSJuNDqaAYRnL-mEU6jLeFXB5yqLXJFEHUDAJDCMR5McEQ1eU0oDChvDEw4HE0-VvRZbOuHCV5GI/s1600/mrmoneybags.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjU7RzVNi5ejnq_IPXO2MeEFfnSFqcvTCpeCKchU4Zv0NK31HymSov1x7pJcc4pmSGoSJuNDqaAYRnL-mEU6jLeFXB5yqLXJFEHUDAJDCMR5McEQ1eU0oDChvDEw4HE0-VvRZbOuHCV5GI/s400/mrmoneybags.jpg" /></a><br>He's the real victim, here.</div>
<br><br>
In the 2012 Presidential election, one of the common lines of attack from the Republicans and Mitt Romney was that 47% of Americans were, in essence, moochers. That they took from the government and gave nothing back. The solution? Make them pay more in taxes so that they, too (according to Romney and Pals), had "skin in the game".
<br><br>
So while the petulant whining and butthurt from all these millionaires and billionaires amounted to another defeat, the idea that the poor have it easy and need to pay more in taxes persists. Which makes <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/14/business/local-taxes-hit-lower-wage-earners-harder-study-finds.html?ref=business&_r=0" target="blank">the news that the poor actually <em>do</em> pay plenty in taxes</a> all the more interesting.
<br><br>
<blockquote>
When it comes to the taxes closest to home, the less you earn, the harder you’re hit.
<br><br>
That is the conclusion of an analysis by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy that evaluates the local tax burden in every state, from Washington, labeled the most regressive, to Delaware, ranked as the fairest of them all.
<br><br>
According to the study, in 2015 the poorest fifth of Americans will pay on average 10.9 percent of their income in state and local taxes, the middle fifth will pay 9.4 percent and the top 1 percent will average 5.4 percent.
</blockquote>
<br><br>
Now, of course, these are not federal taxes so you'll have plenty of Republicans say this doesn't matter. But remember, the complaint was that the poor paid <em>nothing</em> into the system, they were "moochers". When, in fact, they pay plenty into the system.
<br><br>
The reason is simple. Sales taxes, excise taxes, even property taxes, are regressive taxes that take up a larger percentage of low-income wages than the incomes of the one percent. Paying a 6% sales tax on milk, or a television, hits someone making $30,000 a lot more than someone making $300,000. And when a state relies on that kind of income, the result is an unequal system where people who need money the most are the ones without it.
<br><br>
The result is a self-perpetuating system where low-income families are always behind and trying to catch up while the wealthiest pay relatively little. Which, to a rational person, is insane since you cannot build a healthy economy by catering to the economic concerns of a tiny minority of people.
<a name='more'></a>
<br><br>
There are ways to combat the problem. If you look at the ITEP study (<a href="http://www.itep.org/whopays/">http://www.itep.org/whopays/</a>), you can see what some of the states that ranked high on the list do to level the economic playing field. A graduated income tax structure, combined with a generous Earned Income Tax Credit for the poorest workers, is a strong feature. A refundable property tax “circuit breaker” credit is another common tax policy that helps to mitigate high property tax payments.
<br><br>
And a "flat tax", that pipedream of the right-wing, is not the answer. Taking 10% of $10,000 has a hell of a bigger impact on a family than taking 10% of $100,000. The first family still has to decide which bill they pay at the end of the month. The other family just downgrades their vacation plans that summer.
<br><br>
At the end of the day, taxes are always going to be somewhat more impacting on the poorest among us, simply because they don't have a lot of money to begin with. Anything they lose to taxes will always hit them harder. But we can do more to mitigate that impact. Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-354174943492047660.post-41001060051169008972014-10-23T15:21:00.001-04:002014-10-23T15:21:21.130-04:00The Face of GamerGate<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiSjuZMGvrur72e2JEZWBSTMjJ70Y3CBM4vEO7GJEY3orSlyNq7IOmcGIPb_t_2X225bOp0RJHu_DC1FS1lCJbaldTKQp4ZR9cOWI04s-CgPrETe99HO3IDfVq3mJwRQLQYORXUjjoCXjw/s1600/gamergate.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiSjuZMGvrur72e2JEZWBSTMjJ70Y3CBM4vEO7GJEY3orSlyNq7IOmcGIPb_t_2X225bOp0RJHu_DC1FS1lCJbaldTKQp4ZR9cOWI04s-CgPrETe99HO3IDfVq3mJwRQLQYORXUjjoCXjw/s640/gamergate.jpg" /></a></div>
These are the brave warriors fighting a battle for ethics in journalism by...<a href="http://thinkprogress.org/culture/2014/10/23/3583347/felicia-day-gamergate/" target=blank>viciously slandering and attacking women</a>.
<blockquote>
“I have been terrified of inviting a deluge of abusive and condescending tweets into my timeline. I did one simple @ reply to one of the main victims several weeks back, and got a flood of things I simply couldn’t stand to read directed at me. I had to log offline for a few days until it went away. I have tried to re-tweet a few of the articles I’ve seen dissecting the issue in support, but personally I am terrified to be doxxed (having personal information such as an address, email or real name released online) for even typing the words ‘Gamer Gate.’”
</blockquote>
As has been noted, the targets of this vile insanity are almost exclusively women. Men talking against GamerGate and it's mouth-breather adherents don't get nearly the same kind of response. I'll let you discern why that may be.
<br><br>
But to make this all really simple...
<br><br>
Fuck GamerGate, GG, #GamerGate or whatever the Hell they want to call it. Fuck every little WATB who thinks that slagging and attacking women is somehow acceptable.
<br><br>
Sorry women scare you so much, brohams. But it's the 21st Century. Get the fuck over yourself.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-354174943492047660.post-44770141916000692102014-09-04T09:30:00.001-04:002014-09-04T09:30:37.274-04:00Even the Power of Jesus Won't Get You 10 Points With This Guy<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjqW7DnoN32s_2fNYalvBEKltV6QjXQVAJklZLmkEqJBLOS5IrU1E4SCcRuf8lEQ3w6_51cekFdQpnzc01eZUpRWn-QsGb8XOyPvtqZVfoiNKSks-yrBhzq9aEBYCRTdYQ4RaNV-_8k3wo/s1600/JesusFacepalmAndThusTheLord.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjqW7DnoN32s_2fNYalvBEKltV6QjXQVAJklZLmkEqJBLOS5IrU1E4SCcRuf8lEQ3w6_51cekFdQpnzc01eZUpRWn-QsGb8XOyPvtqZVfoiNKSks-yrBhzq9aEBYCRTdYQ4RaNV-_8k3wo/s400/JesusFacepalmAndThusTheLord.jpg" /></a></div>
<br><br>
I am not a fan of Tim Tebow. Not at all. For a variety of reasons. Chief among them is that he inspires an insane level of <strike>slavish devotion</strike> coverage from the media for reasons I cannot quite comprehend. It can't be because he is a good quarterback because, brother, he flat out <em>sucks</em> at slinging the ball.
<br><br>
Nevertheless, the Legend of the Mediocre Messiah persists. To the point that, even though Tebow hasn't played a competitive game in almost two years, <a href="http://www.boston.com/sports/football/2014/09/03/espn-fantasy-football-tim-tebow-owned-more-than-jaguars-starter/dlKc7rcyq79dPmYpLUUI3K/story.html?p1=Topofpage:Carousel_sub_headline" target=blank>people are still putting him on their fantasy football teams</a>.
<blockquote>
According to NFL on ESPN, Tim Tebow was owned by 1.3 percent of teams in ESPN’s fantasy leagues as of Tuesday, despite the fact he hasn’t played an NFL game since Dec. 30, 2012.
<br><br>
Surprisingly, he actually beat out an NFL Week 1 starter: Jaguars quarterback Chad Henne, who appears on just 0.8 percent of teams in ESPN leagues.
</blockquote>
That. Is. Insane. Granted, Henne isn't a great QB either. But the guy is <em>starting a game</em> while Tebow is working for the SEC Network. You may as well put Steve Young or Y.A. Tittle on your squad while you're at it.
<br><br>
Seriously, people. Tebow sucks at QB. Just let it go.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-354174943492047660.post-27571899178744534832014-08-05T11:00:00.001-04:002014-08-05T11:00:36.817-04:00Review: Aliens (1986) <em>“They're coming outta the walls. They're coming outta the goddamn walls!” – Private Hudson (Bill Paxton)</em>
<br><br>
<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://davesmoviecorner.blogspot.com/2004/01/top-100-sci-fi-films.html"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0ZLbWvROnDG7JaNMJ5Z75vP_mnaeMggXOPRDJa-Z9NEuUPpbt6vaAjnwmtkp-GVoDVwK9Tt2lehLQobtOTPfcGeoKeQpsxbUS9HXCXW67UaGbQbmRfXqH7XNAfMnWNJA-13RXaPjbKCEv/s320/scifi_best100.jpg" alt="" title="The best in Science Fiction" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5070154316902556514" border="0" /></a>
<strong>Director:</strong> James Cameron
<br><br>
<strong>Writers:</strong> Dan O’Bannon and Ronald Shusett (Characters), David Giler and Walter Hill (Story), James Cameron (Story and Screenplay)
<br><br>
<strong>Producer:</strong> Gale Ann Hurd
<br><br>
<strong>Studio:</strong> 20th Century Fox
<br><br>
<strong>Major Stars:</strong> Sigourney Weaver, Michael Biehn, Lance Henriksen, Paul Reiser, Bill Paxton
<br><br>
James Cameron can make overblown crap like <em>Titanic</em> and come off like an arrogant jerk, but I’ll always love the guy because he gave us <em>Aliens</em>. It’s one of those films that makes you forgive the foibles and flaws of anything else that director does.
<br><br>
Do I have to go into detail about just why this is one of the best <em>movies</em> ever made, let alone sci-fi movies? <em>Aliens</em> is a perfect blend of suspense, action and horror that locks you in from the start and never gives your attention a chance to wane or your eyes to wander.
<br><br>
For the 14 people who haven’t seen it, <em>Aliens</em> picks up where the original left off, with Ripley (Weaver) floating through space in her lifeboat after destroying the <em>Nostromo</em> and the Alien that had come on board. She is picked up and brought to Gateway Station, orbiting Earth. There she finds out 57 years have passed and her employers (Weyland-Yutani) have lost contact with a colony on the planet LV-426. That is the planet Ripley’s original ship visited 57 years ago and where it picked up the Alien.
<br><br>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcd1Ho5KLJqXXps3K1y4pPYScDLMO8T3xcq1eZsfOiJIfCJckeJbu9HRcCORpF3r3xBDT0wYHPaN8_DwmqhQtguhnsiZMzXo8xv2alyWmjumnVonheUh3WhoG7dPh42CEEMaDcqscer0E/s1600/600full-aliens-poster.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhcd1Ho5KLJqXXps3K1y4pPYScDLMO8T3xcq1eZsfOiJIfCJckeJbu9HRcCORpF3r3xBDT0wYHPaN8_DwmqhQtguhnsiZMzXo8xv2alyWmjumnVonheUh3WhoG7dPh42CEEMaDcqscer0E/s400/600full-aliens-poster.jpg" /></a></div>From there the film becomes a rescue mission; Ripley is assigned as an adviser to a squad of Marines being sent to LV-426 to find the colonist. Going with them is a Weyland-Yutani rep named Burke (Reiser). They reach the planet and quickly discover everything has gone horribly, horribly wrong. Then things go horribly, horribly wrong for them and the film shifts to a survival story; the rescue group has to get off-planet before the power system for the colony goes critical and kills them all in an explosion.
<br><br>
That’s part of what makes <em>Aliens</em> great; it changes mid-stream into a different story and re-captures your interest. It is just a really satisfying movie. The actions scenes are great. The atmosphere is creepy. The actors do a great job with the story. And it is well-written; with an antagonist like the Alien, it is easy to make them too powerful or to over-compensate and make the heroes too powerful. Cameron did a nice job recognizing that Ripley and the Marines <em>could</em> beat the Aliens, but they’d have to be very resourceful and lucky to do so. It makes the payoff at the end that much more satisfying.
<br><br>
And the tension…One of the smartest things they did in <em>Aliens</em> was use those hand-held movement trackers. There is one scene where they barricade themselves in a room and Private Hudson (Paxton) is tracking the Aliens coming towards their position. He calls the distance as they get closer, but they don’t see or hear the Aliens. Hudson is finally calling a distance that would mean they’re in the room. The tension is absolute at this point; my back <em>still</em> gets tense and I’ve see this film more times than I can count. Everyone looks up at the air vents. Corporal Hicks (Biehn) pokes his head up there to take a peek and...chaos.
<a name='more'></a>
<br><br>
About the only negative I can think of when it comes to <em>Aliens</em> is when the dropship crashes and almost kills the group on the ground. The special effects are horribly dated in this instance. But considering this was made in 1986, I think allowances can be made for that.
<br><br>
<em>Aliens</em> is one of the best films ever made, period. It holds up incredibly well even though it is now 28 years old and has special effects that are 28 years old. You could re-release it in the theaters and it would likely hang with or beat any other sci-fi/action film out there. It's sure as Hell better than <em>Transformers</em> and the <em>Robocop</em> remake.
<br><br>
That said, where does it rank on the Top 100 list? It’s better than <em>Serenity</em>, but better than <em>Children of Men</em>? I think the popular vote would say “yes,” but this isn’t a democracy. <em>Children of Men</em> is another film that will hold up well for a long time. It has the action scenes to rival <em>Aliens</em>, but it also has a poignancy and emotional depth <em>Aliens</em> doesn’t have. That’s not a dig, just a recognition of fact. Nevertheless, <em>Aliens</em> is one of my personal favorites and will easily be near the top of this list when it is (eventually) finished.
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-354174943492047660.post-49815332191181964432014-07-28T12:57:00.000-04:002014-07-30T18:33:26.084-04:00Let's Talk About Whisky: The Macallan 12I didn't really start drinking whiskey of any sort until my mid-20s. Until that point it was beer, vodka and rum ... your usual college-age triumvirate of memory-impairing liquids. But after graduation and moving to Boston (and getting a job with some actual disposable income), I started drinking Jameson.
<br><br>
Jameson* is still a favorite of mine. It's a perfectly drinkable Irish whiskey. Well-done year after year, it is a great "gateway" to the more intense Irish whiskeys like the Redbreast 15 or the Bushmills 16.
<br><br>
In my 30s I finally moved into Scotch single malts. And one of the first I had was the Macallan 12. It was also the last time I had it until I bought a bottle a few weeks ago. Ideally, the Macallan 12 should perform the same job as Jameson. They're only about five feet away from one another on a supermarket shelf. They occupy a similar price point. The Macallan 12 should be the Scotch that brings new people into trying single malts.
<br><br>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiTErBf2hPQWklXl8FA8O20HrRFccuPgmygKHB9wGa6VTWD9OBYYc8XTXkWSOSIEh64JhU-5p6p18Iq-nOB2EXCu1ViHQN_j93cfqhkNevhg_4hunhQFV5W15sdRso0fP0Vi7-uTVAVwSc/s1600/Macallan12.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiTErBf2hPQWklXl8FA8O20HrRFccuPgmygKHB9wGa6VTWD9OBYYc8XTXkWSOSIEh64JhU-5p6p18Iq-nOB2EXCu1ViHQN_j93cfqhkNevhg_4hunhQFV5W15sdRso0fP0Vi7-uTVAVwSc/s400/Macallan12.jpg" /></a></div>And yet a decade went between me trying the Macallan 12 the first time and now. The whisky that finally brought me in was, of all things, the Talisker 10. A great single malt, but not one you would give to a first-time whisky drinker. But that is neither here nor there.
<br><br>
The Macallan 12 is not a bad single malt. But for me, it's not exactly good either. I'm not one to talk about "noses" and "palates" and all that. But I just felt the sherry taste really overwhelmed the entire experience. And the finish was very, very, harsh. I don't know if I would go as far as to say it is bitter, but it's not enjoyable.
<br><br>
And this is a problem because to non-whisky drinkers one of the few names that may be known to them is Macallan. Because they see it on the top supermarket shelf along with Laphroaig and Glenmorangie. And odds are that when someone wants to try a Scotch single malt for the first time, a Macallan 12 will be selected quite a few times.
<br><br>
And if my first taste of whisky is harsh on my tongue and makes me think I should have just bought a bottle of Sandeman Armada Oloroso instead ... that's not going to make me seek out other single malts.
<a name='more'></a>
<br><br>
What makes this doubly-disappointing is that the older Macallan expressions are quite good. The Macallan 18 is wonderful. I was once fortunate enough to have a small, small, much-too-small glass of Macallan 25. The finish there (spicy and somewhat smokey) compared to the 12 is the difference between a Bentley and a Yugo.
<br><br>
Perhaps it has to do with volume and quality control. Macallan is one of the highest-selling single malts in the world. When you produce more and more volume, with more and more product lines, quality can take a hit.
<br><br>
Regardless, the Macallan 12 simply doesn't live up to the reputation that the name has earned over the years. If you do insist on buying it, save it as the scotch you give to people you are only going to meet once. Or in a party situation. Or as the base if you are going to make a Highland Fling.
<br><br>
But as an introduction to single malts? You aren't doing anyone any favors by using the Macallan 12.
<br><br>
Distillery: Macallan<br>
Brand Sherry Oak<br>
Age: 12 years<br>
Maturation: Sherry casks<br>
Region: Highland/Speyside<br>
ABV: 40%<br>
Recommendation: <strong>Pass</strong>
<br><br>
* An earlier version of this post called this "the Jameson 12" in error. I meant your standard bottle of Jameson. The 12 is fantastic, though.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-354174943492047660.post-61770976401166854452014-07-08T15:34:00.001-04:002014-07-08T15:37:58.766-04:00My Five Favorite Films From...1994<strong>Honorable Mention – <em>Natural Born Killers</em>:</strong> I have a story to tell about this film but I will save it for another time. Very intense, bloody and off-the-charts nuts, but it’s well-made and definitely worth seeing.
<br><Br>
<strong>5. <em>Hoop Dreams</em>:</strong> Even now I think this stands as one of the better documentaries of the past 20 years or so. It was a sin against common sense and general decency that it wasn’t nominated for an Academy Award that year.
<br><Br>
<strong>4. <em>Clerks</em>:</strong> To many this is still Kevin Smith’s best movie*. I think it holds up as one of the better comedies of my generation. The sequel…not so much.
<br><Br>
<strong>3. <em>The Shawshank Redemption</em>:</strong> If this was a list about quality, this would be first in a cakewalk. The best adaptation of a Stephen King story ever**. Still amazes me whenever I watch it.
<br><Br>
<strong>2. <em>Léon (The Professional)</em>:</strong> A huge sleeper film that caught everyone by surprise and is now recognized by many as one of the better movies ever made***. Not a down moment the entire movie. And it still amazes me that this was Natalie Portman’s first film. Who acts like that their first time out?
<a name='more'></a>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiL4g1pVsCiwr9B4fbR8-TP3TbDRftHBOM8FfdUf4v9ciFo9zvpSu9iskeTCaz9ScIsWkzi-HVAOB5EqctuLzkvszQAnXacDEWXamEO3EnP2dS184A1z_bG7Kz_NipdwQVwZBfY9Wxht7Y/s1600/2112_4.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiL4g1pVsCiwr9B4fbR8-TP3TbDRftHBOM8FfdUf4v9ciFo9zvpSu9iskeTCaz9ScIsWkzi-HVAOB5EqctuLzkvszQAnXacDEWXamEO3EnP2dS184A1z_bG7Kz_NipdwQVwZBfY9Wxht7Y/s400/2112_4.jpg" /></a></div>
<br><Br>
<strong>1. <em>Pulp Fiction</em>:</strong> The film that resurrected the careers of John Travolta and Bruce Willis and made the careers of Samuel L. Jackson**** and Ving Rhames. Tarantino’s best movie. Spawned a whole new sub-genre of movies trying to copy what Tarantino did with dialogue and playing with the timeline of the movie*****.
<br><Br>
Wow. Even though 1993 was stronger overall, the top three films (for me) of 1994 are all some of the most respected films ever made. If you go to IMDB, <em>Shawshank</em> is currently #1 while <em>Pulp Fiction</em> is #5 and <em>Léon</em> is #27. That’s remarkable.
<br><Br>
<strong>Films I Like But Didn't Make The List:</strong> <em>Three Colors: Red</em>, <em>Three Colors: White</em>, <em>Four Weddings and a Funeral</em>, <em>Clear and Present Danger</em>, <em>Quiz Show</em>, <em>Bullets Over Broadway</em>, <em>City Slickers II</em>, <em>Junior</em>, <em>Legends of the Fall</em>, <em>Heavenly Creatures</em>, <em>Ed Wood</em>, <em>Dumb and Dumber</em>, <em>Wyatt Earp</em>, <em>The Mask</em>, <em>True Lies</em>, <em>Little Odessa</em>, <em>Immortal Beloved</em>, <em>PCU</em>, <em>The Madness of King George</em>, <em>The Paper</em>, <em>Reality Bites</em>, <em>Mrs. Parker and the Vicious Circle</em>, <em>Speed</em>, <em>Star Trek: Generations</em>, <em>The Ref</em>
<br><Br>
<strong>Underappreciated – <em>Cobb</em>:</strong> This movie never got a lot of love from people. My theory is that a lot of people were uncomfortable watching Tommy Lee Jones portray a man who was a great ballplayer, but also a nasty, vile unrepentant racist and misanthrope. It’s hard to make a person like that the centerpiece of a story and then expect the public to come out in droves. But those people missed out on a great little film.
<br><Br>
<strong>Guilty Pleasure (x2) – <em>Timecop</em> and <em>Stargate</em>:</strong> Both these movies rise above the usual “Guilty Pleasure”. The first was Van Damme’s only $100 million film, and it was his best by a wide margin. <em>Stargate</em> was the only film Roland Emmerich ever directed that doesn’t make me want to jump out a window******.
<br><Br>
<strong>Major Disappointment – <em>Naked Gun 33 1/3: The Final Insult</em>:</strong> After the first two films, expectations were high that this would be a gut-buster as well. Instead, it stunk. I mean, this movie is flat-out bad. Not funny at all. Peter Segal’s career as a director would have died right here if it wasn’t for <em>Tommy Boy</em> coming out the next year and saving his ass.
<br><Br>
And what has David Zucker written since this bomb? <em>High School High</em>, <em>BASEketball</em>, <em>H.U.D.</em>, <em>An American Carol</em> ******* and <em>Scary Movie 5</em>. Ye Gods.
<br><Br>
<strong>Growing Disenchantment With… – <em>Forrest Gump</em>:</strong> I loved it when it first came out. Then I liked it a little less each time I saw it. Now I don’t even bother flipping to it if it’s on television. I don’t know what it is exactly about the movie that caused this to happen. Maybe it’s the fact that Jenny dicks Forrest over for decades, sleeps with him once and then dumps a kid on him before she dies of AIDS. And <em>this</em> is the love of Forrest’s life. Yeah, that might have something to do with it…
<br><Br>
----------------
<br><Br>
* For me personally, it’s <em>Chasing Amy</em>. I know some people dislike it but I think it is a more cohesive overall story than <em>Clerks</em>. Other people may say <em>Red State</em> or <em>Zack and Miri</em>. To each their own.
<br><Br>
** There are three more adaptations that are allowed into this discussion: <em>The Mist</em>, <em>Stand by Me</em> and <em>The Shining</em>. I liked <em>1408</em> and <em>Salems Lot</em>. <em>The Stand</em> and <em>It</em> were awesome mini-series. But the argument begins and ends with those four films. We'll see what happens with <em>The Cell</em> next year.
<br><Br>
*** It’s true. #27 on the IMDB Top 250. And it’s just obvious from watching it. Jean Reno and Gary Oldman are flat-out awesome in that movie.
<br><Br>
**** Unless someone wants to argue that Jackson’s role as Stacks in <em>Goodfellas</em> or his star turn in <em>Amos and Andrew</em> was his big break. In which case I’ll have to take a croquet mallet to your temple.
<br><Br>
***** Yes, <em>Reservoir Dogs</em> did the same thing. But <em>Pulp Fiction</em> got a bigger audience than <em>Reservoir Dogs</em> ever did. I mean, it isn’t even close. More people saw the second film and that is why <em>it</em> had that kind of impact on film-making.
<br><Br>
****** He also directed <em>The Patriot</em>, which only makes me want to ram my head into a wall. By that standard, it was a roaring success.
<br><Br>
******* <em>An American Carol</em> was as funny as finding out you have cancer of the pancreas. It was seen by a sliver of the 27% of Americans who are still stupid enough to believe President Obama is some kind of gay Kenyan Muslim terrorist dictator. Thankfully we never had to see a hagged-out Ann Coulter pimp this all over television. Otherwise I would be blind from all the bleach I would have had to dump in my eyes.<br /></p>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-354174943492047660.post-87926909519854707992014-07-02T12:01:00.001-04:002014-07-02T12:01:09.211-04:00Why am I Subsidizing Boner Pills?<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRCid-ROkeRXsCjKAMTfzB7WGqs6J2A77nBuRHZE3j1-Kqm0_xsgSmXqbSVzEH_ieSSInPZJzdasfKq6goLI18jqq42cgb-0HV_VSyJSDP5puSGJCM8tulz-3MMUxBE4U7cFfDv20LbhM/s1600/04291400-1469.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiRCid-ROkeRXsCjKAMTfzB7WGqs6J2A77nBuRHZE3j1-Kqm0_xsgSmXqbSVzEH_ieSSInPZJzdasfKq6goLI18jqq42cgb-0HV_VSyJSDP5puSGJCM8tulz-3MMUxBE4U7cFfDv20LbhM/s640/04291400-1469.jpg" /></a></div>
In the wake of five men on the Supreme Court deciding that corporations, provided they are "closely held", can have religious preferences, the scene is set for some bad things to happen.
<br><br>
First bad thing: this is another "one-off" decision by the conservative wing of the Supreme Court to get a result that following precedent would have denied them. Just like <em>Bush v. Gore</em>, it is an on-the-fly decision tailored to get the result they want. The Hobby Lobby case will not apply to all corporations, and (according to the judges) not even all health care options. Just 16 different kinds of contraception for women who happen to work for "closely-held" corporations.
<br><br>
And yes, it's all of them. One of the arguments after the decision was that the ruling only applied to the four kinds of contraception that Hobby Lobby supporters called "abortifacents". Their use of the term, unlike actual science, is more of a pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo catch-all word wrapped up in the Shroud of Turin. It has less to do with worrying about an egg smaller than the point of a needle and more about their need to go all Helen Lovejoy:
<br><br>
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/Qh2sWSVRrmo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<br><br>
Yes, won't somebody think of the children? Because with decisions like this, our children are going to grow up in a very fucked up society.
<br><br>
Second bad thing: "Closely-held" corporations are a lot more prevalent than you think. According to this piece in the <em>Wall Street Journal</em>, <a href="http://online.wsj.com/articles/hobby-lobby-ruling-begs-question-what-does-closely-held-mean-1404154577" target=blank>up to 90% of American companies</a> qualify as "closely-held".
<br><br>
<blockquote>
The Internal Revenue Service defines a closely held company as a corporation that has more than 50% of the value of its outstanding stock directly or indirectly owned by five or fewer individuals at any time during the last half of the tax year. It also cannot be a personal-service corporation.
</blockquote>
<br><br>
Massive corporations like Mars Inc. and Cargill Inc. actually qualify as "closely-held" companies. Those two companies alone employ over 200,000 people.
<br><br>
Now, will all these companies follow Hobby Lobby and discriminate against women and their health-care choices? Likely not. Least of which because it makes your company look ignorant, backwards and ridiculous.
<br><br>
But now there is a legal stamp of approval to do something like this. It creates a constant sense of concern for women because now they could lose a part of their health care.
<br><br>
Third bad thing: There is no guarantee this stops here. Remember the first bad thing about conservative court members trying to limit this religious exemption? There is no guarantee that will happen. Justice Ginsberg, <a href="http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/best-lines-hobby-lobby-decision" target="_blank">in a stinging dissent</a>, made it clear that the Court had entered some very dangerous territory.
<br><br>
<blockquote>
Approving some religious claims while deeming others unworthy of accommodation could be 'perceived as favoring one religion over another,' the very 'risk the [Constitution's] Establishment Clause was designed to preclude.
<br><br>
"The court, I fear, has ventured into a minefield."
</blockquote>
<br><br>
And it has. Now that the Court established that a corporation can have religious beliefs, trying to tell a closely-held corporation run by Jehovah's Witnesses that they have to cover transfusions is going to be a rough sell. And in the end, I don't see how the Court could make them do it because of the Establishment Clause.
<br><br>
In short, because Alito, Scalia and the other three are scared of vaginas, we're going to have a Constitutional crisis sometime in the next 10 years or so over this topic. Thanks a lot, guys.
<br><br>
But really, I just want to know one thing...
<br><br>
Why am I subsidizing boner pills?
<a name='more'></a>
<br><br>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEik3A3oqklzCrKVB5TO4YJpAkBA6_O_LpneVVMl9LFaPLd_SvRqjczDLAqpFd1vdt6aHMPBRX_bPk9BSawwV9jRkKKMg3UDOWXbd-ePFtqLbWwGpunt4-sSB80SiBut4PLpWvMvlT909j8/s1600/79121_1264794772078_400_274.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEik3A3oqklzCrKVB5TO4YJpAkBA6_O_LpneVVMl9LFaPLd_SvRqjczDLAqpFd1vdt6aHMPBRX_bPk9BSawwV9jRkKKMg3UDOWXbd-ePFtqLbWwGpunt4-sSB80SiBut4PLpWvMvlT909j8/s400/79121_1264794772078_400_274.jpg" /></a><br>Like this guy needs more free Viagra...</div>
<br><br>
There is all this bullshit and faux concern over covering women's contraception. This contraception helps women to decide when and where, if at all, they'll have children. Considering the fact that having a child is about the biggest, most life-altering thing someone can do, maybe it makes some god-damn sense to ensure women can have some control over when that happens.
<br><br>
And it does other things too. The Pill (and any hormone-based contraceptive for that matter) can reduce the risk of some types of cancer. It can make PMS and periods more tolerable. It helps to treat endometriosis, a condition that can lead to permanent infertility. According to a Guttmacher Institute study, <a href="http://www.guttmacher.org/media/nr/2011/11/15/" target="_blank">up to 1/3 of women that use the Pill do so for <em>non-pregnancy reasons</em></a>.
<br><br>
But to hear conservatives bloviate and ramble and spew on this topic, subsidizing contraception for women is just about paying for them to be loose.
<br><br>
So what about the god-damn boner pills, you mouth-breathing hypocrites??? What the fuck is Viagra or Cialis good for besides erections and fucking?? It is a pill literally designed to help men have sex. It does nothing else. It sure as fuck doesn't reduce cancer risks or prevent permanent infertility. But it's awesome at helping dudes get hard-ons and knock up women who can't afford to get contraception anymore.
<br><br>
And what does Dr. Laura or Rush Limbaugh or any other conservative blowhole have to say about that??? (skip to :24)
<br><br>
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/lfrJzkpzCyg?t=24s" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<br><br>
Granted, Limbaugh has nothing to say about boner pills because the fat fraud was caught going to the Dominican Republic with enough Viagra to keep the porn industry humming along for a year. But the rest of the conservative noise machine has no excuse. To them, women being responsible about sex is a thing of shame and moral collapse. But making sure every guy has a hard-on is a damned national imperative.
<br><br>
So if we're going to start micro-manging health plans based on religious preference or moral indignation or what-have-you, I'd like my health provider to stop using MY premiums to fund old man boner pills. Because we need more women being able to make responsible choices and less guys trying to knock them up.
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-354174943492047660.post-85012973191439483132014-06-25T10:55:00.001-04:002014-06-25T10:55:26.121-04:00Okay Climate Change Deniers, Here's Your Chance to Make $10,000My suggestion, though, is that you don't spend it before you win it. Because the chance you actually win this $10,000 is very, very, very...hell, it's zero. The chance you win this money is zero.
<br><Br>
Despite the scientific proof, the <em>overwhelming</em> scientific proof that human-instigated climate change is real, there are some ignorant people out there who refuse to believe it. Unfortunately, a good number of these ignorant fools are Republicans in the federal government.
<br><Br>
Anyway, this refusal to acknowledge fact has some very real repercussions. Rising tides, drought, disrupted weather patterns...oh, and the end of our way of life as we know it today. That also happens down the road. But none of that matters to these brave deniers of truth. For reasons that usually go "Obama...UN...socialism...no freedom!!!"
<br><Br>
Well, <A href="http://io9.com/scientist-offers-10-000-to-anyone-who-can-disprove-cli-1595320736" target="_blank">one scientist is now giving these fools the chance to profit.</a>
<br><Br>
<blockquote>
Outraged by the unsavory tactics of climate change deniers, physicist Christopher Keating says he'll give $10,000 to anyone who can use the scientific method to prove that human-instigated climate change isn't real.
<br><Br>
Keating has been involved in one way or another with climate change for the past three decades. He's been a professor of physics for over 20 years and has taught at the U.S. Naval Academy and the U.S. Coast Guard Academy.
</blockquote>
<br><Br>
Keating taught at Annapolis and New London? Well, there goes the "He's a god-hating liberal" argument out the door. That's going to put these deniers in a tough spot before they even start.
<br><Br>
Actually, there are two prizes. $10,000 to anyone who can "prove — via the scientific method — that anthropogenic climate change is not real". In other words, simply saying "It used to be cold a long time ago. Humans exhale CO2 - how can it be bad??" isn't going to cut it.
<br><Br>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvNwuaZtvcMjhj8UpjuA5sJHA-RbFN6H4jMR3R5dgWuxoFsTdOZf19eHi9K8CNv1JZziBc-qn85gxVASsMQSWqv7eFA9OcQdvTERuJ7S3IM8qvT5IOghA1RKQ19Ve-auiwOA3c8s6x8ls/s1600/color-climate-chg-deb-web.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjvNwuaZtvcMjhj8UpjuA5sJHA-RbFN6H4jMR3R5dgWuxoFsTdOZf19eHi9K8CNv1JZziBc-qn85gxVASsMQSWqv7eFA9OcQdvTERuJ7S3IM8qvT5IOghA1RKQ19Ve-auiwOA3c8s6x8ls/s400/color-climate-chg-deb-web.jpg" /></a></div>
<br><br>
But if that is too heavy of a lift, Keating will give you a grand to "anyone who can provide any scientific evidence at all that it isn't real."
<br><Br>
C'mon deniers!! You talk all the time about all this "evidence" that disproves man-made climate change. But it's ignored or suppressed or what have you. Now's your chance! Make a grand and show this remarkably-qualified scientist that he's wrong.
<br><Br>
Something tells me that Dr. Keating's money is safe.
<br><Br>
Oh, and on a completely unrelated topic, <a href="http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=83650" target=_blank">half of the US is in drought right now</a>. Sure that has nothing to do with climate change.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-354174943492047660.post-20349254676143563622014-06-24T10:37:00.000-04:002014-06-24T10:37:22.745-04:00The Awesome Nick Offerman as The Narrator in The Gunfighter is ... AwesomeOne of the oldest narrative tools in film is the voice-over. A way to convey information to the audience, or storyline information to the audience while keeping characters on-screen ignorant of that information, they can be useful or clunky or outright bad.
<br><br>
Good voice-overs add to the narrative. An example would be anything from <em>Goodfellas</em>
<br><br>
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/WKuA6Rha1yw" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<br><br>
Bad voice-overs cover for holes in a weak script. Or add nothing to the film. The voice-over that was added to <em>Blade Runner</em> fits this description perfectly. Forced to add it in by the studios, the rumor is that Harrison Ford intentionally delivered it poorly so it would have to be cut. It didn't work and the film was released with voice-overs in 1982.
<br><br>
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/AJzIT6fQ3OU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<br><br>
But now comes the short film <em>The Gunfighter</em> which presents a different take on the voice-over. What if everyone on screen could hear the voice? And what if Nick Offerman were said voice? The results are pretty fantastic.
<br><br>
<iframe src="//player.vimeo.com/video/79306807" width="500" height="208" webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen allowfullscreen></iframe>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-354174943492047660.post-89983178744278339162014-06-23T11:50:00.000-04:002014-06-23T11:50:09.734-04:00The Best Thing About USA vs PortugalYeah, being brought down to a tie in what was literally the final seconds of a match sucks. Tying Portugal 2-2 feels more like a loss than a draw. But it leaves the US in control of their own destiny. Win or tie with Germany and the USA is into the knockout rounds. Considering the same holds for Germany, my guess is we'll see a boring, defensive draw that benefits both sides. But who knows.
<br><Br>
But that is something to worry about come Thursday. For now, let's forget Michael Bradley's horrendous ball control in midfield and Geoff Cameron's seeming inability to properly mark someone coming into the six-yard box. And let's rejoice in the most beautiful goal I have ever seen an American score in the World Cup.
<br><Br>
<object id="flashObj" width="480" height="270" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=9,0,47,0"><param name="movie" value="http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1&isUI=1" /><param name="bgcolor" value="#FFFFFF" /><param name="flashVars" value="videoId=3636460234001&linkBaseURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slate.com%2Fblogs%2Fthe_spot%2F2014%2F06%2F22%2Fhere_s_the_jermaine_jones_wonder_goal_that_saved_america_s_world_cup_video.html&playerID=58264559001&playerKey=AQ~~,AAAAAASoY90~,_gW1ZHvKG_0UvBsh7aZU7MXZe77OcsGq&domain=embed&dynamicStreaming=true" /><param name="base" value="http://admin.brightcove.com" /><param name="seamlesstabbing" value="false" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="swLiveConnect" value="true" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><embed src="http://c.brightcove.com/services/viewer/federated_f9?isVid=1&isUI=1" bgcolor="#FFFFFF" flashVars="videoId=3636460234001&linkBaseURL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slate.com%2Fblogs%2Fthe_spot%2F2014%2F06%2F22%2Fhere_s_the_jermaine_jones_wonder_goal_that_saved_america_s_world_cup_video.html&playerID=58264559001&playerKey=AQ~~,AAAAAASoY90~,_gW1ZHvKG_0UvBsh7aZU7MXZe77OcsGq&domain=embed&dynamicStreaming=true" base="http://admin.brightcove.com" name="flashObj" width="480" height="270" seamlesstabbing="false" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowFullScreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" swLiveConnect="true" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash"></embed></object>
<br><Br>
Jermaine Jones plays in Germany for Schalke 04, though he has been loaned out a bit and finished last year on loan to Turkish side Beşiktaş. He is one of the oldest players on the American squad at 32 years of age. He is usually known for committing fouls.
<br><Br>
But Jones has become a rampaging monster of doom in the center of the pitch in this World Cup. He is playing hard but smart and has been the USA's most consistent player. And then that goal...Messi couldn't have done it better.
<br><Br>
Also, we all owe some retroactive thanks to President Truman and Secretary of State Marshall who made sure the US stayed involved in Europe after WW2. Without US servicemen in Germany, we'd be without not only Jermaine Jones but John Brooks as well and would likely be going home at this point.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-354174943492047660.post-65879252297600784912014-06-20T10:39:00.001-04:002014-06-20T10:39:52.083-04:00My Five Favorite Films From...19931993 was a powerhouse year for the movie industry. The sheer number of quality films that came out just boggles the mind. I had to struggle to pick my favorites.
<br><br>
<strong>Honorable Mention (x2) – <em>Carlito’s Way</em> and <em>Dazed and Confused</em>:</strong> Already I can’t pick just one film. <em>Carlito’s Way</em> is a fantastic gangster film and what I think is Pacino’s last great role. As for <em>Dazed and Confused</em> let’s just say that not only was it funny, but I was in my senior year of college and definitely enjoyed many of the same things the characters did. And I don’t mean Wooderman and high-school girls.
<br><br>
<strong>5. <em>Schindler's List</em>:</strong> An incredibly powerful movie. It seems ridiculous in retrospect that it took this movie to re-ignite interest in the Holocaust and preserving the memory of that evil as a warning to us all. But that is just how good it was. And that girl in the red coat…
<br><br>
<strong>4. <em>True Romance</em>:</strong> An excellent reminder that Tarantino has been writing great scripts for a while, Tony Scott could direct a film without gimmicks* and Christian Slater could act his ass off. And who knew that Balki from <em>Perfect Strangers</em> made such a good coke-head?
<br><br>
<strong>3. <em>Shadowlands</em>:</strong> I love this movie. If you told me 20 years ago that a British film about the relationship between C.S. Lewis and Joy Gresham would be a personal favorite, I’d have laughed in your face. But I do so love this film.
<br><br>
<strong>2. <em>Army of Darkness</em>:</strong> You have to love The Bruce in his seminal role as Ash. It’s corny and funny and ridiculous and I love all of it. Even people who don't like horror movies like this movie. Because The Bruce is awesome.
<a name='more'></a>
<br><br>
<strong>1. <em>Groundhog Day</em>:</strong> One of the funniest movies ever made. One of the best movies of all time. Solid from beginning to end with a lot of great one-liners and gets a message across without being preachy. If you don’t like this movie there is something seriously wrong with you.
<br><br>
<strong>Films I Like But Didn't Make The List:</strong> <em>Three Colors: Blue</em>, <em>Rising Sun</em>, <em>Mad Dog and Glory</em>, <em>Dave</em>, <em>The Age of Innocence</em>, <em>Falling Down</em>, <em>The Fugitive</em>, <em>Judgment Night</em>, <em>In the Name of the Father</em>, <em>Manhattan Murder Mystery</em>, <em>Jurassic Park</em>, <em>Mrs. Doubtfire</em>, <em>My Life</em>, <em>Gettysburg</em>, <em>The Piano**</em>, <em>The Remains of the Day</em>, <em>Tombstone</em>, <em>Farewell My Concubine</em>, <em>In the Line of Fire</em>, <em>Point of No Return</em>, <em>Much Ado About Nothing</em>, <em>Philadelphia</em>, <em>The Firm</em>, <em>Grumpy Old Men</em>, <em>Six Degrees of Separation</em>, <em>Sleepless in Seattle</em>, <em>What's Love Got to Do With It</em>
<br><br>
<strong>Underappreciated – <em>So I Married an Axe Murderer</em>:</strong> Mike Myers is pretty much a hack these days. But back in the day he made some funny films and this was one of them. But for some reason a lot of people hate on it and it always gets two stars from those ratings you see on cable when you press the “info” button for a listing. Which is insane, because this movie is gut-busting funny. It’s a Rorschach test of sorts; either you like it or you don’t. And if you don’t…well, I feel sorry for you. It’s like not being able to taste sugar.
<br><br>
<strong>Guilty Pleasure (x2) – <em>Demolition Man</em> and <em>Hard Target</em>:</strong> Stallone! Van Damme! Gunfire and punching galore! Sure, these aren’t Oscar-worthy films, but they are a fun distraction. And <em>Hard Target</em> was John Woo’s first American film, before he lost his mojo and starting making stuff like <em>Windtalkers</em>.
<br><br>
<strong>Insane Film That Must Be Mentioned – <em>The Vanishing</em>:</strong> This movie is not insane for what it contains but for how it was shot. This is a remake of the 1988 Dutch thriller/horror film <em>Spoorloos</em>, which has one of the best endings ever shot for a film. Simple, chilling and a gut-shot. The director, George Sluizer, directed the American remake as well. But he inexplicably tacked on a happy ending that destroyed any impact the movie had. It was like Sluizer intentionally killed it.
<br><br>
The only thing I can liken it to is Thomas Harris’ “fuck you” to fans of Lecter and Starling with his novel “Hannibal.” Just an utter disregard for one’s own work.
<br><br>
<strong><em> Reoccurring Note:</em></strong><em></em> As always, my list is not what I consider "the best" films of a particular year. If that was the case, <em>Schindler’s List</em> or <em>Philadelphia</em> would be at the top of the list. These are the films I <u>enjoyed</u> the most. Your mileage may vary.
<br><br>
* It's arguable to say that this was the peak of Tony Scott's career as a director: <em>Crimson Tide</em> was solid and <em>Man on Fire</em> is still a favorite of mine. Both were straight-ahead, well-directed films. But <em>Domino</em> was gimmicky in how it was shot and <em>Deja Vu</em> was both gimmicky <em>and</em> bad. All that said - before Scott sadly passed away he produced three solid films in 2013: <em>Stoker</em>, <em>The East</em> and <em>Out of the Furnace</em>.
<br><br>
** Could’ve done without seeing Harvey Keitel’s wang, though. What is it with him and showing off the goods. He did it in <em>The Bad Lieutenant</em> as well. Thank God he didn't whip it out in <em>Moonrise Kingdom</em>.
<br><br>
*** Woo got back on track with <em>Red Cliffs</em>, a historical Chinese war flick that is a hundred kinds of awesome.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-354174943492047660.post-89541130751416193982014-06-17T10:50:00.000-04:002014-06-17T10:53:52.354-04:00Oh. Hell. Yes. US Beats Ghana.<script src="http://player.espn.com/player.js?pcode=B4a3E63GKeEtO92XK7NI067ak980&width=576&height=324&externalId=intl:1887620"></script>
<br><br>
Purging the hex that Ghana has held over the US in the last two World Cups was ever-so satisfying. Having one of Klinsmann's new German-American kids (John "Never has to buy a drink again" Brooks) score the goal was even better. Coming so late in the game? Amazing.
<br><br>
As remarkable as it was, the US still has some concerns. Jozy Altidore straining his hamstring is a huge blow. He is the only striker on the side that can really play with his back to the goal and do it well. Hopefully Matt Besler is okay as well, though that cautionary substitution for him allowed Brooks into the game.
<br><br>
Most concerning, to me, was Michael Bradley's poor play. He always seemed a step behind the play. His passing was, in a word, atrocious. Hopefully it is a one-time thing because his poor form resulted in the US spending too much time in their own half defending against Ghana (40% of the US possession was in their own third). Overall Ghana out-possessed the US 59%-41%.
<br><br>
The US couldn't pass effectively but still got the win. They cannot do that against Portugal or Germany. On the upside, advancement just got very easy for the US. Beat Portugal and they are in (excepting a couple of crazy scenarios that would include Ghana trouncing Germany). That is a big ask, to be fair. But Portugal, for all their talent, is a very undisciplined team (see Pepe: Headbutt). And Ronaldo, as good as he is, has a bad habit of trying to do everything on his own. A good, disciplined US defense that can successfully pass out of their own third, moving to a US midfield that can maintain possession, will beat Portugal.
<br><br>
But for now, let's savor the moment. Just like Mr. Brooks.
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg927mAU_5yFw66bZ-wXH9zsnj_eH08yfFyMceseqRWfrthFHZTJMSwZaKNo2uUBKk8lgP8ngHXidJ649bh4HXodgMaMy-8B_wdd0HZAti8DK0iQRGzTZSTADmU7z2q4hGeIHHT7C_mHf4/s1600/johnbrooksawesome.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg927mAU_5yFw66bZ-wXH9zsnj_eH08yfFyMceseqRWfrthFHZTJMSwZaKNo2uUBKk8lgP8ngHXidJ649bh4HXodgMaMy-8B_wdd0HZAti8DK0iQRGzTZSTADmU7z2q4hGeIHHT7C_mHf4/s400/johnbrooksawesome.jpg" /></a></div>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-354174943492047660.post-5199005653474772012014-06-16T11:03:00.001-04:002014-06-16T11:03:59.752-04:00This Is Why We Can't Have Nice Things<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjij2DHu4POwE-y7Z-yuzPJyXKgAQrCwuATvsrhEWF-yfsJIKUWfcKrRe7dnkb99np6Ig82V59fd1-sVASPq53mZGRxvKsuMggkoLTeGk-GhBT2Jd-buaa6EIlJ1S6Ig8GjiBUD2pLJknE/s1600/thompson87-1.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjij2DHu4POwE-y7Z-yuzPJyXKgAQrCwuATvsrhEWF-yfsJIKUWfcKrRe7dnkb99np6Ig82V59fd1-sVASPq53mZGRxvKsuMggkoLTeGk-GhBT2Jd-buaa6EIlJ1S6Ig8GjiBUD2pLJknE/s400/thompson87-1.jpg" /></a></div>
Of course, you are almost asking for this to happen when some of your biggest donors are oil companies. But that doesn't change <a href="http://www.dallasnews.com/news/local-news/20140614-museums-tiptoe-around-climate-change.ece" target="_blank">that this is complete and utter crap</a> (<em>Dallas Morning News</em> via <em><A href="http://io9.com/science-museums-are-skittish-about-climate-change-1591364396/all" target=blank>io9</a></em>).
<br><br>
<blockquote>
The Dallas Morning News has learned that the Perot Museum failed to display a panel that spelled out the link between burning fossil fuels, higher concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and a warming planet.
<br><br>
The 4-by-2.5-foot panel had been designed to hang in its earth sciences hall but was lost in the bustle leading up to the museum’s opening in December 2012, said Steve Hinkley, vice president of programs at the Perot Museum. He did not learn of the panel’s omission until a reporter began inquiring about it earlier this month.
<br><br>
......
<br><br>
The missing panel, titled “Changing Climate,” states that “Volcanic eruptions and burning fossil fuels increase the amount of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere. This warms the Earth and can cause sea levels to rise and climates to change.”
<br><br>
A caption below a photo of what looks like a smokestack added: “Humans have altered Earth’s climate by burning coal and other fossil fuels that release carbon dioxide,” according to an image of the panel provided by the Perot Museum and by the panel’s designer.
</blockquote>
<br><br>
The article goes on to have Hinkley state the reason the panel is missing is that it was improperly designed for the space and they need to make a new one. Of course, this problem arose a <em>year and a half ago</em> and I am willing to wager it doesn't take that long to make a new panel.
<br><br>
No, the problem is much simpler. Big Oil/Gas/Whatever donates money to these museums and then makes sure that scientific facts that would hurt their bottom line simply disappear or get crowded out by a bunch of noise.
<a name='more'></a>
<br><br>
Later in the story is a quote from Forrest Hoglund, a natural gas executive who also sits on the board of the museum. This pretty much sums up the problem.
<br><br>
<blockquote>
“Climate’s always changing, and always has,” he said. “So there’s a lot of information out there and a lot of misinformation.”
</blockquote>
<br><br>
See? It's so <em>complicated</em>. The climate is <em>always</em> changing. Putting up a permanent panel stating scientific fact...well, that would be difficult because of all the information out there.
<br><br>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1K-6364c5r5sWOsk-LbWqnUou59K1vgeioAiT1lnwgTZrxotFBfd3fuELOrN2nMDgs_5VKdAAhx4aKCS6WM43ld1x-jsjhF4aYnIwwQU5sESnG2LSMQ_ObkL4Bi_mMwMTR-l54bOByzI/s1600/jesusdinosaur.png" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi1K-6364c5r5sWOsk-LbWqnUou59K1vgeioAiT1lnwgTZrxotFBfd3fuELOrN2nMDgs_5VKdAAhx4aKCS6WM43ld1x-jsjhF4aYnIwwQU5sESnG2LSMQ_ObkL4Bi_mMwMTR-l54bOByzI/s400/jesusdinosaur.png" /></a></div>The rest of the article is worth a read as well, especially on the suppression of talking about evolution in science museums. Which would be like forbidding Cooperstown from discussing the curve ball or balls and strikes. It's a fundamental part of science that cannot be mentioned because a bunch of idiots who think they know what the Bible says wants the rest of us to be as stupid as they are.
<br><br>
This is a serious problem. Ignoring or, in this case, suppressing science leads to an ignorant society. A controllable society. And it doesn't matter if the suppression is done for money or theology or simple spite. Science is fact, neutral fact. It holds no allegiance or ideology. It is science that created the world we have today. And ignoring or suppressing the scientific fact of climate change is what may well ruin the world.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-354174943492047660.post-79355735451019530242014-06-11T20:44:00.000-04:002015-05-22T13:42:54.137-04:00Review: Star Trek: The Motion Picture (1979) <em>“It's life, Captain, but not life as we know it.” – Commander Spock (Leonard Nimoy)</em>
<br><br>
<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="thehouseofmunch.blogspot.com/p/top-100-science-fiction-films.html"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0ZLbWvROnDG7JaNMJ5Z75vP_mnaeMggXOPRDJa-Z9NEuUPpbt6vaAjnwmtkp-GVoDVwK9Tt2lehLQobtOTPfcGeoKeQpsxbUS9HXCXW67UaGbQbmRfXqH7XNAfMnWNJA-13RXaPjbKCEv/s320/scifi_best100.jpg" alt="" title="The best in Science Fiction" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5070154316902556514" border="0" /></a><strong>Director:</strong> Robert Wise
<br><br>
<strong>Writers:</strong> Alan Dean Foster (story), Harold Livingston (screenplay)
<br><br>
<strong>Producer:</strong> Gene Roddenberry
<br><br>
<strong>Studio:</strong> Paramount
<br><br>
<strong>Major Stars:</strong> William Shatner, Leonard Nimoy, James Doohan, DeForest Kelley, George Takei, Walter Koenig, Nichelle Nichols, Stephen Collins, Majel Barrett,
<br><br>
It’s <em>Star Trek</em>, friends, but not as we know it. Short on action and long on meditations about life, it’s purpose and it’s creation, <em>Star Trek</em> was an ambitious movie that inexplicably made the universe we all knew and loved god-awful boring.
<br><br>
You would think that the <em>Enterprise</em> flying out to intercept an alien cloud that has destroyed multiple Klingon ships and a Federation outpost would have some great action scenes. Instead, you get Spock trying to mind-meld with the remains of the ancient (by movie standards) Voyager space-probe that is now the heart and mind of a massive life-form called V'ger. That would be a nice compliment to a concurrent action sequence. Instead it’s just more of the same.
<br><br>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8x_SMT1sKu-Bl2SmwNyIaoAC4hXWrUXkxdBOm2fQHFb1aU4GpqF9SzvltZebsYhRO9XO7lO-Sc6jbiSv0Xf-8eJPRnhNCQ46yO50Pj3H8cPmarvA7s0DqqdQHkEdKJR6-zXnrk7JHQT4/s1600/star_trek_the_motion_picture.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="clear: left; float: left; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh8x_SMT1sKu-Bl2SmwNyIaoAC4hXWrUXkxdBOm2fQHFb1aU4GpqF9SzvltZebsYhRO9XO7lO-Sc6jbiSv0Xf-8eJPRnhNCQ46yO50Pj3H8cPmarvA7s0DqqdQHkEdKJR6-zXnrk7JHQT4/s400/star_trek_the_motion_picture.jpg" /></a></div>I was too young to appreciate the letdown a lot of <em>Star Trek</em> fans felt when it came out in 1979. These are the people that fought and begged NBC to keep the show on television and were teased by rumors of a second television show. So when this came out and it played like a snooze-fest, they were understandably pissed off. Throw in the fact it cost close to $50,000,000 and you didn’t get half the action of one of the television episodes, it’s amazing they went back to the well for <em>Wrath of Khan</em>. Thank God they did, but it was a leap of faith by Paramount. By comparison, <em>Wrath of Khan</em> cost just $11,000,000. Sometimes less is more.
<br><br>
Not that the whole film was a bust. Some of the sounds were unique, like that crazy buzz when V’ger appears. I liked a lot of the special effects, especially the interior of V’ger. Jerry Goldsmith’s soundtrack was a good one. And you have to admire the scope of the movie, even if its execution was flawed.
<br><br>
Plus, you have to give credit to what <em>Star Trek: The Motion Picture</em> gave birth to:
<br>
<ul>
<li>10+ more movies, including the new <em>Star Trek</em> reboot
<li>Four more television series (and undoubtedly more to come)
<li>Countless novels and tie-ins, video games and God knows what else
</li>
</ul>
<br>All that would never have happened without the first movie. In it’s own way, <em> Star Trek: The Motion Picture</em> was as influential on the science-fiction genre and entertainment in general as <em>Star Wars</em> was two years earlier. In some ways, maybe more so.
<a name='more'></a>
<br><br>
But that cannot cover up or completely excuse what is, at its core, a very bland and boring movie. <em>Star Trek: The Motion Picture</em> doesn’t bring anything to the screen. It exists simply to exist, as if that was enough to justify seeing it. It’s flaws are more apparent when compared to <em>Wrath of Khan</em>, which is not only the best <em>Star Trek</em> movie ever made but one of the best science-fiction movies ever made.
<br><br>
I would love to see the reaction of someone who grew up watching <em>Next Generation</em> and <em>Deep Space Nine</em> to <em>Star Trek: The Motion Picture</em>. Would they appreciate what this film created, or would they just want to turn the movie off?
<br><br>
So where to put this film on the current list? I started working up the line and when I came to <em>Outland</em>, I couldn’t justify putting <em>Star Trek: The Motion Picture</em> ahead of it. Which surprised me at first but in retrospect isn’t that odd. <em>Outland</em> , for all its flaws, still held my interest. And it’s a movie I like to re-watch from time to time. Those are two things I cannot say about <em>Star Trek: The Motion Picture</em>.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-354174943492047660.post-86293496799839611832014-05-27T12:53:00.003-04:002015-08-03T10:13:40.512-04:00Movie Review: The Terminator (1984)<em>“Listen. And understand. That terminator is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever, until you are dead.” – Kyle Reese (Michael Biehn)</em>
<P>
<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://thehouseofmunch.blogspot.com/p/top-100-science-fiction-films.html"><img style="margin: 0pt 0pt 10px 10px; float: right; cursor: pointer;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0ZLbWvROnDG7JaNMJ5Z75vP_mnaeMggXOPRDJa-Z9NEuUPpbt6vaAjnwmtkp-GVoDVwK9Tt2lehLQobtOTPfcGeoKeQpsxbUS9HXCXW67UaGbQbmRfXqH7XNAfMnWNJA-13RXaPjbKCEv/s320/scifi_best100.jpg" alt="" title="The best in Science Fiction" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5070154316902556514" border="0" /></a>
<strong>Director:</strong> James Cameron
<br><br>
<strong>Writers:</strong> James Cameron and Gale Ann Hurd, William Wisher (additional dialogue), Harlan Ellison (The Outer Limits teleplays "Soldier" and "Demon with a Glass Hand")
<br><br>
<strong>Producers:</strong> John Daly, Derek Gibson and Gale Ann Hurd
<br><br>
<strong>Studio:</strong> Orion Pictures (later bought by MGM in 1998)
<br><br>
<strong>Major Stars:</strong> Arnold Schwarzenegger, Linda Hamilton, Michael Biehn, Lance Henriksen
<br><br>
This (along with <em>Aliens</em>) is the movie that forgives Cameron all his subsequent hubris. Filmed on a shoestring budget of just $6.4 million, <em>The Terminator</em> became a sleeper hit and then exploded into the insane mega-franchise we know today. Oh, and it helped that Schwarzenegger fellow really launch his career.
<br><br>
No one saw this film coming. In 1984 the big buzz was about movies like <em>Ghostbusters</em>, <em>Star Trek III</em> and <em>Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom</em>. Then in late October this movie about an unstoppable robot killer from the future hit the screens. And would my parents (i.e. mom) let me see it? No. Apparently killer robots are too intense for a 12-year-old. So I would have to wait until it came out on VHS in 1985 and I could cajole my dad into renting it.
<br><br>
It blew me the Hell away. And the more I watched it in years to come, it <em>still</em> blew me away. It’s this perfect little story but with the action and tension of a much larger film. You’re dealing with the salvation of the human race, but remain focused on just three characters.
<br><br>
It’s hard to picture now, what with two (increasingly larger) sequels, then <em>Terminator: Salvation</em> and now <em>Terminator: Genesis</em> will happen in 2015. But at the time, <em>The Terminator</em> was unlike anything else anyone had seen on a movie screen. Unless you count the Harlan Ellison <em>Outer Limits</em> stories which Cameron unwisely mentioned as inspiring him. Ellison jumped all over him and got a retroactive credit.
<br><br>
For me the iconic scene of The Terminator character isn’t the massacre at the police station, his impromptu eye surgery or even the final scene in the factory. It’s when that child’s toy gets crushed and you see the cyborg begin his methodical killing of everyone named Sarah Connor. It drives home that this relentless machine cares about only one thing and would torch the world if that is what it took for him to complete his assignment.
<a name='more'></a>
<br><br>
Looking back, it’s hard to picture Ah-nuld as Kyle Reese and Biehn as The Terminator. That was the original idea before someone wisely realized that the Human Wall was a much better choice for a remorseless killing machine. Biehn brought weariness and a frayed “on the edge” bent to Reese that Schwarzenegger would never have been able to pull off. Plus, Biehn and Hamilton had some genuine chemistry together. They cling to one another, two desperate people trying to outwit and outrun something that doesn’t eat or sleep and wants them dead. Again, the amount of emotion and tension in what is essentially a three-person film make <em>The Terminator</em> feel larger than it is. That is why this is still the best of four franchise films made so far. Yes, I know plenty of people like <em>Judgment Day</em> more. But that is another discussion for another time.
<br><br>
Where does this fit on the list? It’s a top 10 for me, a genre-defining film that has few if any flaws. <em>Children of Men</em> has more emotional depth and some amazing tracking shots. But it didn’t rewrite what was possible to put on the screen. <em>The Terminator</em> did just that and that is why I’m slotting it (currently) at #2. It’ll likely come down a notch or two, but I am hard-pressed to see it drop much.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0