Saw 2012. It's an enjoyable, yet dark, "popcorn" flick. The special effects are first rate. They are believable and sensational to watch. I can already see them being nominated for an Oscar for that category, if not winning. The plot is kinda flimsy, but I didn't care too much. It falls in line with the conventional disaster film. The world is collapsing, the main characters are seeking refuge, get involved in near death situations, etc. I liked the acting, although some of the dialogue is predictable. I guess there's not much to expect in a big budget Hollywood film directed by Roland Emmerich. Luckily, the characters have enough depth that I cared about them.

There were some coincidences that annoyed me. A limo and a plane are driving away from an earthquake right behind them, characters who know each other happen to meet in an airport, the Creation of Adam painting in the Sistine Chapel splitting apart between the two hands, etc. Regardless, I enjoyed the film, as I mentioned. I chuckled at the humour, I was thrilled by the action, and I loved the special effects. If there's a reason to see the film again, it's the latter. Otherwise, I'm glad I saw it at least once.

I don't mind their ginger ale, but I hate their club soda. It has this sour and bland taste to it that makes it difficult for me just to finish a can.

Oh, there's a few, like A Christmas Story, Back to the Future, Die Hard, Goodfellas, Scarface, and Terminator. They're all important films and since I'm a film buff, I know I'll see them at some point.

Already done, recently. I listed one of my favourites, there.

I Photoshopped this because of its absurdity of being together. The bottom originally showed "The History Channel", but I think this is funnier.

It's a clever hoax, exploiting people's emotional reactions of the exhibit. This so-called "artist" must want attention badly to do something like this.

At 11/21/09 01:32 AM, Lagatag wrote: Or what if a little kid crawls through by accident? wtf

Like the article says, he's a guy who'll fuck anything that moves, like Frank Booth.

Boring, Oregon

"The most exciting place to live." I first heard of the town when I went to a wedding at Oregon, several years ago. Too bad I never went there, but it's probably just like any other Oregon town my family and I passed by.

I don't remember being scolded for cursing, if I ever did it in front of them. I was scolded for saying "shut up" to them when I was three or four. I thought it was the same as "be quiet", but no. My parents curse under their breath in front of me and they've been doing it for at least five or more years.

At 11/19/09 08:37 PM, WeHaveFreshCookies wrote: What's gone on in our culture to make our kids lose their innocence so fast?

Like pox, I think "innocent" is just another way of saying "ignorant" and probably a nicer way, as well. If we describe children as one of the first four definitions of "innocent", children aren't free from moral wrongdoing, like if they commit murder or other serious crimes. Even petty crimes, if they were brought up to behave themselves, etc. If they weren't, then it's their parents' or guardians' fault.

Now, if we describe children as the 6th or 7th definition of the word, then I'm more understanding. I agree their naiveté (or ignorance, if you want a harsher sounding word) should be kept to a certain degree. What degree that is, I don't know exactly. Protection from violence and sex, yes. Swearing, I don't know. "Butt" is the same as "ass"; "poop" is the same as "shit"; "idiot" or "jerk" can mean "dick" or "asshole", etc. Why are the latter words considered swearing, but the former words aren't? That's another thing I don't know.

Anyway, correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't kids always been this way? It depends who brings them up, who they hang out with, and what they do in their spare time.

At 11/18/09 11:18 PM, Saen wrote:

At 11/18/09 09:49 PM, EclecticEnnui wrote:
No, we're a consitutional monarchy, where the Crown has restricted power of the law and parliament. Just because we have public health care doesn't mean our government is socialist.

Oh well thanks for informing us. Still doesn't sound much better than socialism though. Britain has public health care and it is not a socialist country. I just made a false assumption.

Actually, we're also a parliamentary democracy, like Britain. There's really only so much of a role the Queen plays in Canada, these days. "As a constitutional monarch, The Queen abides by the decisions of the Canadian Government, but she continues to play important ceremonial and symbolic roles." Since 1981, "God Save the Queen" is no longer our national anthem.

At 11/17/09 10:41 PM, Saen wrote: Canada is a socialist country

No, we're a consitutional monarchy, where the Crown has restricted power of the law and parliament. Just because we have public health care doesn't mean our government is socialist.

Anyway, I'm not too familiar with American politics and how things work, but I did find this article from today that Obama is warning of a possible double-dip recession for the US, unless action is taken to lower the debt. He also said, "Nobody's been more disappointed than I have to see how high the unemployment rate has gotten. And I spend every waking hour, when I'm talking to my economic team, about how we are going to put people back to work." The thing is when he said that on this interview, (4:55) he said it was a side issue. Nevertheless, he remained confident in the economy's recovery, so I dunno. :/

At 11/16/09 05:08 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: I'll remember this opinion of yours so that the next time you advertise an opinion, I won't pay much attention to it.

lol, like Ben Lyons, regarding I Am Legend.

At 11/16/09 04:08 PM, Evark wrote: It's funny, when I was the same age as you kids are the cool 'hot boy' movie star to hate on was Leonardo DeCaprio.

Like you, I was a preteen when Titanic came out. I don't remember the hate for him, but I do remember girls were flocking to see the film over and over. Of course, he shredded the "hot boy" image by starring in Scorsese films and others. I have to wonder if Robert Pattinson will eventually do something like that.

I only have one comedy in my DVD collection and that's Planet Terror. There's many funny lines and moments from it:

Wray: Would you quit crying over fucking spilt milk?
Cherry: I have no leg!

Wray: I'm going to get Cherry.
Sheriff Hague: Fine, but we're taking my car.
[his car explodes for no reason]
Sheriff Hague: [looking back at Wray] I'm riding with you.

At 11/15/09 04:17 PM, boloneyman wrote: There is a few more I'd like to mention as my favorites but I'll mention them later. So am I in?

Sure. All are welcome, as long as you're not a troll or the like.

It's good to see this club thriving. I don't remember the last movie I watched for the first time, though. I'm interested in seeing Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans when it comes out. It's directed by Werner Herzog and it's already getting good reviews. It's also not a remake of the 1992 film with Harvey Keitel. "[Herzog] says he has never seen the original and therefore does not consider this movie a remake. Additionally, producers seemed to have added "Bad Lieutenant" to the title in order to get a better marketing. Whether remake, re-imagining, follow-up or none of the aforementioned, both movies are clearly connected by the basic plot of following a drug addicted, violent cop during his encounters with crime and sex."

I never saw it. I first heard about it when Harrison Ford was on Conan promoting Firewall. The whole interview was hilariously awkward and when the special was mentioned and a clip was played, Ford looked particularly embarrassed. You can download the interview here. (The special is brought up about seven minutes in.)

I don't exactly know what cinema used to be because I wasn't going to the theatres and renting new movies regularly like I do now. Of course, I wasn't born in the '60s or '70s, so the movies I've seen from then are the ones that are cherished by people or remembered for other reasons. Pink Flamingos, Fritz the Cat, I Spit on Your Grave, and Caligula are examples of the latter. They're considered to be exploitative, controversial and/or repulsive. Look them up if you don't believe me. I did enjoy the first two for their humour and oddity, but the other two I didn't care for.

I also can't comment on the exact state of cinema today since I don't watch every mainstream and indie movie that hits theaters, like critics do. I generally see movies that are praised on Rotten Tomatoes and/or IMDb. As a result, I've seen some really good or even fantastic ones from this year: Coraline, Sin Nombre, Inglorious Basterds, Zombieland, Paranormal Activity, Up, and Drag Me to Hell. If it hadn't been for movies like those, not just for this year but for previous years, I probably wouldn't be watching recent movies as much as I do.

At 11/14/09 09:49 PM, Paradigms wrote: $600 will not last a year. You'll be lucky if it even lasts half of your first journey. It will most certainly be gone by the end of your first journey.

Yeah. If he only spent $30 a day on food and water, and his trip took 300 days, that's $9000. If he doesn't have that much, he'd have to get a job first or along the way. I dunno if the latter option is possible because I dunno US laws on employment, like if you can get a job in another state without living there.

I don't doubt the journey would be an experience, as long as you don't end up dead like Chris McCandless, but you need to have money, guts, and people's hospitality.

I'm only loosely familiar with Death Note, but it looks like it matches this comic. For the last panel, you'll get it if you read that one Calvin and Hobbes story.

Bah... trailers. They just give you an idea of what a film's genre(s) is/are, what it's about, and how it visually looks. I don't use them to determine whether a film might be good or not.

I will say, though, there are two films that interest me, based on those things and that they're directed by acclaimed directors: Shutter Island and Inception. Whether they'll be any good depends on when and if I see them.

Upside-down view of a Toronto subway car. (December 2008)

Eclectic means variety and ennui means boredom. I saw the words together on a critic's mixed review of the film Gummo and I liked the way they sounded. They do somewhat define me. I'm open to music and movie styles and I can be bored like anyone else.

Sleep - Dopesmoker

The album is basically an hour long stoner metal song and the cover is fitting. It's a very good song, although it's repetitive and I haven't listened to the whole thing more than a few times. I guess it requires you to be in the right mood, lol. Sleep were also pioneers of the aforementioned sub-genre.

At 11/13/09 12:18 AM, Aigis wrote:

At 11/12/09 08:24 PM, Franklin-Moore wrote: Actually critics have a lot of things to do with sequels. If a movie gets great reviews then more people will see it. The more people see it, there is a better chance for a sequel, because movie companies are greedy fucking pigs.

There was a study done on Rotten Tomatoes, and it showed that, on average, 2007 movies praised by critics made more money than movies that weren't praised or trashed. Here's another similar study on 2003 movies.

Could you then please explain to me why there are so many Saw films?

Well, the latter article says, "As the slavish followers of Eddie Murphy or Freddy Krueger can attest, only two genres seem critic-proof: comedy and horror." Every Saw movie has made at least $100 million worldwide, excluding the sixth because there's no stats yet. If you compare that number to the movies' budgets, then of course there's reason to keep making them. Neither of the Saw movies scored a fresh rating on RT. I think, pardon the pun, this is proof that horror movies are critic-proof.

I don't care that much, but I wonder what the response would be if it was a N.I.G.G.E.R. acronym. If fag only means idiot or the like, then why not the n-word?

I built this car at the beginning of the decade. This year, I finally outgrew having it on display on my desk, so I put it in my closet. :D

Unfortunately, they still happen. Charleston High School, located in a small town in Mississippi, held its first interracial prom, last year, because celebrity and resident Morgan Freeman payed for it. A group of Canadian filmmakers were there to document it for Prom Night in Mississippi. Here's an article about the issue with two audio interviews.

I was stunned when I heard about this. Black and white students sit together in classrooms, but the dances and proms are segregated and held outside the school. If you listen to the audio, it gives insight into why, etc. Tradition is a key factor, but I find that to be a big time fallacy. Racism is another factor, of course. The n-word is used in a derogatory manner within a quote, near the end of the audio. Very sad. According to this thread, the school held another interracial prom, this year, but a "whites only" one was still held outside the school.

Here's another similar article of a high school in a small Georgia town. Southern stereotypes, anyone?

Oh shit.

At 11/11/09 02:53 AM, LordFerrok wrote:

At 11/11/09 02:51 AM, EclecticEnnui wrote: From The Wizard. This might sound nerdish, but the numbers aren't random.

You made me cry little tears of nostalgia...

Thanks. Wow, that movie has its 20th anniversary next month, but it's not like many people care, lol.

From The Wizard. This might sound nerdish, but the numbers aren't random.