Buzzard's Top Fives

Top Five Podcasts

With an extremely long commute, I happen to listen to a wide variety of podcasts.  These are my current, consistent, favorites:


(1) The Drabble Cast: This show calls itself a weird podcast of weird stories from weird authors for weird listeners, and they are not wrong.  The show host, Norm Sherman, is reliably hilarious and clever, and is frankly the reason I started listening to the show in the first place -- he guest hosts a lot of the short story podcasts I listen to, and his episodes, whether reading or just hosting, are always the most enjoyable.  The subject matter of the stories varies greatly, but always have an odd and intriguing twist that make them compelling listening.  I recommend this podcast to just about everyone as the stories are really a lot of fun, are often quite humorous, and there is always something for anyone.

(2) Life After the Cover Save: Officially a "40k" podcast, this is really nothing more than excuse for a bunch of former college buddies to sit around and tell fart and dick jokes while poking fun at one another.  What guy hasn't sat around like this with his buddies?  While stupid and trite on its face, the openness of this group really sucks you in and makes you feel a part of the group.  Equal parts witty and offensive, I find this show a good listen and a great way to blow off steam.

(3) Escape Pod:  I love science fiction, and this podcast is dedicated to short stories of that genre.  The good thing about that particular medium is that it can dabble in fantasy, drama, historical fiction, and horror and still stay true to form.  The stories in this cast are great fun and consistently of a very high quality.  While its sister casts (Pseudopod and Pod Castle) are also great, this one is by far my favorite.

(4) Doug Loves Movies: Comedians and movies, what a great combination!  Centered around Doug Benson and his infamous 'Leonard Maltin Game', this is a weekly show where Doug invites three people to come onto the stage at the UCB theater to play a movie guessing game really similar to the old game show, "Name That Tune."  Instead of betting on how many notes from a song it will take to guess a tune, however, in Doug's version you guess the name of the movie based on the number of cast members (from the bottom - last billed - up) he reads to you and from hints out of Leonard Maltin's review of the movie.  Only about a third of each show is actually dedicated to the game, with most of the show revolving around the (usually) hilarious conversations between the host and his guests.  Good fun -- although I can very rarely guess correctly.

(5) A Prairie Home Companion: Ok, so yeah, Garrison Keillor is probably better geared towards my father's generation... or perhaps my grandfather's generation, but I still really enjoy listening to Keillor's stories.  He has a very compelling way of sucking you into every story about his fictional home town in Minnesota, and I enjoy how he weaves in nods to great literature, folk music and life lessons.  A modern day Aesop, there is something in his stories for everyone.

One Movie to See and Another to Skip (No. 22)

Movie to See: 44 Inch Chest




This movie is not what I thought it was, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. When I read the description of the movie, I was fairly certain that this was a movie about an underworld crime boss whose wife was unfaithful, and he sets out to get the dirty Frenchman who did the dirty deed and ends up biting off more than he can chew. I had envisioned a cross between Unfaithful and Get Carter. But WOW was I wrong.

It turns out that this movie is actually about the psychological journey that the crime boss goes through. We get insight into the madness that creeps into his brain as he tries to understand why the woman he loved so completely has betrayed him, and why she would do so with the particular fellow she betrays him for. In taking on this psychological exploration, our protagonist works things out through in-character conversations with people that are not in the room, through careful flashbacks -- both real and imaginary, and by listening to the banter of his henchman who are standing by waiting for the boss to decide how he wants to handle the situation. The latter parts, by the way, are all played by veteran British actors whose characters cover several generations and all carefully represent not only their own views and understanding of life, but also different facets of the crime boss himself. Seeing how these characters interact, their banter (often quite funny) reveals the complexity of how we form our perspectives -- often juggling conflicting goals and ideals in order to settle on the best course of action.

All in all, this was a very engaging and carefully crafted movie. I enjoyed the inner struggle of the protagonist, both within his own mind and through the actions of the characters he surrounded himself with, and I really enjoyed the amazing acting talent contained within the film. One character in particular, for instance, does not have a single line in the movie, and yet there is never any doubt whatsoever of what is going through his mind as the plot develops. This is a gritty, but altogether brilliant film. Highly recommended -- and much better than the movie that I thought it was going to be.

---

Movie to Skip:  Journey to Promethea





How do I put this delicately... this is a crap film. Billy Zane isn't even trying, and most of the supporting cast is pretty bad. I mean, this is yet again another Zane movie where he barely phones in his performance (maybe he took the trouble to email it in) and still receives credit on the box cover and the billing. In my opinion, with very few exceptions (perhaps in his earlier and more notable career), Mr. Zane is the kiss of death for a movie. If he's in it, it's probably going to suck, and he's going to put forth $5.37 worth of effort. Yeah, that's right... a "will work for a #7 at Taco Bell" performance. How lame. Zoolander is a lie. Billy Zane's not cool; he's a lazy actor that can't even be bothered to cobble together a 'Captain Kirk' level performance for a pay day. Boo! 

But hey, let's not lay all of this down at Zane's lazy feet. I can come up with all kinds of other reasons that made this movie really, really stupid:

1. The same "enslaved" people seem to be marching under guard, for some unknown reason, for eight years - by the chronology of the movie;
2. Despite how wretched the enslaved people are, everyone still seems to be rather jovial in the villages -- which must be happening when they're not being marched around for some odd reason;
3. All the costumes of the villagers are bright and poofy like an exaggerated Renaissance fair, and yet their faces all have dirt smudges all over them;
4. The "knight" costumes of the bad guys are so horribly insufficient (one step above aluminum baking pans with cut off sweat pants and odd blousy shirts), that they appear to be poorer than the enslaved people -- not to mention more out of shape and less capable of delivering realistic dialogue;
5. (spoiler) There is NO final confrontation between the ultimate bad guy (Zane) and the good guy;
6. In fact Zane obviously filmed his scenes in an afternoon because (spoiler) he never leaves the one room he's in, never changes his costume (which is even more pathetic than the knight costumes - and it is NOT the costume on the cover), and only interacts with a couple of other people that ever appear anywhere else in the movie -- even though their supposed to be his bad guy henchman agents exacting his will;
7. Oh, and how about the fact that a bit part actress appears on the box cover, as well as another character that spends less than 10 minutes on screen, but our HERO, who is supposed to be the savior of all of... er... whatever that stupid kingdom is called... is not on the cover at all? Yeah, those two guys at the bottom... neither one of them is the lead.  In fact, one of them is from a flashback, and the other guy, well, hell, I have no idea who he is.
8. Do I need to go on?

On the other hand, there are some kind of fun things that happen in the movie. For one, both Zane and the princess in this movie appear to have harems of scantily clad women around them at all times. Zane's are pretty lazy and simply lounge about the place reciting horrible dialogue with all of the skill of a sixth-grade school play. But the princess' group are dressed as barbarians (reads: faux leather mini skirts and tops in the style of Gabrille from Xena: Warrior Princess), carry swords, and are supposed to be her faithful bodyguards. Now, in point of fact (spoiler), of those same bodyguards, one of them, who has served the princess "since she was a little girl," will betray her at the drop of the hat when she unsuccessfully tries to seduce the hero - who looks 14 and for whom the 25+ year old princess obviously has a crush - and then runs off to tell the bad guys where the hero's camp is when she starts getting thirsty. But other than that, the ladies of the princess' harem generally appear to be willing to engage in some piss poor fencing with Zane's fat aluminum pan and sweat pants wearing knights in the final "battle." While they were all terrible fighters, and even worse actresses, I will have to put down scantily clad sword wielding harem on my "to-do" list. That just looked fun. Of course, I never did figure out the outfits. The women all slept in the same chamber as the princess while back in the castle, all wearing the kind of gowns you would expect in a B-movie film that has a royal court of ladies, but for some reason, when it came down to business, they dressed like savages. So weird. And one of several wierd things about this movie.

Realize, dear reader, that I gave one FULL star to this movie for the lady bodyguard alone. The other half star is for the acting, writing, directing, cinematography, and general nonsensical calamity that was the plot line to this turd. This is a really, really stupid movie and should probably not be watched by anyone. But that doesn't mean you can't also put down the scantily clad sword wielding harem on your "to-do" list as well... Just skip the movie.

One Movie to See and Another to Skip (No. 21)

One Movie to See:  Isolation

 I think I'll start this one out with a song...

Old mad scientist had a farm, e-i-e-i-o;
and on that farm he had some cow-snake-xenomorph-monsters, e-i-e-i-o;
With a hiss, hiss, here, 
and an "Oh shit it's got my leg!" there...

This is one really screwed up movie. And it also answers that age old question, "What could possibly go wrong when playing around with the genetic code of farm animals?" Very creepy. A lot of fun. There were plenty of uncomfortable scenes (many of which are just scenes from basic life on a livestock farm, to be honest) that kind of made my skin crawl, but it was impossible to tear my eyes away. And despite the fact that this is all taking place on an isolated (hence the title) farm out in the middle of nowhere, you can't help but get the feeling that, yep, now we're all just totally screwed. And not in a 28 Days Later "well, if we can just wait it out until the zombies die of starvation and we don't get infected" kind of screwed. I mean a, "once you let the genie out of the bottle, there's no friggin' way he's gonna get back in it" kind of screwed. This is one of those crazy dystopic cautionary tales that makes you stop and think that, yeah, as ridiculous as it all was... couldn't that actually happen? 

The writer/director of this movie did a fantastic job with this film. It was well paced, atmospheric (despite taking place on a farm), and frankly, actually scary. Props to a film maker that understands that if you never show us the monster, we won't believe you; but if you show us the whole thing, warts and all, it will never live up to our expectations. In this movie, you'll see the monster, but only enough to let your imagination fill in the very worst bits of it. Very well played. That is a difficult balance to acheive, but this film did it very well. I think a LOT of monster movie film makers could learn a thing or two with this one. Mr. Carpenter, Mr. Craven; yeah, I'm talking to you two, too. 

If you like horror movies, I think you'll like this one. And if you're an activist looking for another reason to ban genetic experimentation, have some more fodder for your cannon...

---

One Movie to Skip:  The Unbearable Lightness of Being

I couldn't have come up with a more apropos title for this one if I tried... it truly was a movie to be endured rather than enjoyed -- it was mostly unbearable.  I mean, the acting was great (Daniel Day-Lewis, Juliette Binoche and Lena Olin are all great - no doubt), and I'm sure the novel it is based upon is just as fantastic as the critics say that it is, but man was this a loooong movie.  At nearly three hours, you have to set aside a fair amount of your sanity in order to make it all the way through.  I can pretty much sum up the action of this movie in one sentence: a serial philanderer and the stupid woman who loves him try to make their relationship work in the middle of the cold war.  Aaand that's about it.  If you don't think that sounds interesting, then you probably won't like it.

As an emotional exploration of complicated relationships, sure, it's probably worth your time.  And there is artistic merit to the film as well.  But beyond that, I just couldn't' get into it.  I'm sure there is plenty I could have taken from the story... There is a running conflict between the characters where the only time they seem to be happy is when they run away from their current lives and do something new and exciting, and yet there is always an oppressive weight that settles upon them when they slip back into the same routines that make them unhappy.  It is an emotional philosophical struggle between what life could be if we live our lives one day at a time versus the anxiety and unhappiness in the cyclical traps we create for ourselves.  On that level, yeah, it's interesting.  There is a lot of depth to the film.  But on the other hand... it would have been nice to get to these points (1) a little quicker, and (2) without boring the hell out of me.  This film won't be for everyone, and today, it wasn't for me either.

40k: Dirty Tricks (No. 10) - A Few Things to Remember, Part 1

I played a game of 40k recently, and wow was I rusty!  It wasn't just a matter of making some questionable tactical decisions, but also an issue of forgetting some pretty basic rules along the way, some of which really hurt me!  I'll work my way through some of the more commonly forgotten rules in my most recent game and will probably add on to it over time.  After all, if you're like me and don't get in as many games as you'd like, it is fairly simple to drop a rule now and then - especially in a game as complicated as 40k where many of the rules simply do not apply or arise in every game.

Ruins and You

A pretty common mistake, especially amongst players that have been around for multiple editions of the game, is to forget some of the basic movement and placement quirks in 40k.  This is compounded when you have to read multiple rules in conjunction with one another.  Let's look at movement within a building, for example.

The rules are very clear in the rulebook regarding how a model may move in relation to other models:

"A model may not move into or through the space occupied by another model (which is represented by its base or hull) or through the gap between friendly models that is smaller than its own base (or hull) size.  A model cannot move so that it touches an enemy model during the Movement  and Shooting phases - this is only possible in an assault during the Assault phase.  To keep this distinction clear, a model may not move within 1" of an enemy model unless assaulting." (Page 12, BGB)


 Unfortunately, sometimes things can be confusing when you through a ruin into the mix.  Part of that problem stems from the fact that you can kind of fudge the distances between models for the purposes of unit coherency and the assault phase.

"In the course of movement, it is possible that several models from the same unit may end up spread across two or more levels of a ruin.  When this happens, the models in the unit maintain unit coherency as long as any part of the body of a model on a lower level is within 2" of the base of a model that is higher up." (Page 82, BGB)

"In some cases the ruin might genuinely be unstable or uneven, or the space could be very limited on a particular level, making it impossible to move assaulting models into base-to-base contact with the unit they wish to assault.  When this happens, it is perfectly acceptable to place models as close to their foe as is safely possible, including the level below or above, providing that you place the assaulting models as close as possible to their opponents and you make very clear to your opponent which of your models are in base-to-base contact with his models.  We find that directly below or above works well, representing them charging up or down a flight of stairs." (Page 85, BGB)

The problem that people sometimes forget is that there are only two instances in the rulebook that allow you to "imagine" that a model is able to cover distance that he, in fact, cannot physically cover.  Because of these two exceptions, it is easy to assume that you can walk between floors despite the fact that there is an enemy unit taking up all the floor space above you.  Remember the cardinal rule on movement in ruins:

"Only certain troops are capable of clambering to the upper levels of ruins.  Accordingly, only infantry, jump infantry, jetbikes, monstrous creatures and walkers may move on the upper levels of a ruin - and only if the model can physically be placed there." (Page 83, BGB, emphasis supplied)

If moving on or in between floors would take you within 1" of an enemy model, you just can't move there, plain and simple.  And while this may be hard for some folks to swallow, it certainly isn't without precedent.  Look at the image below.






If this is taking place out on solid ground, outside of a building, the enemy can certainly prevent you from getting somewhere by locking elbows and physically taking up all the space.  Area denial is a pretty basic tactic!  If you can do that on open ground, doesn't it make even more sense that an enemy unit would be able to do it within the confines of a building where there is even less space to maneuver?  If Mr. Blue wants to get from point A to point B, and the Red Unit is in the way, he is either going to have to jump/fly over him, or assault through him.  In a building, the rules conveniently allow you to do just that when there is no actual space on the floor to get models in base-to-base contact. It's almost as if they planned it that way...

Another quirk that the ruins rules offer us is in use of template and blast weapons.  Just remember that there are three rules regarding templates depending on what kind of template you're using:

(1) Template Weapons:  Basically, I mean flamers.  Templates/flamers can only affect models on the same level, and they can only be fired on the same level as the firer, or on the level above, or on the level below.

(2) Blast Templates: Doesn't matter if you mean the big one or the little one.  When you fire a blast weapon, declare which floor you're shooting at, and then roll for scatter as normal.  The trick here is that the blast weapon can only affect models on the floor you've declared.  If it scatters out of the ruin or is not on any model occupying that level (even if models above or below are covered), then it's a miss.

(3) Barrage Weapons: Note this only applies to weapons that have the "barrage" ability in their description -- some weapons, even large ordinance weapons, are just blast weapons unless it actually says "barrage" in their description.  Barrage weapons are considered to be "lobbed" high into the air and then dropped on their target.  Accordingly, once you've rolled for scatter, look at the hole on the template.  The template is always considered to strike the highest level that is under the hole (even if it is split over two different levels), and only models under the template and actually on that highest level are hit.  You don't strike everything at that level and down -- these are highly specialized munitions... not water balloons.

And that's about all I've got to say on the matter at this point.  I'm sure I'll come up with other clarifications to post at a later time (because I'm always managing to screw something up in a game), but I think that's plenty for now.

Lame Filler Post

I don't have time to make a real post today, so please enjoy these coffee-driven "vintage" images that I have collected. Or, hell, don't enjoy them, it's up to you. Either way, with regard to the first one... that is a code to live by.

Rare Insight Into My Brain

The following is an excerpt from an article by Karen Weir regarding practical application of the Charles Haanel 'MasterKey System':

The sub-conscious mind does not differentiate any information that is presented to it. It does not "think". It simply accepts messages as truth. Imagine if your subconscious mind is continuously being given erroneous information and accepts it as truth without question. We must take measures to use our conscious mind to assess, accept or reject information.

Now, you can consciously reject information, but if you subject your self to the same bad information repeatedly, you are going to hamper your progress. You see, it is not just what you think about the information presented, but how you feel about it that will determine what you actually manifest. The intensity and frequency of those feelings matters - a lot.

For example, if you are working in an atmosphere where your ideals conflict with the policies and/or procedures, you are placing yourself in a position of having to continuously "filter", and along with that filtering, you are likely experiencing negative thoughts and feelings. It bogs you down and interferes with your personal progress. 

...
As creators of our own destiny, we have the right and the responsibility to choose who we surround ourselves with. Admittedly, there are some relationships that may be detrimental to your development that you cannot just leave.
...
[However], you CAN choose your business partners. You can choose your leaders and you can choose what kind of leader you want to be. So how do you know who to listen to? Who to "hang out" with? It is not always simple. 

Now, I've never read anything about the MasterKey System, but my guess is that I'd probably find most of it one big steaming pile of bullshit.  I don't believe that our subconscious rules our lives, and I have had more than one hearty guffaw at the expense of those that believe that wanting something to be true bad enough actually makes it true.  I mean, that might how things work in the Matrix, but it just isn't so in real life.  Nothing just 'manifests' itself into being because you've rolled it around in your brain.

But there is still a message here that is worth exploring.  The first point is this: when information is first presented to us, in whatever form, our brains have a tendency to treat that information as true.  Let's face it, that's just basic survival.  If something darts towards me out of the corner of my eye, I'm going to duck because my brain thinks I might be under attack -- even if it's just a butterfly passing by my head taking me by surprise.  But the same thing is also true of regular everyday information that comes to us.  If someone tells me I'm looking fat, I'm going to pause for a moment and wonder just how much progress I've really made in my long term dieting plan.  I know that I've made tremendous progress (I've lost more than 100lbs for Christ's sake!), but if someone tells me I'm looking chunky, I'll take pause, just like I would if someone yelled out "fire" in a movie theater -- is there really a fire I need to be concerned about?  Until I take the time to sit down and consider the truth of that statement, it's going to sit in my belly, and I'm going to mull over it.  The same thing is true when I watch the news, listen to status reports in meetings at work, or listen to my son tell me why his little brother is wearing underpants on his head.  Until I consider and review the information given to me, at least some part of me is going to consider it as true.

Which brings us to the second valid point: given our subconscious acceptance of information, it really is important for us to consider our environment for our psychological well-being.  There are, unfortunately, some folks out there that believe being polite and respectful of their fellow man is a waste of time or is somehow unnecessary.  Those folks don't care if they hurt other people's feelings, because they don't think it's necessary to be nice to other people that aren't important to them.  And sometimes they're even impolite to people that are important to them because they have a misguided belief that being 'mean' all the time is fun and liberating, or else they think that they're just being 'honest' because it just popped into their heads.  These people are toxic, and even if you learn to automatically doubt the veracity of their statements, repeated exposure will most certainly bog you down.

Think about politics for a moment.  If you've got a strong political affiliation, you will have automatically trained yourself to doubt what the 'other' side says.  If your candidate says the current administration has decreased health care benefits to you while simultaneously costing you considerably more in tax dollars, then you're going to be skeptical if when hear someone from the administration tell you that you're actually receiving more benefits and your taxes have gone down.  Obviously they can't both be right, can they?  So, you doubt what you're told by the other side until they prove it to you... even though you're perfectly willing to blindly accept what your own side has told you.  You've trained yourself to ignore what you consider a toxic source of information (while still practicing the inherent belief of information told to you by your own side).  Now lets say that you're a lifelong Democrat and you've just been hired to do video editing for Fox News.  You may not believe a word you're hearing over and over again, but it's still going to wear you down over time.  The constant bombardment of pro-Republican sentiment from your co-workers and your work is not going to be pleasant, despite the automatic rejection you've trained yourself to internalize.

So, you have to ask yourself, why surround yourself with people that are just going to grind you down?  Why expose yourself to constant bombardment?  Life is just way too short to put up with it.  Avoid those that are constantly bringing you down -- even at the risk of appearing rude!  Someone who is down on you all the time has already exercised an unforgivable rudeness by disrespecting you at every chance.  If you choose to avoid that contact by walking away from a dick that wants to stop and have a conversation with you at the water cooler, so be it!  If you're 'cornered' in your office by a dick that wants to impart his 'sage' venom from your doorway, it's ok to ask him to leave so you can get some work done.  If some jackass wants to whisper snide comments about a lecturer during the entirety of a presentation, get up and move.

It all boils down to this: if you don't want to have to detox at the end of every day, then you need to avoid exposure to assholes whenever you can... despite how difficult that can sometimes be.  Eventually they'll get the message.  A true dick, especially the arrogant me-against-the-world types, won't care and will simply ignore you right back.  But if you're lucky, perhaps -- just maybe, they'll figure out that they need to be a little more polite when in conversation with you if they don't want the silent treatment.

But good lord, what the hell is up with people that think it's ok to be a dick all the time anyway?  It's one thing to challenge the status quo, even passionately, but that's entirely different from being a toxic asshole at every chance.

There is a time and a place where you have to stick to your guns and you have to make someone uncomfortable in order to be an agent of change.  I mean, let's face it, once people find a groove that they're comfortable with, they're going to go with it because it's easy and comfortable -- even if they're wrong, and even if that position is harmful to other people (e.g. faith healers, morons who refuse to vaccinate their children, etc.).  When you point out that they're wrong, you're going to run into a wall of denial because people do NOT want to move from a comfortable position, and they sure as hell don't want to have to admit that they've been wrong.  In the face of such opposition, sometimes you have to be exceedingly strident in your efforts to bring about change.  But if you truly care, you should do that with facts, evidence, and an actual willingness to help someone sort through those facts when you've presented them. 

It is way too easy, and damnably lazy, to simply resort to the short cut of being a dick and start calling the opposition names without taking the effort to make actual change.  A true dick seems to be oblivious to the fact that being overly aggressive and confrontational just causes people to become entrenched and does NOT further the cause of logic and rational thinking.  Being aggressive and confrontational, without the effort of evidence, only contributes to the problem and does nothing to help it.

And of course, all of this begs the question: is it really worth being serially confrontational in the first place?  A true dick is out to correct (or at least point out for the purposes of knocking someone else down a peg) problems that, frankly, are none of his business.  Is it really necessary to set your life on a course of correcting the trivial wrongs of others?  Is that really a fulfilling life course?  If there is any true justice in this world, then these folks are just as lonely and miserable as they are toxic to those around them.  Do these people not recognize their own character traits in the movies where the know-it-all-make-everyone-feel-bad-around-me asshole is the villain or the moron who opens the door to let the real monster in?  Don't they realize that people don't want to hang around people like that for a reason?!

<sigh>  Unfortunately this seems to be a character trait that we can't seem to breed out of the population... although I would certainly be game to give it a try.  There always seems to be another whipping post with low self-esteem that is willing to couple with these egotistical jackasses.  Oh well.  But at least we can continue to ignore them to the best of our ability.  We do NOT have to be friendly to them, because they have already demonstrated that they have no interest in such niceties.  And they have proven time and again that they don't want our fellowship and comfort because they ridicule and look down on us at every turn.  So, let them have what they want.  Leave them alone and let them roil in their own self-loathing.  Eventually some of them will come around.  And for the others, good riddance...

Buzzard's Top Fives

With all of the movie reviews on my site, I thought it might be appropriate to think back and make a list of some of my favorite movies of all time.  The problem is that I can't come up with a list number long enough to capture them all!  So, I'll break this down by genre... although that will still be difficult.

Top Five Science Fiction Movies

(1) Bladerunner: Let's face it, this movie is sheer poetry in motion.  There are lots of movies that use clones and robots to address the question of what it means to be human, but I think Roy Batty summed this one up better than any that I've seen since: "I want more life, fucker."  Or, perhaps the more poetic (and G rated version) of the same key realization: "All those... moments will be lost in time, like tears... in rain."  Still brings a tear to my eye.  This may possibly be my favorite movie of all time.

(2) The Matrix: I think Neo described this one best: "Whoa."  Every once in a while a movie comes along that changes the way that other films of its genre are done... this is one of them.  This was a brilliant film when it came out, and it is still a brain twister today.  This movie begs us to question what we have accepted as reality.  Is there a more important message than that?  A great film.

(3) Brazil: I'm a fan of a good dystopia, and one that pits man against the machine of government is even better.  Terry Gilliam did a brilliant job with this film, and it will always remain one of my favorites.  Must we always toe the line to be good citizens?  Do we have to keep following the rules when the results are grinding innocent people in the gears?  This movie shows us not only the dangers of a massive government machine, but the heroics sometimes necessary to keep the machine in check, and the inevitable results when dare to take action.  A great film that begs the question: when up against the machine, can love really conquer all?  Good stuff.

(4) Aliens: Like The Matrix, this Riddley Scott film, Alien, simply broke the monster movie mold and showed us that there really could be something dangerous going bump in the night.  While I almost put Alien in this list, I went with the James Cameron follow up instead.  Aliens isn't as ground breaking, but I did find it more fun overall.  And, in true Cameron style, we come to terms with the fact that there really could be something out there that we can't handle, and it really is scary and dangerous, but as Ripley puts it: "You know Burke, I don't know which species is worse.  You don't see them fucking each other over for a goddamn percentage."  Ouch, Mr. Pencil-Pusher... I think she has a point.  Perhaps we really are out own worst enemy.  A good movie.

(5) Serenity: In the same vein as Aliens, I didn't put this one on my list because it is particularly groundbreaking, but out of sheer sentimentality.  The television series Firefly was aborted due to the same moronic ass-spelunking that makes us question our own nature towards self-annihilation in Aliens and is bound to grind us all into dust in Brazil.  I think Whedon was channeling Batty ("I want more life, fucker.") when he put this amazing film together to reward fans dedicated to the short lived series, and I can't applaud him enough for the effort.  The characters in this movie/series are simply fantastic, the movie itself was beautiful, and the concept goes way beyond the boring formulaic drivel that television executives keep crapping out for us to consume.  I'm sure you'll see these characters emerge again if I get to a Top Five Television Programs, but until then, this will have to suffice.  Yeah, Mal hit this one on the head: "The way I remember it, albatross was a ship's good luck, 'till some idiot killed it."  May all the Fox television executives that were dumb enough to kill that series suffer from incurable burning hemorrhoids for the rest of their days.

Honorable mentions: The Fifth Element, Pitch Black, Dune, The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai, Predator, and, of course, Alien

One Movie to See and Another to Skip (No. 20)

Movie to See: From Within


 

I am generally pleased with the After Dark Horrorfest movies, and this one is no exception. What do you get when you throw a rash of apparently linked suicides, serial demonic possession and a creepy little over-the-top christian fundamentalist town? A unique little horror flick, that's what! I can't say that I didn't ultimately see the ending coming, but at least it was a fun little trip to get there. Some movies follow a tired formula and can't break out of it, making them tired and boring. This one dances around a pretty common formula, but while it kept the path in sight, there can be plenty of unique adventure in the dark undergrowths along the way.

The only... complaint(?) I have about this film is the heavy handed treatment of the christian fundamentalist aspect of this film. To be honest, I don't know that it was truly central to the film enough to make it an issue. Yes, it played an important element in the back story, but that could have been covered by any number of excuses that would have been better carried forward into this film. There was just something about the treatment of that element that rang a little hollow and I wish that it had either been explored more completely or just dropped altogether. I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm all for bashing over-the-top religious extremism and find it no small irony that "peaceful" religions spew more bile and hatred than the nastiest of fascist regimes. But pointing a lazy finger at them just feels like scapegoating, and that's just lame. Hypocritically calling out hypocrites just throws more fuel into the fire of 'stupid.'

But anyway, a fun film. Predictable, but fun.

---

Movie to Skip: Valhalla Rising



While I'm rating this film a little higher than most films that I encourage folks to skip, I'm pretty sure that this one was over-hyped and over-worked.  Not to put too fine a point on things, this film reaches a new level of brutality in its sheer lack of humanity.  There is not much dialogue, and what little dialogue there is seems to be a collection of justifications for the "civilized" folk to commit murder -- or to be murdered, as the case may be.  In fact it is the lack of dialogue, and the unimportance attributed to what the characters actually say that makes this film feel so violent.  This isn't a movie about human connection or emotional bonding.  It is, for all intents and purposes, a movie about ritual murder.  I think the box cover of this one (as well as the opening sequence) says this movie is about man's relationship to nature -- or rather that beastly element of man.  But I get a sense that it is really less about the beast and more about the elemental nature of violence.  No matter what station of the actors in this film (criminal, slave, clan leader, crusader, etc.) or what their motivation (survival, hatred, religion, etc.) everything boils down to violence.  In this movie, violence takes on a very visceral and literal interpretation.  But I think the film maker is trying to say that even in a modern setting, and using different "tools", we are all committing and avoiding acts of violence every day.  It's kind of a depressing view of humanity, to be honest, and this movie captures that moody darkness quite well.

I didn't like this film, but I didn't dislike it either.  On the other hand, I can't say I'm truly ambivalent about it.  I guess I'm just not sure just how I feel about this one.  I think I get the right message, but maybe I'm just having too hard a time buying into the message to appreciate the way it was delivered.  Or, maybe this film suffers from the same kind of self-important undertone that killed the later Matrix movies...  If you've got some time to spare, you might want to watch this one if for no other reason than it's 'different.'  On the other and, if you're not well rested, it might put you to sleep (it may be violent, but there are long periods of Apocalypse Now-esque travel sequences that can be a bit much).  This is an interesting movie, but it's a hard one to love.

One Movie to See and Another to Skip (No. 19)

Movie to See: Beautiful Creatures




When trying to describe this movie, I kind of think of it as a cross between Bound, Weekend at Bernies, and a good heist film.  Personally, I could have used a bit more Bound, but maybe that's just me.  But hey, because this movie isn't Bound I suppose it gives it a wider appeal (i.e. the other half of the species).  The long and short of this movie is that Rachel Weisz (The Mummy) and Susan Lynch (Waking Ned Divine) are phenomenal in this film.  They are both great actors, and their roles are brilliant.  The writing and story are both great in this movie.  In fact, even when taken out of context, some of the lines are pretty hilarious (said while watching a barely coherent man babble like an idiot):

"What's the matter with him?  Is he German?"

Ha!  Well, ok, maybe the lines still need to be heard in context.  Regardless, the film is a lot of fun.  There is a lot of intrigue, and while you may guess how the film will end, there is NO way you're going to figure out how they get there.  Another good Brit comedy... but with less darkness and depression than the usual UK comedy.  Recommended.

---

Movie to Skip: Goth




I'm not really sure what to make out of this one.  Is it a morality play?  A warning about the "real" goth community?  Live for death?  Embrace your fears?  Don't take candy from strangers?  This is a weird movie about a pseduo-goth couple that hook up with otherworldly hardcore goth named... well, Goth (yeah, the script really is that heavy handed -- if this movie had been called "Cross-Dressers", one of the characters would have been named "Cross-Dresser" and would have been the 'queen' of matching purses and shoes).  Goth turns out to be a twisted tour guide as she takes the couple on a whirlwind van ride through debauchery of just about every flavor you can imagine: sex, drugs, pain, murder.... rape?  Oh, yeah, and about halfway through it we also find out it's a murder mystery.  WTF?!  Oddly, once we get to that point, the heroine's actions (played by the attractive, but poor actor, Laura Reilly) don't really make any sense.  And, come to think of it, neither do the actions before we find that out.  In fact, none of this movie makes a lot of sense.  My guess is that this is supposed to be a "rabbit hole" adventure that starts when our heroine takes the drug "white light" given to her by Goth within the first few minutes of the film and is supposed to make us question the veracity of what we're seeing.  Unfortunately, that idea wasn't really carried through well enough for me to buy into it.

This was a bizarre movie, but it wasn't quite as bad as I thought it would be.  There really are some pathetic actors in this film, but there is one standout.  Although I worried she was going to suck after her first few minutes on screen, Phoebe Dollar, who played the title role, was actually pretty decent.  Her performance isn't consistent, but for the most part she makes a fairly convincing psychopath.

It's a disjointed film where the character's motivations are unconvincing and the actors even less so.  Still, for an honest-to-goodness B-movie, I've certainly seen worse.  The movie was bad, but bad movies are ok now and then.  I don't recommend this one to anyone, but you never know... you might get a kick out of it.

Public Service Announcement

 

You have been informed.  Use it well.  That is all.