The Men Who Stare at Goats Movie Review 5/10!

Alrighty, this is one of the stranger movies I have seen lately. The closest I can categorize this movie is as a dark comedy, but its really not quite dark or cynical enough to really be called "dark." Its sort of a tweener movie, its not light enough to be a regular comedy, but its not quite dark enough to be a cynical dark comedy. In a movie like this, the thing that makes it is quality dialogue and well written characters. Not just the main characters, but all of the little bit parts as well. This is something that a director like Quinten Tarantino excels at. Grant Heslov and Peter Straughan not so much. The movie started promising, with a nice Ewan McGregor voice over, and the meeting with the first "psychic" he encounters, a man named Gus Lacy. It was quirky, entertaining, and set the pace for what I thought would be a very good movie. But it sort of went downhill from there. What it seems to be is a group of good actors given a very mediocre scripts with characters that they had very little that they could do with. They seem to be mailing it in. Kevin Spacey is just particularly wasted. There is nothing about his character that uses his talents, or requires him to be playing it. I could have played that character just as effectively. Its not really Spacey's fault I don't think, he just wasn't given anything to work with. George Clooney's character was also a null, it could have been played much more over the top. Jeff Bridges is entertaining but he is really just channeling the "dude" into a similar role, definitely nothing that we haven't seen before. Another odd thing about this movie is that it was a completley male cast except for a line or two by MgGregor's ex-wife in the movie. This isn't a good or bad thing, I just thought it was interesting. I did find Clooney calling McGregor a Jedi, but that was funny for the wrong reason I think. All in all I was very disappointed with this movie, I am glad I only paid 5 bucks to see it. Its not the worst movie in the world, if you were looking for a Friday night movie to rent then it would possibly be a decent choose, but don't waste a movie ticket on it.

Why the word myth is a myth.

The other day I was watching Mythbusters. Why you might ask would I watch such a terribly annoying show? My brother is obsessed with it for some reason, so I was forced into it. This show annoys on a variety of different levels, one of them being that they don't bust any thing all they do is pick one string of facts and fail analysis any of the variables that could make something plausible outside of their ridiculously shortsighted experiments. The other being that their name itself is somewhat an affront to what I got my degree in. I admit that the word "myth" is commonly used to represent a falsehood, or something that has questionable truth to it. But I guess its like someone repeatedly using horrible grammar around someone who has an English degree. (ok wait that is essentially what my degree is in, and that doesn't annoy me) The word myth academically has nothing to do with falsehoods, legends, tales, or fables. I have from time to time abused this common misconception, once I referred to the bible as mythology around a bunch of church goers just to see what would happen. It wasn't really a pleasant experience for me. But the bible, particularly the book of Genesis, is a pure example of what a myth, or mythology is. It is, to avoid an even longer discourse, a creation story. Every religion, culture, or people has a mythos or mythology, and those words do not imply falseness or truth, they simply are. They are a way of given a particularly archetype to a specific part of a religion or culture. Every time someone says "oh thats just a myth," it just makes me think about that. Its 99.9% of the time completely a statement made in error. Most of the time I disregard it, but when it really bugs me is when Professors use the word in this content when lecturing, often in related fields, when they really, really should know better. One time when I was having a really bad day I corrected a professor on this and I would really recommend this tactic to anybody. Of course, it was just Wilkerson-Freeman so piling on to here is a bit gratuitous since she makes herself look silly enough on her own. The whole moral of this story is that the show Mythbusters really should be called UrbanLegend Busters, or just LegendBusters. I guess those names were already trademarked.

Movie Review: Zombieland 8/10!

When I think about Zombie movies there are two things that generally come to mind first. George Romero and Shaun of the Dead. They are pretty much the pinnacle of zombie greatness. Romero has pretty much mastered the zombie genre, and Shaun of the Dead sort of spun it on its head. Zombieland doesn't really resemble either of these. Zombieland is a good movie, good but not great. It is not a scary movie at all, as its pretty much a straight comedy. I mean its not scary at all, its a coming of age story that just sort of happens to have zombies in the background. The laughs are good, but not great, and the story is cute. I think I laughed out loud twice at the most. That doesn't mean it wasn't funny, and admittedly, and I don't laugh that much during movies, but still it was not a super crazy laugh your ass off type movie. The cast is good, Woody Harrelson is great in this movie, and Emma Stone is hot, and has the most freaky big eyes I have ever seen. I think she must be an anime character. Jessie Eisenberg really doesn't do it that much for me though, he basically does a Michael Cera impression, but he just isn't quite as good at it than the original. There are two things though that sold the movie for me though, one was a suddenly touching at sad moment with Woody's character about 3/4 of the way through involving a duct tape wallet, and a particularly awesome cameo by a very cool guy. All in all I recommend seeing this movie, its no Shaun of the Dead as its laught just aren't anywhere near its caliber, but its cute, funny, and worth seeing.

Retro Movie Review: Big Trouble in Little China 9/10.

There are a lot of movies from the 80's that have made cult status, and Kurt Russell happens to star in my two favorites, which also both happen to be John Carpenter flicks. The first one of course is "Escape from New York" with Kurt Russell playing the trench coat wearing Snake Pliskin. My favorite however, is the classic "Big Trouble in Little China." This movie is to this day one of my all time favorite movies, and I routinely put it into my top fives. This great thing about this movie is John Carpenter knew what he was doing. Unlike a lot of other campy cheesy horror/action movies from the 80's this ones camp and cheese is by design rather than by accident. Its funny cheesy moments are still funny, the corny one liners still hold up. Sure the special effects are bad, but you know what, its a testament to a great movie when its still entertaining even if they have terrible special effects. How can you go wrong with a movie that has a villain that is 1 part 1000 year old decrepit old man and 1 part 8 foot tall Chinese sorcerer? Who knew green eyes were so important? I do know one thing though, its all in the reflexes.

Retro Movie Review Dead Alive 5.5/10!

Ok, many of you know me and know that I have healthy interest in the horror movie genre. This is one of those films that I have been wanting to watch for a few years, but just never got around to watching. Now I know why. Its actually known as the bloodiest movie of all time by volume. This movie was so over the top gore fest that even I, the horror movie veteran, had trouble stomaching it. Before we get to those gory details though let me give you a bit of background information about this little movie.

This is an independent film made in New Zealand and released in 1993. It is directed by none other than Peter Jackson, yes the Lord of the Rings Peter Jackson. Turns out before he was doing wizards and hobbits he was actually quite the king of splatterhouse. This movie is pretty simple. Boy meets girl, boy has issues with his mother, boy's mother gets bitten by a Sumatran rat monkey, turns into a zombie, boy has bigger issues with his mother. That pretty much sums of the plot. Along the way there are some veiled attempts at this foreign concept called acting, but really such inconsequential notions aren't needed in this flick.

This movie is over the top gory, and is thin on anything other than the gore. I mean seriously there are parts where it looks like they just turned on a bunch of bloody sprinklers, soaked the set in blood and then were like "Damn, we need a lot more blood." The special effects are terrible, and I guess blessedly, the blood doesn't even really look like blood at all. Its kind of an orangey watered down ketchup really. I am trying to think of something positive things to right, or even things to actually give a critique about, but it just isn't there. This movie is gross, gory, bloody, disgusting, and absolutely a must watch if your a horror junky. I really think this movie was just a gimic to try and see if they could make the bloodiest low budget movie ever. Its a tough match between this one and "Zombie Strippers."

Dan Brown Book Review "The Lost Symbol" 5/10

Have you ever noticed how in movies that have sequels they all have a similar pattern of quality? Generally the first one is decent, but not great. The second one normally gets all the elements right, and improves all of the negatives in the first to create a pretty damn good finished product. The third one generally regresses pretty hardcore and is generally a contrive attempt to profit off the success of the first two. This appears to be the format Dan Brown has followed, and “The Lost Symbol” appears to be a situation where Mr. Brown was obviously trying to hit on the success of the first two, and try to emphasize the highlights of those books. What that means is the use of the symbols and secret societies is now in your face instead of subtle and surprising. He has found a formula for success and he is sticking to it. To be quite honest, Dan Brown is not a good writer, actually quite the opposite, he is terrible. That doesn’t mean I don’t think he is entertaining, as I enjoyed his first two books quite a bit, however, he is no wordsmith. He is never going to make a living on his ability with words. His books are interesting despite his lack of writing talent, not because of it. It was his ability to work a plot, winding and interesting that makes his books popular. This one however, was transparent. It was easy to see what was going on from the beginning; there were not good plot twists, and frankly no really good plot period. At the end when it came to big reveal it was a terribly let down. Brown was really pushing to make something important and of something that didn’t make that much sense at all. I was hoping that would be a good read, something that would be interesting. Instead all I got was a contrived mess of predictable plot.

Top Five Shortstop!!

As listed in my previous blog, I don’t consider Ernie Banks to be a shortstop. The majority of his career was actually spent as a first sacker. Also I am leaving off Arod because it seems he is going to go in as a third-baseman, not as a shortstop.

5. Ozzie Smith- Ozzie Smith is not an offensive force, but he didn’t contribute some with the stick in his career. He eventually became a respectable average guy and a pretty decent on base guy as well. He also had 580 career stolen bases to only 148 times caught. That’s a pretty good number. However, Ozzie is not here because of his batting prowess. He is here because he is, by any statistical analysis you choose to employ, the single greatest and most valuable defensive player of all time. At a position where defense is important that counts for a lot.

4. Derek Jeter- With all apologies to Cal Ripken Jr., he isn’t going to make my top five. This is a bit of a surprise to me, as much as it is to the people who know me. First of all Jeter isn’t done. He may actually go into the number 3 spot, even though he has actually been a pretty terrible defensive player for most of his career. He has finally learned to be an average to slightly above average shortstop the last couple of years. No bones about it, his Gold Gloves are a travesty and anybody who thinks that they aren’t should be ashamed. That being said, Jeter is still one of the exception shortstops of all time. To this date he has amassed 2742 hits, and put up slash numbers of .317/.388/.459. And he is a gamer, and a leader, which although not heavily waited, is important. He has the personality that Arod should have, but doesn’t. All in all, I feel confident in putting him in my top 5.

3. Joe Cronin- This may be a controversial pick as well, but he was a damn good player. First of all Cronin was a great fielder. Absolutely superb, and one of the best ever. But no only could he field the ball, he could hit it as well. His percentage numbers are a very solid, .301/.390/.468. These are very, very good, particularly for a short stop, and even rarer for a shortstop who can field his position.

2. Arky Vaughn- The proud owner of the best season by a shortstop not named Honus Wagner. This guy could hit, this guy could field, and frankly I am just a sucker for players with career OBP’s over .400. His slash numbers are .318/.406/.453. His 1935 season was truly amazing. In that particular season he hit .381/.491/.607. That’s an absolutely sick season.

1. Honus Wagner- This is pretty much a given, and beyond debate. Hans Wagner is the greatest shortstop of all time, bottom line, end of story. 7 time batting champion and the best defender of his time. His career numbers are .327/.391/.466. This doesn’t look all that impressive but given the average season of his time he was leaps and bounds better than everyone else. Putting up a near 1.000 ops, which he did often, was a near super human feat in early baseball. And according to his peers he was far and away the most feared hitter in the National League.

Cal Ripken Jr.- Cal Ripken Jr. is, of course, one of the great players in baseball history. However, I have a hard time putting him in the top 5. Sure he had the games streak, and that is one of the most impressive records in baseball, but that in itself does not make you the best player at your position. His career OPS is .788. Frankly this is just a bit low to put him in, even counting that he played in an offensively repressed era. Defensively he was very very good, but not great. I have no qualms putting him in the Hall of Fame, and among baseball’s greats, but he doesn’t crack the top five.