Been getting slammed with work the past few days but I noticed I had never reviewed Max Payne so I figured I'd do that now:
MAX PAYNE SUCKS!
That was a wonderful juncture of "all I had time to do" and "all the attention and critical analysis it deserved."
Friday, October 31, 2008
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Things I've Learned From Watching Movies Part 48
Vampires are either big haired pretty boys or total douchebags. Odd that there's no middle ground.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
No Entertainment Allowed
When Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed premiered earlier this year, I almost went to see it. Since it was one of those movies I'd have to drive about 50 miles to see and it was receiving poor reviews, I decided against seeing it and it's a good thing I did. I'd have pitied anyone who was in the car on the drive home with me since there would have been a 50 mile long conversation that looked something like this:
ME: What the hell was that?
FELLOW PASSENGER: It was a bad movie, Mike. Get over it.
ME: Yeah, but seriously, what the hell was that?
FP: I'm putting my iPod earphones in for the rest of the trip.
ME: Ok ok, I'm sorry...but, I mean, there was, I mean I drove 50 miles for, I mean...WHAT THE HELL WAS THAT?!
Had I been alone, I'd have sitting quietly, stewing in my anger and frustration and wondering how I could take all that out on society. See, Expelled is not a bad movie. Max Payne and Eagle Eye are bad movies and they don't create this reaction in me. No, to get this reaction you have to create the type of movie that H.P. Lovecraft would have described as, "Having come from the deepest and most foul of the Stygian depths, it had no connection to the world of light and sanity and reason. It's very nature was madness and it's very existence, blasphemous." I am not exaggerating when I say that Expelled is that kind of movie.
First off, Expelled is extremely boring. I almost stopped watching about 45 minutes in after yet another dull interview with some guy claiming to have had his ideas suppressed by an international conspiracy of doctrinaire scientists who are trying desperately to hide what is apparently a huge shitload of evidence supporting Intelligent Design. Oh yeah, that's the subject of the movie. What, you thought this was some sort of 90+ minute rant about Creationism and Intelligent Design? Clearly your brain has been clouded by Evolutionists Cabal and their allies in the pro-Darwin media that secretly run the world. No no, this is merely a plea for academic freedom. It turns out that approximately 95% of all scientists secretly think that Evolution is bunk and would love to embrace Intelligent Design but the dark masters to whom they must answer won't let them. To prove this point, Stein uses what his probably the most effective weapon in his arsenal, a tool he uses again and again. He flat out lies.
I wrote down several names in my notes of people that Stein interviewed and picked the first two to investigate. Richard Sternberg was the editor of a small scientific periodical that published a paper supporting I.D. that Stein claimed, "...ignited a firestorm of controversy merely because it suggested intelligent design might be able to explain how life began." It turned out that the paper was not about how life began but rather was about the Cambrian Explosion which took place around 3 billion years later. Stein claimed it was peer reviewed but, instead of going to associate editors and other members of the Council of the Biological Society of Washington (BSW) who normally would have been included in the peer review process, Sternberg handled the whole process himself. The Council later stated that the paper would not have passed their review not because it advocated I.D. but because it was poorly written and was substandard science. Stein also claimed that Sternberg had lost his job at the Smithsonian and very nearly had his career ruined when, in fact, Sternberg had submitted his resignation 6 months before the article was published and that, after the paper was published, he still had his position at the National Institute of Health and his unpaid position at the Smithsonian. You can check out more details of the story at the website Expelled Exposed.
The second account I looked into was the story of Caroline Crocker. She claimed that she had only shown a few slides concerning I.D. during a class she taught at George Mason University. As a result, she claimed to have been quickly disciplined by her supervisor and to have been blacklisted by the scientific community leaving her unable to find a job. Well, except for the fact that, whatever the "discipline from her supervisor" entailed, it did not involve removing her from her position at GMU where she stayed until the end of her contract. Also, Stein and Crocker fail to mention her adjunct faculty position at Northern Virginia Community College and the year of postdoc work she did at Uniformed Services University where she researched and taught molecular biology. Crocker is also full of it when she claims she only showed a few slides when, in fact, she was teaching extensive examples of demonstrably false Creationist material.
So, the two stories I looked into both turned out to be huge crocks of shit although I'm sure that the numerous other examples that were given of The Intolerant Scientific Establishment oppressing these meek advocates of Intelligent Design were absolutely true.
I got sidetracked before when I started writing about the movie's greatest sin: the fact that it's throroughly, utterly boring. Yes, the boredom trumps Steins lies and even the section of the movie where he blames the Holocaust on Charles Darwin and no, I didn't just make that up. The structure of Expelled is similar to that of Bill Maher's movie Religulous which I reviewed yesterday. Both movies show their hosts on a journey through various parts of the world interviewing a variety of people. They both mix in film clips meant to add humorous resonance to whatever point they are making at the time and they both use manipulative editing to make themselves look smarter than the people with whom they disagree.
One of the biggest differences is the fact that Maher is an experienced and witty interviewer whereas Stein is incompetent at it. His technique involves asking I.D. proponents things like, "Surely you had the freedom to express your opinion without fear that your colleagues in the scientific establishment would reatliate against you?" and then acting shocked when they say, "No Ben, actually my ideas were suppressed." He's even worse when talking to I.D. skeptics. His favorite little trick is to ask what he perceives to be "Gotcha" question over and over again. He asks noted biologist Michael Ruse how life began. Ruse good naturedly explains one of the more popular theories only to have Stein ask him again and again. Ruse gets understandably flustered, saying, "I...I just old you that." He does the same thing later on with Richard Dawkins, asking Dawkins if he has any sort of religious belief. Dawkins says no every time Stein asks him one variation after another of the same question and, like Ruse, gets very annoyed with the pathetic little man who's visibly proud of himself that acting like an annoying jerk managed to successfully annoy people. Oh, by the way Stein, good work on managing to take Richard Dawkins, world famous atheist and author of the best selling book The God Delusion, and outing him as someone who has no religious beliefs.
Well, better wrap this up though I could go on and on as to why this movie sucks. I could talk about how Stein's use of film clips failed to garner a single laugh or how he edited the Dawkins interview to make him look like a fool who believes in ancient astronauts. In the end, I'll just go ahead and utterly decimate the movie's main point. The reason that proponents of Intelligent Design and Creationism are subject to skepticism and criticism is the same reason that you would be subjected to skepticism and criticism if you were a mathematician who advocated the Theory That Two Plus Two Equals Five or if you were a zoologist who made the claim that lion's blood is composed entirely of pudding. Centuries of research and observation have managed to convince all but the ignorant and fanatical that Evolution and Natural Selection are the proper models to use when explaining why the world is the way it is. Ben Stein himself experiences a moment of cognitive dissonance when he says that we certainly don't want schoolkids being taught that the world is flat or that the Holocaust never happened which, using Stein's own standards, makes him an opponent of academic freedom. Why shouldn't we "teach the controversy" and let the kids decide for themselves? Because, as with Creationism and I.D., there is no evidence that either of those things is true. Until there is evidence, none of those things will ever be taught or accepted. This is not a matter of tolerance or freedom. It is a matter of evidence and lack thereof and it will be so no matter how many times that a small, vile man named Ben Stein says otherwise.
ME: What the hell was that?
FELLOW PASSENGER: It was a bad movie, Mike. Get over it.
ME: Yeah, but seriously, what the hell was that?
FP: I'm putting my iPod earphones in for the rest of the trip.
ME: Ok ok, I'm sorry...but, I mean, there was, I mean I drove 50 miles for, I mean...WHAT THE HELL WAS THAT?!
Had I been alone, I'd have sitting quietly, stewing in my anger and frustration and wondering how I could take all that out on society. See, Expelled is not a bad movie. Max Payne and Eagle Eye are bad movies and they don't create this reaction in me. No, to get this reaction you have to create the type of movie that H.P. Lovecraft would have described as, "Having come from the deepest and most foul of the Stygian depths, it had no connection to the world of light and sanity and reason. It's very nature was madness and it's very existence, blasphemous." I am not exaggerating when I say that Expelled is that kind of movie.
First off, Expelled is extremely boring. I almost stopped watching about 45 minutes in after yet another dull interview with some guy claiming to have had his ideas suppressed by an international conspiracy of doctrinaire scientists who are trying desperately to hide what is apparently a huge shitload of evidence supporting Intelligent Design. Oh yeah, that's the subject of the movie. What, you thought this was some sort of 90+ minute rant about Creationism and Intelligent Design? Clearly your brain has been clouded by Evolutionists Cabal and their allies in the pro-Darwin media that secretly run the world. No no, this is merely a plea for academic freedom. It turns out that approximately 95% of all scientists secretly think that Evolution is bunk and would love to embrace Intelligent Design but the dark masters to whom they must answer won't let them. To prove this point, Stein uses what his probably the most effective weapon in his arsenal, a tool he uses again and again. He flat out lies.
I wrote down several names in my notes of people that Stein interviewed and picked the first two to investigate. Richard Sternberg was the editor of a small scientific periodical that published a paper supporting I.D. that Stein claimed, "...ignited a firestorm of controversy merely because it suggested intelligent design might be able to explain how life began." It turned out that the paper was not about how life began but rather was about the Cambrian Explosion which took place around 3 billion years later. Stein claimed it was peer reviewed but, instead of going to associate editors and other members of the Council of the Biological Society of Washington (BSW) who normally would have been included in the peer review process, Sternberg handled the whole process himself. The Council later stated that the paper would not have passed their review not because it advocated I.D. but because it was poorly written and was substandard science. Stein also claimed that Sternberg had lost his job at the Smithsonian and very nearly had his career ruined when, in fact, Sternberg had submitted his resignation 6 months before the article was published and that, after the paper was published, he still had his position at the National Institute of Health and his unpaid position at the Smithsonian. You can check out more details of the story at the website Expelled Exposed.
The second account I looked into was the story of Caroline Crocker. She claimed that she had only shown a few slides concerning I.D. during a class she taught at George Mason University. As a result, she claimed to have been quickly disciplined by her supervisor and to have been blacklisted by the scientific community leaving her unable to find a job. Well, except for the fact that, whatever the "discipline from her supervisor" entailed, it did not involve removing her from her position at GMU where she stayed until the end of her contract. Also, Stein and Crocker fail to mention her adjunct faculty position at Northern Virginia Community College and the year of postdoc work she did at Uniformed Services University where she researched and taught molecular biology. Crocker is also full of it when she claims she only showed a few slides when, in fact, she was teaching extensive examples of demonstrably false Creationist material.
So, the two stories I looked into both turned out to be huge crocks of shit although I'm sure that the numerous other examples that were given of The Intolerant Scientific Establishment oppressing these meek advocates of Intelligent Design were absolutely true.
I got sidetracked before when I started writing about the movie's greatest sin: the fact that it's throroughly, utterly boring. Yes, the boredom trumps Steins lies and even the section of the movie where he blames the Holocaust on Charles Darwin and no, I didn't just make that up. The structure of Expelled is similar to that of Bill Maher's movie Religulous which I reviewed yesterday. Both movies show their hosts on a journey through various parts of the world interviewing a variety of people. They both mix in film clips meant to add humorous resonance to whatever point they are making at the time and they both use manipulative editing to make themselves look smarter than the people with whom they disagree.
One of the biggest differences is the fact that Maher is an experienced and witty interviewer whereas Stein is incompetent at it. His technique involves asking I.D. proponents things like, "Surely you had the freedom to express your opinion without fear that your colleagues in the scientific establishment would reatliate against you?" and then acting shocked when they say, "No Ben, actually my ideas were suppressed." He's even worse when talking to I.D. skeptics. His favorite little trick is to ask what he perceives to be "Gotcha" question over and over again. He asks noted biologist Michael Ruse how life began. Ruse good naturedly explains one of the more popular theories only to have Stein ask him again and again. Ruse gets understandably flustered, saying, "I...I just old you that." He does the same thing later on with Richard Dawkins, asking Dawkins if he has any sort of religious belief. Dawkins says no every time Stein asks him one variation after another of the same question and, like Ruse, gets very annoyed with the pathetic little man who's visibly proud of himself that acting like an annoying jerk managed to successfully annoy people. Oh, by the way Stein, good work on managing to take Richard Dawkins, world famous atheist and author of the best selling book The God Delusion, and outing him as someone who has no religious beliefs.
Well, better wrap this up though I could go on and on as to why this movie sucks. I could talk about how Stein's use of film clips failed to garner a single laugh or how he edited the Dawkins interview to make him look like a fool who believes in ancient astronauts. In the end, I'll just go ahead and utterly decimate the movie's main point. The reason that proponents of Intelligent Design and Creationism are subject to skepticism and criticism is the same reason that you would be subjected to skepticism and criticism if you were a mathematician who advocated the Theory That Two Plus Two Equals Five or if you were a zoologist who made the claim that lion's blood is composed entirely of pudding. Centuries of research and observation have managed to convince all but the ignorant and fanatical that Evolution and Natural Selection are the proper models to use when explaining why the world is the way it is. Ben Stein himself experiences a moment of cognitive dissonance when he says that we certainly don't want schoolkids being taught that the world is flat or that the Holocaust never happened which, using Stein's own standards, makes him an opponent of academic freedom. Why shouldn't we "teach the controversy" and let the kids decide for themselves? Because, as with Creationism and I.D., there is no evidence that either of those things is true. Until there is evidence, none of those things will ever be taught or accepted. This is not a matter of tolerance or freedom. It is a matter of evidence and lack thereof and it will be so no matter how many times that a small, vile man named Ben Stein says otherwise.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Relogo...Religi...Screw It
Yeah, I know, it's called Religulous, Bill Maher's new movie in which he says that the story of the Egyptian god Horus is a load of nonsense. I hope I didn't offend all the millions of Horus worshipers out there by describing this attack on your faith but come on, who the hell could buy the story of a guy who was born of a virgin in a cave with a star heralding his birth then went on to preach to the world with 12 disciples at his side before being crucified along with two thieves before coming back to life three days later? And yes, that is the story of Horus, a story told centuries before Jesus Christ was supposed to have walked the Earth. This is one of the pieces of evidence that Bill Maher and director Larry Charles offer up as they try to make their case that faith in gods without evidence is ridiculous.
It should come as no surprise that Maher and Charles, two men who've spent their lives in the comedy business (Charles directed Borat and was also involved in TV shows like Seinfeld and The Tick) would take the subject of atheism and make it into a very funny movie. I discovered after the movie was over that many of my fellow audience members were religious yet still laughed at the movie, even the parts where he openly doubts the sanity of people who believe in talking snakes. I was expecting to see someone walk out during moments like that but no one did, at least not that I saw. I suppose anyone disposed to walking out wouldn't have shown up in the first place.
So, what sort of movie is it when you put aside any sort of preconceived notions, pro- or anti-God biases or, for that matter, pro-and anti-Bill Maher biases? What you get is documentary that often amuses yet also often annoys. Maher and Charles use some of the same B.S. documentary techniques that Ben Stein used in Expelled such as inserting film clips for comic effect during interviews. A little of that can be funny but there was anything but a little of that and it went from funny to annoying. One of the more memorable scenes that definitely moved into the "annoying" column is when Maher was interviewing a man who claimed Jesus had cured him of his homosexuality. What we saw was an interesting interview that was constantly being interrupted by clips of gay porn and gladiator movies although the theme song from Brokeback Mountain was used to comic effect toward the end. Another Ben Stein trick used, although Maher does not achieve Stein's A-hole level of of usage, is to edit an interview look stupid or dumbfounded before the supreme intellect and wit of the interviewer. There were too many times where Maher would make a joke or an observation where the scene cut form there to another part of the interview giving Maher the final word on that particular subject. Maher also borrows Michael Moore's famous technique of going somewhere you are clearly not wanted so you can then be thrown out. We see him get thrown out of the Vatican and the Salt Lake Temple and nearly thrown out of the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem and a Christian theme park in Orlando, Florida. All of this takes what could have been a great documentary and moves it down into the "good but flawed" category.
Speaking of the Orlando theme park, this is where we met one of the better advocates of religion is an actor who plays Jesus there in a daily Passion recreation. I wish I knew his name but I can't remember if it was ever mentioned and every time I try to Google I end up at website where he is simply referred to as, "The actor who played Jesus." Hell, maybe that's his name and, if so, you can see why he chose the career path he did. Anyway, he's one of the more likable people you'll ever meet and his charisma and enthusiasm allows him to duel effectively against Maher's logic although mainly his arguments boil down to, "Hey, we can't understand the thinking of a higher being like God." The only time he gets flustered is when Maher points out to him that the Jesus story was most likely modeled after the story of Krishna and Horus story I told in the first paragraph which was also probably modeled after the story of Krishna. When the actor asked if the Krishna story, "had been published back then," Bill Maher calmly explains to him that yes, the history of Krishna was well known back then. Had I been asked that question, I most likely would have said, "No dumbass, Krishna worshipers kept the whole thing a huge secret for a thousand years so it was probably just a charming coincidence that Jesus had such a similar background attributed to him." I also would have pointed out the Christian penchant for taking stories of other religions and making them their own like when they took the story of a pagan king looking for the Cup of the Goddess and turned it into the Christian King Arthur and his quest for the Holy Grail. I have to admire Bill Maher's restraint.
Bill Maher says that he doesn't expect to talk most people out of their religious beliefs but, rather, the point of this movie is to try and get fellow rationalists to come out of the godless closet and become advocates for their beliefs. He says (and this sounds high to me) that 16% of the American population is not at all religious which would make them a higher percentage of the population than Jews, blacks, gays and NRA members yet the godless do not have the outspoken advocacy or influence that those minority groups have. Mitt Romney in his big, "Don't hate me because I'm a Mormon," speech earlier this year went out of his way to exclude atheists in his call for tolerance and instead called upon all "people of faith" to unite in some kickass Judeo-Christian team against the evil secularists. If this movie can get even a few rationalists to be more outspoken, it will be a good thing and could move us closer to a time when we can let go of Yahweh, Jesus and Mohammad and, if we do that, we can finally bring about Utopia by getting our Thetans audited.
It should come as no surprise that Maher and Charles, two men who've spent their lives in the comedy business (Charles directed Borat and was also involved in TV shows like Seinfeld and The Tick) would take the subject of atheism and make it into a very funny movie. I discovered after the movie was over that many of my fellow audience members were religious yet still laughed at the movie, even the parts where he openly doubts the sanity of people who believe in talking snakes. I was expecting to see someone walk out during moments like that but no one did, at least not that I saw. I suppose anyone disposed to walking out wouldn't have shown up in the first place.
So, what sort of movie is it when you put aside any sort of preconceived notions, pro- or anti-God biases or, for that matter, pro-and anti-Bill Maher biases? What you get is documentary that often amuses yet also often annoys. Maher and Charles use some of the same B.S. documentary techniques that Ben Stein used in Expelled such as inserting film clips for comic effect during interviews. A little of that can be funny but there was anything but a little of that and it went from funny to annoying. One of the more memorable scenes that definitely moved into the "annoying" column is when Maher was interviewing a man who claimed Jesus had cured him of his homosexuality. What we saw was an interesting interview that was constantly being interrupted by clips of gay porn and gladiator movies although the theme song from Brokeback Mountain was used to comic effect toward the end. Another Ben Stein trick used, although Maher does not achieve Stein's A-hole level of of usage, is to edit an interview look stupid or dumbfounded before the supreme intellect and wit of the interviewer. There were too many times where Maher would make a joke or an observation where the scene cut form there to another part of the interview giving Maher the final word on that particular subject. Maher also borrows Michael Moore's famous technique of going somewhere you are clearly not wanted so you can then be thrown out. We see him get thrown out of the Vatican and the Salt Lake Temple and nearly thrown out of the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem and a Christian theme park in Orlando, Florida. All of this takes what could have been a great documentary and moves it down into the "good but flawed" category.
Speaking of the Orlando theme park, this is where we met one of the better advocates of religion is an actor who plays Jesus there in a daily Passion recreation. I wish I knew his name but I can't remember if it was ever mentioned and every time I try to Google I end up at website where he is simply referred to as, "The actor who played Jesus." Hell, maybe that's his name and, if so, you can see why he chose the career path he did. Anyway, he's one of the more likable people you'll ever meet and his charisma and enthusiasm allows him to duel effectively against Maher's logic although mainly his arguments boil down to, "Hey, we can't understand the thinking of a higher being like God." The only time he gets flustered is when Maher points out to him that the Jesus story was most likely modeled after the story of Krishna and Horus story I told in the first paragraph which was also probably modeled after the story of Krishna. When the actor asked if the Krishna story, "had been published back then," Bill Maher calmly explains to him that yes, the history of Krishna was well known back then. Had I been asked that question, I most likely would have said, "No dumbass, Krishna worshipers kept the whole thing a huge secret for a thousand years so it was probably just a charming coincidence that Jesus had such a similar background attributed to him." I also would have pointed out the Christian penchant for taking stories of other religions and making them their own like when they took the story of a pagan king looking for the Cup of the Goddess and turned it into the Christian King Arthur and his quest for the Holy Grail. I have to admire Bill Maher's restraint.
Bill Maher says that he doesn't expect to talk most people out of their religious beliefs but, rather, the point of this movie is to try and get fellow rationalists to come out of the godless closet and become advocates for their beliefs. He says (and this sounds high to me) that 16% of the American population is not at all religious which would make them a higher percentage of the population than Jews, blacks, gays and NRA members yet the godless do not have the outspoken advocacy or influence that those minority groups have. Mitt Romney in his big, "Don't hate me because I'm a Mormon," speech earlier this year went out of his way to exclude atheists in his call for tolerance and instead called upon all "people of faith" to unite in some kickass Judeo-Christian team against the evil secularists. If this movie can get even a few rationalists to be more outspoken, it will be a good thing and could move us closer to a time when we can let go of Yahweh, Jesus and Mohammad and, if we do that, we can finally bring about Utopia by getting our Thetans audited.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Hey Charlie Kaufman
Synecdoche, New York? Really? Why that title? Was there already a movie in production called Doucheland, Wisconsin so you had to go with that? This is one case in which I would have supported some generic title like Maximum Beatdown. On the off chance that you Googled your name and found this on page 147 of the results, you're most likely thinking, "Uh, hello, how many movies have you had produced? I was once played by Nicolas Cage so shut the fuck up," in which case I would say, "Wow, you sure are insecure if some random goob on the internet like me can get to you like this," and that will mean THAT I WIN!
I'm a big fan, by the way. Good luck.
I'm a big fan, by the way. Good luck.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Cheers And Jeers
Ok, off to see Religulous but I just wanted to say two quick things first.
First, thank you thank you thank you America for giving High School Musical 3 a huge opening weekend which gave it the week's number one position, thus denying that position to the latest entry in the awful Saw franchise. As I said earlier in the week, I'm a neutral observer when it comes to the HSM movies and I'm glad they actually did some good.
Second, fuck you fuck you fuck you America for giving Saw V an incredibly strong second place finish thus guaranteeing that we'll see Saw VI this time next year.
Have a nice Saturday all.
First, thank you thank you thank you America for giving High School Musical 3 a huge opening weekend which gave it the week's number one position, thus denying that position to the latest entry in the awful Saw franchise. As I said earlier in the week, I'm a neutral observer when it comes to the HSM movies and I'm glad they actually did some good.
Second, fuck you fuck you fuck you America for giving Saw V an incredibly strong second place finish thus guaranteeing that we'll see Saw VI this time next year.
Have a nice Saturday all.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Who Watches...You Know...Those Guys?
I'm really looking forward to The Watchmen movie coming out next year. I loved the series when it came out 20 decades ago and the footage I've seen of the movie looks better and better every time I see it. I don't like that I feel this way because I honestly can't see The Watchmen being successfully adapted to the screen which means that the more optimistic I am about its critical success, the more likely it is that I'll be devastated when it turns out to suck. Maybe it'll suck in an amusing way, like they'll add a cute, precocious kid or an intelligent monkey. Hell, why not both? That worked out great the last time a movie tried it. I suppose I'll end up taking my disappointment out on society. If you hear this coming March about a guy holding a theater full of people hostage demanding that all prints of The Watchmen be burned, you'll know who did it. Until that time, here's the footage from the Spike Awards that started this train of thought.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)