Tuesday, November 25, 2008

Turkey Day!

Ahhhh, Thanksgiving....only two days away. The day where we give thanks and celebrate our taking over of this beloved country. :) It's probably good that we only focus on the food (glorious food) and not on what happened after the first thanksgiving. We came to this country from Europe and had nothing. Then people started coming out of the woodwork (or the woods rather) and offered us food.....and hospitality.....and friendship. Then we thanked them and gave back to them.....war....and disease. I do have a little bit of injun in me, does that mean I should actually be bitter about this holiday? Nah, the majority of European heritage in me says eat, drink and be merry! All kidding aside I'd like to take the time to wish everyone a happy Thanksgiving. The past is the past, make the best of this holiday, and be thankful for everything you have. It's a time for food, family, friends, fun, football, fucking.....sorry, got carried away with all the f words.

Anywho, until next time, let the stuffing live up to it's name and eat til you're stuffed!

K

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

Quantum of Awesome

So, I just watched the new 007 movie with my wife this past weekend. I must say, I rather liked it. Back in 2002 I thought the Bond franchise was on the brink of death. Anybody who saw Die Another Day would probably agree with me. It was an epic fail from the open. I mean, Madonna doing a techno song as the opening theme? That kind of music should never, never, NEVER be used as a Bond theme. Then the movie was edited into such a fast pace that it was like watching a two hour MTV music video.

Fast forward to '06. Out comes another Bond. There was a little trepidation because of the last one already. And then they announced that the new bond would be the blond haired, blue eyed Daniel Craig. Blond hair and blue eyes? Noooooo! I didn't know what they were doing, but I watched it anyway (because who am I fooling, if it's Bond I'm gonna watch it, no matter how crappy it is.....even Die Another Day). Well, am I ever glad I did. Daniel Craig sold himself as Bond 110%. The franchise was reborn.

I only mention the previous one because it did end up being the cause of one of the minor problems I had with Quantum. Casino Royale was a reboot of the franchise, and Quantum of Solace is a direct sequel. This is the first time a 007 movie has ever been a direct sequel, instead of being a stand-alone story. This is only a minor complaint, since all I need to do is just re-watch Casino. Another minor complaint was that I never heard the line "Bond, James Bond". But really, that's just a minor detail. With this new reboot also, there are none of the gadgets that 007 movies have been known for. That is a little disappointing. It was the shortest 007 movie to date, but I don't think that did much to detract.

Other than that,things were good. Craig still pulled in a solid performance. We also got to see a bit more M in this movie, and she had a few good lines in there. Who doesn't love Dame Judi Dench as M? A lot of critics out there are comparing this movie to the Bourne series. I think they are referring to the action sequences, but I'm not sure why this matters. They are both spies kicking butt, of course there are going to be similarities. They are also saying there is not enough substance. I personally thought it had plenty. It had your typical bad guy that Bond chases after throughout the whole movie and ends up fighting in his evil lair out in the middle of nowhere. How much substance has ever been in the Bond movies? Bond? Check. Bad guy out for world domination? Check. Evil lair? Check. Lots of kick-ass action? Check. Bond showing calmness and composure even during intense action sequences? Check. Granted the bad guy in this movie seemed a little more subtle and the evil lair was not as fancy, but it was all there.

All in all, a very enjoyable experience. I will admit that there was something missing that I can't quite put my finger on, but it still felt like a Bond film and that's what counts most.

*******--- (7 out of 10)

Memorable quote-

Bond: "We're teachers on sabbatical....who just won the lottery."

Monday, November 17, 2008

Gender Bender

So, I'm sure everyone out there knows about the first pregnant "man" by now. Does this annoy the hell out of anyone else, or is it just me? She's not a man!! She's a woman who took testosterone so she could grow some stubble on her chin! Why is this a story? Especially since the story isn't even true. Barbara Walters just had a special on last Friday called "What Is a Man, What Is a Woman? Journey of a Pregnant Man". (Where, by the way, she announced she was pregnant again....yay, we get to go through this story again). Well, Barbara, I'll answer that question for you. A man is a person who was born with boy parts....a woman is a person who was born with girl parts. Yes, I know there are hermaphrodites, but that is another story, because in this case she was definitely born a girl. So, this woman, on top of taking the testosterone, has also gone and officially changed her documents such as driver's license and birth certificate so that she is "legally" a man now. What?!? Really? So, by changing your birth certificate, you completely altered history so that you were born a boy in the past? How does that magic bullshit work? Nope, sorry, you're still a woman. Anyway, until someone that was born with a twig and berries grows up and has a baby, can we get rid of this craptastic "news" story. We'll leave this BS for the tabloids, where it belongs.

Until next time....as we all learned in kindergarten, boys have a penis, girls have a vagina. (or was that Kindergarten Cop?) :)

K

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

WTF?: Sueing the Bat

Here is an excerpt from an article in Variety:

Batman has a new adversary: Batman.
The mayor of an oil-producing city in southeastern Turkey, which has the same name as the Caped Crusader, is suing helmer Christopher Nolan and Warner Bros. for royalties from mega-grosser "The Dark Knight."

Huseyin Kalkan, the pro-Kurdish Democratic Society Party mayor of Batman, has accused "The Dark Knight" producers of using the city's name without permission.

"There is only one Batman in the world," Kalkan said. "The American producers used the name of our city without informing us."


What?!? Where did this come from? What happened the last 69 years? The last I checked, Batman came around circa 1939. Were these people in hibernation all these years? It's already a brain-dead lawsuit, but it's made even worse by the fact that the character has been around so long. I'm pretty sure there have been thousands of comics and toys, a couple 1940's serials, a 60's tv show and movie, four more movies from the late 80's-90's, Batman Begins, tons of cartoons.....etc., etc., etc. Gee, I wonder if this came around because The Dark Knight is reaching the $1 billion mark in worldwide ticket sales? (sarcasm) I do believe that the funniest (and most ironic) thing about this lawsuit, is that this was the first Batman project EVER made for film or tv to not even include the word "Batman" in the title. Food for thought.

Until next time, go out and find a millionaire......and find the lamest reason to sue their pants off. (It seems to be the thing to do.)

K

Tuesday, November 4, 2008

Who's it gonna be?

So, the day has finally come.....11/4/08. Election day, the day we get to see who is finally gonna boot the 'ol Dubya out of office. I, for one, am glad that this day is here cause I am about going crazy from all these stupid political ads. I voted last Monday, so I'm ready for it to be over.

One thing that came of all this was an idea that popped up in conversation a couple days ago. Why do they spend all this money on advertising? I mean all those millions of dollars, just for some tv time? I'm told that it's been proven that negative campaigning works....hence all the crap McCain has been putting on air. (Not saying Obama has never been negative, but you gotta admit that McCain's ads are almost 100% so). Now, my question is, how does this work? I have NEVER met anyone who wants to see negative ads. WTF?

I think if, out of the two candidates, one of them were to take ALL their campaign money and put it towards the economy (or whatever else they want to fix while in office), instead of putting out television ads, I would likely vote for that guy straight up. You know, action instead of talk. But that's just me. To tell the truth, the last couple elections I didn't even vote. (Yeah, I said it). And the ads were partly responsible for that. I saw them everywhere and got so sick of them that I tuned everything out.

I'm not really sure where I'm going with this. Just random thoughts....so, go vote! Or don't....whatever.

Until next time, God bless the U.S. of A.

K