The Brain Dump

And they did bring the rock. Riding their cellos from the pages of Revelation, they stormed onto the stage, heralded by a roid-raging gorilla on the drums.

For those who may not know them, Apocalyptica is a Finnish cello quartet, first gaining fame by covering Metallica and other heavy metal favorites in a style that I will call . . . heavy cello.

But back to the awesomeness. And it was awesome—I mean that in the archaic, wrath of Odin sense of the word. The power of their playing was something to behold. Being surrounded by screaming, jumping metalheads certainly added to the experience as well. I was introduced to the band by Christina. She has a love for Metallica that seems unlikely to abate and, while I can’t quite share in that passion, that doesn’t mean I can’t appreciate those who cover them.

The only bad thing about the show was that it was at the House of Blues. Man, does that venue blow. A two-story sweatbox with about seven chairs on each floor and wonderfully obstructive pillars, Christina and I were crammed into it with one thousand of our newest close friends. We managed to steal a view of the stage (I could see the right side at least) from around one of those wonderful pillars. Luckily, Apocalyptica thrust us into a euphoria far away from the crappy venue we were in.

There was a short lull in the awesomeness when Corey Taylor, a founding member of Stone Sour and member #8 of Slipknot, joined them on-stage. He sang three songs with them, I believe: “I’m Not Jesus,” the appropriately named “I Don’t Care,” and maybe some other song I can’t remember. It’s not that he was bad, per se,—and granted, this genre is generally not my thing—but Apocalyptica by themselves was just so much more awesome that I found myself distracted by Mr. Taylor more than anything.

Oh, but Apocalyptica was sweet, sweet sweetness. They did a heavy cello version of David Bowie’s “Heroes.” “Heroes,” people! Played, as Perttu Kivilaakso explained with his heavy Finnish accent, “very sexually.” He and Eicca Toppinen even entertained the crowd with impromptu slapstick dialogue while their gorilla changed snare drums. An excerpt:

Perttu: How did you think to play the heavy metal onto the cello?

Eicca: *Gives knowing look to crowd* This is very new question, yes, that I have not heard before. I play the heavy metal onto the cello because . . . it helps for the children.

Perttu: When I am to grow up, can I become as beautiful as you?

*crowd cheers*

Eicca: Hope you don’t get the fat like me.

Perrtu: *raises a fisted hand and his skinny arm to crowd*

I saw Rilo Kiley at the Riviera yesterday and they were . . . I believe the word is . . . rockalicious!

The show opened with Grand Ole Party, a band that vacillates between White Stripes-esque minimalist rock and a funky twist on indie blues. The band consists of guitarist John Paul Labno, bassist Mike Krechnyak, and Kristin Gundred on the drums and vocals. Labno’s guitar is pretty standard, Krechnyak knows how to carry a song on the bass (when they let him), but the band clearly rests on Gundred’s heavy beats and wailing (emphasis on wailing) vocals that beg a Karen O comparison. Unfortunately, Gundred can’t stand up to the comparison. Where Karen O has an overpowering stage presence and the lungs to infuse her singing with not just force but emotion, Gundred just wails her little head off. I don’t think it’s necessarily her fault. She actually sang back-up with Rilo Kiley and she was fine in that capacity. She just plays the damn drums. And whenever anyone does more than one thing at a time, the performance of one if not both things suffers. In Gundred’s case, it’s her vocals. This could be an instance where a band’s studio stuff is better than their live stuff. You’ll also be hard-pressed to find a song of theirs that pushes the three-minute mark (or even two and a half). But they were only the first act.

Then came current-Jenny-Lewis-lover Johnathan Rice, who sounds like he can’t decide whether he wants to be an emo Tom Petty or Jon Bon Jovi. I wasn’t excited when I found out he was opening, and after the first song I knew why. To give you a sample, the chorus to one of his songs (which actually proved to be the one I liked most from him) was:

We’re all lost out in the desert
And we’re gonna die
Wipe the sand and salt
From your blistering eyes

Woooo! The rest of his set was more of the indie confessional magic that made Conor Oberst famous. Bleh. The highlight was when Jenny Lewis came out and sang a duet. Sadly, that was but one song, and there were a couple more to get through before the end. But the end did eventually come. Sigh . . .

Then Rilo Kiley hit the stage and it was magical. They opened the set with More Adventurous-opener “It’s a Hit” and the energy didn’t stop. I wondered how deeply they would delve into their pool of songs. They had a nice mix of More Adventurous and their latest album Under the Blacklight, which, of course, makes sense and they rocked those songs. They played three songs off The Execution of All Things (“Paint’s Peeling,” “With Arms Outstretched,” and a rocktastic “Spectacular Views”), which was, admittedly, more than I thought they would, but only one off Take Offs and Landings (“Wires and Waves”) and none of their early EP stuff. C’est la vie.

These small quibbles aside, the show was great. They played “Rise Up with Fists!!” off Jenny’s Rabbit Fur Coat and even a version of “Ripchord” with Blake on a ukulele and Pierre on a mandolin. Honestly, the whole experience was a little surreal. Rilo Kiley’s been one of my favorite bands for a good three or four years now and this was the first chance I had to see them live. Being that close to Haley from The Wizard and Pinsky from “Salute Your Shorts” was . . . well, I guess I was starstruck. They had my whole attention the entire time they were on stage. They play a great show. If you’ve never heard them, I encourage you to check them out. If you have and you like what you've heard, see them live. That’s an order.

“I can’t understand why so many people rank it so highly. There is no accounting for taste, I guess.”
- avid reader “Emmy Lou”

“This book is absolutely horrible. Seriously, it’s hideous.”
- Hemingway Hater

“If I could give negitive [sic] stars I would.”
- A reader

“What can a thoughtful man hope for mankind on Earth, given the experience of the past million years? Nothing.”
- Bokonon

Kurt Vonnegut has finally surpassed Thomas Pynchon as my favorite author, and he did it with his novel, Cat’s Cradle. Cat’s Cradle tells the story of a man named John. “Call me Jonah,” he says in the first line of the novel, “because somebody or something has compelled me to be certain places at certain times, without fail.” John is a Bokononist and he writes us his story “to include as many members of my karass as possible, and I mean to examine all strong hints as to what on Earth we, collectively, have been up to.” A karass, he explains, is what Bokonon calls a group of people who (unknowingly) work together to do God’s work. John first encountered members of his own karass while he was conducting research for a history book entitled The Day the World Ended, about the day America dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. He did not finish the book.

As I. Ujevic writes, “this is the first book in my life that I threw into the garbage.”

Cat’s Cradle is a satire, and within its pages Vonnegut charges straight at our society’s greatest institutions, including religion, American idealism, and the progress accorded to scientific research. John first pursues his research for The Day the World Ended by contacting the children of the late Felix Hoenikker, the key researcher in the development of the atomic bomb. The Hoenikker children, John realizes as he writes, and most definitely Dr. Hoenikker himself (regardless of the fact that he was dead), were part of his karass. Newt (Hoenikker’s youngest) tells John that on the day the bomb was dropped Dr. Hoenikker was frightening him with a game of cat’s cradle, a game formed by a long loop of a string, making virtually no attempt to represent a cat or a cradle. The notion of truth is Vonnegut’s biggest target for satire here. People revere Dr. Hoenikker as a hero for creating the atomic bomb, but those same people didn’t see the terrible indifference and careless irresponsibility with which he approached his family—with which he, in fact, approached all of life. Julian Castle, a philanthropist John is hired to write an article about while researching his book, turns out to be a blatant misanthrope. Even the first words in The Books of Bokonon are “All the true things that I am about to tell you are shameless lies.” Newt constantly makes reference to cat’s cradle—a game with no cat, no cradle, no meaning or value of any kind but that is nonetheless a childhood favorite. The game becomes a symbol of the characters’ (all nothing more than grown-up children) pursuit of some deeper significance for their lives—a long, drawn out game with no discernible end. Or as JP stated, “The title of the book has to do with a very minor incident and it should have been called ice-nine.”

John continues pursuing biographical information about Dr. Hoenikker when he discovers that Hoenikker, in addition to working on the atomic bomb, created a substance called ice-nine—what turns out to be a wampeter, or an object that is the center point of a karass. As Tom Newbro (or “shnowbrow”) states, “This is where the book starts to become horrible…”

John’s research eventually leads him to share a plane with two of the three Hoenikker children (now adults) as they travel to the Caribbean island of San Lorenzo, the birthplace of Bokononism and the residence of the third Hoenikker child. Bokonon also lives on the island. He and his friend, Edward McCabe, shipwrecked there and, seeing the desolate and miserable lives of the islanders, took it over, hoping to create a utopia. Bokonon created Bokononism to give whatever hope to the people a made-up religion can with its foma, or comforting but harmless untruths. Then he asked McCabe (now the political leader of the island) to exile him and outlaw Bokononism, making it more exotic and adding a deeper meaning to the islanders’ lives.

Vonnegut’s real genius rests in his ability to make us laugh about some of the scariest parts of our culture. And in the humor we are able to view our lives from a different angle, questioning the things we take for granted, the foundations upon which we build our lives. It was enough to garner A reader’s coveted “el Stinko Award,” who called it “a pointless, plotless book” that “should not be considered as any sort of literary achievement.”

John begins the book with a Bokononist warning: “Anyone unable to understand how a useful religion can be founded on lies will not understand this book.” I, however, highly recommend Cat’s Cradle to anyone able to get past that initial warning. It is a wonderful (if harrowing) look at the lives we live. It was published in 1963, with America firmly planted in Vietnam, trying as fast as it could to create more efficient ways of killing other human beings. The American Ideal of democracy was a righteous one, and anyone not wholly committed to its enemies’ destruction could easily be labeled an enemy themselves and a traitor. Now, in a post-9/11 world, America is engaged in another war for democracy—trading communists for terrorists—and any opposition to America’s righteous cause is oftentimes met with suspicion and hate. Cat’s Cradle remains as relevant today as it was when it was first published. But vincent vega said it best:

“This is a decent sci-fi escape, but nowhere near as good an escape as Star Wars: Attack of the Clones, or Star Wars: A New Hope. This isn't very challenging, and you may feel compelled to read it because of the almost too simple story, and easy going language. This is basically a book about a mad scientist who tries to take over the world by freezing it over with a substance called Ice-Nine . . . not very complex or deep, a basic fable, but still entertaining. But as entertaining as Star Wars? NO. I recommend renting the star war movies or getting the star war books, especially the ones with Jabba the Hut. Cat's Cradle has no point or meaning to it, unlike Lucas's prophetic, amazing vision. Vonnegut is funny, but not very intelligent.”

Anyone else get their world riggity-rocked by the season finale of Battlestar Galactica?

*Commence the spoilin'*

Apollo's shaming everyone, all but one of the humanoid Cylons have been revealed, and Galactica's surrounded by basestars--good times! I find it a little annoying that there was no closure at the end of the season. That seems to be how this show rolls, but c'mon.

I'm gonna say the series peaked last season. I wasn't in to this one as much as the second season. This season had less of an overall story than I would have liked. I guess it was more about the characters. Yeah, a lot happened with the characters but not a lot happened with the story (if that makes sense). I guess we’ll start at the beginning.

Neeeeew Caprica. I think they squandered that opportunity, frankly. Just when I got used to the idea of New Caprica, they left. I thought they’d spend more than four episodes there. Instead we jump four months after the Cylon occupation. Why wouldn’t they show us how the occupation began? There’d be some cool ground fighting, we could see how the resistance started, yatta yatta yatta, and we could see how things slowly spiral out of control. Tigh’s use of suicide bombers would also be more morally ambiguous, because we would have seen how brutal the Cylons were and how desperate the humans got. Instead we got a paper-thin parallel to the Iraq war. Thanks. Seriously, I thought they should have spent half the season there. It was a big decision to colonize it but it didn’t feel like the series treated it that way. The big battle to rescue everyone was pretty cool, but, again, it felt rushed. Suddenly the Pegasus is destroyed? After four episodes?

The Cylon storyline was . . . weird. A lot of it seemed like just an excuse for the writers to throw out more quasi-mystical jargon. Like with the hybrid. I wasn’t down with the heavy religious focus on the Cylons. I would have cared much more to actually see Baltar interact with more of them. Instead, we get a weird montage: ok, ok, um . . . show some lights, Baltar looks confused, ok, someone naked, more lights, what about that red eye thing of the Cylons, yeah, good, ominous, ok, back to Baltar, oh look, he’s still confused, flashing lights, gimme a voice over, make it Baltar, he doesn’t know what’s going on, talk vaguely about the Cylon God’s plan without actually saying anything, yes! Done.

That Bulldog guy came out of nowhere. That episode was kinda cool. Finding out that the humans may have been the aggressors was a neat reversal of the “Cylons are absolute evil and all they want to do is kill . . . just because.” I can get behind that. But, damn, they killed Kat in a hurry. Something must have been up with that actress because damn. It’s not like they didn’t have enough story to stretch that out over a few episodes. First you introduce the guy from the past, then you mount the pressure on Kat as his demands get more and more, then you bring it to a climax. Plus, this was, like, the only episode to focus on Kat . . . ever. Although, if it was a problem with the actress than it was out of the writers’ hands and they did what they could.

I feel like the characters of Roslin and Adama got away from the writers this season, too. They seemed to be used just to make other characters develop. Take Roslin for instance. One minute she’s the compassionate kindergarten teacher who’s thrust into these crazy circumstances and the next she’s a draconian dictator. What? And Adama. I remember one specific instance in the episode “Unfinished Business.” He literally does a 180 on his response to the boxing in a matter of minutes. One minute he and Roslin are watching the fights and he’s having a good time because it gives the crew an opportunity to let off some steam and diffuse tension between peers. Then he overhears Tyrol telling one of his deckhands that they’ll take care of something or another tomorrow because right then they were taking a break, blowing off some steam. So what’s Adama do? He challenges Tyrol to a fight—a fight he wants to lose—so he can shame everyone for trying to have a good time. Then Tyrol reaffirms his commitment to duty or whatever. What?! Makes no sense. Again, it’s Roslin and Adama as merely an instrument for other characters’ development. Did the writers forget they are characters too?

I liked the dissention in the Cylon ranks, specifically with the Threes (even if it was for an ambiguous, quasi-mystical reason). I just wanted more of it. Show me more of the Cylons being Cylons, dammit.

Then we got four straight episodes that were just random happenings in the fleet. The first one’s with the whole Apollo and Starbuck thing, which was actually pretty ok. Except that it makes no sense that Starbuck (a reckless, self-destructive viper pilot with no respect for authority) would think the institution of marriage was so sacred that getting a divorce is unthinkable (no sense other than that the writers needed a reason for her and Apollo’s affair not to work out). That’s another spot where the writers are bending the characters to fit the situation, where, in my humble opinion, it should always be the other way around.

Then there’s the episode with Helo and the Sagittarons. Ehhhhhhh, I don’t like Helo. He’s kind of a whiny little bitch. He’s perpetually upset about something. And whenever I see him and Athena together, it reminds me that it didn’t work out between the Chief and Boomer because Cally shot Boomer (with no repercussions character- or story-wise). Then I remember how much I hate Cally. Then, I remember that Cally and the Tyrol got married, and then I’m blind with rage and need to punt a squirrel. So seeing Helo = punting squirrels. And what was the point of that episode anyway? That discrimination based on religion is bad? Thanks for taking a stand writers. Thanks for taking time away from the overall arc of the series. We really needed that message.

Then comes the episode with Tyrol and Cally in the room with the hull breach while simultaneously Adama is going a little nuts because it’s his wedding anniversary. The episode started out great, showing the increasingly deteriorating relationship between the Chief and Cally (mwa ha ha), but the end was blaaaaah. So they get in one life or death situation and suddenly their marriage is fine? Eat it, marriage counselors. I did like Adama’s story with Apollo. I thought that was nicely handled.

Then the thing with the workers and the striking and the Chief. I actually ended up liking this episode a lot more at the end than I did when it started. The sociological indictment of systemic socio-economic discrimination was really good. And it gives me an excuse to use phrases like “sociological indictment of systemic socio-economic discrimination.” And I love the Chief (even if he was seduced by that she-devil, Cally).

My main beef with all of those episodes is that they contribute nothing to the overall story arc of the season. They’re just little snapshots of the fleet. It made it feel like the season just wandered around at the end with no real place to go. With Baltar’s trial being the centerpiece of the finale, the arc seemed to be everything surrounding New Caprica—which is fine, but it goes back to my first qualm that there should have been more New Caprica. I liked Apollo’s impassioned testimony during the trial (even though it totally abandoned anything like judicial process). I thought it was really well written and delivered (and when we’re talking about Apollo . . . let’s face it, that’s saying something).

And that brings us to the big one. The drama (nuclear) bomb that they dropped on us in the last five minutes of the episode.

*Major spoilin’ in case you didn’t take the first hint*

So Colonel Tigh, Anders, Chief Tyrol, and that Tory chick are allllllll Cylons. Ho-ly shit. And before anyone emails me saying, “But they only think they’re Cylons!” Ronald D. Moore, executive producer and co-creator of the show has explicitly stated in an interview with Rob Owen of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazzette that they are definitely Cylons, although he couched it saying, “They are fundamentally different Cylons.” So they’re Cylons—deal with it. Delicious.

I don’t even know what to think about that. I will say this though: Colonel Tigh, for all his douchebaggery, delivered my second favorite line of the entire series after he realized what he was. “My name is Saul Tigh. I am an officer in the Colonial fleet. Whatever else I am, whatever else it means, that’s the man I want to be. And if I die today, that’s the man I’ll be.” This declaration caused me to literally say, “Fuckin’ a!” at my computer (I don’t have cable—thank you, iTunes). For those who care, my favorite line of the series was delivered by Admiral Adama when asked by Starbuck why he didn’t go through with the murder of Admiral Cain. He said, “It’s not enough to survive. You have to earn it.” Damn straight.

But back to the Cylons. So the Chief is a Cylon, and his wife is a known Cylon killer. They better frakkin’ address that. Then there’s Tigh. Good gravy. Adama’ll love that. Anders and Tory, whatevs. Season four should be interesting.

I’d say the third season was salvaged by an excellent (if annoyingly unresolved) finale. I wish they’d done more with New Caprica and less with their political soapbox, but it’s still Battlestar Galactica and I still love it. The finale actually sparked a burning desire within me to watch all three seasons again from the beginning. Hoowah. Mainly because I want to see if this season was indeed written way differently than the first two, but also because they kick ass. Anywho, hope you enjoyed this thorough display of nerdiness. I had to get it all out. There’s quite a wait until season four starts.

Howdy hey, everybody! How you doing? I’m alright, finishing up the school quarter. I saw the movie 300 over the weekend and, well . . . a finer testament to glorious Manliness I have yet to see.

The Scenario: Xerxes I and an army of roughly two million (though those people who call themselves experts disagree on the exact number) are marching into Greece from the north with the intent to either conquer or kill everyone. Oh joy! Who’s the Spartan with a leather speedo bulky enough to stop him? Why, the good King Leonidas of Sparta. Unfortunately, there’s some festival or another . . . something religious (stupid religion) . . . what was that, wikipedia? Oh, yeah—the Carneian festival. Anyway, the priests are like, “no it’s sacred—can’t have an army,” and Leonidas is all, “uh . . . remember the Persians?” and they’re all, “what do we care?” So then Leonidas takes his bad self (after making sweet, sweet love to his wife) and three hundred of his best, most man-elicious warriors (who all have sons to carry on their lines) to go kick some Persian ass.

Ok . . . exposition over? Ass kicking time!

I mean . . . what do you want from this movie? I know what I wanted. I wanted to see a lot of Persians die. And I got what I wanted.

Make no mistake: the movie is horribly historically inaccurate (that’s fun to say). It does not explore the sociological repercussions of basing a society on violence. And it seems to go out of its way at times to mock realism. But, god dammit, it was cool. If I wanted to watch a History Channel special on Thermopylae I would set the VCR and take a nap. I wanted to see people get their heads cut off! I predicted there would be seven decapitations. I was wrong. I forgot that most of the battle was fought with spears. Sadly, there were only four decapitations.

Top Ten Things I Learned from 300:

10. I need a crimson cape
9. Spartan men have muscles that I swear I don’t have
8. If you call yourself an Immortal, you better damn well mean it
7. Be very, very . . . very careful what you say to a Spartan king
6. Slow motion makes anything look cooler
5. There were no unattractive people in ancient Sparta
4. A man should never express his feelings unless it’s with the tip of his . . . spear
3. Spartan women could and would kick my ass
2. If you ally yourself with Xerxes, don’t hide his coins on your person

And finally . . .

1. As a general rule . . . stay out of Sparta

But if you’re in the mood for lots and lots of badassness, look no further.

Hey, everybody. Well, I started grad school this week and the class wasn't so bad . . . for being Classical Rhetoric. But that's neither here nor there because Tony Jaa's back in town!

That's right. The Muay Thai fightin', every bone in your body breakin', makes me wanna cry 'cause I'll never be that cool martial arts experience has hit America in "The Protector"--the US release of "Tom Yum Goong." And it's baaaaaadaaaaaass to see Mr. Tony Jaa ten feet tall.

Seriously, people. If you have even a passing interest in martial arts movies or action flicks, see this movie. But if you're diabetic, watch out. It may be too freakin' sweet! Yeah, that's right. I went there . . .

And, fuck you, Quentin Tarantino. Quit attaching your name to other people's stuff because you're too busy humping old conventions and tired cliches to make anything new. I don't ever want to associate you and Tony Jaa together in my brain.

But that stupid deutschmark aside, I have nothing but good vibes and happy thoughts for this movie. You owe it to yourself to get your world rocked by Mr. Tony Jaa. It's priceless (unfortunately, the local theatres seem to think it costs around $9 . . . whatevs). You won't regret it.

Paiyow!

First movie this week: Failure to Launch. Matthew McConaughey is Trip, the hyper-masculine, lady-killing, man-child who won’t move out of his parents’ house due to a fear of commitment or possibly a deeper seated fear of love. Sarah Jessica Parker is Paula, the cool and confident, testosterone castrating modern girl who’s hired by Trip’s parents to woo him out of the house (and, don’t worry, she doesn’t fall for her clients . . . right). Blarg. This is one of those romantic comedies in which every guy is either a football-loving, sex mongering, ape . . . or is trying to be one. Of course, no one can compare to the domination of Trip, but that certainly doesn’t stop the movie from humping that joke. Every woman in this movie is either intelligent, witty, and only has a mind for a true relationship and the passion of a full romance . . . or too drunk and jaded by men to care. Enter Zooey Deschanel. She’s Kit, constantly has a beer in her hand, and isn’t interested in masculine advances. Naturally, Trip’s friends just want sex. Well, I guess they don’t just want sex. They also want to conquer mountains, video games (only the competitive ones), and baseball. Yarrrr, baseball! Alright, I mean, I gotta come out and say that I don’t like these kinds of romantic comedies. They’re supposed to parody the insanity of male and female stereotypes, but people end up laughing at how ‘true’ they are, thus perpetuating the guy as gorilla and woman as vindictive feminist mentality. But, whatever. If you buy into it, you’ll love this movie. God, if I never have to hear the “At first it was just a job but then it became real” conversation, or one of its infinite variations, it may . . . yeah it will be too soon. And is it just me or does the timbre of Sarah Jessica Parker’s voice needle into your brain too? The movie does have heart, I guess. It mostly comes from Kathy Bates who still turns out to be a pretty good actress. And thank you, Terry Bradshaw. All I’ll say is that the ‘partial nudity’ in this film isn’t Sarah Jessica Parker. And the camera . . . lingers. *shudder*

1.5 stars out of 5.

Next up is another romantic comedy, Imagine Me & You. Here’s a change: a romantic comedy that starts at a wedding. This just happens to be Heck (Matthew Goode) and Rachel’s (Piper Perabo) wedding, and everything goes swimmingly . . . until the bride exchanges a look with a special member of the audience on her way up to the altar. That look starts a string of innocent events that lead to an affair of the heart. Ready for the surprise? The looker’s a woman. A-wigga wha? Thaaaaaat’s right. WooOOOOooo. Luce (Lena Headey), the lovely lesbian, arranged the flowers for the wedding and on her way out steals a glance with Rachel. At the very least, this movie treats gay people as a part of humanity and not some weird fetish. Luce obviously missed the memo that states all lesbians must be aggressive predators. She wants in her heart of hearts only Rachel’s happiness. But it isn’t that simple because Rachel doesn’t know what will make her happy. It’s pretty formulaic in its structure, well, I mean, it’s a romantic comedy. C’mon, admit it. All romantic comedies follow the same basic plot structure: love-interests meet, love-interests dance, love-interests fall in love *climax* love-interests break up, love-interests learn they were more together than they ever were apart—or ever will be without each other, the love-interest responsible for the break-up (usually the lead) is sacrificed on the altar of humiliation to prove his/her love. This movie doesn’t try to reinvent this structure, but it does give it depth through its characters. This depth is only slightly cheapened at the end. Because it is a warm and fuzzy film, while . . . well, I guess I would have liked a little more complex bitterness from the person who loses. C’est la vie. Still a pretty good movie.

3 stars out of 5.

Find Me Guilty is about the trial of Giacomo "Jackie Dee" DiNorscio, a mobster faced with—whoa, whoa, whoa. Is that Vin Diesel with hair? That is Vin Diesel with hair. Hm. Anyway, he’s faced with multiple charges from the feds but decides to defend himself instead of rat out his friends and family. It’s based on the true story of the longest mafia trial in US history. This movie . . . this movie is interesting. And I really mean that. How’s this? The antagonist of this movie is an attorney who swears to put away liars, pimps, dope dealers, and murderers, and the protagonist is a man who mocks laws, attorneys, judges, even his fellow mobsters . . . but he’s funny. Are we rooting for him? Well . . . not . . . exactly. But who are we gonna root for? The hard-nosed lawyers? The ungrateful mobsters who aren’t nearly as charismatic as Jackie? We do root for Jackie and it’s not because of his innocence. We root for him because he’s the only one who recognizes the trial as the show that it is. He’s the clown in the center ring and he puts on one hell of a show. I guess that’s what it really is. This is a movie that works only because of Jackie Dee. We watch just to see him. We don’t care about themes and resolution and character arcs. We want to see Jackie point out the absurdities of a system that purports justice but jumps through hoops to get it. And, what can I say, the hoops are interesting. Vin Diesel shines underneath that hair. Linus Roache also gives a noteworthy performance. They make the moments happen, and this is a movie of moments.

3.5 stars out of 5.

Now: Ultraviolet, the story of the disease-mutated, biologically engineered assassin, Violet. Violet is a Hemophage—they’re vampiric in appearance, stronger, faster, and sexier than normal human beings but suffer from a depressingly short lifespan (about 12 years after infection). She lives in a dystopian society where the government is free to kidnap whoever they want and conduct weird experiments ‘cause . . . that’s what an oppressive government does, right?. But not Violet. She’s part of a ragtag band of rebels who fight for the freedom of Hemophages as well as . . . searching . . . for a . . . cure . . . and . . . and stuff . . . cheese whiz *snore* . . . Wha? Sorry, zoned out there for a second. What was I talking about? Right, freedom fighters and what-not. Naturally, there will be comparisons between this movie and Aeon Flux. I don’t see why though. I mean, Aeon Flux is about a repressive dystopian society that can kidnap people at will to do weird experiments on them and the struggle of a ragtag band of rebels who fight for the freedom of humans. See, Aeon couldn’t care less about the plight of the Hemophages. Racist bitch. And the differences don’t stop there. See, Violet is ordered to infiltrate a seemingly impenetrable government lab to execute a child who holds the key to curing the Hemophages and ending the oppressive reign of the totalitarian government. Aeon Flux, on the other hand, is ordered to infiltrate a seemingly impenetrable government lab to execute the leader of the repressive government who holds the key behind the mysterious disappearances and ending the oppressive reign of the totalitarian government. Neither of them do it. They both, like, find God or remember their humanity or something and decide to protect their targets from the backlash of the rebels they worked for as well as the goons from the government. Whatevs, you don’t watch Ultraviolet for its reinvention of plot dynamics. You watch it for the action. And . . . sigh . . . Kurt Wimmer, the writer and director, also directed Equilibrium—the story of a repressive dystopian society where—blah! You get the idea. Here’s a break down of every action sequence in this film: Violet enters (or exits) a room, Violet is surrounded by a seemingly overwhelming number of enemies, Violet kills everyone. Rinse and repeat. Seriously, every single fight. Wimmer doesn’t reinvent plot dynamics, but he sure explores the many facets of anti-climax. This movie is also a CGI bonanza, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing (King Kong and The Lord of the Rings indulged quite a bit), but it looks like CGI from the mid-90s. And I’m not one to hold bad special effects against a movie, but this movie uses them everywhere. Blah. In the end, it’s just not worth it. The dialogue, the acting, the fight scenes—sub-par. It’s too bad it wasn’t filmed in the ultraviolet spectrum, because then we wouldn’t have to see it.

1.5 stars out of 5.

For all its similarities, Aeon Flux is better. But it tries too hard to be more than the action movie it should be. It’s part sci-fi adventure, part mystery, part over-the-top action, part dystopian satire, part . . . I don’t know, I stopped caring two parts ago. It tries to accomplish so much it doesn’t end up accomplishing much of anything. I remember the cartoon and it was at least groovy to look at. The plot didn't matter because the animation was a visual spectacle. Sadly, live action doesn't give the same freedom to explore the fluid grace of the cartoon's animation.

2 stars out of 5.

The last film for the week is the documentary written and directed by Eugene Jarecki, Why We Fight. The film makes a critical analysis of the American military-industrial complex. It begins, ironically, with a farewell address. President Eisenhower’s farewell address, to be precise, in which he warns Americans to keep an eye on the military-industrial complex (a term he coined) before it integrates itself into every facet of American life, in fact, takes over American life. I won’t belabor any points for fear of discrediting this movie. It talks to a lot of people with (in some cases, radically) different political views. The film is liberal, yes. I’m not so blind as to not see that. But it’s liberal in the sense that liberals are the only people who are willing to make a critical analysis of the American military-industrial complex. This movie is not Democratic (as in the party). It doesn’t lay blame or point fingers. It presents facts, and it does so without the fanatical agenda of someone like Michael Moore (thank God). This movie doesn’t demonize the actions of the Bush administration. It puts them into context—a wider, more thorough context than at least I could see before, with the facts to back it up. I don’t want to say anything more other than I think everyone in America should see this film. I’m genuinely interested in how every American would respond to it.

4 stars out of 5.

I've decided it's way easier to do a series of reviews, a la my Abu Ghraib post (that's right, I just referenced myself), instead of writing individual reviews. So I'm gonna do that from now on. To kick us off, let's explore some of the better movies that have been released lately.

First up, Kiss Kiss Bang Bang--so nice they kissed it and . . . banged it twice. This movie is about Harry Lockhart (Robert Downey, Jr), a bumbling thief who is mistaken for an actor in that silly Mexican experiment we call Los Angeles. He auditions for the part of a detective and Gay Perry (Val Kilmer), 'Gay' in that instance being an adjective and not a given name, is the detective hired to make his acting more authentic. As Harry practices being suave and subtle, he and Gay Perry stumble into a case involving murder, deception, and the high school love of Harry's life. Alright, though an intriguing plot is a major reason to watch this or any detective story, the strongest part of this film is its sense of humor. It's self-referentially post-modern enough to be witty, but not too much to be annoying. Robert Downey, Jr. tries to impress the girl and fails enough to endear us to him, but not too much to make us wonder what the heck she sees in him. Val Kilmer nails (heh) Gay Perry, a parody of gay parodies along the lines of Willem Dafoe's Agent Smecker in The Boondock Saints. I mean, what else needs to be said? It's a dark comedy detective romp. The plot is too complex to really get any meaning out of it, but meaning isn't the point. The point is to have fun watching quirky characters deal with the grisly side of humanity in an ironic fashion. And it is fun to watch.

4 stars out of 5.

Next is Something New, starring Sanaa Lathan as Kenya McQueen, a corporate lawyer in for quite the surprise when she agrees to a blind date with the friend of a friend. The surprise: he's totally white. Hey-o! Let the romantic comedy begin! I know what you're saying. Well . . . I strongly suspect what you're saying. "Chris, c'mon. Romantic comedy?" Hell's bells, romantic comedy! I do have a girlfriend, which means I've seen more of them than I would have liked to. It also gives my ego the necessary boost to convince me that I know a thing or two about them. Well, that may or may not be, but I'll tell you what I do know. Something New is a darn good movie that just happens to follow the conventions of a romantic comedy. And I know/strongly suspect what you're still saying, "But the whole black/white thing? Hasn't that been done?" Yeah, it has, but not nearly this well. The obvious comparison is with Guess Who, starring Ashton Kutcher and Bernie Mac, about a white man meeting his black girlfriend's family. Here's the thing though: where Guess Who dodged the real racial issue in favor of sitcom-esque formulas of uncomfortable situations, Something New hits the racial issue head-on . . . and then backs up and hits it again . . . and then one more time for good measure. The end of the movie isn't hard to guess (it is a romantic comedy), but it's how they get there that is so compelling. Nothing is easy for them. The movie doesn't fall into the tired "Look how we're all really the same" out but instead walks that razor's edge of how we're the same and how we're very different. The only way the movie could have done this so well is with complex characters, which it delivers, in spades. There isn't one caricature or clicheed character in this film. They're human. And it's beautiful. They don't react to the questions the film raises in a 'good guy,' 'bad guy' way--they react to them in a human way. That humanity is what makes this, for my money, the best romantic comedy out there. In the end, Something New turns out to be just that--a new and refreshing look at the pressures of the workplace, relationships, and race.

I can't find anything wrong with this movie, and unlike several of my English professors, I'm not scared of a perfect score. 5 stars out of 5.

The last movie I'll recommend for now is Syriana. It's a complex epic about oil, terrorism, spies, and corruption. I said it's complex and I mean it. There's, what? Four main storylines? It's confusing, but I think that's the point. We're not supposed to travel down a storyline so much as get surrounded by characters and events. Why would a movie be purposefully confusing? Well, the main focus of the film is world politics and the economics of the oil industry that drive them. There's a simple solution there, eh? Who's the real 'bad guy?' Who's the 'noble hero?' There aren't any. This movie isn't about Left/Right. It's more about Have/Have Not in the oil industry. If I had to boil a movie like this down to a basic theme (which I really shouldn't), I guess I'd say it was, "The Haves screw over the Have Nots while they still have what makes them the 'Haves' (in this case, oil) . . . and that is unfortunate." People whine and complain about the 'liberal bias' of this film, but the only bias in the above theme is the "that is unfortunate" part. If that's the case, then that means a liberal is someone who thinks people screwing over other people is bad. And if you're not a liberal here then I guess that makes you an asshole. I say "while they still have what makes them the 'Haves'" because one thing the film does make clear is that there is way too little oil for the whole world and it will run out. It will. Bald-faced greed is the real villain of this movie. The villain certainly isn't a character. Like Something New, every character in Syriana is a complex human with several conflicting motivations that keep you guessing as to their "true" beliefs. You can't really pin any one down as a 'bad guy' . . . at least I won't. The movie is realistic but it's also really subtle. Some might say overly subtle. Part of the confusion comes from the film never quite saying anything overtly. One of its strengths, one of its weaknesses. Whatcha gonna do? I enjoyed it. I recommend it. Take that for what it is.

4 stars out of 5.

I was talking with my friend Nic the other day and he told me that he had made the unfortunate mistake of seeing the movie Rumor Has It... starring Jennifer Aniston and Kevin Costner. We were at least able to commisserate together on what a terrible movie it was, but I couldn't help but feel a twinge of guilt having not warned him about what a crap-tacular bomb it was. So, to help those who haven't yet seen it and are still considering it, I give you the first installment of Movies That Should Only Be Shown at Abu Ghraib (and even that might be too cruel).

First up, the reason for this post: Rumor Has It... This charming romantic comedy tells the story of the dysfunctional Huttinger family, whose eldest daughter, Sarah (Jennifer Aniston), feels somehow out of place in her family of romantic comedy charicatures. Sigh . . . let's get right to it. This movie blows. I'm sorry, but Jennifer Aniston is more frustrating than sympathetic to watch. Mark Ruffalo doesn't exactly woo you either. I've seen better chemistry at high school science fairs. And the situations in this movie have to be forced to work (which they don't anyway). The basic premise is that the 1967 classic, The Graduate, was based on actual events and the Robinsons of the movie are in fact the Huttingers. Sarah Huttinger digs into the family's history to find out the truth and to find out if she is even a real Huttinger and not a product of an affair her mother had days before her wedding. Not a terrible premise. Not exactly inspired, but not terrible. But the execution is shoddy at best. The characters make decisions that no rational person would ever make, just to squeeze into a plot that doesn't fit right. For instance, all Beau Burroughs (Kevin Costner), the man who inspired Benjamin's character in The Graduate (and Sarah's potential father), does is throw money at Sarah for what . . . two days? And suddenly she's desperate to sleep with him. What? And Shirley MacLaine? Not funny. She says things in a context that I recognize as a joke but there's just no funny. Gah, I saw this movie with my girlfriend and it was just awkward. Neither of us laughed much and we ended up just discussing the many points at which the movie went terribly wrong. So, so terribly wrong.

This movie gets a one star bonus for being a Rob Reiner film and I loved The Princess Bride and This is Spinal Tap. But this is the last time, Rob. Lessee, with the bonus that brings us to . . . 1 star out of 5. Next . . .

Bloodrayne. Oh my God, this movie. If I hadn't seen two of director Uwe Boll's other movies (Alone in the Dark and House of the Dead), I would say this is the worst movie in existence. Unfortunately, I have . . . so it's a toss-up between the three. *shudder* I seriously don't know where to begin. I guess with the title character, Rayne. She's . . . what'd-they-call-it . . . a dhampir, a half-human half-vampire hybrid, who has the strengths of both and a wekaness to . . . water? What?! Are you serious? I guess the ambient moisture in the air doesn't bother her--or the water in blood. But the liquid stuff will burn her alive. Yeah, that's not lame at all. Whatever, she's the last of her kind who are being exterminated by Ben Kingsley because of . . . some reason. I don't know, maybe he's just that evil. Awesome character development. Wait a minute. What did I just say? Ben Kingsley?! What the--! What is Ghandi doing? On top of that we have Michael Madsen, Michelle Rodriguez, Billy Zane, friggin' Meatloaf, and Udo Kier. I don't know what Uwe Boll had on them, but it had to be diiiiiiiirty to get them in this movie. It just turns sad after the first twenty minutes. The costumes were bought at thrift shops, the fight scenes were choreographed by an eight year old, and the acting . . . these are good actors and they know this is trash. They don't even try. It's seriously not even unintentionally funny. Just sad. So sad.

If you've never seen a Uwe Boll movie, that's the only reason I would recommend it--that way you'll know never to watch another of his films again. Why Ghandi? You overthrew the British. Why couldn't you resist this? 0 stars out of 5.

Date Movie. This movie was written by 2 of the 6 writers of the awesome (no, there's no sarcasm there) Scary Movie series. If that doesn't ward you off, let me say it another way. The premise of this movie is so terrible that not even all of the people associated with the piece of trash that is Scary Movie wanted to be associated with it. It was below even them. If you still want to see it, then, you know what, do see it. You'll love it. This movie . . . this movie doesn't even pick good things to parody. It parodies things that are already extreme characterizations themselves. Like Napoleon Dynamite. Where do you go with that? You're parodying a charicature of Idaho nerdom. Are you even trying? You know what this movie is like? It's like having to watch that jackass in eighth grade who thought he could do awesome impressions of everyone. And he thought he was so funny. It's like watching that . . . for 83 minutes.

0 out of 5 stars.

Freedomland is about a cop (Samuel L. Jackson) who handles a woman's (Julianne Moore) car-jacking. The kicker is--her son was in the backseat. Aaaaaaaand, the jacking took place in the lower socio-economic district of a fictional New Jersey city that is predominately African-American. Wha-oh. So let's run down the checklist.
Black community that is ignored by the white police *check*
White cop relative of the missing child who goes crazy racist after the crime is reported *check*
Black cop who knows the streets *check*
The list goes on. Whatever, it doesn't have to. Things happen in this movie that have no justification. People's opinions of the case just randomly skew to the other extreme. Julianne Moore's performance is so ridiculously over-the-top that you cannot sympathize with anything associated with her. And characters disappear because the screenwriter (Richard Price, who also wrote the novel) didn't know what to do with them. And the monologues. There are (two in particular) monologues in this movie that just go on and on and on for up to five minutes! Just this person talking. It's supposed to build tension and be dramatic or something, but it doesn't work when all you can think about is how much you want them to stop. Please, just stop. Samuel L. Jackson does what he can but it's just not enough.

1.5 stars out of 5.

One more and then I'm done. How about The Producers? The Producers is a film musical version of the broadway musical version of a . . . film. For those of you who haven't seen the original, it is hilarious and highly recommended. But this one . . . it just doesn't work, for a number of reasons. First off, this is the first film for director, Susan Stroman. Everything she's directed before this was a play. And it shows. The camera . . . just lacks life. With a play, there's just one stage and one "view" that the audience sees everything from. But in a movie, the camera is a dynamic (almost) character in and of itself. Through the director and the editor, the audience interacts with the actors. Someone forgot to tell that to Susan. The camera just sits there through the whole film. Second, the actors need to tone it down a might. Everyone except for Matthew Broderick. He needs to tone it down a lot. He looked like he had taken the acting equivalent of whatever Barry Bonds is on. Jeez. Where did that sly and subtle Ferris Bueller go? You can clearly tell what's been added into this version because it either goes on for too long or recaps the entire film, again and again. This movie is 134 minutes long! It could have easily been two hours, and in my opinion less than that. I'll give credit where credit's do, though. It is bright. It is vibrant. And Nathan Lane is always fun to watch. This movie just wasn't up to par. It is definitely the best of this bunch (but what's that really saying).

If and only if you love zany musicals, give this movie a shot. If you don't--and especially if you loved the original (that is, the movie)--shy away. And even if you love zany musicals, I'd tell you to go see the play, which would probably be much more fun and entertaining. 2 stars out of 5.

Underworld: Evolution continues the story of leather-clad, wolf-trouncing Selene (Kate Beckinsale), an outcast, as it were, among vampires. She's a Capricorn and enjoys late night strolls through the woods, dealing out her own brand of justice, and killing the leaders of her vampire coven. Turn-ons include leather and half-werewolf, half-vampire hybrids. It's a good thing that she was able to save Michael Corvin (Scott Speedman), who just happens to be the only half-werewolf, half vampire hybrid at the end of Underworld. Underworld: Evolution opens, after a rather grizzly and violent prologue as well as an unnecessary recap of the previous film (fans will know what happened and those dumb enough to jump into the story with this movie can pick up plenty from Markus's blood memory escapades), with them on the run through a non-specific Eastern European countryside. I guess it's safe to conclude that it's Hungary given that the setting of the first film was the gothic district of Budapest. Seems like everyone wants to kill Selene and Michael these days. Their sole motivation is just staying alive, what with the whole of vampire- and werewolf-dom after them. Chief among those chasing them is Markus Corvinus (Tony Curran), the recently reanimated vampire elder, strengthened by werewolf blood. As far as bad guys go, he's pretty bad. He has a nasty habit of killing everyone he comes across (he's bad at parties) and he mentions something about becoming a god or something, which I've been socialized to see as unforgivable.

The movie works in its own right. The action has been amped up quite a bit, and the plot gets exponentially more complicated with each scene. There are pacing issues, largely due to the massive amount of information the filmmakers try to get across to the viewers. There is a lot of exposition. A lot. Granted, it's balanced by hyper-active action sequences but it gives the film a choppy feel. We move a hundred miles an hour through a fight and then slow to a crawl as plot twist after soap operatic plot twist unfolds. There's really only one gaping plot hole but for the sake of spoilers I won't mention it. The movie (for the most part) moves so quickly that you don't really question anything--you're too busy absorbing all the new exposition you're getting.

The fight scenes are alright. There's one in particular that I liked. Near the beginning, Selene systematically takes apart a troupe of policemen chasing Michael. She accomplishes this in Batman-esque fashion, swooping down and dispatching them with a few quick stock kung fu moves. But when it comes to the fighting between vampires or vampire versus werewolf, it just becomes a contest to see who can hit the other hardest. You'd think that if they (vampires or werewolves) were fighting a war for hundreds and hundreds of years, they would develop a style of fighting each other. Guess not. Or, I guess that is their style. Though the scope of each fight is impressive, I found myself missing just that bit of polish.

Kate Beckinsale seems more comfortable in the role, especially the action sequences, and Scott Speedman growls with appropriate ferocity. The filmmakers also took a page out of Brian Singer's X-men book, opting for Great Britain's finest when casting the new characters. Tony Curran bites into his meaty role with the ferocity of his character, Markus. Steven Mackintosh also delivers a wonderful performance as the vampire historian, Andreas Tanis. Lastly (but not leastly), Derek Jacobi lends the grand-daddy of all monsters a restrained passion and subtlety that stands in stark genius to Bill Nighy's overenthusiastic Viktor. But the filmmakers don't take full advantage of Jacobi's power--or rather, his character is lacking in complexity. His potential is undercut by a lame plot device. C'est la vie.

All in all, you could do worse than see Underworld: Evolution. It's violent, it's over-the-top, but it has its moments. If you like action, if you like gore, and especially if you like Underworld, you will like the sequel (possibly more). It's . . . mostly coherent, but you don't watch a movie like this for its coherence. A renter, if nothing else.

Underworld: Evolution gets 2.5 stars out of 5.