Discussion of a Quandry

The Attack of the Dark Knight Returns.
(Originally written 7/21/2009)

Yeah, the title of this post doesn't really make any sense, but The Dark Knight was an awesome fucking movie. It was so awesome, I barely remember what happened during most of it. Some might view this as a bad thing, as in "Oh. You were so bored that your mind wandered and you didn't even catch most of the film."

No. Not at all. I was so blown away by the action, acting, plot twists, and drama that my human brain couldn't comprehend it all at once.

Seriously. Heath Ledger was great as the Joker. His performance shits all over Jack Nicholson and Cesar Romero. It's that good. Granted, it wasn't so good that he needed to OD on prescription meds and die, but, hey. That's on him. The Joker's entire scheme seems to by so completely random that when it makes sense at the end, you can tell that he is that crazy.

But aside from that, the best part of the movie was the Harvey Dent plot. Aaron Eckhart is riveting as Gotham's DA, and he plays his part with such panache, that you can't see anyone else in this role. Not even Tommy Lee Jones. Seriously!

I don't think I need to say anything about Christian Bale. It's pretty much agreed that since Batman Begins, he is the best Batman to ever be filmed. And if anyone tries to argue that point, then he or she and I have some problems.

If you haven't seen this movie yet, you need to. If you have, but you want to see it again, call me. I'll go with you.

That's a Quality Pinata

Wal-Mart Sucks.
(Originally written 6/30/2008)

Yes, I am against Wal-Mart as a retail entity, as I am sure many people in the world are. However, my hatred has been backed-up by the information in the movie Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price.

I have always understood that, with the low prices that Wal-Mart offers, somebody somewhere must be taken advantage of. However, Wal-Mart is one step above using sweatshops over in China. Apparently, they also offer housing for their employees, and the rent is taken out of their paychecks. That doesn't sound so bad; however, even if an employee doesn't live in the company housing, they take the rent out of their paychecks.

Wal-Mart is also so opposed to unions that if the word is even breathed under someone's breath, they bring in an Anti-Union Task Force, at the price of $7,000,000, to take control of the store. The store manager loses all control, they install cameras and bugs to listen to people, they freeze raises so as not to appear to bribe anyone. This shit is absolutely crazy the kind of things that Wal-Mart does.

Not only that, but the widow of Sam Walton and his four children are each worth over $10 billion. Did you know that the entire family has only given about 1% of their money to charity. OK, I know. You're probably saying "It's their money. They don't have to give it away." I'll agree with that. However, Bill Gates has donated 58% of his income to charity. Wal-Mart offers some sort of charity where their employees can donate money to help other employees who have lost their houses and belongings in storms and hurricanes and things. In 2005, the employees donated about $5 million. The Waltons... $6,000. What the fuck is that shit? When you have $12 billion dollars, give a little away. No one can possible spend that much in a lifetime. Especially when you husband and father believed that the most important aspect of the company is the employees. Without the employees, you ain't selling shit. I would love to see Sam Walton's wife with a pallet jack unloading a truck. Remember your roots, motherfucker!

Sorry for the tirade. That movie got me so pumped up about my hatred for Wal-Mart. I haven't even touched on some of the sickest shit that they do as a company. How can a company of this size get away with the law-breaking that they do? Someone needs to step in and do something. Bill Gates and Microsoft was harassed for years about creating a monopoly. Well, in my opinion, when you come into an area and all of your competition is closing it's doors, I'd say that's one hell of a monopoly.

Clit's Consternation

Across the Universe.
(Originally written 2/11/2008)

So I watched Across the Universe yesterday, and it was amazing. Well, weird would be a better word for it, but amazing describes my overall appraisal of the film.

I was intrigued when I first saw the trailer for it; a movie based on the music of the Beatles seemed like a great idea to me. But I never got the chance to see it in the theater. Anyway, after I watched it, I was damn near blown away at how well-made it was. The selection of songs was almost perfect; I had issue with a few of them, one of them "Being For the Benefit of Mr. Kite" (I just don't like that song). However, the imagery used during that sequence was awesome.
What I liked best was the way they used other aspects of Beatles songs besides the songs themselves. Jude. Lucy. Sadie. Max. All of these are names of Beatles' songs in one way or another. I also like in the beginning the man who says the phrase "When I'm 64."

All in all, Across the Universe is a great movie, especially one based on an idea put forth in a Powerpuff Girls episode. But I don't hold that against it; in fact, it helps to bolster it's credibility.

A Love Blossoms

My observations of Spider-Man 3...
(Originally written 12/2/2007)

I was watching it yesterday for the seventh time (that's right; twice in the theaters and 5 times on DVD) and I picked up on something that I hadn't realized before. Let me start from the beginning.

The first time I watched Spider-Man 3, I got so angry that they rewrote the death of Uncle Ben, what with Sandman having been involved. It angered me because Uncle Ben's death is the driving force behind Peter Parker being Spider-Man. See, Peter blames himself for his uncle's death because, as it turns out, the robber that he failed to stop earlier in the night is the same one who shot Uncle Ben. Anyone who reads comics knows and understands this.

However, in the movie, (I guess this is a good time for a Spoiler Alert) it turns out that the bullet that killed Uncle Ben came from Flint Marko's gun, not the robber that Peter failed to stop. This bothered me when I first saw the movie. Why? I'll tell you. It means, even if Peter Parker stopped the robber, his uncle would be dead, at least in the situation that Peter imagined in the movie. Were this to be true, nothing Peter did that night would have saved his uncle, thus, his uncle's death could not be his fault. A equals B, Peter Parker has no motivation for being Spider-Man.

But, at the end of the movie, when the Sandman explains to Peter what happened, I realized that the two events were connected. Sandman tells Peter that when he, Flint Marko, approached Uncle Ben to take the car he, Uncle Ben, tried to reason with Marko. The flashback shows that Marko was receptive to what Ben had to say, until his partner came running out with the cash. At that point, the gun accidentally goes off, killing Ben.

See, Peter's motivation is not shattered. Had Peter stopped the robber earlier, he would not have surprised Flint Marko while he was holding the gun on Uncle Ben and the gun would have, most likely, not gone off.

It could also mean that Peter Parker could have stopped the evolution of the Sandman. Look at it this way. Peter stops the crook, which means that Ben and Marko's conversation would not have been interrupted. Ben convinces Marko to turn his life around. Marko does not get pinched for whatever crime he commits that throws him in jail. This means he does not escape from jail, go on the lam from the cops and never winds up in the experimental sand pit. If anything, the events in Spider-Man 3 would solidify Peter Parker's resolve to be Spider-Man.

Realizing this makes me like this movie even more.