House of Brat

What They Didn't Know

2018-02-10T18:30:00.000-07:00

"I wish there were some formal courses in medical school on Medical Ignorance; textbooks as well, alghouth they would have to be very heavy volumes."

~Lewis Thomas, "Medicine as a Very Old Profession," 1985

(As quoted in The Case Against Sugar by Gary Taubes)

Compound interest applied to learning

2018-01-03T12:04:00.001-07:00

Now for the matter of drive. You observe that most great scientists have tremendous drive. I worked for ten years with John Tukey at Bell Labs. He had tremendous drive. One day about three or four years after I joined, I discovered that John Tukey was slightly younger than I was. John was a genius and I clearly was not. Well I went storming into Bode’s office and said, “How can anybody my age know as much as John Tukey does?” He leaned back in his chair, put his hands behind his head, grinned slightly, and said, “You would be surprised Hamming, how much you would know if you worked as hard as he did that many years.” I simply slunk out of the office!

What Bode was saying was this: “Knowledge and productivity are like compound interest.” Given two people of approximately the same ability and one person who works ten percent more than the other, the latter will more than twice outproduce the former. The more you know, the more you learn; the more you learn, the more you can do; the more you can do, the more the opportunity – it is very much like compound interest. I don’t want to give you a rate, but it is a very high rate. Given two people with exactly the same ability, the one person who manages day in and day out to get in one more hour of thinking will be tremendously more productive over a lifetime. I took Bode’s remark to heart; I spent a good deal more of my time for some years trying to work a bit harder and I found, in fact, I could get more work done. I don’t like to say it in front of my wife, but I did sort of neglect her sometimes; I needed to study. You have to neglect things if you intend to get what you want done. There’s no question about this.

~Richard Hamming

(h/t Jason Kottke)

Atomic Blonde

2017-11-24T20:23:00.002-07:00

When I saw this at the library last week, I thought "perfect timing" because Thanksgiving break was soon. I would have time to watch this. Because this movie requires no brains.

I really liked the first 35-40 minutes. So basically the first act. And at that point I felt like I knew everything about the story. Then I checked to see how much longer it was. I had more than an hour to go. Really?! Yup. That second act was way too long. It really kills the momentum because there isn't much more to the story than what we've already discovered.

The fights are great. I remember reading an article sometime within the past four or five months where someone stated that Charlize's character in Atomic Blonde is what men think women should be in action films rather than what Diana is in Wonder Woman. I don't agree with that at all. I think that demonstrates a very narrow view of women.

Anyhow, this movie would probably be much better all around if the middle was trimmed by about 5-10 minutes. The longer running time isn't adding anything. And, also, I didn't buy that last twist in the last scene. It's not earned, and I find it beyond ridiculous. Like, no way in real life would that possibly happen. Not even close.

And I didn't necessarily buy Charlize's British/English accent in the film. I'm not an expert on accents, but it seemed slightly off to me.

Jennifer's Body

2017-11-16T20:56:00.000-07:00

A couple of weeks ago, right before Halloween, I had some time and realized, hey, I've never watched this. It just popped into my head like some blast from the past. I remember when it came out years ago wanting to see it because there were so few films directed by women, and even less horror films. Of course, even today, there are still few films directed by women that get a real release. It wasn't available to watch on Netflix, so I had to check it out from the library. Okay, technically, my local library didn't have it either, so I had to request it on an inter-library loan. Sheesh! It was a lot of work to get my hands on this thing. And then I didn't have time to watch it until earlier this week, long past Halloween at this point.

I'm not going to pretend that this is the greatest movie ever made, but it's a good horror movie, far better than the 43% it has on Rotten Tomatoes. I felt for the characters. I had some genuine squeamish-ness happening when watching some of the boys get trapped, brutally killed, and eaten. And this is by far the best performance I've ever seen Megan Fox give, even though I've only seen her in the two Transformers movies she did. (I know that's not a ringing endorsement, but she's capable of being more than just a pretty face with a bangin' bod.) Watching the scene where her character, Jennifer, is murdered was actually tough to watch. She was just a kid who was brutally murdered. And she was truly terrified of what was happening to her.

It's a shame what she did to her face though. I could totally tell in some scenes that she had lip injections and botox done, particularly the scene where she's swimming in the lake and gets a close-up. Girl, you so didn't need to do that!

Elle

2017-11-12T21:11:00.002-07:00

This is kind of a weird film to watch, but I still really liked it. It's not weird in the way that The Lobster was weird, but...I'm not quite sure what the exact words should be. It's a drama, but then it has some funny moments that when they happened made me feel as if I was watching some kind of farce, which the movie is most certainly not.

The main character, Michèle, is the protagonist but has some...anti-heroine qualities, perhaps? I'm not sure how to describe her. She's complex for sure. A real human being, not a cipher. She feels like a real person, multi-dimensional and all.

But this story only makes sense if you consider that people, in general, respond to trauma differently. As has often be said in the last year--at least in what I read--there is no one way to respond to sexual assault/rape. Because Michèle does not respond in a "conventional" way.

And because of that, I cannot see Michèle as anything other than a French woman. American women just aren't allowed to be that complex on a movie screen. Michèle can't be described in three words or less. Watching this depict French social life reminded me of a long, long time ago when I watched Trois couleurs: Rouge for the first time. The way people interact there is so different from here.

And that rape scene is right at the beginning. I figured it would be within the first 10 minutes when I popped the dvd into the player, but I did NOT think it would be the very first scene. With the cat watching. Like, that's one reason I favor dogs as pets, just for the automatic scare factor. Cats rarely defend people; dogs much more likely to.

Am totally going to get a dog some day after I get out of school.

Doctor Strange

2017-07-02T12:47:00.000-06:00

Watched this last week while continuing my preference to not pay for another Marvel movie in the theater. (I might make an exception for Black Panther when it comes out next February, but I have 8 months until that happens.) And a week later, I can't really find a whole lot to say about it.

There's such a paint-by-numbers aspect to the story line. Rachel McAdams' character, whose name I can't remember, is the love interest, but that seems perfunctory & pointless, particularly after watching Wonder Woman. Did her character really need to have a romantic angle to it? I think it could have just worked fine if they were very good friends; his asshole quality would still shine through without the love of a good-woman-type thing going on.

The only thing worth remembering is the end fight with Dormammu, and that's only because Strange was able to defeat him using his brain, not fists. Oh, and maybe the cape...eh, not really. It's a good gag that probably will get used over & over again to fill time because the Marvel machine has a predetermined destination that they've got to get to. No real room to let things breathe & live.

At this point, I'm totally over the end of credits scenes. We all know the release schedule. Anyone can look things up online. Thor meeting Strange over a beer while saying he needs to find his father, Odin...um, I don't care long term. And finding out that Mordo will clearly be the villain for Strange's next outing...I don't care there either.

It boggles my mind after seeing it how it did so well on Rotten Tomatoes. It's not bad movie, but it doesn't do anything that distinguishable from the other Marvel movies.

Non-Stop

2017-05-06T16:28:00.000-06:00

Has it really been three years since this was released in theaters? With all the airline shit that has been happening recently, this movie feels completely relevant. Not because it's completely realistic. But because it captures my current feelings of what a shit show it is to be on an airplane because you need to fly. All you want is to get from point A to point B like you planned, but other punks on the plane have different ideas. One wrong word and you're going to be screwed. It kind of reminded me of Speed, where everyone is trapped on the bus; although, it didn't have the element of the protagonist possibly being crazy.

I really enjoyed the who-dun-it aspect of this movie. It wasn't easy to figure out. I'm not sure I buy the motive of the villain/hijacker/terrorist at the end, but this isn't supposed to be a completely realistic movie. Great cast though, which kept me thinking as to who it could possibly be.

This is the first Liam Neeson action-renaissance movie I've seen since he started doing those almost 10 years ago. I've long wanted to see The Grey but just haven't been able to watch it yet.

Stardust

2017-05-04T11:35:00.001-06:00

I remember wanting to see this when it originally came out 10 years ago. (Has it really been that long? Yes...but you know sometimes it just doesn't feel like it.) I think my main reason was because Michelle Pfeiffer was in it. Don't get to see her much at the movies, which is always a shame. She always gives a good performance.

I liked this. I think it's really good, but kind of suffers from a lack of pacing. Everything just seems to happen with equal impact and focus. That and it does seem just a tad long. Like, you could probably trim a little bit more here and there, and it might be better for it. It's not indulgent by any means, but by the time I got to the end I thought everything had taken so long. By the time I got to the end, I had totally forgotten about Peter O'Toole at the beginning because it felt like an eternity. Which isn't to say that I was bored, but...just needed a little bit less of something.

I must say that I was somewhat confused by Charlie Cox's hair in the first half of the movie because it didn't match what was on the poster. It made sense later on, but part of me was slightly mad because it felt like false advertising. Like, it's super flowing, kind of long hair on the poster, and in the first half of the movie he had a normal, non-flowing, short hair cut. Yes, I was disappointed by his hair! And since I'm still nitpicking, Claire Danes lack of eyebrows kind of annoyed me. Like, were they supposed to be super blond eyebrows because she was a star? I don't know. I think she looks better with a little more eyebrow. Otherwise, I really liked her as Yvaine though. And that silver dress she wore at the beginning.

I was kind of surprised that Matthew Vaughn had directed it. I saw Layer Cake so long ago. I've seen X-Men: First Class, which I mostly liked. Sienna Miller pops up in this, and it always makes me think back to 10 years ago when she was the latest ingenue. I remember thinking "why her?" back then. I still think that sometimes when it comes to her, but I think she's much better actress now. But when I saw her in this, "why her?" came to mind once again.

Brangelina: The Untold Story of Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie

2017-04-22T20:23:00.003-06:00

I finished this a month ago. Couldn't bring myself to write about it earlier due to school stress (aka finals). This isn't the most revelatory read, particularly since it was published in 2009. Clearly it's due for an update.

But what struck me the most while reading it was how much I had forgotten. At least half of this book is taken from previously published tabloid material. Material that Angelina Jolie would probably rather everybody forget. And I name her specifically because she is much more the focus of this book than Brad.

I suppose it's a shame that I turned the book back to the library because I can't remember all the shit she did way back when. It's been too long. I do, of course, remember her kissing her brother at the 2000 Oscars. And that was already after she made out with him at the Golden Globes. If I remember correctly, Andrew Morton's biography of her made it seem like she did the kissing out of some kind of revenge strategy since her brother was considered to be more talented than her growing up. Morton didn't seem to address as much of the controversy that happened when AJ did what she did. Or at least not to any extent that I can remember. (And Morton's book has to be one of the most boring considering the star subject. It just droned on and on...)

AJ kissing her bro at the GG

But at least this book took her actions a little more seriously. The author did the somewhat dopey thing of posing with a paid actor at a "sibs" gathering--brother & sister romantic & sexual pairings. Yeah, it's gross, I know. But when I think back to 2000 when all of this happened, this was what most people were genuinely wondering and talking about after it happened in such a public fashion. It wasn't undercover. She did it where all the world's cameras could see.

And why? No one really knows. Some of the "sibs" that the author secretly talked to genuinely thought that AJ and her brother were legitimately getting it on and were going to come out and state it. But that didn't happen. No, she decided to marry Billy Bob instead.

Which was something that this book actually called bullshit on. And that's something worth noting regardless of what kind of journalist you think he is. He noted that no one ever noticed any kind of relationship or romance or affair happening between BBT & Jolie until they were suddenly married. Like, NO ONE bought that it was a real romance or relationship in Hollywood. It was all just a show so that she could seem more stable and normal to land the Lara Croft role in Tomb Raider.

Kissing at the Oscars

Something that makes total sense given that it was well published back in 2000 that she had herself committed to a psych ward for 72 hours. I remember back at the time I found out about it in the tabloids, and the reason given then was that she was upset that she might not be able to be with BBT. This book calls bullshit on that. He established briefly that she was forced to see a counselor back in high school for some unknown reason. She's made reference to it in interviews, but basically was able to swat the question away when it came up and make it seem like nothing. But when you consider that her father went on television and spoke about her needing to get mental help a few years later, quite possibly there is something truly there.

And speaking of her father, the book does a pretty good job, with its cut and paste from previously published material, establishing that Jolie's relationship with her father was fairly decent until he went on Access Hollywood and stated that she needed mental help. The book notes that it was basically Jon Voight's hail mary pass to get her attention since she and her manager (Geyer Kosinski) had already cut him out of her life. On the one hand, what's a concerned father to do? On the other, they're both drama queens.

Strangely this seems slightly relevant given that The Hollywood Reporter published an article just after I finished reading this book--Angelina Jolie's Drug Tests, Harassment and Wacky "Spiritual Hokum" on the Set of 'Tomb Raider'. It's an except from a biography of Paramount Studios chief Sherry Lansing. The book excerpt notes that Jolie's father AND Jane Fonda (!), who happens to be a family friend, both called Lansing to inform her that Jolie was "extremely fragile" back in 2000 before she landed the role of Lara Croft. It makes sense given everything that we know publicly happened--sucking face with her brother in public, past professions of suicidal ideation & wanting to hire a hitman to kill her, multiple statements about past drug abuse.

PDA w/boob squeeze

At this point, I'm somewhat of the opinion that she was sucking face with her brother because she knew she could get attention. She always wants to make things about her. So when it basically backfired after the Oscars, she probably down-spiraled into a pit of despair. She was friends with Billy Bob, and somehow convinced him to marry her to maintain her image as not an actual brother-lover so she could nab the role of Lara Croft. (Condolences were never given to Laura Dern about this.) AJ & BBT then commenced acting all loved up all the time in public to make people believe that their relationship was legit.

It makes the author's point that she knows how to pivot to protect her image the one continuing theme in her life. And she's able to do it so well because--according to the author of this book--she was supposedly diagnosed as a sociopath in high school. Something that sounds really headline-grabbing, but when I think about it, it makes total sense. She has hardly any friends and even admits so publicly. Plus she doesn't seem to have any regard for other people's feelings. Like, even her children. I cannot abide the way she handled her separation from Brad because it seemed purely motivated to trash her children's father publicly, which certainly wasn't in the best interests of her kids. But, she needed to look like she was a wronged woman in some respect so that she could maintain her public sainthood. Whatever...

That's something most people were able to realize given how many people have either been through divorce with children or are children whose parents divorced. Except for Elaine Lui of Lainey Gossip. Because she has been--on more than one occasion--posting about the Brangelina relationship or divorce from straight up AJ's ass. And there is no more perfect, recent example than her commentary on the Sherry Lansing biography excerpt titled "Babysitting Angelina."

We've already established that by 2000--where this excerpt takes place--AJ has admitted to past drug use, suicidal ideation, publicly stated that she tried to hire a hit man to kill her, made out with her brother in public, and had herself committed to a psych ward for 72 hours shortly after winning an Oscar. But this is how Lainey interprets everything that could necessitate AJ needing a "babysitter":

Angelina Jolie was 24 years old at the time. She really wanted to the job. She already knew what that job would do for her career – and, you could say, her life, since Lara Croft took her to Cambodia and that’s where she met Maddox. So she was prepared to meet their conditions and do the work. What’s fascinating to me, however, is how in the retelling of this story, all these men were making decisions for her. They were the ones who decided to hire the babysitter, they were the ones who fired the babysitter, like let me tell you what’s best for you, little girl, because we’re concerned about your emotional wellbeing…but, you know, at the same time, we really need to profit from you.

Yeah, it was all about the men keeping Angelina Jolie down. Men like...Jane Fonda? Lainey conveniently forgets to mention that there were REASONS why the studio and those involved in the production had reason to believe that AJ could go off the rails. She committed HERSELF to a psych ward. That was well established back in 2000 shortly after it happened.

AJ in 2016. (The legs are NOT photoshopped.)

And posts like that by Lainey are why I can no longer take her seriously as a gossip columnist. One, she doesn't write much gossip anymore. It's mostly commentary either by her or her contributors. Two, she won't comment on obvious problems regarding people she likes such as Angelina Jolie. AJ has looked pretty damn skeletal for years. But does Lainey comment on the obvious? State why AJ is so damn skeletal? Nope. And according to Lainey, AJ isn't on heroin. Or on any other kind of opiate. And yet how do you explain her legs at the Kung Fu Panda 3 premiere last year? I can explain it with the simple "drugs & eating disorder" answer. But Lainey doesn't bother to ask the question at all now. She would comment on the obvious lack of nourishment 10 years ago but not now. All Lainey wants to do now is talk about how much of a "boss" AJ is, even when AJ doesn't do anything particularly noteworthy like giving an interview to Vogue magazine while promoting a film. Ugh.

I've long been of the opinion that Ted Casablanca was always king of the gossip heap. I've also long been of the opinion that AJ is Fake-à-la Ferocity. I vaguely remember that Ted commented a long time ago--before his column ended--that Brad & Angelina were no longer love birds as of years ago. Lainey, however, has an actual Pitt Porn tag/category for her posts to document the very public affection of Brangelina.

What Ted said & wrote about definitely made more sense after reading this book since the author noted that AJ would yell & scream at Brad when other people were around to see. She can be charming, but then that would just flip and she'd be her psycho self. After seeing how she was able to sell a relationship with BBT for a couple of years, it probably wasn't much of a stretch for her to do it with someone higher up the totem pole, aka Brad Pitt. Ted was right; Lainey is wrong.

The Crown

2017-02-24T20:29:00.000-07:00

Finally finished this last night. It took me almost a month to finish this because I've been so damn busy. There were two weeks in between the last two episodes I watched last night, and when I watched episode 8. It was almost as if I couldn't really remember where the story was when I started watching again. I guess that's the power of midterms...

Anyway, I think the episodes in the first half are the best. That and John Lithgow as Winston Churchill. His episode focused on his portrait was quite excellent. Had no idea that had even happened. Too bad the painting didn't survive. And I didn't recognize Stephen Dillane (aka Stannis Baratheon) as the painter until I saw his name on cast list.

It's really kind of hard to understand or perhaps empathize with some of the drama back in the 1950s though. I mean, Princess Margaret's situation regarding wanting to marry Peter Townsend wouldn't happen today. And it's even harder to understand why the government wouldn't allow it when so many cabinet members and MPs were divorced and remarried. Hypocrites & politics always go together though.

I actually am looking forward to more of the future seasons, particularly when they get to Margaret's scandal & divorce in the 70s and Diana. Can't wait to see how they handle Diana.

I also can't wait until 2060 when the British Parliament can reveal that Prince Philip isn't Prince Andrew's biological father. I always thought it was weird how different Andrew looked compared to Charles & Edward. Now I understand why. Lord Porchester is his biological father. Only four more decades to go before it's officially revealed!

Not sure I agree with this

2016-12-25T20:36:00.000-07:00

but she has a valid point.

Q: So much contemporary female writing is accused of narcissism. Have you escaped the charge of narcissism, or have you received it? I’d like to bind this question to your comments about women who “practice a conscious surveillance on themselves” who before were “watched over by parents, by brothers, by husbands, by the community.” You have written that women who practise surveillance on themselves are the “heroines of our time,” but it’s precisely these women—real and fictional—who are accused of the sin of narcissism, as if a woman looking at herself (rather than being looked at by a man) was insulting to everyone. How do you understand this charge?

A: I’ve never felt narcissism to be a sin. It seems, rather, a cognitive tool that, like all cognitive tools, can be used in a distorted way. No, I think it’s necessary to be absolutely in love with ourselves. It’s only by reflecting on myself with attention and care that I can reflect on the world. It’s only by turning my gaze on myself that I can understand others, feel them as my kin. On the other hand it’s only by assiduously watching myself that I can take control and train myself to give the best of myself. The woman who practises surveillance on herself without letting herself be the object of surveillance is the great innovation of our times.

~Elena Ferrante, interviewed by Sheila Heti

I like what he's saying...

2016-12-05T16:55:00.000-07:00

But Tom Ford is still in there, so he can’t stop himself. So he says this next thing, and it doesn’t come off as lascivious, the way it might have years ago, but thoughtful and aware: Yes, he says, all men should be penetrated at some point. And not as in emotions. He means: All men should be fucked. “I think it would help them understand women,” he argues. “It’s such a vulnerable position to be in, and it’s such a passive position to be in. And there’s such an invasion, in a way, that even if it’s consensual, it’s just very personal. And I think there’s a psyche that happens because of it that makes you understand and appreciate what women go through their whole life, because it’s not just sexual, it’s a complete setup of the way the world works, that one sex has the ability to literally—and is expected to and is wanted to—but also there’s an invasion. And I think that that’s something most men do not understand at all.”

~Tom Ford, "Tom Ford's Wild Kingdom," GQ Magazine, December 2016.

The Lobster

2016-11-24T21:07:00.000-07:00

I guess this is a sci-fi movie. Doesn't really feel like it though. It's not super obvious. Seems more like an avant-garde romantic drama, which it certainly is. But people have mentioned it as a sci-fi film. I'm not sure if it's also supposed to be a dark comedy or not too.

It seems like such an abnormal society, but when I was watching it I actually just thought that it was mostly an exaggeration of how society reinforces certain notions of relationships. For instance, it's expected that after you get out of a relationship that you start another one soon after. Like, I remember--a long time ago--when people used to annoy me by asking why I wasn't in a relationship, and I remember answering that it's not like I was breaking the law by not being in one. Except in this society, I would be breaking the law. (It's almost like growing up in Utah.)

It demonstrates all the stupid shit people will do just to still be in a relationship, such as lying about weird personality traits or getting involved with a complete asshole/psychopath just so you won't be alone. And knowingly getting involved in relationships just for the social pretenses, 'cause society says you have to. When David went and joined the loners, I was like, hey, those are my people. Until they mentioned the "red kiss" and you notice that they're fanatics on the different end of the spectrum.

I'm not sure I found the last scene in the restaurant to be romantic. There's something about it that doesn't sit well with me. It makes total sense in the scope of the movie. I just would have thought that by the end David would have realized that being together is the most important thing, not trying to make another artificially forced reason for them to be permanently paired. Maybe it's because I have a clone, but wanting to be like someone else just to be with them seems like a waste.

The Bling Ring

2016-11-21T14:16:00.000-07:00

This was a bit of a let down. I thought I would like this movie more, but I guess it's just the trailer that's great.

This is a story about completely vapid teenagers, who are almost interchangeable. There's nothing very significant about any of them except that one of them is a boy.

All they do is party, steal, party some more, do some drugs, and then get arrested. Not much story there the way it's told.

I think the mother of Emma Watson's character is completely ridiculous, and she unintentionally makes a good case for home schooling being a complete waste of time. I had no idea there was actually a religion based on The Secret book. Considering that all of her daughters seem to be completely shallow and vapid, I got the impression that anyone who actually follows that book as a religion must also be shallow and vapid. Are actual established religions not worthy of consideration? Would Daoism be an option for them? Oh wait, actual existing religions would probably tell these kids that they're full of shit, and they don't want to hear truthful things like that.

Maybe I'm just an old fogey, but these kids were failed by their parents. I wasn't allowed to be out all night when I was in high school. I would have had to call my parents and tell them what I was doing. Being an old person, I just get the sense that these kids were lacking in social and emotional development, which then later led to their criminal behavior. That and they seemed to have no hobbies. They're not interested in doing anything but being associated with the rich and famous, which makes them kind of lame. When one of the girls was putting on Paris Hilton's lipstick, all I could think of was "EW! Who knows where Paris' mouth has been! I wouldn't be putting that on my mouth!" But I actually have these pesky things called standards.

Christian Supremacy in the White House...yuck.

2016-11-20T18:05:00.001-07:00

Today, Pence and his allies have warded off the return of another secular Clinton regime that their ideological and theological prophets once contemplated overthrowing. They will now have the opportunity to build the temple they have long desired. “Secular viewers forget that King David wasn’t always such a nice guy in the Bible, but he was God’s chosen man,” said Jeff Sharlet. “So there’s a coalescing idea that somehow, obviously, God is doing something with Trump.”

Donald Trump’s grasp of the bible is certainly not up to the standards of Pence and the religious zealots behind him. “Two Corinthians 3:17, that’s the whole ballgame,” Trump declared — in the same way he spits out “Make America Great Again” — in front of an audience at an evangelical college on the campaign trail. People laughed. At him. It is Second Corinthians.

Perhaps that episode is telling. The radical religious right doesn’t need to save Trump’s soul. As they saw in the campaign, Trump has staked out a hateful agenda — one that tracks quite well with the crusades of Pence and his fellow apostles. Even if elements of Trump’s vile rhetoric and his various threats were a psychotic form of performance art, or mere opportunistic political strategy, as some suggest, they have set the stage for the pursuit of a civilizational war that poses a dire threat to vulnerable populations throughout the world. President Obama, Hillary Clinton, and a slew of prominent Democrats have publicly said that Americans should give Trump a chance. With Mike Pence seated at the right hand of the father, running foreign and domestic policy, they will do so at their peril.

~Jeremy Scahill, "Mike Pence Will Be The Most Powerful Christian Supremacist In U.S. History"

This shit scares me, particularly in the sense that they basically have all three branches of government for two years, at least....

I've actually read Blackwater, which Scahill draws upon in this article. Back when Obama was elected in 2008 and re-elected in 2012, I stopped thinking about these righteous assholes. Now they're going to have their moment in the sun, and we're all going to suffer for it.

The Big Short

2016-11-20T12:18:00.000-07:00

What I love about this movie is its attention to detail. Even in that first scene set in the late 1970s, they used an overhead projector with transparencies. It's so easy to forget how the low-tech ways things used to operate. I saw that thing, and it instantly brought me back to my college A&P classes where different professors both semesters used that to go over the notes.

It's a semi-weird experience watching this. You totally know that they are completely correct in that the housing market is going to collapse because it was built on fraud, that they truly are following real logic, but weird in that they knew the timing of when the receipts were going to be shown. Like, I often connect some of the housing crash timeline to where I worked at the time since the company I worked for had a real estate division and also manufactured building products. I can still remember in late August 2006 when I guy I barely knew was talking about declines in the housing market. I specifically remember him saying he wasn't that worried about it because he stated that when the housing market drops, people tend to do more remodeling. So he wasn't worried about losing his job or a huge market downturn. I'm sure that's true in a certain sense, but it didn't turn out to be the case in 2006-2008.

Ryan Gosling's character seems like a total cynical asshole. The first time I watched it, it was hard to like him. But the second time I watched it--mostly listened to it while washing dishes this morning--I'll admit that I had a lot more respect for him the second time around. He didn't have any faith in the system anymore, and he was right to feel that way. Probably even more correct now considering that the problems that caused the crash are still happening.

I can understand and relate to Steve Carell's character's absolute disgust after talking to the CDO manager. That manger totally believes his net worth should equal his self and societal worth. Asshole. That guy doesn't contribute more to society than elementary school teachers; all he does is take people's money. And it shouldn't really happen. There should be regulators and government entities preventing these things from happening. That brief SEC conversation by the pool was spot on: "Our budget was cut; we're not investigating anything." Yup. Not surprised. It's what people who don't want to pay taxes because the government is "too big" just never understand. If there is no third party arbitrator making sure things run fair, honest, transparent, and legal, then it really is a free-for-all where the banks are just going to take your money because they can.

And then there's that part with Brad Pitt's character Ben is in Boulder, Colorado. When I saw the mountains I was like, hey, I live there now. Kind of weird to see it in film like that. But that part where he was talking about colonics...that is SO Boulder. I shit you not.

The breaking the fourth wall didn't bother me at all. It was a little weird at first, but I totally see it as part of the movie's charm. (This is not easy material to get people to understand, and they made it engaging and understandable.) Those moments where Gosling's character points out things that Carrell's character actually did, I actually appreciate him pointing it out that he actually did those things. Because in some ways, when you consider how ludicrous this situation was (and still is really), it is nice knowing that someone really did speak up and point things out. Because the people in charge of everything would like everyone else to believe that none of this could have been predicted or prevented. Except that's not true.

The Armstrong Lie

2016-11-13T09:56:00.001-07:00

This is another one I checked out of the library. It sat on my shelf for at least a week. I only watched it last night because I wanted something in the background while I was studying herbs. That and I wanted to at least "watch" something before returning a bunch back to the library. I'm behind on all my studying because I thought I was going to get a good study day in on Wednesday, but I was still recovering from the news that the vulgar talking yam was elected POTUS.

Anyway...this is a good documentary, but I don't find it compelling all that much. The main reason for that is that I remember hearing the allegations and people saying back in 2005 that Armstrong was doping. And the people who were saying it seemed like legit people. I remember someone admitting to seeing Armstrong dope when he won the Tour de France, and that was back when I was listening to NPR regularly. People didn't want to believe it then because...CANCER. He survived cancer. And he got a lot of whitewash public relations because of it. But I began believing back then that he was a fraud. I know basically everyone else at the front of the pack was doing it too, but it's the shameless fronting like he was a hero that has always annoyed me.

I remember when some of this came out in 2005, and there were people who just did not want to believe. They wanted to argue that you can reach your dreams and goals no matter what you had to overcome in life. I don't disagree with that, but Lance's main problem is that he's a fucking asshole. Would we really know about all this if he hadn't been such a fucking asshole? If he had been a nicer person to some of those people who testified and didn't try to blacklist them, then how much of this would have made it to the clear light of day?

I do agree with Betsey Andreu, who I think mentioned in the Q&A on the dvd, that Lance probably got his testicular cancer because of performance-enhancing drugs. It would make sense. I also agree with her in that Armstrong's success via doping subtly encourages other athletes to do it, which is sad. Racing and competitive sports might be something that you do when you're young, but your health is forever. Ask old people and they'll tell you: don't get old because losing your health sucks.

Voting

2016-11-08T17:53:00.000-07:00

Are you American? You’d better go and vote! Cast your ballot! Too many Americans do not go to cast their ballots. It should be much higher and then we would have probably much less worries as a nation.

~Werner Herzog

I voted. I have a friend here in Colorado who I know didn't though. She's 31. She's never voted in her entire life, and she's not going to start now. Not even to vote for the down ballot measures such as single-payer healthcare or mandated minimum wage increases in Colorado. Nope, she's not going to even vote for that even though her boyfriend works a minimum wage job. She just wants to go live her happy life until she dies and will voting even affect that? She says no. I say yes, but I'm not going to waste more time trying to convince her. She blabbed that she would vote if Elizabeth Warren had run. So I asked her if she was living in Massachusetts, would she have voted for Elizabeth Warren when she was running for the Senate? No answer. Not surprising because I know she wouldn't have voted then either. How did Elizabeth Warren become so renown in the last few years? Oh yeah, that's right...because she won political office and has used that to publicize positions that she had previously talked about for years. Would anyone really consider Elizabeth Warren for president if she hadn't made it into the Senate? Nope. But that's not something my friend considers. Ever, really. She doesn't want to be involved or try to take simple actions. I could understand not voting if she was living in a state where vote manipulation by voting machines could be happening. But she's living in Colorado, where everyone can vote by mail. That is called a paper ballot, which can always easily be recounted and verified by anyone.

And I can understand not voting because you don't like the choices for president. I didn't vote for Hillary Clinton, and I sure as hell didn't vote for Trump. I know there are people who believe that not voting for Hillary equals a vote for Trump. I am not one of those people. I've known since January that Trump was not going to become president after reading Edith Hathaway's article. Unfortunately Bernie Sanders didn't end up being the one to take the Trumpster down; however, I've never doubted that Trump would lose. I may not be a professional Vedic astrologer, but I know enough to understand what Edith was talking about in Trump's chart. Plus, she's recently done an update for the election based on the inauguration chart. It's not a chart that represents Trump & Pence winning either, so I know Hillary Clinton was going to win anyway.

So I wrote in Bernie Sanders as a write-in. I wasn't interested in voting for Jill Stein since I think she needs a little more practicality in creating a platform. I'm not completely anti-Green Party since I did vote for the Green Party candidate for Senate. But for me, it came down to a few different things:

I believe Bernie Sanders was the rightful winner of the Democratic primary.
I think Edith Hathaway is right that this century will be dominated by corporate power rather than that of nation-states. I kind of view voting for Hillary as voting for the corporate interests, which many people may think is ridiculous but I don't care. She is going to be more interested in what Goldman Sachs has to say than the people who called and volunteered for her campaign.
I believe that the Democrats will win back the Senate tonight, which means that Bernie Sanders will become the Senate Budget chairman. And you would say, why would that matter when voting for President? Because it would show that he still has lots of public support for the ideas he campaigned on. Ideas that he is going to push hard to get implemented while HRC is President. Bernie will have a book coming out soon. He's going to go do press for it. And he's going to become the Senate Budget chairman at the same time. He'll need every ounce of support he can get while trying to get actual change that will matter to me done.
I want a vote that means something to me in 100 years. Yeah, I know I'm missing my chance to vote for the first female president, and I'm okay with that. Hillary is going to make some terrible decisions that affect people. She's going to approve the TPP. She's not going to end fracking since she's truly for it. And, if I had to bet money, she's probably going to let the DAPL go through if Obama punts it to her. And she's totally fine with corporations owning our healthcare system and gouging us through the eyeballs for it. Plus, I wouldn't be surprised if there was some kind of war or military conflict that she'll probably get us involved in circa spring or summer of 2018. She's more warhawk-ish than Obama and maybe even Bill.

I don't like the thought of the first female president basically getting there only after her husband was there first. I think it sets a bad precedent. Margaret Thatcher didn't become prime minister after her husband. Angela Merkel didn't become the chancellor of Germany after her husband. Gro Harlem Brundtland didn't become the first prime minister of Norway in following her husband. But HRC will become the first female president of the U.S. of A after her husband was once president first. I think it totally creates the perception--within some groups--that a woman can only achieve an office like that with the help of her husband. (And I'm not talking about just general support.)

And now, since the election season is almost over. We now only have to wait for the inauguration to happen. And probably a shitload more stuff from Wikileaks, and Republicans freaking out and threatening shit because Trump didn't win. C'mon, you know it's not going to be over that easy.

By the Sea

2016-11-06T21:04:00.001-07:00

I don't think I was ever really interested in watching this until my sister told me it was available on HBOGo. She "watched" it a few weeks ago, which means she didn't really sit through the whole thing but--at times--kept it running in the background while doing other things. A much less painful way to view this movie than what I went through. I actually watched the whole thing sitting down in front of my computer.

But I still took breaks. Specifically, I watched 35 minutes before I went to bed last night because I was too tired and this was even more boring than watching Spectre. Then I finished it this morning; although I did push pause quite a few times when making my breakfast.

There is a LOT of fluff in this movie. If you cut 1/3 of the movie out, then it might qualify as a drama rather than...I'm not sure what this really is...a mood piece? Last year when this came out, I considered what was said in the What the Flick?! review quite heavily since they have good discussions.

But now having seen it...they were too kind.

Angelina Jolie is not a good writer. At. All. The first line of dialogue is literally, "I smell fish." Wow. How surprising when you're by the sea! I have to give all the actors a lot of credit; they all save this thing. They are the only reason this thing has any life to it. I know people don't want to think that Brad Pitt can act, but I disagree. I think his performance here is one of the only things that holds this movie together. All AJ's character does is smoke and have the same pained expression on her face for most of the movie. And oh my god is she ever ridiculously skinny. They say the camera adds 10 pounds, but what did she really weigh in this movie? 100? She looks deathly thin and not at all healthy. I did not want to see her naked in the shower or in the bathtub. It was that painful to see. I'm of the opinion that her character's long dresses were specifically to hide how grotesquely skeletal she looks. Melanie Laurent doesn't have a tremendously voluptuous figure, but she looks quite normally fleshy and un-elderly compared to AJ. And her character's rationale for being so morose and depressed? I think it's completely ridiculous and doesn't match reality of most people going through those things, unless you're a spoiled brat and the world needs to revolve around you. I've known other people who have lost children and have far better attitudes about life.

But now that Brangelina is getting divorced--and let's not forget this entire movie is coming from her mind because she wrote AND directed it--I can't help but see this film as a reminder that she is fucked up. I read that Andrew Morton biography of AJ a few years ago. It's not a great book, and it's certainly not a great celebrity biography either. But it does have some good things to point out such as that AJ's mom wasn't the best mother, pretty much neglected AJ to a certain extent over her brother particularly as a young child, and built up/created AJ's hatred for her father because mommy wanted it that way. Plus, she was into observing & reading the tabloids during AJ's growing years, which is not a bad thing. But it's relevant when you consider how easily AJ has been able to manipulate the media into not calling out her bullshit in the last few years. She grew up seeing how people she and her parents knew were able to portray things a certain way in the press and has simply done the same thing herself. I remember her portraying a version of her childhood growing up where she didn't see her father much at all, but the reality is that Jon Voight tried to be around his kids as much as possible and coached her soccer team, etc. Not really convenient when you want to portray yourself as the underdog achieving success rather than success from a nepotistic atmosphere.

I agree with Scott Rudin; she is a minimally talented spoiled brat. She was most interesting as an actor 10+ years ago, but that's also because she was playing herself most of the time. That's always when she was most successful as an actor. I suppose she isn't really bad, but there's a certain lack of depth I don't think she can reach. Like, I believe Brad Pitt as an actor in this movie way more than I do her. He's definitely grown to be a better actor and has pushed himself. The guy did Se7en back when he could have done more regular blockbuster fare, and has done other niche films like The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. And she wants...to join the House of Lords in the UK or something? But that would only be after dragging the father of her children in the press "for the health of her family." Yeah, whatever. I see through you Angie Jo.

Ant-Man

2016-11-05T20:48:00.000-06:00

Another one that took me multiple checkouts from the library to get around to watching. I watched this five days ago, and I can't think of anything very significant to say about it. I enjoyed watching it. It's a fun, light movie. But five days later, I haven't thought much about it since.

I was kind of surprised at how short/not tall Michael Douglas is. I thought he was taller, but I guess not. Plus, he's probably had some old-man shrinkage in the height department given his age.

The little trip to Avengers headquarters was something I could have done without. The movie was rolling by, and then it needed to have that little detour for the end piece with the rest of the MCU...because cinematic universe continuity. Ugh. I'm kind of over inserting things into every other movie. It's like looking for the Stan Lee cameo, you know it's going to happen at some point but are just stuck there waiting to see how they do it. I suppose at least the way they did it at the end was more entertaining than that jaunt to Avengers HQ.

Nightcrawler

2016-10-30T17:58:00.001-06:00

My relationship to attempting to watch this movie goes back more than a year, back when I was still living in Utah. Checked it out of the library there at least once. Now I think I checked it out of the library here three times before I finally watched it. Yeah, I know it doesn't have that much to do with the movie, but since I didn't get the summer break I needed a few months ago, I'm trying to embrace sanity as much as I can right now by watching movies.

Jake Gyllenhaal plays Gollum. Okay, that's not his character's name. (It's Lou Bloom.) But for all his starving, bug-eyed, creepy sociopath-ness, it doesn't matter. He's Gollum. He'll do whatever it takes to get to where he wants.

This was a good movie. I really enjoyed it. I have no doubt that much of what was portrayed in the movie actually goes on (except for the sociopath's moves). But the one thing that kept popping into my mind while watching these gory "news" segments was this quote from Clueless: "Until mankind is peaceful enough not to have violence on the news, there's no point in taking it out of shows that need it for entertainment value." Gollum actually makes this point in the movie. That the actual amount of time spent on actual news--instead of car chases and violent, gory shit--is minimal.

My one quibble with the movie is the ending. I totally get why it ends the way it ends with the employee speech at the end. However, I do not believe for a second that had the same thing happened in real life, Gollum would have been able to walk away free. That detective would have gotten a warrant for all his video archives and been able to bust Gollum's ass for withholding information in a investigation. No way would he have been able to walk away free while a police officer or two died. That's just the one part I don't believe could have happened in real life. Police officers take care of their own; they would have tried to rip Gollum apart for instigating the death and injury of their fellow officers.

The VVitch

2016-10-29T15:50:00.001-06:00

I almost didn't watch this before returning it to the library. It was due back today, and I think that part of the reason I felt extra motivated to watch it was that I spoke briefly to one of the librarians when checking it out. She recommended watching it with the subtitles on because she had trouble understanding what was being said due to the accents when she watched it. So, I did watch it with the subtitles, which helped quite a bit. I don't know that it was solely the accents that would have made it difficult to understand; it was also the 17th century grammar. When I was thinking about it, normally when I hear someone talking with centuries-old, English grammar, it's usually in Shakespeare or some period drama. But I believe they normally do those with modern-day British accents. I think. I mean, I know I'm not entirely sure, but it generally seems that way.

Before I started watching this, I was worried that if I watched this at night I would have trouble going to sleep since I remember hearing it was a scary movie. I didn't have that problem, which makes me wish I had watched it earlier since it's such a short movie. It wasn't as horrific or scary as I expected it, but that's probably due to overhype. If I didn't know anything about this before I watched it, then I might have been creeped out a little more.

What I enjoyed the most were the family dynamics and watching this family be ripped apart. That and the super accurate portrayal of religious, zealot life in Puritan New England. This would actually have been a great movie for my U.S. History class back when I was in high school. (It only came out 20+ years too late for that.) Puritans...how I don't miss their super righteousness. I felt bad for the dad towards the end--or perhaps it was near the middle since I'm not quite sure on the timing--when he admitted he had made mistakes and wanted to go back to the plantation. Yeah dude, life is always better in groups when there are other people around to help you.

Aargh, babysitting these damn kids...

As for Thomasin...I felt sorry for her at times. She's obviously a girl that has no where to grow up beyond her chores since she's stuck with her family in the middle of nowhere. Plus, those twins were kind of annoying, little shits. And that poor baby. He was actually so cute, and I don't particularly like babies. I was really quite freaked out when they showed the witch at night about to carve him up. That part particularly unnerved me. But when there was a witch with a red hood and cape in the forest...uh, that part I kind of couldn't take seriously in the moment. Everyone is wearing muted, all-natural-colored clothing, and then there is this bright red hood and cape. It certainly made sense in the end, but in the moment I was, like, really? How did something like that get there? Seems completely out of place. Back to Thomasin, it seemed like she was completely pushed to become a witch in the end. I don't think she started out as one. I almost felt like maybe her character made some weird wish thinking to herself one day and caused it all to happen. Not that it was her fault, but, you know, when that barn at the end was half torn to pieces, and she was the only human remaining...it certainly looks suspicious. Obtaining her was the goal from the beginning.

Sicario

2016-10-22T20:22:00.001-06:00

I remember really wanting to see this last year when it came out. Now having seen it, I'm kind of glad I waited to see it, but probably would have rathered seeing some parts on the big screen just due to Roger Deakins's cinematography. Like, those aerial shots going through the border were really interesting to see. And kind of intimidating when the music was playing. I know shit like that probably happens every day, which doesn't shock me at all, but seeing it played out puts it in another dimension.

My main takeaway from watching this was that pot should be legalized and drugs decriminalized. The only reason we're having to fight this ridiculous drug war is because people believe addiction can be solved by making things illegal. Except it obviously hasn't worked and will never work. Fingers crossed that California will fully legalize pot this November. If anything, then all the people who moved to Colorado for it can move back to Cali. (I just would like my rent to drop if more recreational users moved back to where they came from.)

Spectre

2016-10-05T09:30:00.002-06:00

Yup, another one I checked out from the library. I was actually excited to see it available last Saturday when I picked it up. And by the time I got around to watch it last night, all I could remember was hearing that this was not a great movie. Um, that's totally true. I decided to watch this last night since I wasn't getting anything else done. Like, if I'm going to sit on my ass and do nothing, then at least I can sit on my ass and watch a movie that I've checked out instead of letting it just sit around on the shelf.

This has to be the most boring Bond movie I can ever remember seeing. Ugh. All I was reminded about was how I went on a string of watching all the Bond movies back when I lived in Tacoma around 2002, and how I fell asleep watching Thunderball. A statement that is complete heresy since I know it's basically against the law to say that you fell asleep watching a Sean Connery 007 movie, but it totally happened. I didn't fall asleep watching Spectre. I just turned it off after an hour and went to bed. I only finished watching it this morning, which included some breaks to fix my breakfast.

Isn't this the one where they didn't have a script complete before they started shooting? I can't remember if that's correct, but it certainly feels that way. Ugh. And Sam Mendes should never direct another Bond movie. I liked Skyfall, but I will never understand why they asked him back to do a second one. This is boring. Plodding. Seemingly pointless. No fun. I find it ironic that my two favorite Bond movies--Goldeneye & Casino Royale--were directed by the same man, Martin Campbell. But those were both Bond movies that introduced a new JB. It's like they put all this good work into starting out, but finishing an actor in this series is a crapshoot.

And I was so annoyed at seeing 007 hitting on Monica Bellucci's character. Ugh, the woman did not appear to be in the mood since she has a super sad face and is grieving, but then she still fucks him? Like, could this be movie making in a paint-by-numbers fashion more obvious? Yeah, I know it's 007 tradition 'n all that, but it just seems so old and tired. This movie's only saving grace is that it looks very pretty. It has a nice glossy sheen all over it's emphatic boringness. I am SO glad I didn't have to shell out money to see this. Not even a good villain either. I think the only genuine thing I liked was seeing Q in Austria & trying to get away at a ski resort. Oh yeah, and the car chase. Not enough to keep me engaged for more than two hours though.

Captain America: Civil War

2016-10-02T10:05:00.002-06:00

After seeing A:AoU at the dollar theater, I pretty much swore to myself that I wasn't going pay to see another Marvel movie for a long time. And since I don't really have time to trek out to the movie theater these days, I don't think that's a bad thing. I mean, I've checked out Ant-Man from the library on three separate occasions and couldn't be that compelled to watch it. I'll probably watch it eventually...

Which brings me to having actually found this available at the library yesterday. I remember putting a hold on it back a few weeks ago--and was number 42 out of 95--so I was pretty surprised to see it on the shelf. Like, would I even be able to check it out? Yup.

And then I almost didn't watch it last night because I was too busy studying. But at 21:30 I bit the bullet and watched it. I figured that if I got a little too tired that I would just hit pause and go to bed. Amazingly I didn't do that.

But Jesus Christ, this movie is LONG! It is way longer than it needs to be. Could easily cut 10 minutes out of it, including trimming some of the fight scenes a bit. Like, after the big fight scene at the airport, I was ready to be done, you know. Wrap it up and decide how you're going to finish. No, there was another 45 minutes to go. Ugh...

And this isn't really a Captain America movie, it is clearly an Avengers movie. With cameos by well-known actors such as Martin Freeman showing up for two to three scenes making me feel like this cinematic series is the equivalent of The Love Boat. Martin Freeman really didn't have to be cast but whatever. I will say that at least I didn't feel like I needed a "previously on..." at the beginning of the movie when watching it, so it does do a few things better than the last Avengers movie.

But, I still feel like there are no consequences to some of the characters actions even though they try and pretend that there are. Like, why is it that Tony still was never made to account for creating Ultron? He created the worst mess, and he pretty much gets to walk away. I just find it so inconsistent. There was a small number of people killed in Wakanda, but huge numbers killed in Sokovia. Yet, it's the explosion in Wakanda that is the last straw, not what happened Sokovia? Really? That's the inconsistency that bugs me about the MCU. Things are allowed to carry on from one film to the next but some of the logic is...consequence lacking.

And then at the end...I'm not sure what to make of the fight at the end. I had long heard/read before I had seen the movie that the Winter Soldier had killed Tony's parents in his brain-washed assassin days, so that was no big surprise for me. But having the big fight at the end over something that happened timeline-wise 25 years ago...maybe I was just tired and wanted this over because I'm not sure I could care. Or maybe it's because I have a hard time believing that a VHS video would have existed of their deaths. Because the Winter Soldier was supposed to record his kills or something? A random security camera video that the Ruskies just happened to have possession of years later? Really? And so convenient that it would be playable 25 years later to goad Iron Man into fighting his friends. Really? That tape went 25 years without damage, and was surprisingly playable in a decrepit facility. REALLY?!?

And I started watching this thinking that Captain America was going to die at the end. Am so disappointed that he didn't. None of the main characters die in this movie. Seems appropriate that the MCU lives at Disney. The sad part at the end is that the Avengers aren't all friends anymore (until the next episode). Oh, I has a sad...

Am in total agreement with Alonso that this is a decent movie, but it's not fantastic. Like, I don't get the rapturous reviews that came out last spring. It's good, but it's definitely not great. Second best Avengers movie. But third best Captain America movie because I really liked the first two. And they were both much better than this.