Fantastic Four - Rise of the Silver Surfer

With the understanding that this is a low expectation movie... I liked it.

I don't think it's PG, and I won't let my kids see it because of suggestive comments, unnecessary scenes, and some inappropriate questions, but get past that and it's a fun movie.

You'll also have to get past Jessica Alba as the Invisible Woman who is just painful to look at. Is there anything on her body that hasn't been surgically enhanced? It doesn't help that she's not a natural blond and doesn't have the coloring to be a blond - nor acting talent... but she's good when she disappears.

It was fun and several times they really looked like the Fantastic Four from the comics. The Thing is smaller, but they did a much better job with this version than the first version. He doesn't look like he's made of waffles this time.

The Torch was fun and the show stealer again.

Reed was played by an actor who either couldn't take it seriously or just has low talent (though he did okay in Amazing Grace).

Silver Surfer was great. Doom was Doom. Galactus was inspired, though nothing like the comics version (thank goodness... though there was a nod to the comics version in the shadow cast over Saturn).

The effects were much better. Story, better. Everything, better.

How that for a fairly positive review?

Who do you say that James Bond is?

This won't be of much interest to my younger readers (and probably not for my older readers...)

007 has a sticky wicket; every few years you need a new actor, and no matter who you pick, some will love him and some will hate him. And that's fair. Who you think James Bond is determines if they made the right choice for you.

For example, is your James a heroic, licensed to kill, gadget guy with a thing for the ladies? Or is he the cool nerved spy, good at everything... and everyone?

My take is a suave, GQ fellow. The type who looks like he belongs in a photo shoot, but is really the genius lady killer, and um, bad-guy killer, too. He must have the Austin Martin, the Walther PK, and martini -- shaken, not stirred, and neato toys made by Q, flirting with Moneypenny, and verbal fencing with M. Above all else, he is flash and flair, devil-may-care.

The latest movie is impressive. It has amazing chase scenes (always good), the Austin Martin (with only a few gadgets), and the beginnings of the guy we know. This actor is very talented (better by far than almost all the others)... but despite direct hits and near hits on almost everything, he's not a GQ fashion plate. He has craigy good looks, I guess, but blond hair? He's a great 00x, but he's not Bond. I cab believe this fellow would get into and come out on the winning end of a bar room or back alley fight. James is supposed to be able to clean anyone's clock without spilling a drop of martini. He isn't supposed to look like he'd be in a back alley, let alone fight in one (though he'd win if he did, of course). This is completely my own take on the character, though, so it's just me shooting myself in the foot.

Sean Connery - Quintessential Bond.
Roger Moore - Not even close
Timothy Dalton - I always liked him, but they were poor movies.
Pierce Brosnan - Probably the most spot on in my definition, but only a TV actor and it showed.
New Guy (Craig someone? Someone Craig?) - Great actor, true to the book but not the stereotype. Quintessential Bond Movie, missing Bond but with another 00 who thought he was Bond. Raised the bar on the movies, though, because it was really good if you don't mind the violence and naughty bits (which were pretty tame for a Bond movie) and non-Bond Bond.

Y'know, I just can't be happy. Not with iconic movies. Don't listen to me, I'm impossible.

Pirates of the Caribbean - The Story Without End

I don't know where to start. It was looooooonnnnnggggggg. Some of it was boooorrrrrinnnngggggg. Some was witty and clever. There was a little fun.

Dunno, it moved you through the story without too much trouble. I could watch Davy Jones all day long-a -- He's the most fascinating visual and vocal character I've ever seen, even if I don't care about him.

And that is the problem with Pirates, I think. Jack, Barbosa, Jones, and Elizabeth are interesting characters. Turner is a bore, and the pirates are a bit fun... but despite all the amazing effects, convoluted story, dashing swordplay, and stage dirt... who cares? I mean, it wasn't a secret to anyone that the unspeakably dull Turner was going to get killed and helm the Flying Dutchman, and he was - did I mention? - unspeakably boring, so he gets a sword run through him. Ho hum. Ho hum, a pirates sleep for me... who cares? (Personally, I think it would have been far more interesting if Miss Swan got the deep six and helmed the Flying Dutchess, but that's just me).

They were fun to watch when it wasn't being gross, but engaging? No. The first Pirates I went right out and purchased on DVD as soon as possible. The second one I wanted the theater to give me my money back (no DVD, no wasting of two hours to borrow it and watch it again). This one, I don't need my money back, but I won't buy the DVD, and if there's a fourth, I'll see it in the cheap theater if it all.

My rules of pirate movies:
1. They must have fun! Otherwise, they're filthy, immoral, thieving murders. If they don't enjoy their own evil, why should I?
2. There must be pathos, dilemma, and an emotional crisis at stake (else no one and nothing to care about).
3. SOMEONE SHOULD OWN A TOOTHBRUSH! All these strong, healthy teeth with shoe black all over them was a bit much. Rotten teeth, okay, but just dirty teeth? Yuck.
4. Clashing swords is fine and dandy, but make it a contest of skill, not just hack and slash.

That's it. Thanks, and have a Ho Ho Day.

Republican Debates

A whole buncha fellas with three rising to the top.

1. Romney - Good looking guy, good presentation, Mormon... might win, might not.
2. Gulliani - Not good looking, good presentation, smart, unique, pro-choice... he might be the guy. I almost hope so.
3. Huckaby (sp)- I like this guy. A lot. He stood out from the pack, I agree with him on most levels, but he's a former Governor of Arkansas, and that will ultimately shoot him down.

Of the three, I think Gulliani would be the strongest, oddest president. I'd like to see what he can do.

Spider-Man 3

Sorry, Josiah, I have to disagree with you. I enjoyed Spider-man 3 a great deal.

I do agree that Tobey M. makes a lousy Peter and Kirsten D. makes a lousy M.J., and considering it's their movie, it's saying something for Raimy that I still liked it. The ideal cast for these two would be a young Julia Roberts (circa Pretty Woman) as M.J. and maybe Ashton Kutcher as Peter (he could pull off the nerd and the funny super-hero well, I think).

My original concern was that fitting the black costume/Venom, Sandman, and Goblin Jr. all into the same movie would be an impossible task, but Raimy pulled it off extremely well.

Black Costume: I'd have preferred the black costume with the white spider from the comics, but the creepy crawly aspect worked well.

Venom: Don't like the character in the comics, but thought he was pulled off really well in this. Scary, creepy, twisted... yup, works fine.

Sandman: One of my favorite comic bad-guys, and I liked him in this. The stab at motivation worked up until he agreed to take out Spidey when Venom asked - which didn't make sense - but he stayed true to the comic version for the most part. I like Church, and I loved the sandman effects.

Goblin Jr.: I've forgotten the actor's name, but his acting in this was vastly superior to the last two movies. He makes a better Goblin than his dad.

I didn't feel any pacing problems, though if you don't care for the Peter/M.J. relationship, I can understand thinking it was uneven. While I don't like the actors, Raimy hit on enough real life aspects to make it work (he said/she said, poor communications, baggage dragged into the relationship, a geek thinking he's cool... been there done that). The riff on Pulp Fiction was funny, the conclusion worked for me. I just wish the actors had the chemistry to pull off what Raimy was attempting.

Fight scenes were great, if a tad repetitive. The Spidey scenes work so much better on film than in the comics. The comic relief was used more deftly than in the past two films.

As I recall, McGuire signed on for three films, which are now completed. Will he sign on for more? We haven't seen the Lizard, Electro, Mysterio, Rhino, Shocker or the Vulture yet, so there's still more to explore. Gwen and Captain Stacey are still alive, though it's Green Goblin and Octopus who kill them in the comics and with both of them gone, do these characters have a new lease on life? Betty Brant (the secretary) has a brother who becomes the Molten Man, and we saw John Jamison who becomes the Man-Wolf. You could do a creature feature with Spidey against Lizard, Man-Wolf and Vulture...

Raimy has used the M.J./Peter relationship as the spine of each of his movies, so he could conceivably explore the newlywed foibles if the two of them get around to marrying. If Dunst and McGuire don't sign on, we could find better actors to play them and really put some new life into the series...

Ah, well, geekiness aside, $9.50 is just way too much to pay for a movie, so maybe it's better if the franchise ends now...

Back to Firehouse Dog for a moment. As noted before, when we saw it at the cheap theaters, the book mic was dropping down into view constantly. At least a third of the indoor scenes had the unwelcome microphone.

Now we've spoken to several people who have seen it at the regular theaters and they didn't see the boom mics. Lynette believes there are two different versions of the film; I can't imagine why they would have two versions. Yet people don't see them?

The first Sister Act had the same problem, though not to the same degree.

Come to think of it, the movie was off kilter originally. The heads were being cut off until the projectionist lowered the film into the screen. Does anyone know if the actual projected film bleeds over the screen? When the heads were cut off, the lower portion of the screen was still filled. Did the projectionist lower it too much?

See, thinking out loud on a blog can lead to discovery...

On Right and Wrong

(I may have discussed this before, but that's the problem with semi-prolific blogging and a 43 year old memory. Things happen - again and again...)

When Adam and Eve ate of the tree of the fruit of knowledge, they gained the ability to discern right and wrong.

Interesting. What is that? Is that truly a gift we all have or is it perhaps misunderstood? This says that animals don't know right from wrong. On the surface of things, that seems true. But what about pets?

When Grizzly makes lemonaide on my nice wood floor, he "knows" he's done wrong. He certainly avoids me for awhile. Isn't that knowledge of right and wrong?

No, it is not. It is knowledge of consequences to a specific action. If we let him, he'd make the whole house his little-dog's-room (which, come to think of it, he does...) Going inside and outside is no different to him, except inside he gets scolded and outside he gets blissfully ignored.

Knowing right from wrong is different than that. No, cynics, it isn't still fear of what God will do to us, it's more than that.

At least is should be. I'm not convinced for most of us, it is, though.

The Fall tells us two things: There is an Absolute Right, and we are capable of discerning what that is.

It's just that most people don't do it. Instead, too many of us deny an Absolute Right (either literally, as in Atheism; or functionally, as in ignoring it or not getting to it). We do what is "right" when people are looking and whatever we think we can get away with when they aren't.

I can imagine some piety going on now: "I don't do that." Yet you have to ask yourself, do you abstain from wrong because it is wrong or simply because it doesn't interest you? Example: illicit drugs have no interest to me. Getting high, stoned, or messed up is not a good time. As a result, I don't get to "is it right or wrong" because it's just not for me. If it WERE something I enjoyed, would consequences have the higher place in my life before getting to right or wrong? I don't want to get arrested, so I don't do drugs?

So it could be an order problem. What comes first in our consideration? Interest, then Consequences, THEN Right and Wrong? Or is it first Right or Wrong (and therefore nothing that follows matters).

Lack of interest of a thing might be a ditch around that thing. Fear of Consequences could be considered a fence around that thing (as could laws, rules, commands). Evil people might seek to build bridges over the ditch to entice the uninterested in crossing over, and if interest is already there, then we don't need anyone else to entice us to scale our fences...

... but look around that kind of world. Ditches and fences everywhere. That is certainly the Old Testament method, with the Israelites even building fences around their fences.

The New Testament method, though, says to fill in the ditches and tear down the fences. Instead of navigating through life bumping and avoiding; navigate through the knowledge of right and wrong (bolstered by the Grace of God). It makes for a clean landscape and a better journey.

Jerry Falwell Dies at 73

I think the power of the media first truly hit home with me when I saw Falwell on a talk show with a gay woman. I expected fireworks, rudeness, and intolerance. I expected that from Falwell, since the only thing I knew of him was from news reports and people talking about the news reports.

Instead, he was warm, humorous, humble and did nothing but show this woman (who was rude, nasty and arrogant) the love of Jesus. I was impressed, it changed my view of Falwell and humbled me about believing the media.

The next day, the news reports were blathering about how Falwell had been rude, nasty and arrogant to this humble gay woman. That's when I realized the power of the corrupt news media.

Rest in peace, Mr. Falwell.

Firehouse Dog

This was a fun movie, marred only by the boom mike dropping into almost every scene. I hope they didn't pay that sound crew. Otherwise, it was a fun movie.

We saw it at the dollar theater, which means one guy in front of us coughing out a lung, little kids chatting animatedly throughout the movie, and babies being rocked in squeaky movie chairs.

Good family flick, worth seeing. Polling the five children we took with us, one saw the mikes and knew what they were, one saw them and didn't know what they were and none of the boys even noticed them. They could have developed movie star Rexxx a little bit more at the beginning, but otherwise it was pretty good (you have to get through the concept that dogs were movie stars in an otherwise realistic world, but then, the boy and his father never heard of the dog movies, so maybe it was an underground cult thing).

C- sound boom
B+ effects
A- Family film

I had an interesting conversation with a professional golfer the other day, a woman whose name I forget, in which she literally sniffed at the concept of a freelance writer. She felt competing in golf was a much more difficult task than being a successful writer. Naturally, I disagree.

In golf, the path of success is straightforward. If you're really good, you enter a tournament, and if you win you move forward until you're playing Tiger Woods for best in the world. In golf, the best are the most successful.

In writing, and in art, the best are often unpublished. Stephen King is arguably the best writer in America, not just in sales but also in skill. I'm willing to bet, however, that there are dozens who could be equally great (no, not myself, I have no illusions that I'm anything more than an adequate writer who can't spell), but the process of publication is a mystery to them and so their work never sees the light of a bookstore. Especially today, when new writers often need to bring their gigantic market with them, or they won't get published (publishers say really great writing will always find a publishing house, but even they don't say it with conviction). Have a market and you can get drivel published.

So writing and any of the arts is harder than golf because a golfer needs to know how to golf and a writer needs to know publishing, business, marketing, and last-and-very-much least, writing.

Is this sour grapes on my part? ... yeah, maybe. But it's true.

Well, the family is rolling out of our driveway in a brand new Toyota Sienna. Not a purchase, a rental since I wrecked our old van.

Driving to 10-31 from church, a little silver coup decided to over-steer a lane change into a left-hand turn. Unfortunately, that put him perpendicular to me and we struck him pretty hard. One of the odd things about this kind of accident is that you see the faces of the driver and passenger (both oblivious to my van or the impending collision) as they react to the impact, arms flailing, heads screaming and glass from their blown out windows showering onto our windshield. Scary all around. From my perspective, the car just appeared about twenty feet in front of me, drifting across my path. A thousand thoughts passed through my head between realization and impact - it's amazing how fast the mind works.

My right headlight struck his coup between the front and back driver-side door. They rolled off the front of the van and spun into a deep ditch as I pulled over to the far side of the road. Charli and Aly were both with me (Lynette and Ben had stayed home). No injuries other than seatbelt bruising, as far as we can tell, praise God.

No such luck for the other vehicle. The driver and passenger were taken away in an ambulance. The emergency response was phenomenal, by the way. Ocoee police, fire trucks and aid car all there within ten minutes, all wonderful, calm, helpful and polite. Several witnesses to the accident stopped and helped us, and Mike Y. came immediately to watch over the girls and coach me in the right things to do (I was rattled, and fairly scattered).

The other fellow got out of the hospital the next day. He was fully insured and at fault, so the van is being repaired. Right quarter-panel, bumper, hood, and passenger door were banged up. I'll find out about structural damage today, probably. I'm amazed at how little damage was done to the van from such an impact (the air bags didn't deploy, thank the Lord). Unfortunately,I will be surprised if the other car isn't totaled.

God's grace and provision through this whole accident is abundant. Join me in praising Him!

Can't believe I haven't spoken about this yet; where has my opinionated mind been?

The Orlando Science Center is running an exhibit of bodies. Real, dead, human bodies. Some stripped of skin, others sectioned off to see the inside, and other gross things. Or so I'm told by people who have gone. I won't. Though you have to look at the billboards of pealed people.

Yech!

I am not particularly squeamish. It isn't the ghoulishness of the exhibit, it's the raw disrespect of it all. Presumably these are the bodies of people who donated their flesh to science. An exhibit of posed, drawn and quartered people doesn't fit that donation concept.

Nor are all the bodies of adults. Some are children of varying ages. What got to me was driving by one of those billboards with the country song "I Think About You" which is about a man who now views women differently because he has an eight-year-old little girl. I wouldn't want my kids, young or as adults, up there, so I don't want these people who once walked around, dreamed of DisneyWorld, and enjoyed the sunshine to be objects of display.

I especially don't want billboards of them.

What's your take on adult education?

The government spends a lot of our dollars on education; while I think that should be the responsibility of the parents, I do think the government has a role in adult ed.

Consider that the vast majority of people in prison are uneducated, many don't even have a high school education. So when they are released, the best jobs they can expect to get are entry level, non-skilled jobs: Wal-Mart, Fast Food, etc. Recidivism is no surprise under such conditions (that means they commit crimes again, landing them back in prison).

I'm uncertain about what kind of re-entry to society programs exist for felons, but it seems education should be a big part of that. Not everyone would be interested, but those that are could be seen as trying to make a go of reformation.

Should the government be involved with educating those people who failed to take advantage of public school to begin with?

I had a great conversation with a friend at church, discussing sovereignty and total depravity (the latter greatly aids in understanding the former).

Total Depravity states the core truth that we're stinkers at heart. To begin with, we do nothing to deserve birth, and all our actions are designed around a self-centered viewpoint thereafter. Gallileo was wrong: the world does not revolve around the sun, it revolves around me, or so we each believe. We want what we want when we want it.

"Wait" you say. "We're not all sociopaths!"

And yet, maybe we are. An infant screams and tantrums to get what he/she wants. As the infant grows older, either through individual observation or parental input, the infant learns to avoid a less desirable outcome by couching demands as requests; balancing "get it" behavior with "avoid trouble" behavior.

Imagine that self-centered, me-at-all-costs core of our being as a dirtpile. We construct structures over that core. Social mores, religious trappings, civil laws, all to enable us to function in our chosen societies better (to get what we want as saftely and easily as we can).

This was no problem through much of history. The trappings were rarely challenged outright, and change tended to come slowly.

Today, however, science, religion (cults), and philosophies change dramatically and often; sometimes as quickly as a publishing season delivers fresh books. The structure is ripped apart and rebuilt, sometimes well, sometime not. Sometimes safely, sometimes not.

There have been no utopian societies in our world outside fiction stories. This alone should tell us the truth about ourselves. We have had and still have despotic societies. Nazi Germany fed a lie that our wicked core enabled to spread (had people been good at heart, the lie couldn't take hold, but it did and still does), slavery was another evil that a broken structure enabled, and the list goes on.

Worse still, sometimes society's structures have gaps. Not everyone fits, and those people fall down through the cracks and sink into their own wicked cores. I'd hazzard a guess that the Virginia Tech and Columbine monstrosities were examples of this. While I have no way to confirm this, I'm willing to bet in each case, the perpetrators couldn't accept the structure that was supplanting their own that had "worked" til then, and fell into their wicked core. "I can't have what I want, so I'll take it away from everyone else, too."

As the structures blur and change ever more rapidly, more people will fall through the gaps and take it out on those around them. We all have that inside of us. We're all capable of heinous, selfish things because we were made that way.

Judaism and Christianity are the only religions to recognize this tainted core. Both faith systems (and only these faith systems) recognize that the first step is to recognize that wicked core (that's what repentence is "Lord, I am desperately wicked and lost without You. All the seeds to my own destruction are inside me, not outside me.") The Jews then gave sin offerings to the Lord until the Lord put an end to that, offering His Son as the only sacrifice. That's what makes Christianity different, by the way. Every other religion or philosophy says the power to improve is in you; Christianity (and Judiasm before it) says the problem is within, but the Answer is outside ourselves, in God Himself. All we need do is believe God did what He said He did.

Isn't there a Christian structure? Yes, there is. That structure is called Sovereignty. God is in control. Why doesn't He prevent all these horrible events from happening? For one thing, those events point to the truth of our corrupt souls. Those evil people are the best picture of who we truly are beneath our selected structures. As for the victims, this isn't meant to be cold, but we don't deserve our births so anything we get beyond birth is pure blessing. It's horrible what happened to those kids and their families, and my prayers are with them. The proper (though difficult) response is "thank you, God, for the time You gave me with them." (It would take me years, if not life, to get to that response myself if that every happened to ones I loved, but it is the proper response. Grief is another thing entirely, one God will hold us through, if we let Him).

Also important is the understanding that salvation happens before the Christian "structure" in our life. From the moment we confess our wickedness, and our belief that Jesus's death and resurrection covers us, we are forgive. We don't have to "do" anything else for salvation, but true belief will result in the Christian structure being created (and fixed and modified as we grow, of course). If we think we need works to save us, we haven't believed what He says: "my Grace is sufficient for you."

The Christian "structure" has fairly open architecture. Truth does not shake it, and lies will not take hold for long. As science presents its findings, we can accept the truth (and disallow the speculation). As for antithetical structures in other people, God has told us to love them as we would ourselves. Anger, hatred, and violence are never appropriate; they indicate our core is creeping up, and our structure needs to change to end it (in other words, repent and believe God).

Bit more of a sermon than the simple musings it was meant to be. I hope your structures can allow that...

Views on Failure

Hey, anyone reading this post: Please give me your thoughts on failure. Does it paralyze you? If yes, why? Is it a positive or negative thing in your life? If a friend of yours experienced catastrophic failure, what would you tell them (catastrophic is relative, of course. Failing a test might be horrible for one person, losing a game for another, losing a job, etc).

Do you allow fear of failure to prevent you from attempting anything?

Rocky Balboa - A review

I finally caught this on DVD. It's a bit slow in the beginning, so it would bore teenagers, probably. The movie is rated PG, which it earns until the fight. I'm old-fashioned enough to think that that much blood should at least rate a PG-13. The message, however, was more than family friendly.

Rocky is a man brooding over the past with the loss of his wife, Adrian. He spends his days and evenings recounting stories of the glory days to diners in his restaurant, while continuing to invest heavily in the people around him. Rock isn't the smartest bird on the wire, but he understands right and wrong, and his philosophy of life is outstanding.

Sly is clever in that he knows the whole time we're thinking, "come on, an old guy can't do this" so we never see him with his shirt off until the actual fight. I'm guessing every aging actor despises Sly Stallone for raising the bar so high, because when the shirt comes off, yes the skin is old skin, but the muscle beneath it is perfection. He was more cut and muscular than the heavyweight champ he was boxing. Sly is either late 50's or early 60's, but I had no trouble believing he was able to go toe to toe with the champ. Every actor who thought they'd be able to relax and knock off the gym by late 40's now have at least another couple decades to sweat over their physique.

With the understanding that this movie is really for middle-aged men and older (and bratty, resentful young men in one part) the movie is a knockout. The first one was great, the second and third pretty good, all the others between Clubber Lang and this one weren't worth the film they were shot on. I think you do need to see 1, 2 and 3 before this one to really appreciate it, though. Also, while there was no church and little overt religion in the movie, I would rank it in with the other strong spate of faith-based movies. Sly Stallone has either become a Christian or he's very much on his way.

Bottom Line: A

We have FINALLY gotten our book to market!

Hey Kidz! Your Entrepreneur is Showing! A Parenting Guide to the American Dream by Jon White with yours truly has hit Amazon. We've even sold one! (Thanks, Brian!)

Click the graphic below, purchase dozens and resell them to your friends and neighbors. Leave glowing reviews on Amazon!

:)

This is rather shocking.

I have no opinions on anything to share.

Maybe I'm growing up?

Normally I wouldn't waste time reviewing "Zoom, Academy for Superheroes." It's a kids/family movie, after all, slapped together for a few bucks, but the "Making of Zoom" special feature requires a response... it really does.

First, the producers thought they'd made a great movie and spent a lot of time bragging about the great story, wonderful effects, the fantastic costumes, the hilarious actors... I understand the need to talk up your show, but when your story is about an "Academy where young superheroes train" there should probably be some training involved. They should use their spectacular powers once in awhile, or at least have spectacular powers (invisibility, telekinesis, strength and speed... yeah, spectacular. The inflato-kid was kind of clever, though).

And the costumes. Y'know with so many superhero movies out there, this should be a no-brainer - colorful, form enhancing suits that look cool. Not bright yellow bulky, quilted jumpsuits for training, and certainly not white bulky quilted jumpsuits for the real thing. It was terrible.

And then there's the hilarious actors. Tim Allen sums it up well in the outakes "we're funnier on television." Yup. He's phoning it in, Courtney Cox tries, and the most intriguing thing about the movie was the doctor who almost looked like Chevy Chase. In fact, it looked like they tried to use makeup and bad appliances to make him look like Chase, only he was too big and not funny. Except it was Chevy Chase, which just makes me sad.

"Princess" the 6-year-old strong girl was the only high point in the movie, and she was worth the whole shebang. She stole every scene without looking like a too-cute kiddie. I thought I was going to split a gut when she came out dressed as a poodle.

New look, same content.

I enabled anonymous users for Dammi, but added symbol recognition to prevent auto-spamming. Hope it doesn't bother anyone.

Rob