Your Modest Guru

The Grey Review

2012-02-10T20:40:00.000-08:00

"Once more into the fray.

Into the last good fight I'll ever know.

Live and die on this day.

Live and die on this day." - John Ottway

(POSSIBLE SPOILERS; though, the fact that characters die isn't a spoiler. I mean, they are ordinary dudes against wolves... granted ordinary dudes led by Liam Neeson, but still)

Okay, the world better not end if more movies like this are gonna be made this year. It's funny, but I am uniquely optimistic about 2012. Nothing seems amiss, at least, no more than usual. And plus, how ironic that in our supposed last year I'd start my theater going experience, after 2011's Tintin (which I may review later), with a stark and unforgiving movie that also exemplifies man's willingness to survive.

I wasn't the only one fooled by trailers. Everything about this screamed 'FOR GUYS.' A small group of men stranded in the frozen Alaskan wilderness being hunted by a vicious pack of wolves... oh yeah, and they're being led by Liam Neeson. Hells yes. I, honestly, didn't know what to think, especially when it came to that now beloved shot of Neeson preparing to fight the wolves with broken airline liquor bottles and a knife taped into his hands. I was on the edge to thinking the film could either be really awesome or just a hokey cash grab that's banking on Liam Neeson's natural badassery. It was something quite different actually.

First, the premise: Liam Neeson is playing Ottway, a skilled sharpshooter who works for an oil refinery out in Alaska where he is paid to protect the workers from wolves in the area. And when he and the other people there are taking a flight out on leave their plane crashes in the middle of the snowy wastelands. Down to less than ten men, Ottway, being the most experienced, takes charge of helping everyone survive. But the harsh elements quickly pale in comparison when they realize that they are in the midst of a den of a wolf pack. Ottway and his motley crew begin their seemingly futile attempts to find a way out of the den or kill the wolves before they are all dead too.

The filmmaking aspects of The Grey are out of sight. This was made by Joe Carnahan, a director whose previous works I thought showed a lot of promise. These include the gritty detective drama Narc, and the balls to the wall action thriller Smokin' Aces, both films I thought went about their familiar storylines in interesting ways. He also did The A-Team awhile back, but I didn't have much interest in seeing that. The Grey is definitely his best work, though. The photography incorporates a lot of handheld camera work, giving it a more up close and personal feel that is effective. This doesn't deprive the film of amazing shots in any way. With the dark, fire lit nights, the desolate winter environment, and the almost demonic wolves, it always has a beautiful sort of dreamlike look to it. The music is effective, and I'm pretty sure the last scene features a rendition of "John's Walk" one of my favorite pieces of music. I also give the movie props for having probably the most terrifying plane crash I've seen; it's the pilot episode of Lost times a hundred. The movie was produced by Ridley and Tony Scott, so it was gonna be a big movie for better or for worse. This time better. This was just a well rounded film to me...

Which would not be totally rounded had it not had such a great cast of characters, and a small one at that. I apologize to female viewers who may want to see this movie, it's quite a sausage fest, and I'm not spoiling much by saying that any women who are encountered meet... unfortunate ends fast. However, the cast here is very good. The Grey gets credit for being able to get me to care about everyone one of the cast in some way, and for each of their seemingly inevitable deaths being just as horrific or tragic as the last; though, the first one is one of the more gut wrenching death scenes I've watched in awhile. A few notable figures in the survivors group include Hendrick (Dallas Roberts), probably the most civil of the group and willing to help, Talgat (Dermot Mulroney, though, you may not recognize him) who seems to be a compassionate person of faith, and Diaz (Frank Grillo) the group's token troublemaker punk, who is probably the most memorable next to Ottway. The face of the movie (seriously, need the poster show more) is Liam Neeson, though. And shiiiiiiiiiiiiiiit, does the man own this movie. It is certainly one of his best roles that I've seen him in. His character is complicated, every bit as much of an outcast from society as the workers he loathes in the beginning, and every bit as scared as them once they are faced with death. While he is not a total badass per se, he is the one who knows all about wolves and comes up with unique ways to kill them without guns or to more importantly elude them.

Now for the lesser known cast of characters: the wolves. Again, don't expect too many man vs. beast moments, because there is no contest in most cases. They are just stronger, faster, and more durable than a fragile human body. Its clear the wolves could probably just all gang up on the men at any moment and the movie would be over, but they are kind of like our modern equivalent to velociraptors, they are extremely dangerous and powerful but are also intelligent and strategic. So the wolves literally pick the group off one by one, and thus are not seen a lot. I'm kind of glad about that. The trailers showed the wolves mostly being CGI, but they are always shot and obscured in just the right ways that they are still believable. Besides there is no way anyone could get a real wolf to fake attack people like they do in this movie. Most of them are gray wolves, and there are around ten of them, and they are led by the Alpha. The alpha is basically your childhood idea of a wolf, but even scarier. Apparently a lot of the info on wolves supplied in this movie are accurate, but even so, the wolves seem more like nightmarish monsters than anything else. Their hideous howls, the fierce look of their eyes. Whose the superior being, again? Oh yeah, and here's a fun fact, wolves are one of, if not, the only animals who seek revenge, which will be freakishly obvious at a certain point.

I will just spare anyone right now who thinks this is Taken with wolves, it's not. Not to sound highfalutin, but it is a pretty deep and introspective movie. The characters clearly live by certain philosophies, all of which are painfully overwhelmed by the indifferent wild. Ultimately that's what the movie is about rather than a fight with wolves 'cause it's extreme, or, at least, that's half of what its about. On the one hand it shows quite literally that in the end our codes and gods won't save us, but our willingness to fight for our lives might, and on the other the film brutally hits it home that nature is unforgiving and is rarely beaten. To me at least, and I hope I'm articulating it correctly. I thought it was a very fascinating movie, while also having its share of awesome moments. Then again, I've been a sucker for man against nature stories since The Edge, which this film really reminded me of.

The ending, more than anything, is what will divide people on the movie. It was ruined for me three times the day I saw the movie, and it still struck a chord in me. Whatever people felt it may have lacked, I personally couldn't see anything being filmed that is cooler than what I imagined. The after credits shot alone gives you a strong enough impression of how things go down.

Well, my opinion is pretty clear. I loved it. See it.

Four out of four wallets of death.

This has been a review Your Modest Guru is kind of proud of. Thanks for reading.

Drive Review

2011-10-27T01:07:00.001-07:00

"You put this kid behind the wheel of a car and there is nothing he can't do." - Shannon

I didn't think movies like this were made anymore. I know, it is done mostly in homage, but the mixture of 80s style with late 60s dark tones in movies for Drive was refreshing. I heard this was intriguing, but I honestly did go in expecting more of a Transporter type action film. Imagine my surprise that it was an independent action movie (one of my favorite genre splices). While I will address the movie's visible flaws, I will mainly be detailing what I found so interesting about it along with the usual monkey business.

Based on the novel by James Sallis, Drive is, naturally, about a driver. The nameless Driver (Ryan Gosling) is a professional and pragmatic motorist. He makes his living in Los Angeles where he works as stunt driver for Hollywood action movies by day (irony, I guess), but occasionally he will act as a getaway driver for criminals. But despite living his life very minimally, almost as if he was just another part for his car, The Driver manages to befriend his neighbors, a single mother Irene (Carey Mulligan) and her son. Their growing bond is interrupted by the arrival of Irene's ex-con husband, who brings with him some seedy criminal baggage, including two menacing gangsters (Albert Brooks & Ron Perlman). Realizing the family is in danger, The Driver puts himself on the line to ensure their safety. He does this with extreme prejudice.

I realized immediately that this is a pretty overused story. It's the classic western scenario, a quiet nameless hero with a dark past wanders into the lives of some beautiful but unfortunate people and discovers that there are some things worth fighting for, then cue epic good vs evil battle. So, it's nothing new. But it is well done. And it is one of the better ones I've seen in awhile.

The acting department is small this time; not excellent but interesting, nonetheless. Of course, the face of this film is Ryan Gosling as The Driver. Over the past few years, Gosling has proven himself to be a charismatic and talented actor, even earning himself an Best Actor Oscar nomination previously. Unfortunately, this is not the movie to see that displays his full range. This is because The Driver character is very stoic, a man of few words. He purposely defines himself by his expertise, consumed by his craft and solitude. It in those brief moments where the character's true personality starts to break out that Gosling shines. The starring actress Carey Mulligan also suffers from the movie's emphasis on subtlety. In the role of Irene, the single mother, she also appears as a soft spoken figure, endearingly innocent but soft spoken still. Her role is primarily as a macGuffin, the motivation The Driver needs to progress the plot. I know she is already praised as a superior young actress, but I wish this wasn't the first role I've seen her in; it isn't a bad role, just not a very interesting one, even if the subtlety was intentional. And speaking of poorly utilized actresses, Christina Hendricks from Madmen is in this movie in a role that could literally be played by any hot actress. Hendricks is also a competent and well recognized star, and she has maybe three scenes in this and has lines in, I think, only one of them. Stellar. The primary supporting characters in this movie are pretty solid, however. I'm glad to see Oscar Isaac act as a believable guy as opposed to that cheesy villain he played in Sucker Punch. I felt for his character Standard, the recently paroled husband who tries to get out but...well, you know how it goes. Bryan Cranston isn't Walter White in this movie, the complete opposite, in fact. As Shannon he is a nice and sympathetic character, but his clear vulnerability puts you on edge whenever he is around the cold gangsters. Speaking of which, if Ryan Gosling's badassery or Christina Hendricks' chest don't sell people on this movie, Albert Brooks and Ron Perlman will as the Jewish gangsters Bernie and Dino. Perlman is an amusingly abrasive troublemaker, just the way we like him. Brooks is the real big bad here, though (I mean, he's not Frank Scorpio big bad, but it's pretty villainous). He is a testy, aggravated old criminal who wants to be reasonable, make money, and stay out of trouble, but is willing to tie up loose ends when things go wrong. So the acting was pretty decent, but I just think it could have been so much more impressive if the characters had been a bit more expressive. I know it's noir and everyone is shrouded in mystery, but, come on.

I'd be surprised if this didn't appeal to the art house crowd, Drive seems tailor made for that demographic. It is directed by Nicholas Winding Refn (a director chosen by Gosling), known as a visually fascinating and highly stylized director, so I guess the artsy aspect of the movie is kind of unavoidable. That doesn't mean its bad. The cinematography is gorgeous, with the cool light and dark contrasts so often found in film noir, and the overall handling of the film seems pretty well done. There are moments, glaring moments, when the art is overbearing (characters in this movie have pauses long enough and silent enough to make Christopher Walken role his eyes). That is this film's real problem: this is indeed a style over substance movie; too much of either is usually very apparent and often irritating. The thing is both style and substance within this movie resonated with me, it was just blatantly obvious that directorial art was held in higher regard than Hossein Amini's moody script.

Another criticism was the gory violence of the movie. It is not as if this was straight up gorn, in fact, the violence comes in so much later in the film that it still catches you off guard even if you do know about it. The complaints were that the violence was over the top. Well, I guess it is kind of. I haven't seen characters kill other characters so bluntly and viciously and quickly like this very often. But, thinking realistically, if someone is getting shot or stabbed blood will get everywhere. And to add to that, none of the dangerous players in this movie don't care about showy fist fights or kickboxing or gun kata, they try to kill each other brutally and quickly; The Driver takes guys down before they even get a chance to attack him. Over the top or realistic, either way, the instances of violence are undeniably hardcore.

However, what really struck me were the influences this movie seemed to have proudly on its sleeve. Drive is inspired by many introspective, psychological thrillers and dramas that famously stood out in cinema of the last 50 or 60 years. As opposed to huge marketable actioners like The Fast and The Furious or Transporter, Drive has more of the feel of a movie like Bullitt (with the precise, tricky, but not totally implausible driving) or Taxi Driver (with a disturbed individual going to messy extremes to protect innocence/family values). The pacing, soundtrack, and photography is very much inspired by smooth 80s thrillers; love the credits with the hot pink font cast over LA at night. I actually downloaded The Driver's theme song that played throughout the movie.

All in all, Drive may have been a bit misleading in its advertisements, the characters may been overly nuanced and underdeveloped, and there was that weird scene involving a beach and a latex mask, but I still found myself enjoying it. I can clearly see how polarizing movies like these are nowadays, but to be fair, movies like this aren't made a lot anymore. This is a movie where the characters sort of let their actions dictate what kind of people they are, it takes a lot of time to bury itself into its own dark tones. It is visually impressive, the acting was exceptional when it was allowed to be, and I just like what they did with the story (though overused, I still love this hero scenario). I was glad my suspicions weren't correct and it wasn't a rehash of an explosive Grant Theft Auto type movie; even if the movie isn't great, I still would rather see a movie like this than one of those.

Three out of four swallowed bullets.

This has been a rather lengthy from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.

The Thing (2011) Review

2011-10-15T17:25:00.000-07:00

"It's not human. Yet." - Tagline

I've never been particularly picky, so maybe this movie was worse than I thought it was. It certainly is not as good or as scary as John Carpenter's remake from the '80s. But as a prequel that tries to tie into the other movie, I'd say it did a decent job. My skepticism arose early on as I initially thought this was another goddamn remake, but later it was because I thought they wouldn't be able to pull off The Thing these days. But all of the problems I thought I would have with the prequel turned out to be rather enjoyable and still ended up being disappointed that the movie's problems were the problems of a remake. As a prequel, I thought The Thing would have zero or ham-handed continuity, which I don't think it really did. As for the remake problems, it could not help but go through the exact same scenarios in this film that they went through in the first.

Being it is a prequel, the new Thing follows the Norwegian science team the heroes from the original film discovered. These were the people who found The Thing and its spaceship in a glacier in Antarctica, so they of course are not going to make it. Along for the ride is the protagonist, paleontologist Kate Lloyd (Mary Elizabeth Winstead), who is recruited to oversee the excavation of the alien. A tampering with the ice block it is incased in allows the thing to break free from it's confinement and escape. You know how this goes. After killing the initial monster, Kate discovers that the alien's cells were infecting and imitating the cells of its victims. It becomes apparent to her that the thing has already started to kill and transform into the other scientists. But who is human and who is an alien. And the fight for survival begins. Grab your flamethrowers and trust no one.

Now I'm guessing what most people are concerned about is the technical aspects of this movie in comparison to the 1982 classic. It doesn't really compare. I mean they try to get as close to how The Thing looks when it just explodes into a violent monster of gore, but the computer generated effects never look especially real, not like something you could touch or believe could touch you. I will say the filmmakers are at inventive in how they made the special effects. It felt like they were trying as best as they could to remain true to the original version. The transformation scenes are on a similar level of grotesque and intense (really does feel like it'd be hard to react when a guy's whole body turns into half a dozen aliens). The gore aspect is almost as gratuitous as it was in the first film, which is good. I was afraid they'd try to tone it down or something. Really this did have some hardcore, freaky-ass moments in this movie.

Unfortunately, the plot is where it gets murky. Granted, the filmmakers do do a good job of making it appear like its a different kind of story, but, fundamentally, it is the same movie. A lot of the same scenarios play out here, but they tweak what happens in these bits in ways that were fresh enough to make to forgive it. But the fact that the same type of events happened in both the Norwegian station and the American one is not very unreasonable, given the nature of the thing. I surprisingly got some effect out of the story. I still managed to care about some of the characters; most of them seemed like likable people, especially for scientists and contractors. I could guess who was who too many times, but the reveals still ended up freaking me out. This is a prequel, however, so everything has to segue with the first film inevitably. I think the movie manages this well throughout the film, earning a little "oh yeah, that's cool" every now and then.

The acting was really well rounded. No one seemed like they were unbelievable (even though they all should be better dressed for Antarctica). The main star is Mary Winstead as the heroine, Kate. Winstead is a good actress who has proven competent in just about everything I've seen her in. And I bought her as this character. She's not Kurt Russell as MacReady, but she really does have that Sigourney Weaver vibe; that idealistic, uncompromising, but vulnerable Ellen Ripley thing. It works though and its not glaring. The actual Kurt Russell, problem solver guy character is filled by Joel Edgerton, who does a fairly good job as that guy. He's not totally MacReady, but he's just a guy like MacReady. There's always one in horror movies. Adewale long middle name Agbaji plays another American contractor alongside Edgerton, and I continue to ask how the hell is this guy getting such bad roles. Agbaji is a good actor, but his role here could have been filled by literally anybody. And yet still, he was decent even without doing much. Eric Christian Olsen is Kate's friend and the bad doctor's researcher Adam, and I actually thought he did good job for, again, such a minor role. Character actor Ulrich Thomson plays a corrupt douchebag once again as the head researcher who puts science before everything excluding his own life. All of the Norwegian team actors did well, considering their only main relevance was to die. The most notable one is Jorgen Langhelle as the intense Norwegian badass, Lars, a character we may already be a bit familiar with. I didn't have much of a problem with the acting.

Now for the creature itself. Is The Thing any better or any worse? Well, it certainly doesn't beat the horrific organic yet contagious look of the original, everything spewing from and ripping out of that hunk of fake human. Doesn't surpass that. In this movie, The Thing is clearly CGI throughout (though, I've read there are moments when special effects makeup or stop motion was used). That doesn't mean there is not a certain freakish quality to be applied to these new special effects. For one thing, the transformations happen a helluva lot faster. Bodies just sort of explode in a bloody mess of tentacles and jaws. The amount of razor sharp teeth for heads appearing in this movie could have convinced me I was watching Resident Evil walkthroughs. The thing and its many incarnations are all fleshy, pussing, swollen, ever changing globs of chaos. But one particular contrast would be that this thing is quick on its feet (its common with horror movies these days) as opposed to the original's tendency to either flail or just sort of expand. An interesting detail is that the first form we see it in, when it breaks from the ice, looks vaguely insectoid, almost like a different creature. It occurred to me that the thing's alien ship probably belonged to some other alien species that the thing encountered, killed, and imitated. Or not.

In the end, this The Thing prequel is not too bad for a modern monster movie. As stated, there are some hardcore moments. And the way this movie connects with the '80s film is satisfying in its own way. Aside from essentially rehashing the first movie in ways that ranged from refreshing to irritating, I rather enjoyed this flick. You might too.

Two and a half out of four fillings.

This has been a review ripe for Halloween from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.

Top Ten Lost Characters (excluding Locke)

2011-09-01T15:38:00.000-07:00

"You were all alone. You were all looking for something you couldn't find out there. I chose you because you needed this place as much as it needed you." - Jacob

(MUEY SPOILERS!!!)

Lost has some of the most amazing, fun, and fascinating characters I've seen. Which is funny, because they aren't all totally original or anything. The real reason they are so great is probably because the show spends a large portion of its time to let the audience get to know them. You learn of their secrets, their demons, what they've done, what they are capable of doing, and they all felt real (even The Monster). I enjoyed them all in some way or another, but if I had to choose ten favorites this would be it. However, yes, I am excluding my already proclaimed favorite character on the show, man of adventure and utter tragedy himself, John Locke. Let's begin.

10. Hugo "Hurley" Reyes

"I want some freakin' answers!"

I rank Hurley at ten because, well, Hurley is a given too. Not liking Hurley is the equivalent to making a thousand smiling children cry. Though he at first seems like an ordinary, generous, and laid back young man, he has his own secrets, naturally. If the fact that he is a multi-millionaire and businessman isn't surprising enough, the introduction of his infamous Numbers did the trick. Though anyone looking in on the outside would assume he had it all, Hurley was literally stalked by fate. Misfortune plagued his already out of sorts life after he used the Numbers, and it was his quest to find their meaning that led him to board Flight 815 and crash on the Island. On the Island, Hurley did his best to help others and make things easier when he could; he, actually, has an active role in many of the main events. Though terribly afraid, Hurley is also exceptionally brave and capable of leadership in desperate situations. I think a thing that really struck me when it was all over was that Hurley ends up the Protector of the Island. I just think it's cool that the true everyman, the vessel for the audience, in fact, winds up becoming such a powerful force in the world. It kind of exemplifies Lost's theme of starting over and discovering yourself. Hurley was funny, lovable, heroic, flawed, and probably the show's purest character.

9. Boone Carlyle

"Relieved...I felt relieved..."

Though his role was considerably minor in comparison to the others, I still thought Boone was a well done character. Boone was one of the first survivors to take an active role in leadership. Though strong and brave, he usually fell short of heroism and ended up being more troublesome than helpful. His story doesn't really kick off until he befriends Locke and they find the Hatch. It's then when Boone begins seeing things differently. I also liked that he started to let go of Shannon after that psychedelic trip (I need Locke to whip me up some of that!). Of course, if I'm being honest, Boone's true purpose was to influence the actions of Locke, Jack, and Shannon. This was accomplished when he became the first main character to die. And damn, the episode where Jack tries to save him is so very intense and depressing (though beautiful too in a lot of ways). But yeah, it's his death that turns Shannon into a wildcard, and, more importantly, begins the legendary cycle of mistrust between Jack and Locke. This point is echoed repeatedly as Boone makes appearances throughout the series after that, either in flashbacks, dreams, or hallucinations (and the afterlife). I liked Boone for his determination, heart, and common sense. His unrequited love and manipulations from his stepsister Shannon also gained him sympathy. Was glad he was part of the reunion at the end.

8. Jacob

"You've got ink on your forehead."

Next to his brother, Jacob is probably the most mysterious character in the series. Built up by the native Others to be the great, brilliant, magnificent, and even supernatural individual in control of The Island, Jacob was kept hidden for most of the show. His motives were said to include protecting the Island and befriending people seen as special. I never trust The Others though, so I will just go with who he really is. It was at the end of Season 5 and entirety of Season 6 that Jacob revealed himself. He was seen in flashbacks orchestrating events that would bring many of our favorite characters to the Island, before his death is rigged by his nemesis, The Man in Black. Near the end of the show, we discover that Jacob was born on the Island some 2,000 years ago, along with his brother, The Man in Black. In contrast to MIB's cold and pragmatic nature, Jacob primarily thought with his heart and was ruled by his emotions. This leads him to kill his brother in a fit of rage, while also turning him into a force of true destruction. In the present, he is still compassionate but is also more confident and wise. Yes, it is true that his meddling with fate resulted in the hundreds of deaths we see throughout the show, but he really couldn't risk his brother escaping. It's also admirable that he did his best to do the right thing and help others, even after he was dead. I also thought it was interesting that even Jacob, a character who we all thought of as a an all powerful deity for so long, was just another victim of some random fate. All Jacob wanted was peace and I can respect that.

7. Sun Hwa Kwon

"I lose, either way."

I think Sun is a character who had some of the biggest transformations. Her arc in the series mainly involves her growing more self reliant and developing a stronger personality. Sun and Jin episodes were always compelling even if they weren't as exciting as other arcs. Her transformation from the long suffering wife to independent hero was nice to see. I was also surprised that Sun was from a wealthy family (I thought they were both middle class when I first saw them). Even in her world of luxury back then, Sun's destiny was still controlled, this time by her parents. It is her father to be blamed for the gold hearted Jin's initial douchebaggery, as well. Jin was such a bastard during the first season, it made Sun's strength even more satisfying (even though, we are all happy they worked things out). Sun does a lot, actually: she lies to her husband and others, kills an Other, and smacks around several main characters. In the last few seasons though, when she gets her own money, power, and motive for revenge, she owns her corrupt father financially and literally, gaining control of his corporation and even begins a vendetta against Ben Linus. I won't again go into how tragic her and Jin's deaths were. I will just say that starting your revolt by unbuttoning your shirt collar and ending it with corporate espionage and assassination plots is quite something.

6. Mr. Eko

"I did not ask for the life that I was given. But it was given, nonetheless. And with it, I did my best."

Eko is just one of those characters you think of when you think of Lost. One of those stand out characters. Probably because he's a badass. At first appearing to be a chivalrous giant, flashbacks reveal his dark past as a vicious drug lord in Nigeria. His actions eventually end up killing his priest brother and leaving him mistaken for a man of god himself. Eko rolls with it, though, out of respect for his brother. His darkness never seems to leave him, however, no matter how hard he struggles to redeem himself. On the Island, he serves as a defender of his group of survivors but eventually becomes a new man of faith, next to Locke. But while Locke clinged to faith out of desperation, Eko did it more for atonement. Unfortunately, he is another character who was cut short upon making a true discovery about himself and died like the majority of the tail section survivors. I wasn't angry that he died as much as I was angry that his death is almost immediately forgotten by the rest of the characters. His true spiritual relationship with the survivors was intriguing, as were his interactions with The Monster. I think his main purpose in the show was to teach Locke not to turn his back on his faith. More incentive: Eko was known for cutting down his enemies with a machete; he carved himself a club, nicknamed "scripture stick", on which he carved insightful Bible passages; and he's not only the one person not to run away from The Monster, but he freaking stares it down. 'Cause Eko ain't afraid.

5. Jack Shephard

"I'm gonna fix you."

Jack is the first character we meet. His eyes open, he finds himself in some jungle, he is in shock, scared, injured, and confused all at once. Nevertheless, after about a minute of wondering where he is, he rushes to the scene of a plane crash, his plane. And he immediately charges into the fray as explosions, screams, and panic fills the air. He isn't concerned about himself or his wound, he only sees people in danger and he saves them. And amazingly the next scene where his wound is stitched up, he tells a past story that reveals that he is more than a collected, magnificent hero, he's an extremely vulnerable human being. And those two aspects intrigued me about Jack from the beginning. His tragic backstory was not as Shakespearian as Locke's or Ben's or as western as Kate's or Sawyer's, Jack's backstory is a bit more personal and real. Your drunk old man telling you not to be a hero because "you just don't have what it takes" when you're a stubborn kid might have some consequences. Jack's interactions with his father, his wife, and, yeah, even that weird tattoo artist he banged were all compelling and they really showed how this man's doubts and fears and anger constantly lead to his destruction (like most of the characters, I know). I guess it's poetic, a man so obsessed with fixing other people's situations is himself a broken man. His status on the Island did get tedious after about three or four seasons of denial about what was going on. Being a doctor who usually lives in a world of rationality (when it isn't about him personally, that is), Jack was originally a man of science. That's a good excuse, I understand, but there was just too much craziness happening in those few months he spent on the Island for him to keep insisting there wasn't anything strange going on. Yeah, so that became frustrating after awhile. I guess though, not every person can change too drastically in just a few months. Three years and one dead man of faith later, Jack didn't know who he was anymore and in this instance faith in the impossible was the only thing he had. In other words, he got more badass and everything he did became interesting. In fact, the man who once seemed to just be a cosmic rag doll started driving events and setting things in motion himself. Plus, his death was the only one that made me weep; then again, I think the whole last scene was perfectly designed to make you weep. Looking back, Jack's journey was really impressive and inspiring in its own way. The fact that he realized he had what takes all along was reason enough for him to be number five.

4. James Ford aka Sawyer aka Jim LaFluer

"I became the man I was hunting. Became Sawyer."

Every character was emotionally wounded in a profound way as a child, but I don't know if any of them got it as bad as Sawyer. Granted, I did find his backstory particularly badass because I love a good revenge story, but what makes it so good is because of how depressing it is. As a kid his parents are manipulated by a mysterious con artist named Mr. Sawyer, resulting in his father killing his mother and then himself (sitting on the bed little Sawyer is hiding under no less). This prompted him to write a letter promising revenge, but that path leads him to become just as good a confidence man as his nemesis, to the point where he takes on the name Sawyer too. His plight on the Island was very interesting. Mixing his abrasive southern demeanor with his brilliant cunning, he set out to get what he wanted more than redemption: punishment. And for the first half of the series that is the person he tried to be, feeling he should pay for the bad things he did. Thankfully though, the second half shows him embracing his opportunity to change things and be the hero he must have thought he was in the beginning. From a broader perspective, Sawyer is really just a very well done version of the bad boy character. One of the better ones I've seen, at least. He's also a genuine fan service machine (which I don't think anyone minded): he was funny, intriguing, badass, handsome (and very often shirtless), well acted, provided the majority of pop culture references, and was just a well rounded character with a fantastic arc. That's why he's on the list.

3. Sayid Jarrah

"What would be the use of killing you when we're both already dead."

Just because Locke takes home the prize for worst possible life ever doesn't mean the other characters' lives couldn't be routinely destroyed in the most powerful of ways. Next to Hurley, Sayid was an initial favorite character. The fact that he is one of the few survivors immediately trying to help and figure things earned him sympathy, as well as the racism and accusations that immediately befell him because he was Iraqi. Even cooler is the fact that he was a soldier (like I said, the survivors only certified badass), tech whiz, and natural leader. Plus the dark 'greater good' perspective that rested beneath his benevolence was evident early on and is built on very well. Sayid is a man who can never forgive himself for the people he tortured after the war. Ever. That's a compelling backstory right there. The fact that the Island events force that monster out of him is even saddening. Sayid is actually the best example of all of these characters who are constantly trying to be good and do the right thing but are constantly setback by the sins of their pasts. Also the fact that he already considered himself damned meant he was more willing to go to extremes for that greater good. But as much as Sayid tried to be a hero he still ended up believing he was pure evil, ruining many lives, losing everyone he ever loved, dying, being resurrected a hollow shell of himself, and then dying again. Hurley, probably his best friend, telling him he was a good guy in the after life despite of what Sayid himself thought was very touching. Was especially glad he got a happy ending. God knows he deserved it.

2. Benjamin Linus

"How many times do I have to tell you, John? I always have a plan."

Another character like Sawyer who you initially hate, than love to hate, than just love. Ben probably believed for a long time that he and his people were the good guys. It was hard for me to believe when he dedicated his time to abducting, harrassing, killing, and generally making life hell for a group of unfortunate innocents. Especially when he was only concerned with a few of them. But, as usual, as time went on, we started to see some different shades to the Island natives' sinister leader. For as grand and mysterious as he likes to appear, Ben is cut from much of the same cloth as the heroes. He was emotionally scarred as a child by an abusive father, lost his innocence when he killed his father and the island's DHARMA Initiative (which he was a member of in his youth), and became an intelligent manipulator, a trait that led to his becoming leader of The Others. It's especially painful that he was another character whose entire life may have been just another part of The Man in Black's scheme. He had the habit of mixing his sincere ambitions with more personal ones. Ben was even more dedicated to his personal destiny than his rival, Locke, to the point that he sacrificed his daughter when his power was threatened. An interesting aspect of season six was that Ben was no longer a powerful leader, he was just a follower, and as a follower he realized none of the real good guys respected or trusted him. I'm glad that didn't deter him from trying to redeem himself and fight for the right side at last. In the end, I liked Ben because he was freakishly smart and badass to boot, because he realized he was the bad guy and turned good, because Michael Emerson is an awesome actor, and because he made things interesting.

1. Desmond Hume

"God allegedly has bigger plans for me."

Odysseus. Billy Pilgrim. The badass Scotsman, Desmond Hume. All good men who are caught in the most unfortunate of destinies. Though, Desmond is pretty much a combination of the first two. Desmond is a true victim of love. His poor handling of good relationships usually results in him making life altering decisions that he hopes will make him a better person, but ended up leaving him more empty. Namely, participating in a race around the world, hoping to impress his beloved Penny's father, Charles Widmore, and instead gets caught in a storm while lost at sea. He awakens on the Island where he is...initiated into the DHARMA Initiative, and spends the next three years pressing the button in the Hatch. As fate would have it, one day Desmond isn't able to push the button on time, correcting the mistake just as things start to crazy. This, however, results in Oceanic 815 and all of the characters we know and love crashing on the Island. Though introduced as a half-crazed Omega Man in a hell of his own, he turns out to be a bit more once he integrates into the group. His longing to get back to the woman he loves is probably one of the show's most endearing and famous story lines; I think we were all relieved when Des and Penny finally did reunite. But as a survivor, his role is perhaps one of the more interesting. He becomes something of a leader figure along with Sawyer once he begins hunting and protecting the castaways. More significantly though, his attempt to save the world by self destructing the Hatch led to his very bewildering relationship with The Island's power. This includes allowing him to see Charlie's death in the future and trying to prevent it (which he could not), finding himself skipping back and forth between the present and 1996, and even crossing over into the afterlife for a brief second (or was it?) Desmond was a soldier and did time in military prison, so he is not one to screw with. Aside from his tragic love story and emotional vulnerability, I thought Desmond's real part in the whole show was as a variable in the lives of the survivors. He is responsible for crashing their plane, beginning the story, and he is responsible for bringing them together in the afterlife, ending the story. Just thought it was kind of beautiful that Desmond, a man most saw as a coward, who saw himself as living a life without purpose, in the end he got to be an essential part of so many lives, eventually even leading everyone to their own place of serenity. He was great because I felt for him and wanted him to win, because he was the coolest of the Island's super humans, because he introduced us to the Hatch, because he got back to Penny, and because he is just a likable guy. Truly one of my favorite characters.

So those are my favorite characters, but, again, I loved all of the characters, even most of the very minor ones. They are a testament to how good of a show Lost was.

This has been another top ten list from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.

Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy Review

2011-06-29T08:45:00.000-07:00

"His news is bigger than your news." - tagline

This review, like most of my reviews, will not do the movie any justice.

There are movies that come along that will be watched again and again and again. They will not get old. We can recite nearly every line from them. These movies are legendary for some generations. This movie is called Anchorman. It was one in a slew of Will Ferrell films in which Ferrell had some kind of new weird job. None of the others really held a candle to Anchorman, though. And that's why it's worth talking about. This movie is hilarious in all of the best, in your face and screaming ways.

This is one of those comedies that is stupid in very genius ways, like Napoleon Dynamite or Austin Powers: Goldmember. The world of Anchorman is very clearly fictional, and all of the characters nearing a cartoon level. But that's what's awesome about it.

Set in the mid 1980s or '70s or '60s, I don't know, something retro, Anchorman is the story of San Diego news anchor Ron Burgundy (Will Ferrell). Burgundy, despite being an obnoxious douchebag (or rather in spite of being an obnoxious douchebag), is on top of the world. He is seen as something of an icon in his city, because apparently a news anchor is the only thing people in this city care about. Everything changes once Veronica Corningstone (Christina Applegate) enters his world, secretly jonesing for an anchor job of her own. Ladies man Ron wants the professional Veronica bad, which could spell trouble for him down the road.

This is one where I really need to talk about the characters. First off, Will Ferrell uses his man child routine to great effect here. Ron Burgundy, while passing himself off as a suave, sophisticated badass, is really a childish, delusional, semi-retarded prima donna. To say Ferrell plays it to the bone is an understatement. It's actually kind of amazing. One minute Burgundy is living like a king and acting like one and the next he is a self loathing mass of nothing and acting like one. His news team consists of assholes as colorful as the A-Team. There's lifelong cool kid Brian Fantana (Paul Rudd), the sexually confused party animal Champ Kind (David Koechner), and, most importantly, the mentally retarded and somewhat homicidal meteorologist Brick Tamland (Steve Carell). I think all Anchorman fans would not mind a spinoff featuring all three of these news team idiots, especially Brick and his tridant. There are many other fun celebrity cameos that make the movie even more ridiculous and hilarious. So yeah, the cast is great. You gotta love when everyone plays such a stupid situation as if it were so dire.

The movie's humor meshes absurdity with dark comedy very well. It's the type of comedy that's funny because it's stupid in kind of a genius way. That doesn't make sense, but that's how I describe it. Describing the comedy behind the movie will only come off as artificial and not as good. You just gotta watch it.

What carries the movie more than anything are the cartoonishly ridiculous characters that inhabit it. Ron Burgundy himself is the juice though. The legend built around him in the film sort of bleeds over to the audience. Because by the end of it, he is a legendary character. Of course he's a pretty poor excuse for a human being. He's the freaking anchorman and it's made pretty clear in the movie that he has no idea what he's reading on the teleprompter, but he can read it well. Along with Will Ferrel's famed man child routine, Ron has plenty of other quirks. He is suave and confident but ignorantly insensitive, he claims to be well read but can't pronounce 'jogging', he is a smooth ladies man but is a totally obnoxious simpleton, and he has some sort of weird symbiotic attachment to his dog, Baxter.

The writing by Adam McKay and Ferrel is so stupefyingly goofy. With the performances elevating a script to a level of comic gold, Anchorman is a solid movie. From an all news man street fight to a struggle for life in the bear pit, the movie is comedic gold. Watch it.

This has been a classic review from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading. And your welcome, Pugsley.

Clique Clique Boom

2011-06-23T15:14:00.000-07:00

"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals. And you know it." - Agent K

As a high school student, I know a thing or two about cliques. I think the term is a bit broader than most people think these days. Fortunately this isn't a movie so members of the 'jock clique' don't harrass the 'nerd clique' with relentless sadism. The 'material girl' doesn't try to walk all over the 'plain girl.' If things like that do happen, it is not done as over the top as movies would portray us. We aren't archetypes, we are people and the way people feel about others is always different. Plus, a lot of regular people don't care enough about what another group is doing to try and go out of their way to do something to them.

I will say that certain cliques really do embody what it means to be a clique. Because cliques are essentially groups of like minded people who interact with each other more frequently than most classmates. Obviously, similar personalities means they are going to exert a certain tone and mood. It doesn't mean the people in those cliques will keep to themselves and look down upon everyone else. Unless someone's just a major asshole, most people will just judge individuals based on their personalities rather than the company they keep.

A clique is not necessarily a group of one single archetype. Sure there will be similar personalities, but if that's the case it's because people prefer like-minded friends. This isn't always the case either, so I'm not sure how to put it. What I do is try to find people who I am comfortable around. Who don't try to belittle me or piss me off. But you can be friends with anyone you want to be. Cliques don't matter, in my opinion.

This has been my thoughts from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.

Super 8 Review

2011-06-20T11:20:00.000-07:00

"Let's find this thing and blow the shit out of it!" - Cary

Super 8 might be the very definition of a summer blockbuster. It is the story of a group of kids, fresh into summer vacation, who begin their adventure by making a movie and then descend into a world of mystery as the hunt for a strange monster begins. It is a bit of a passion project from filmmaker J.J. Abrams, who has worked along side Steven Spielberg to create a homage to some of Spielberg's most classic movies, while also making a simply awesome film.

Taking place in the town of Lillian, Ohio in 1979, Super 8 follows 12 year-old Joe Lamb (Joel Courtney), a boy who is still mourning the loss of his mother who died horribly months prior. His relationship with his father, Sheriff's Deputy Jack Lamb (Kyle Chandler), is estranged, to say the least. As previously mentioned, the story kicks off while Joe is helping his best friend, Charles (Riley Griffiths), shoot a home made zombie movie. With a super 8 camera and a gang of friends in tow, Joe witnesses a destructive train crash while shooting a scene at night. Something breaks out of one of the train cars and disappears into the night. After an ominous warning from the man who caused the crash (Glynn Turman), the mysterious arrival of secretive military forces, and various reports of people, animals, and random objects disappearing all over, Joe and his friends realize things are not looking well for their simple little town.

And I won't spoil what it is that pops out of the train car, since some people haven't managed to put it together. I guess not everyone watched E.T. as a kid, because that's the feel I got from this movie. It has elements of other Spielberg classics as well, such as Close Encounters of the Third Kind and The Goonies, but E.T. was a bit of a composite of both of those films. I won't say the movie was totally original, because it was NOT totally original. It did feel like a J.J. Abrams movie, but with the remembrance and love of the Steven Spielberg movies a lot of us grew up with.

I will tell you only one thing about the 'something': apparently his name is Cooper.

Abrams is a good director. His films are well shot, well acted, and well written. He's one of those very talented filmmakers who can find a balance between a fun action movie and an emotional story with characters you can care about. There can be whimsy and tragedy within the depth of his work, so important elements are not disregarded too often. He's found a lot of praise because of his work in spearheading some of America's most popular shows like Alias, Lost, or Fringe in recent years. Super 8 is only his third movie, and so far it is probably his best.

The special effects are apparent but well done. Cooper is not the most impressive CGI creation I've seen, but he was still interesting to look at and makes some pretty ungodly sounds. The train crash sequence was brilliant, a sort neverending catastrophe that brought to mind the opening plane crash scene of Lost (an episode Abrams wrote and directed). Probably the best moment with the effects is the end sequence, which we've seen before in many other movies like this, but it was still cool and a little bit mesmerizing.

The music was by Michael Giacchino, whose beautiful and haunting compositions were one of Lost's trademarks for years. They also won him an Academy Award for his work on Up. Here he finds that tone again, the kinds that bring peace to the mind in calmer moments while creating a disorienting and horrific atmosphere in danger sequences.

I didn't live in the late '70s or early '80s so I'm not sure if they got everything right. Judging from my dad's reactions watching the movie, I'd say the film had plenty of the details of every day life back then accurate. An older character in the movie has a funny reaction to a teenager's walkman: (paraphrasing) "That's just what we need, everyone walking around with stereos." Oh the irony.

What I was most impressed with was the child actors in the movie. I mean, normally, I hate most movie kids. A lot of times they come off as annoying or awkwardly cutesy. These kids are good, and they're believable. Joel Courtney as Joe finds a lot of the charm of an innocent youth, trying to look for the good in the world and standing up for himself and others. Hope he gets more roles and increases his range. Probably the most impressive among them was Elle Fanning as Alice Dainard, a new addition to the film crew and object of Joe's affection. Fanning shows incredible acting ability in this film; if she was in older sister, Dakota's shadow before, she isn't now. Alice is the oldest among the kids. She has a troubled home life and finds comfort in a friendship with Joe. There is conflict in that relationship that is meant to be kept secret but is pretty clear from the get go. Equally impressive are Riley Griffiths as Charles, the ambitious ringleader and aspiring filmmaker. Charles reminded me of Ed Wood with his film zeal, maybe even Orson Welles. The other kids in this gang of unlikely heroes are the over anxious Martin (Gabriel Basso), sarcastic nerd Preston (Zach Mills), and hilarious pyromaniac Carey (Ryan Lee). All of them are awesome characters for this movie, and played better than I ever would have expected.

The adult actors bring it just as well, though they aren't as involved. Kyle Chandler, star of the series Friday Night Lights, is a bit of a standard movie dad. The kind that is too angry, who tries to remain stoic, who cares but doesn't know how to show it. Chandler is a good actor so he plays this role well. A man who makes do by not mentioning what should be mentioned and trying to connect with his son in all the wrong ways. A character like this must have a redemption, and whenever it happens in movies I'm almost never disappointed. Nor was I here. Ron Eldard's character of Louis, Alice's father, was a bit standard too, but played well equally. This man haunted by his demons, hard drinking being his only seeming salvation, letting anger he feels for himself lash out at other people. Both fathers could have had more development, but I felt for both still because of how well they were portrayed in just a few scenes. Noah Emmerich plays shady Col. Nelec, the military man seizing control of the town and hunting whatever got loose. Emmerich always looks like such a nice guy, but he very often plays corrupt or troubled characters. And he does it good. So acting, once again, I'm very cool with.

I highly recommend this movie. It is a very good time. Super 8 is not as original as much as it is refreshing. It has been awhile since I've been so taken with a movie. One of those movies where likable, relatable kids are at the center as the heroes, seeking out adventures under the noses of worried parents. A movie where revelations about the self and about life are found in the search for answers to mysterious, dangerous questions. Where family is shown true as a factor that can be as strong as it can be fragile. Where something different is more complex than what our fearful eyes would have us believe. A movie that feels kind of like an exciting, twisting roller coaster and also tugs at your heart. A damn good movie is what I call it.

This has been another review that comes a bit late from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.

X-Men: First Class Review

2011-06-20T10:03:00.000-07:00

Hank: "Are you sure we can't get you to shave your head?"
Charles: "Don't touch my hair."
Hank: "Right."

(SPOILERS, I guess; well, spoilers if you haven't seen the last four movies. You know what, no, shame on you for reading a review of the fifth movie when you haven't seen the last four.)

I loved the first three X-Men movies. Yes, even Last Stand. The Wolverine movie was meh. They are all movies dealing with being different, being repressed, and being yourself. They are also action packed adventures with a whole laundry list of super powered heroes and villains. X-Men was one of the first Marvel films to be released in the last decade and it gave a feeling of what was to come. That Marvel feeling where they take superhero stories and make them a bit more serious. Well, now we are on to X-Men: First Class, our second prequel to the first trilogy and I don't really know about it. I mean I like it but...I'm getting ahead of myself. Let me run down the basics first. First Class is the story of how the whole X-Men concept began, and also how two mutant leaders went from friends as Charles Xavier and Eric Lensherr to enemies as Professor X and Magneto.

A lot happens in this movie. A LOT. It takes place in the 1960s where mutants are just being discovered for the first time by the CIA. This happens when Agent Moira MacTaggert (Rose Byrne) finds out powerful mutant Sebastian Shaw (Kevin Bacon) is manipulating US and Soviet forces into conflict at around the time of the Cuban missle crisis. She seeks help from Charles Xavier (James McAvoy), a recently titled professor of genetic mutation. Xavier, as we know, is a young and powerful mutant himself who can read and control people's minds. He agrees to help the feds, and soon crosses paths with another mutant, Eric Lensherr (Michael Fassbender), who can control metal, of course. Lensherr is out for revenge against Shaw, who wronged him greatly as a child when Shaw was a Nazi scientist in WWII. Charles and Eric soon become friends and recruit other hidden young mutants into their team to stop Shaw and his Hellfire Club of evil mutants. This leads to a series of events that are meant to explain some of the things that happened in the previous films, of course.

Honestly though, there is not a lot of synchronicity between the prequels and the trilogy. Things happen in First Class, important and very mentionable things, that are never mentioned in the trilogy. It's like Sabretooh being Wolverine's brother in the prequel when they didn't even know each other in the first film. Still, the things that we did know about and are now shown were executed pretty well. The whole movie is well done. It's just not as good as I was hoping.

I did get what I was hoping for with the entire concept of prequels to this series: a film about Professor X and Magneto. They were probably my favorite characters in the first trilogy and I wanted to see how they got to the point where we first met them. And we got that. I won't do any comparisons between how James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender play the characters as opposed to the awesome Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen, because they are different people between films. Both younger actors convey the older men's fundamental personalities. But this is back in the day when Magneto was a bit more reasonable (a bit!) and the Professor was the life of the party. But how they become friends and enemies was the best part of this movie for me. It was just as fun seeing the dynamic being established as it was seeing it being resolved. McAvoy and Fassbender carry this film, they are both very good actors.

The other mutants I wasn't all too impressed with. They are fun I will give them that. New characters for the movies include Havor (Lucas Till), Cyclops' older brother, I guess, who can absorb energy and project it lethally. An Americanized Banshee (Caleb Landry Jones), whose vocals are ultrasonic. An Angel (Zoe Kravits; Lenny's daughter?) before Angel, who has insectoid wings and acidic saliva. And Darwin (Eli Gathegi, from Twilight fame), who can adapt; it's hard to explain, but it's cool. I liked most of these characters, except that there was no real introduction to their team status. They just sort of are friends who would die for each other in the span of one weekend it seemed.
I felt about the same for the Hellfire Club. I guess I got as much as I expected out of Emma Frost (played by an underwhelming but stimulating January Jones), because Frost has always been a devious little sexpot. So I wasn't disappointed entirely on that end. Riptide (Alex Gonzales) can create cyclones from his palms, and that is probably the stupidest ability I've seen so far; I mean that is Heroes caliber of stupid ability. Nightcrawler's long lost father it would seem, Azazel (Jason Flemyng) was probably the most badass. Not only can he teleport, but he uses a sword. Not only that, but he uses his tail to stab people. He's basically classic Nightcrawler, just evil. Kevin Bacon as Sebastian Shaw is in his badass vilain element, I must say. Shaw probably has the most destructive power I've seen since Phoenix from Last Stand: he can absorb literally anything he is attacked with and give it back with devastating results. Bacon also gets to do a lot of different languages in this movie, all of which he spoke very fluently. He also plays probably one of the best Nazis I've seen in years.
There are other familiar faces as well. Mystique (Jennifer Lawrence) is on the side of good this time as Charles' childhood best friend and initial team member. This was a fun element as well, seeing a very young and confused Mystique trying to decide between living with intolerance and fighting for peace alongside the Professor or accepting who she is and seeking dominance with the more ambitious and accepting Magneto. Jennifer Lawrence, fresh from the Ozarks and in all her beauty, is pretty good in this role. She brings depth to the sexy blue femme fatale we know. Also Hank McCoy (Nicholas Hoult) appears as a young scientist working with the CIA who also has ape-like feet and incredible agility. He tries to discover a cure for physical mutations while leaving the powers intact. Can you see where this is going? Hoult is good as a young and nerdy Beast, even though his role in some of the story's elements contradicts the first films, but nevermind.
You know that scene you always think would be cool to see where the heroes sit down and brainstorm on what their hero names will be? It's in this movie, and it was probably my least favorite moment.
What sells this movie for me, honestly, is one cameo in the middle. Anyone who is a fan of the X-Men movies will probably agree when it happens.

I can say much about the action or effects. There isn't much I thought stood out. Shaw and the Hellfire Club lay seige to a CIA compound, which leads to some pretty sweet destruction. The last battle is like a small war, and is well directed.

I don't dislike this movie, but I was just kind of floored with how unbelievably silly it was. I know, most superhero movies are silly, but this was almost like it was outright admitting it while also trying to be serious. The director is Matthew Vaughn (director of Layer Cake and Kick Ass), so I suppose he might have brought a bit of a sense of humor to it. It's set in the 60s, so it plays kind of like an early James Bond movie. There is a large amount of half naked women in the film, for no real reason. I mean I didn't mind, but it felt almost exploitive while not being complete exploitation. The first thing we see Rose Byrne do as Moira is strip down to go undercover, which sounds like an oxymoron, but oh well. It was Rose Byrne, though, so I was very grateful, instead. The politics, military and how the Cuban Missile Crisis comes into play was all a bit much. It was like a weird version of Dr. Strangelove. When you get Michael Ironside and James Remar as military commanders in just bit roles, you are trying to be funny. I seriously think Remar was playing the same guy from the beginning of Pineapple Express. But being it is Matthew Vaughn, this film can be hardcore and emotional as well as witty. There are some majorly messed up deaths and injuries in this movie, usually involving Magneto.

So yeah, First Class was uh... a little weird. It was fun, though, I enjoyed it despite of its glaring chronological flaws and in spite of its parody-like abandon. I got what I wanted and a bit more. I'm sure audiences who don't knit-pick the shit out of movies like I do will have a pretty good time. Probably an even better time then I did.

This has been an uncanny review from Your Modest Guru. And no one got that.

Thor Review

2011-06-09T22:53:00.000-07:00

"Whoever wields this hammer, if he be worthy, shall possess the power of Thor." - Odin

As interesting as all of the Norse mythology is, the comic book arc of Thor never stood out to me all that much when I was younger. Especially my first introduction to him: you see, I was bought a package of three videos that featured old cartoons from when my parents were kids. There was Spiderman (which I was largely into at that time), with the old animation and classic theme song. I dug that a lot. The other two cartoons were of Namor The Submariner and Thor, both of whom I was still very uninterested in after viewing. Spiderman was a teenager, not only that but an everyday teenager who suddenly takes on the role of superhero after he makes a tragic mistake. Even as a kid and with such a cheesy cartoon that resonated with me. The stories involving Thor and Namor weren't anything like that. Namor was a king and a bit of an antihero who didn't seem to get involved in heroic affairs unless it immediately affected his people. Thor was a God who only seemed to be hanging out on earth to either court a mortal girl, stop less friendly vacationing deities, or just to amuse himself. Not very relatable. After watching the new Marvel film, Thor, he is still not very relatable, but it was still a good movie and I like the way his character is portrayed here.

This is another in a long list of superheroes I was really convinced couldn't be done. I'm starting to see that in a world where Hollywood is a dominant entity and technology has gone into a realm of real life science fiction, anything is possible moviewise. I realize this because I was very taken with the trailers for Thor in which the character is actually shown to be an arrogant brute of a god, earth is thrown into the mix of a celestial family fued, and Anthony Hopkins plays Odin (I was 8 watching that old cartoon and I knew then it would be him). Natalie Portman is also in the film, so there's a lot more incentive right there. Kat Dennings, too. Even more shocking than my interest in a Thor film is the fact that it is one of the better superhero movies Marvel has spawned. It's in the same class as the first Spiderman and the Iron Man films.

Here's the story (and forgive me, I am not familiar with the comic source material, so I don't know if it is true to that or anything): A long time ago Odin (Anthony Hopkins) and his Asgardian army defeated the warring Frost Giants and pretty much made a deal that he wouldn't kill them all if they would remain in their ice world. That peace is kept until Odin's son and heir to the throne, Thor (Chris Hemsworth), responds to a mysterious threat from the Giants by laying siege on their homeworld. This reignites the war between the Giants and the Asgardians. For this, Odin banishes the ferocious Thor to earth so that he will learn humility. Meanwhile, Loki (Tom Hiddleston), the god of mischief and Thor's younger brother starts making his play for the throne whilst discovering some dark secrets about his father's past and his own. Thor meanwhile must deal with being mortal on earth and becoming involved in the research of a science team led by astrophysicist and resident beauty Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), as well as the subject of interest for recurring SHIELD Agent Coulson (Clark Gregg). While all of this epic family drama is going on upstairs with Loki and his agenda, the real fun of course is watching Thor's fish out of water story play out. He is a God from a world vastly beyond ours, so he is a little perturbed yet slightly amused at how simplistic the mortal world is. It becomes apparent though that with the threat of the Frost Giants, and Loki's dark plans for Asgard and his family, Thor had best work out whatever issues his father had meant for him to work out so that he can redeem himself and save the day.

The mythological aspect is what I really enjoyed about this movie. The special effects used for Asgard, and anything mystical really, were pretty damn cool. Asgard looks like a lush, luxurious, and majestic place that sort of acts like protector of the wellbeing of all dimensions and realms existing. Also the cavalier, Shakespearian quality of the characters there is rather refreshing as opposed to our long line of sad and tragic characters. With those previously mentioned qualities, when something bad happens to these characters it is worse because they are people who are used to being joyous and on top of the world or universe or whevever the hell Asgard is. Plus, I sort of enjoy how family exists even in the most divine mediums. The relationships between Thor, Loki, and Odin are all very well done. They are all gods, but they are still father and sons.

There is also the special effects aspect to the film, which I honestly thought would be terrible. But no, the special effects were pretty cool. I mean, sure, it's obviously CGI, but its a superhero movie; you kind of have to roll with it. Asgard is made to be a sprawling, majestic centerpiece of order in the universe and it looks it in the film. They aren't up in the clouds, but are more at an important pinpoint in the universe. They also guard an interdimensional bridge, that seems to be made of rushing rainbows (trust me, its cool). The world of the Frost Giants, which I am not even gonna try to spell, actually looked more organic, despite being a dark and lifeless place. I think that actually might have been a set too, glossed over with CGI. The Giants themselves looked freaky and intimidating in a way that wasn't really unbelievable. I mean, when there were gonna be Frost Giants, I basically thought we'd get some goofy Abominable Snowman rejects. But these guys are not to be trifled with. There is a sort of guardian of the Asgardians called The Destroyer that comes into play later, that is badass. The best effect for me has to be when Thor travels through the portal/rainbow bridge; it's like light speed for a god.

The acting was also good. Chris Hemsworth plays very well as the god of thunder, Thor. He shows you every reason why to like him, why not to like him, and why he's redeemed in your eyes. Thor here is a confident and charismatic God, but he's a flawed one too. Like the best of Marvel superheroes, Thor has to lose sometimes and grow up as a result. Hemsworth as Thor is also funny as hell; when The Avengers movie comes out I don't doubt that he and Iron Man will get along. An actor I am not familiar with, Tom Hiddleston, is very convincing and even powerful as Loki, even though I thought the god of mischief would be a little more mischievious. Hiddleston shows Loki not as the gleeful deity of chaos but more of a black sheep in his family who wants acceptance. Anthony Hopkins as Odin is freaking awesome. Why? Because he is Anthony Hopkins...as Odin! He's playing the two things we always knew he played best: a man with absolute power, and a dad. Natalie Portman ain't winning any oscars here, but she did well all the same as Jane Foster, because Portman is awesome. I felt Stellen Skarsgard and Kat Dennings were underused as Portman's entourage of scientists, astrological or political, but they were still fun because they are fun actors. Clark Gregg is cool as Coulson, as he was in the last two Iron Man movies. Jeremy Renner shows up for a second as Hawkeye, because we needed to segue him into The Avengers movie somehow. Rene Russo is in the movie as Odin's wife and Thor and Loki's mother, and she doesn't do much. It's sad because Rene Russo is a great actress who I haven't seen in anything in awhile. Idris Elba, even though he could probably be doing better things, is a badass as Heimdell, the keeper of the portal/rainbow bridge thing. I usually am not a fan of sidekicks or buddies that come into play for the hero, but this is an exception. Thor pals around with four other warriors from Asgard, and they work because they feel not only like his best friends, but like his family. They are all badasses too, in case you were wondering. So, I was thorougly impressed with the acting as well.

There is no real magic as to why Thor worked so well for me. Well, actually, this movie was directed by Kenneth Branagh, a literal Shakespearian actor, writer, and director. The kind of extreme drama presented in some Shakespeare is a bit reminiscent to the divine opera presented in this film. So yes, I think the movie worked so well because of Branagh's direction and the actors' performances. It just seems like a bit more effort was put into this one as opposed to superhero movies that rely more heavily on the effects. Effects and acting seemed to be on an even keel in Thor, and that's good. I think most people will enjoy it. It's dramatic, it's action packed, it's funny, it's a fun movie.

This has been a superhero review from Your Modest Guru. It's been awhile. Thanks for reading.

Winter's Bone Review

2011-06-01T17:02:00.000-07:00

"Never ask for what oughta be offered." - Ree Dolly

Winter's Bone is probably one of the best films in years. I am still on the fence on whether or not to put it in my top three films of 2010. It would be there with Inception and Black Swan, because, like those films, Winter's Bone is new type of film experience for me. It introduces a kind of place I live around...well, probably worse. My community and the ones neighboring it at least make a huge attempt to look respectable and clean, whereas the existing in this film seems to have merely resigned itself to squalor and darkness. It takes place in a bleak, ragged, small town in the Ozark mountains. Most people are in on the drug trade, meth production in particular. The film introduces a terrific actress who perfectly plays what I think is a true American hero.

The film takes place in this day and age, even if there is a lack of flash and glamour or really modern technology at all (the most technologically advanced thing I saw were the trucks the characters drove in and the guns they carried). It focuses on the impoverished Dolly Family, particularly the eldest daughter. Ree Dolly (Jennifer Lawrence) is 17 years old, apparently a high school drop out, and is taking care of her mentally gone mother and two child siblings. She is told that her missing father, Jessup, was arrested for cooking meth and jumped bail. More importantly, he put up his house as collateral for the bail money. Already a good macguffin, Ree has one week to find her father, dead or alive, and save the only home she or her family has. Jessup, however, went out for long periods before, but this time it is possible he might have been killed during one of his criminal excursions. This does not and cannot phase Ree, though, as she plunges fearlessly into the criminal underworld of her small but shady community. What ensues is a very dark and ominous journey.

This film feels real, and I think that's what it has going for it more than anything. Because the fact that it feels real is pretty disturbing. That strength lies in the harsh and ugly setting, the fascinating characters (which is all of them), and it's portrayal of both. There is almost never a sunny day in this film, as it is late winter. The scenes where Ree is walking down the road looks almost post apocalyptic; like a wasteland. The people inhabiting this wasteland do it justice I suppose. Like The Fighter, Winter's Bone does not have a particular villain. Everyone is a potential villain it seems like. Potential though reluctant. No matter what dangerous game they are a part of, all involved are still ordinary people who want to stay out of trouble as much as possible. This makes it complicated when a tenacious young girl goes willingly looking for it. Someone could get hurt. Maybe someone already has.

It was that mentality that struck me more than anything else. Ree does not have too much trouble hunting down leads, nor difficulty extracting info from them, because they either already know her or talk to her out of respect to her kin. But of course, whether they speak to her or not, no one is really willing to give her any of the gory details she's looking for. We get the feeling that everyone, involved deeply or not at all, is trying not to make any waves. This is apparent in characters such as Merab (Dale Dickie), one of three sisters who are related to and serve under local crime lord Thump Milton. Merab is at first cautious of young but fierce Ree, then she is frightfully warning her (as if for both of their safeties), then is outright threatening her. Yet there is always a sort of respect between them both, a respect Ree will will disregard to get what she wants. It's hard to describe this mentality. There is togetherness, very apparent community among many. But at the same time, all of these people feel like they are constantly on their toes. It's like they are cooly complacent whilst living in fear. It's one of those things that's better seen to be understood, if that makes any sense.

Another big strength is in that underlying mystery. As any of my readers will know, I am in love with mystery and the quest for understanding. This movie has an Apocalypse Now aspect where the hero(heroine) is looking for someone who may very well be six feet under. There's some suspense right there. The funny thing is, Ree doesn't care all too much about her father's well being, but is just fixated on saving the family she has with her at any cost. That kind of quality is what makes her character so damn fascinating. Just by looking at her living conditions (home or town), you can tell she has had a hard life. She's clearly made sacrifices; I mean, most of the seventeen year old girls I know would probably not be up to raising their family alone. One of the few moments she takes time to hang out with an old friend makes it seem like they haven't done it in ages, literally. She teaches her child siblings how to use guns, hunt for food, take care of the house, what kind of manners to have, as if she could die at any moment and they will be left alone. Not a bad idea. It's responsible and brave, but also tragic. It is put on her shoulders to deal with problems that far above her age range, but she does it because she is a survivor more than anything. With a fierce and undaunting resolve, deeply engraved sense of love and duty, and poignant acting ability from Lawrence, Ree Dolly is an awesome female hero. A badass, as a matter of fact. There is a moment where she is asked to decide her own fate and, after quickly sizing up her seemingly hopeless situation, she shrugs and bluntly answers with the only option that seems to be on the table: "kill me, I guess."

The other character in this story who contains a true hidden depth yet very apparent darkness is Ree's uncle, her father's brother, Teardrop (John Hawkes). Teardrop is in some way involved in this rural underworld, and is one of the first people to quickly refuse Ree any help. For the rest of the film (or at least until he can't resist his familial obligations), he exists as a threatening, dark presence that strikes fear into most of the town's population of scum bags and a certain respect is shown to him by the big cheese involved. He's also more evidence that dog-eat-dog fatalism runs in the Dolly family's blood. John Hawkes is an actor who has had small or supporting roles in many movies for the past 30 years. His intense, frightening, and ultimately poetic portrayal of Teardrop is a bit of a revelation, seeing as how I've usually seen him play kind of weasally lowlifes or eccentric motormouth types of characters (kinda like, Steve Buscemi, who is also capable of going deeper). Hawkes received an Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actor against Christian Bale (The Fighter, and winner) and Geoffery Rush (The King's Speech) if that tells you anything.

Other good characters include the enigmatic Merab, played very convincingly by Dale Dickie. The last thing I saw her in was Breaking Bad in which she was a very grimy and pathetic crackwhore, thief, and passive killer. She isn't easy on the eyes, but she owns her roles like a true actress. Sheryl Lee stars as a former flame of Ree's father, though you may not recognize her (as me and my David Lynch fan father did not). She exudes a lot of the same tired and world weariness the other townspeople give off, but her scene is good. Garrett Dillahunt (a character actor who played Tommy Lee Jones' deputy in No Country for Old Men) stars as the Sheriff of the town, who is not as law abiding or enforcing as he seems. He plays this role with a sort of menace mixed with insecurity.

Winter's Bone is a very subtle movie. It is not full of glossy special effects. It has no big real huge moments or messages taht beg for awards and good reviews. It is simply trying to convey an atmosphere, and a story and characters that fit right into it. That it does well. It wasn't well advertised, so I'm sure there a few reading who may have not heard of it. Nevertheless, it has impressed me along with a great many other movies to have come out in 2010. It is dark, bittersweet, interesting, and edgy beyond belief. It's a crime mystery as well as a compelling drama. It also has one of the best scenes involving a chainsaw since Smokin' Aces, maybe even Scarface (no, never mind, not that bad). Still, without giving too much away, it is pretty hardcore. It featured wonderfully shown characters, and performances by actors I had no idea had such power within them. The director is Debra Granik, who captures the film's setting, the characters, all of the little details with such an insightful eye. She also co-wrote the film with writer Anne Rossellini, and the writing is wonderful. The dialogue all feels real, it seemed like real people would talk to each other like this. One thing I had a little trouble with was a scene involving a military recruiter. I think most recruiters, especially these days, don't care about the well-being of the potential recruit; the recruiter in this film seemed a little too helpful in making sure the character second guesses themselves and think real hard about joining the military (possibly because his character was from around the same area). It was nice, but I don't think it would really go down that way. Maybe I'm too jaded. Anyways, this movie was awesome and see it if this review was convincing enough.

Sorry if I meandered, I was more interested in specific things about the movie rather than the overall structure. Tried to fit everything in, as always.

This has been a review from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.

The Fighter Review

2011-05-11T15:09:00.000-07:00

"BOO BOO, WHERE'D YOU PARK THE FUCKIN' CAR?" - Dickie Eklund, I think it's my favorite line in the movie.

Movies are so impressive these days that its hard for me to decide which ones I think will be up for awards. The Fighter immediately looked good to me from the trailers. It looked like a good part for Mark Wahlberg, and Christian Bale definitely seemed intriguing. I guess I just wasn't expecting it to be Oscar caliber. I've watched it now, and I can say that it was. Totally.

Like every proud American, I watched The Rocky movies quite a few times as a kid. Those were always great flicks, and I guess as a result I've always been endeared toward boxing movies. Now, I'm no sports fan, but I imagine if I were to watch a sport it would be boxing. That being said, The Fighter is as good as Rocky in terms of a boxing movie. Because it does what Rocky did, and Ali and Raging Bull: it was about the boxer, not his fights necessarily. And it did it well.

The film follows Micky Ward (Mark Wahlberg), a welterweight boxer from Lowell, Massachusetts. Micky has not had many big fights, has lost most of the ones he has had, and is considered a 'stepping stone' for better fighters by most people. He has a lot of reputation to back up being a fighter, seeing as how his brother, Dickie Ecklund (Christian Bale) was a former boxer who once knocked down 'Sugar Ray' Leonard in a televised fight; an event which the people of Lowell, and Mickey's family, remember highly and proudly. With those kind of expectations on his shoulders, Micky feels the heat and is considering giving up the sport. And why shouldn't he? His mother (Melissa Leo) is a controlling self proclaimed manager who probably sees Micky's fighting career as a way to jump start the burned out Dickie's comeback career. Dickie Ecklund has his own subplot in which his attempts to help his brother are sabotaged by his drug addiction and self destructive behavior. Micky's only silver lining seems to be Charlene (Amy Adams), a fiercely tough bartender and his new love interest who encourages him to break away from his family and set out on his boxing career himself. With this combination of underdog story and the amazing family drama at the center of it, The Fighter is solid.

I will get the behind the camera stuff out of the way quickly, as I really want to get into the story and characters. This film is directed by David O. Russell, a very cool director who has previously directed the awesome Three Kings, as well as I Heart Huckabees (both starring Wahlberg). This may be his best film yet, though I still love Three Kings. He creates an atmosphere here that is hard to deny. All of these people seem real, and their situations are never really implausible. The writing by Scott Silver, Paul Tamasy, and Eric Johnson is witty, endearing, and sharp. The camerawork during the fight scenes is really cool too. Also, I will say there aren't many fights in the movie, but when they are they too feel real. This movie has an '80s training montage that training montages from the '80s would envy and that is something. With that in mind, I will end off by saying this film has a badass soundtrack. Just badass.

Now the fun part.

2010 was like a freaking explosion of some of the best characters to grace cinema in awhile. And all of these characters had actors that could back them up and back them up well. Let's start off with our hero, Micky. Micky is an immediately relatable character, especially if you are a little brother (like I am). Every little brother gets the feeling sometimes that they aren't as good or as greatly appreciated as their older brother. Usually that is just feeling. In Micky's case, it is the truth. Though he is strong and kind, he is also repressed and downtrodden. He fights to spend time with a daughter in his ex's custody, loses just about every fight he is in, and his family prefers a crackhead over him; so yeah, he doesn't have a lot to be happy about. Mark Wahlberg, a good actor who does not ever get enough credit, plays this kind of role convincingly and sincerely. Either through quiet subtleties or angered venting, Wahlberg puts Micky's emotions on the sleeve.
Now for the big show, Christian Bale as Dickie. Bale is famous for being a method actor, a chameleon who can just kind of become a role physically and mentally. He does it again here. Dickie at first seemed like a total goofy, darkly comic relief character (like a buddy in an Adam Sandler movie); see line at the top. From right off, you can see why people like Dickie so much. He's a likable guy, funny, light hearted, tries to be respectful. And, hey, he did knock down Sugar Ray Leonard, which is more than anyone else from Lowell can say, I suppose. He is also sadly and morosely portrayed as a total drugged out screw up who coasts through life on charm and reputation. Even if he is a pretty pathetic junkie, he's not a bad person and he cares for his family. Bale also does that weird thing where he changes his body for the role. When we first see Dickie (because he is the first thing we see) he looks like some freak they found on the street: wild eyed, rotten teeth, balding, very animated and hyper, and with an almost unintelligable Massachusetts accent. Needless to say, Christian Bale had earned his oscar and is one of the greatest actors working right now.
The other powerhouse in this film is Melissa Leo as Alice Ward, the boys controlling mother. Leo is an actress who has been working for awhile in a lot of independent films or highly raved dramas (21 Grams, for example.) She has always been an effective and honest actress, but here is a really touching and exciting role. Alice is a bitch for the majority of the film. She is often domineering, untrusting, paranoid, and selfish. But no one is really a villain in this film. Alice isn't a bad person, it's just the way she's always been and clearly needs someone to tell her what's what. She's a mother who cares for her children, wants her family to be a team, but goes apeshit if she thinks someone's trying to mess with whatever idea she has about her family. Leo is awesome in this, and yes, her oscar was also well earned. I also think I might be one of the few people in the world who liked her oscar speech; it was kind of cute.
Amy Adams was also surprising in the role of Charlene. This is because Charlene is a foul mouthed badass of a woman who knows what she wants, sees what others want, and tries to help them but knows when to help herself. Adams usually plays sweet, wholesome, almost mousy characters. So this was very fun. She's still Amy Adams, and being that she is, she was terrific in this role. If there was ever a great woman behind a great man in movies, it's Charlene.
Other cast members I enjoyed included veteran actor Jack McGee as Micky and Dickie's father, who is probably the most stable person in this movie. Mickey O'Keefe, a Lowell policeman and Micky Ward's real life trainer, acts really well as himself in this movie, a caring figure who is insulted constantly throughout the film. 'Sugar Ray' Leonard also has a brief scene as himself in the film.
So yes, characters are ace.

The heart of this film comes from the brothers. The end credits show real footage of Micky and Dickie, and it was surprising how accurate they were portrayed in the film. Real Micky Ward has a thicker accent and isn't as soft spoken, but then again anyone can be considered soft spoken next to Dickie. The struggles these two go through, their relationship and whatever family history is behind it is what I was most interested in. How they would resolve such delicate issues was some inspiring shit.

This whole freaking movie is inspiring. It shows people at their worst and how they rise up from that. That's some American Dream storytelling for you, people. Plus, it's been awhile since we've had a good boxing movie. I mean there was Cinderella Man a few years back (which I need to see), and the first part of Black Dahlia (which you should not see; or do, because it's almost so stupid it's funny). So I'm saying this is it. A great boxing movie, a great movie in general. Now all we have to do is wait for Warrior, the UFC knockoff to come out and bury this film in a sea of hardcore assholes. I'm kidding, of course, UFC is cool too. But that movie looks lame.

This is that review I told you I'd write months ago right here on Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.

Black Swan Review

2011-05-01T09:33:00.000-07:00

"The truth is when I look at you all I see is the white swan. Yes, you are beautiful, fearful, and fragile. Ideal casting. But the black swan? It's a hard fucking job to dance with both." - Thomas Leroy

(POSSIBLE SPOILERS; seriously I can never really tell what counts as a spoiler anymore)

Here's an Oscar movie I was really, really looking forward to. Black Swan is a psychological thriller for the books. It showed me that movies can still break new grounds and show you things you haven't quite seen before, along with a bunch of other movies in 2010. The movie features an outstanding, career making peformance of an already amazing actress, the ever growing power of a young talented actress, the intricate nature of the screenwriters, and the sheer brilliance of one of the most interesting American directors.

Black Swan is the story of Nina Sayers (Natalie Portman), a ballet dancer whose discipline and skill is almost completely unmatched. She performs in a company, whose most recent production is that of the famous Swan Lake. Nina's biggest ambition in the movie is to earn the role of Swan Queen, in which she must perform an elegant and serene dance as The White Swan personality of the Queen as well as The Black Swan, whose dance is exotic and invigorating. The company director Thomas Leroy (Vincent Cassell) knows Nina is perfect for the White, but is aware she doesn't have enough passion to be the Black. This brings conflict as Nina tries to find a tone in herself to dance as the black swan, while fellow dancer Lily (Mila Kunis) is perfect the role. In her relationships with the exciting and friendly Lily, the seductive and inspiring Thomas, and Nina's own obsessive but worrisome mother (Barbara Hershey), Nina begins to change. She begins to uncover the layers of her personality. She starts to gradually veer from her innocent nature to a darker one; to transform herself from the White Swan to the Black Swan. And I don't use the word "transform" figuratively either. But while this change could be exactly what Nina needs to be perfect, it could also mean her undoing.

The movie is art, in my opinion. Cinema at its finest. It has untraditional and exciting action, wonderful and powerful performances, and technical precision that is just amazing. I've never seen any ballet in my life, and I've seen even fewer movies about it. But Black Swan not only makes ballet look incredible and beautiful, it makes it look freaking brutal. Most men may write off ballet as something, I don't know, "girly." Those men should watch this movie. The dancing these people have to train for makes some sports athletes I've seen look like pussies. It's a lot of keeping your body conditioned, repetitive practice, careful timing, and elegance if anything. It also appears to be very competitive. Maybe they aren't racing a ball down a court or bludgeoning body against body on a field but what they do is very difficult. So difficult that I imagine it was a bitch for Portman and Kunis to prepare for their roles. At times I'm sure they used doubles, but for the most part it is pretty clear that no one else but them could be dancing. I'm all about getting cultured, maybe I should try to see one of these productions. You never know.

Director Darren Aronofsky is one of the most brilliant directors around. He chooses projects he gives a damn about, and cares even more about making them perfect. They flow together almost as well as the ballet in this picture. Movies like Pi and The Fountain are haunting films that make you question reality, while films like The Wrestler and Requiem for a Dream (which I honestly have not seen all of; I know, it's his most popular but still...) are films that show human beings down on their luck in ways we can't even imagine. Black Swan has all of those qualities, and then some. Aronofsky's filming during the dancing is jaw dropping, making it so that it moves effortlessly, rhythmically with Natalie Portman as if the camera was being guided by her every move. The writers Mark Heyman, Andres Heins, and John McLaughlin are also invaluable as they weave together a plot that twists and turns, makes you second guess yourself again and again as to what you are seeing. In that sense, they make Nina a filter for the audience; neither of you knows exactly what's going on. Though the special effects in the film are at times a little over the top, the dark mood of the film makes it mesh well and you don't really mind. Plus, there's not a lot of the special effects so don't worry. And how could I forget the always awesome Clint Mansell's score for the film, which is just as haunting and effective as his other music compositions.

Now on for the really fun part. The acting department was ace in this film, of course. I will start off by saying that Natalie Portman has been doing nothing but leaving her mark in cinema history lately. I'm sure a few decades from now, she will be regarded as one of the greatest actresses of all time. I'd make that claim already after watching this movie. Like Firth did for The King's Speech, Portman embodies her role to the point where you're sure no one else could play it. Though you feel for Nina for a lot of the movie, as I expected, you also dislike her a lot. I did at least. She is obsessive and vicious at times, believing any misstep to not only be someone else's fault but an action against her. What I was most intrigued with was her personality, as any gentleman would be. But seriously, Nina's mind is the most intense thing in this movie. It is clear as day that she is still a child. She lives with her mother, sleeps in a little girl's pink princess room, she is deeply hurt easily, I could keep going. Somehow, Portman portrays this unique trait so convincingly that it is shocking when she begins seeking out her darker or perhaps more mature self. You wonder what will happen to her when she reaches that point, if she reaches that point. The point is, Portman deserved that Oscar and I don't care what anybody thinks. But if Portman has left behind her days as Padme from Star Wars (it's actually kinda funny looking back now), Mila Kunis has left behind her days as Jackie from That '70s Show (also funny). Kunis conveys a lot of mystery and even more power in her role as Lily. She presents herself as a chipper, welcoming confidante who may just be a bit too reckless for Nina, but of course not everything is as it seems. With the roles she's been getting lately and how she's played them, Kunis is an actress I am really hoping to see more and in more movies like this. Besides, how can you not love Jackie? Vincent Cassell is an actor I enjoy seeing. He's always effective and convincing. I say this because I usually see him play cold blooded assholes (Ocean's 12, Derailed). I thought that might be what he was gonna play in this movie. It's pretty clear that Thomas cares about his play and his dancers, but is determined to get such a legendary production right, understandably. He has a tendacy to prefer some dancers over others, and an even bigger tendacy to sleep with them. His interactions with Natalie Portman were actually some of my favorite moments in the film. He knows her personality just by how she dances and encourages her to break free of herself (in hindsight, maybe not the best advice, but how could he know). The funny thing is that even when there are hot and heavy moments between them, they still appear to have a student-teacher relationship and I liked that. Barbara Hershey is Nina's mother, who I was sure would be domineering and Joan Crawford-esque. Well, actually, she might be. I saw her as very worried for her daughter, but maybe you will see something else. She was good regardless. A very bizarre performance is turned in by Winona Ryder (that's right) as Thomas' former star dancer and lover. She is a forgotten, tragic figure who was once great. This performance, with one scene in particular, might have been the creepiest. So if you can't tell I'm in love with this cast.

For those with the faint of heart, this movie is unbelievably dark and moody. But hey, I enjoy dark and moody. I AM DARK AND MOODY! Sorry about that. But for real, this is a visceral experience for the new generation. You'll know what I mean. Now it's not to say there aren't other things to be said about this movie. It does have it's moments of true beauty. The actual dancing, especially the last, is jaw dropping and just plain gold (take some fucking notes, Sucker Punch). The kind that makes you go "wow." Oh yeah, the infamous-even-before-release Natalie Portman/Mila Kunis sex scene was, well it was...eerie. Sure, it's sexy but at the same time it is very ominous. In fact, sexuality in general is one of the more ominous and even alien things going on with Nina throughout the movie. Her moments with Leroy felt almost pedophilic given the way Portman portrayed the character (not saying that's bad, just interesting). The movie also steals Fast Times at Ridgemont High's crown of most embarrassing masturbation moment. So kudos to you, Black Swan, kudos to you.

Aronofsky apparently meant this to be a companion piece to his last film, The Wrestler. I can see that. Both films have to do with masters of their medium in the biggest moments of their lives. Two people giving it their all for their passion at the expense of their body, their minds, their friends, maybe even their lives. But where The Wrestler was about Mickey Rourke searching helplessly for redemption, Black Swan is about Natalie Portman searching painstakingly for darkness. Aside from the dancing, there isn't a whole lot to Nina's situation. Nina is the one who sensationalizes everything, which in turn makes the movie sensational. Her perspective on things morphs from a simple company's rendition of a classic to that of a massive conspiracy to destroy her. In her mind, (possibly in reality too) it's not her style that must change but the way she views herself. But how must the Black Swan role appear to a girl as virginal and controlled as Nina: probably not just something sexy, but maybe violent, reckless, animalistic. Or maybe something a bit more haunting is happening. Maybe everything she sees is what is happening. But that would be crazy, wouldn't it?

Five out of five swans. This has been a quickly written review from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.

The King's Speech Review

2011-04-14T19:37:00.000-07:00

"I BLOODY WELL STAMMER!" - Prince Albert

Speech impediments are extremely frustrating. For a long time I couldn't pronounce my "g"s and still have a little trouble with "s"s. The King's Speech focuses on England's Royal family and the ancension of a son to his father's place as voice and face of a nation, during a time when we were on the brink of our second World War. All of this is happening, yet this film, which walked away with the major awards at the 2010 Academy Awards, focuses not on Albert's reign and how he finds an enemy in Adolf Hitler, but on his crippling and embarrassing stammer that threatened his family's image, and perhaps even the country's image. The film works through precise directing, intelligent writing, a superb cast, and a lead performance that brings it forth into greatness.

The film is set in a time when speech impediments were seen as physically curable. Perhaps some were, but the physicians of this time failed to see the problem stemmed from something deep rooted into a person's psyche. Such is the case of Albert, the man who would come to be called King George VI. When the frankly retarded methods of Royal doctors prove ineffective, Albert's wife, Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter), goes around her husband's back to find one who is effective. She finds Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush), an Australian family man, Shakespearian actor, and full time speech therapist. Lionel is the more therapuetic one, who tries to find and overcome that deep root. His relationship with Albert is at first rocky, as Albert is very sensitive to criticism and humiliation. Lionel, however, encourages the prince to keep at it as they slowly make progress. At the same time, it seems with an ailing father (Michael Gambon) and irresponsible brother (Guy Pearce), the throne will soon be going to Albert. Having already failed numerous times when speaking publically, Albert and Lionel must work together and persevere if he is to bring any hope to his nation.

The movie is pretty clearly genius. It is masterfully directed, extraordinarily acted, with great dialogue and characters, as well as production designs that are very cool. Watching the 2010 Oscars, I was a little skeptical of Tom Hooper receiving the award for Best Directing (it was out of guys like Danny Boyle and David Fincher, and for some reason not Christopher Nolan). After watching the movie, however, I don't think they made the wrong choice. When he is not displaying the amazing set pieces and locations, his direction of the actors, especially Firth and Rush, is remarkable. My favorite moments involved the unique camera angles he shot to symbolize Albert's struggles. It's kind of weird but there is a training montage scene in this that was, even though it was about speech therapy, on par with those montages you see in sports movies like Rocky. David Siedler's writing creates a compelling story with even more compelling characters. It is very nuanced and perceptive, which I suppose it would have to be with a psychological story like this. Music, editing, and cinematography are also worked to perfection.

Now for the cast, and The King's Speech has a great cast. I seem to be very drawn toward British ensembles (watch Gosford Park). I will start right off saying that if anyone has ever earned a Best Actor Oscar it is Colin Firth. I was, again, a little skeptical about all of the awards the film received before seeing it, but after seeing it I knew they were well deserved. Firth manages to do something fascinating here. He performs a role involving a horrible speech impediment, and convinces us 100% that he actually has it. It isn't just public speaking either, it's all the time. There are moments when he's stammering and you just are wincing because it seems so humiliating and sad. We have all mumbled, we have all gotten tongue tied, we've screwed up our speech in some way before, but what Prince Albert had was literally something off in his subconscious. Being a great actor, Firth doesn't let his mastered stammer carry the film or his role, because Albert is more complex than that. He feels shame, bitterness, embarrassment, all leading to wounded pride. All he really wants is to be better, is to overcome his issues not so much for family and country (though both are crucial to him), but really to help himself. Colin Firth conveys all of this, so bravo. But where we had a perfectly convincing portrayal of a man whose speech was broken, we needed a perfectly convincing portrayal of a man who specializes in fixing speech. Geoffrey Rush reestablishes himself as a powerful actor, because, let's face it, most of us younger viewers first knew him as Captain Barbossa. Rush gives a superlative yet very entertaining performance as Lionel. He is great at showing someone who is very passionate about one thing (Shakespearian acting) despite being infinitely more talented at something else (speech therapy). Rush portrays Lionel as everything he needs to be and more: Intelligent, understanding, even loving but regretful and unaccomplished. Helena Bonham Carter was, well, Helena Bonham Carter. I'm kidding, but she does do what she does well and that's not really a bad thing. She portrays Princess and later Queen Elizabeth as a clever, articulate, and compassionate woman of action who loves her man and tries to help and support him to the best of her ability, even when he wishes she'd leave him be. In playing this, Carter is very good. Besides, I don't think I've ever disliked her in a movie, so she already has a plus. Starring as Prince Albert's father and brother, Michael Gambon and Guy Pearce perform very well as very douchy guys (surprise, surprise). When he's not a gay head wizard, Gambon often plays cold men. In his few scenes here, we get an idea of what Albert's life of Royalty has been like. Pearce doesn't play the brother as stupid but just afraid. He falls back on being the dick older brother when frustrated at his own situation. Other cast members such as Jennifer Ehle as Donal Logue's wife, Derek Jacobi as Cosmo Gordon Lang (The Archbishop of Canterbury), and Timothy Spall as Winston Churchill. I must say, out of all of the performances, Spall as Churchill may have been the one I enjoyed the most. So yes, as you can imagine, they brought it in the acting department.

Overall, The King's Speech is very much an Oscar Film. By that I mean that it was pretty clear that this was the kind of movie that would immediately make those leading Academy members and movie loving celebrities all hot around the award season. Having great reviews also helps. But an Oscar Film is such because it is spectacular. The King's Speech is such a movie. It's a unique and very thoughtful idea brought to the big screen, or small screens now, I guess. I enjoyed every second of it and knew walking out why it had gained such praise. It earned what it got, that cannot be denied.

Five out of five Royal Weddings. This has been a long awaited (I'm sure (:) review from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.

Sucker Punch Review

2011-04-06T21:34:00.000-07:00

"For those who fight for it, life has a flavor the sheltered will never know." - The Wiseman

The promos for Sucker Punch made me think two things, "it would be the ultimate adolescent nerd boy fan fiction on the silver screen" and "it looks totally ridiculous." I really don't know what people were expecting. It was clearly promoted as big dumb fun. Did you notice that Zach Snyder's descriptions of the film before release were utterly vague and confusing, most of the trailers gave not the slightest inkling as to what the story was but plenty of TA&A. It's a prime example of modern day over hyping of films, which happens on a very broad level. If you watched the theatrical trailer for Sucker Punch and expected anything more than a sub-par plot layered under a face fucking of CGI and fine figures, you watched the wrong trailer.

Well, first thing's first. I will give the premise, so bare with me. Sucker Punch's story is told through the fractured point of view of Baby Doll (Emily Browning), a young woman who is set up by her malicious step father and imprisoned inside of a shady mental institution. As she waits for a lobotomy, Baby Doll retreats into 'Inception-esque levels' where she will work through her traumas to save herself and fellow tormented patients. Okay, so she mainly sees her mental institution setting as an even shadier gentleman's club, where her and the other patients are dancers forbidden to leave. The level below this one is what we came for, a series of nonsensical scenarios meant to symbolize the far less exciting mechanics of her gentleman's club level escape. And it's around this time, I stopped waiting for something more and just let every last firework fly high and fizzle out until it was over.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think this is an absolutely horrible movie. It had a lot of potential, but Snyder didn't have a clear idea about what he was doing. I would complain a little about the rather lack-luster special effects, but to be honest Snyder's CGI is always pretty lack luster. But being an apparant expert on that kind of thing, he is able to use it very well even if it isn't that good. The same can't be said of his script (which he co-wrote). Fundamentally, the story has its heart in the right place, but it is very, very, very, very poorly executed. I will end mine and everyone else's excessive bitching about the story only existing as a weak linking of all of the action scenes. The dialogue was pretty universally cheesy or flat. The movie attempts again and again to try to make itself character driven, but it doesn't quite pan out when, for the most part, the characters are just barely above cardboard and we are unable to compel any emotion toward them. I suppose when a movie goes balls out with insanity for 70%, the other 30% that attempts to be serious just feels kind of awkward. As for the levels of consciousness, the order of importance seemed disorganized. We cut away from the very gothic mental institution like five seconds after we get there and are introduced to the very bland misogyny club section. I wouldn't be surprised if Snyder chose to include the club section more solely because the set was more colorful. The single transition from the institution to the club was very abrupt almost like it was a next scene and not a transition, but all transitions from the club to the Snyderverse occur when the Baby Doll character prepares to perform an intoxicatingly magnificent dance that brings all, even the villain, to tears. An intoxicatingly magnificent dance that we never see; I assume Snyder wanted to include something in his director's cut. What he really fails on is this female empowerment theme that is constantly addressed while being contradicted at the same time by poor examples of empowered women (whose wardrobe screams jail bait). I will try to cease from describing what I think the director should have done now.

Now for the acting. This is a rare occasion where I have little to rave about. Like I said, whether or not the cast was extremely talented or not, the characters were weak and the story they were placed gave them very little to do other than shoot digitally polished cartoons and look sad. Emily Browning, an actress who hopefully will be getting bigger and better roles, plays the messianic Baby Doll character in a sort of lovely way, but, again, she mostly just looks at the camera with a bit of a pout. Thanks to Hollywood magic, Browning does manage to come off as a very appealing image for the modern action heroine. Abbie Cornish no doubt brings the most acting chops out of the female leads; though the situations were almost hilarious, she still managed to convey emotion. Jena Malone plays the fierce yet innocent girl of the group, to which she is portrayed as sweet yet damaged. Malone has played this kind of role many a time, and has done it much better. Vanessa Hudgens, who is looking better and better to me as time goes by, seemed to be doing well acting-wise and even had me feeling for her at the end of her arc. She was however little more than an additional teammate. Jamie Chung was pretty, but the attempts to give her character an arc were pretty empty so she ended up being additional teammate 2. Carla Gugino does not appear with her usual charisma here because I had no idea what to make of her character. Oscar Isaac plays the main villain, Blue, a head orderly in asylum level and a ruthless gangster in club level. Isaac's performance is one of the movie's highlights. He is so unapologetically, seriously over the top that he should smoke a filtered cigarette and twirl his moustache. Scott Glenn comes out of nowhere as the Obi Wan Kenobi of the girl's action adventure scenarios; I enjoyed this thoroughly. Even more out of nowhere is Jon Hamm, who I think got lost on his way to the set of Mad Men and just decided to be this movie's looming threat.

The action scenes, I will say, are fun as hell. I knew they would be. It's pretty much why we all went to this thing. As he is prone to do, Zach Snyder gets lost in his own little world of nonstop slow motion, epileptic rushes of color and motion, and plenty of Michael Bay degree explosions. Still the settings were cool, the effects cartoonish yet exciting, and the action was pretty damn awesome. The shogun scene was really cool. The Nazi Zombies scenario was especially interesting to watch, with a lot of fast paced martial arts and gun fu. The dragon and train scenarios, however? There's excessive, then there's EXCESSIVE, then there's Sucker Punch's action scenes. Still, if you just turn your brain off and watch a bunch of shit get rocked than you won't be entirely disappointed. Where he fails at storytelling, Snyder succeeds in atmosphere. With the use of a unique soundtrack and very crystal clear visuals, he creates a dark and rebellious mood. Emily Browning's vocals and Snyder's visual style in the opening sequences are haunting. New versions of songs such as Pixies "Where is My Mind" and Bjork's "Army of Me" are employed carefully well. This combination, though particularly amazing, makes the movie seem more like a music video, however.

Will you like Sucker Punch? It's hard to say. I will say don't expect too much from it. Well, a better answer is don't expect more than what you see from the trailers. Overall I saw the film as admittance from the director that he is a one trick pony, especially if this is supposed to be his passion project. It's the same magician doing the same tricks with a few tweaks instead of a new act. There is very little real passion within this movie. It is merely an engine for a series of blood pumping video game cut scenes and vivid soundtrack bits. Good editing, action, and visuals cannot save a movie, though. Sucker Punch was no 'experience' like, say, Inception or Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, which I would never compare it to. My mind was fully prepared and not at all blown away. It is a meh movie. Just "meh." I'm sure if you are tripping or drunk it will be far greater than it actually is, but I was neither so...

Two and a half out of five dragon eggs. This is a pretty underwhelmed review from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.

Limitless Review

2011-04-02T09:52:00.000-07:00

"What would you do?" - Eddie Morra

Limitless presents a very unique idea. A drug that can alter you into a perfect person. A pill that drastically enhances your recall and consumption of knowledge, as well as your focus and motivation. You are intelligent, suave, and tactical on an almost superhuman level. How would you use such power?

Eddie Morra is first seen standing atop the balcony of his fortress apartment, preparing to jump as armed men try to break in. We see a few months earlier that he was a struggling writer, but more easily recognizable as a loser. While lamenting his writer's block and recent break up, he meets his former brother in law from a past marriage who offers him a drug that he claims will soon be on the market. He takes it, because when your life is shit you might as well get high, right? After experiencing the overwhelmingly positive effects, Eddie manages to get well stocked on the drug and soon goes about taking the world by storm. Soon Eddie is writing brilliantly and quickly, he tidies up, gets cultured, starts befriending the right people, masters mathematics and soon the stock market. With the drug, he knows all the right things to say, every angle to play, and can think his way through any situation. Of course, when your on top in a thriller you are sure to run into trouble. Eddie runs into a lot of trouble. He is stalked by a mysterious man, a ruthless Russian loan shark soon wants more than Eddie's money, and his new and powerful business partner (Robert DeNiro) in the brokerage firm is doubling as a formidable rival. Worst of all, the repeated use of the pills has fatal side effects that may be the end of Eddie. The movie soon becomes a man's fight to survive.

Limitless is a gloriously entertaining movie. With Neil Burger's unique directing style, Leslie Dixon's well crafted screenplay, and a top notch performance by Bradley Cooper, it rarely misses. Sure it could have gone further into the deeper possibilities of the drug, but it works just as well as a thriller in my opinion. The idea of science used to benefit the human mind is not as new an idea as people excited about the movie think; I was repeatedly reminded of that story Flowers for Algernon when watching it. It's like that story meets The Game. I love when a story starts off fairly simple and then, little by little, descends into the extraordinary territory. I knew I was in for a bit of a ride, but this movie does some hardcore things I wasn't expecting. One in particular near the end involving the main character's desperate need for the drug.

The drug (called NZT-48) itself is a character in the movie, the most pivotal in fact. Once the trailer went viral, a thing with commenting users was discussing whether or not they would take the drug and if they did what they would do. The drug has its downsides, that is very apparent in the movie, but then again it REALLY does open you up to limitless possibilties. Early on Eddie wonders if it was made for the anal retentive. In that case, I definitely would take it. The drug is a subtle, fascinating, and simple science fiction element. The drug doesn't really "access all of your brain" as it is said in the movie (because I guess we have access to all of our brain all the time but at different instances). The drug more accurately allows a person to perfectly recall all past memories and integrate them into your bank of knowledge, as well as increase your comprehension and consumption of new knowledge. By the end of the movie, NZT is looking pretty freaking good to the audience.

Acting time. First off, Bradley Cooper, who I liked as an actor before, nails his lead performance here and proves that he is a very talented actor who deserves the roles he's getting. He pulls off playing Eddie Morra as a procrastinating step above a bum (kinda like me), as well as the ultra smooth and sophisticated NZT version of himself (kinda like the guy everybody wants to be). Along with the drug, he sells this movie and firmly establishes himself as a leading actor. Abbie Cornish stars as Eddie's loyal and caring ex-girlfriend. Cornish is naturally good in movies it seems; as you recall, she was the only actress I really thought gave it her all in Sucker Punch. Robert DeNiro's roll is small in the movie, but he's Robert freaking DeNiro and we love seeing him in movies. I disagree with critics I admire who claim DeNiro is sleep walking through this movie, because I really enjoyed his character here. Those who are familiar with DeNiro's filmography will find it amusing when the articulate and cold-calculating Robert DeNiro we have known for decades starts looking poorly matched against the bi-winning Bradley Cooper. Andrew Howard as the loan shark Gennady was a very snake-like villain, one who goes through an intriguing evolution as the film progresses. He is always a gleefully vicious bastard. Anna Friel performs well in the small role of Eddie's tragic ex-wife, as does Johnny Whitworth as the smooth talking brother in law who introduces him to the drug. So, all around, no one is winning an academy award bu the acting was enjoyable.

I definitely urge all to see Limitless. It is just a cool as hell movie. And its smart. That was refreshing after Sucker Punch. It has suspense, drama, action, smart dialogue, cool characters, and the one drug they didn't include in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. I'm definitely gonna see it again. It might be one of those fun movies that I'll have to come back to often every now and then. I like to think that I don't steer you guys wrong. So go see it.

Five out of five NZT tablets. This has been a fun movie review from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.

The Wire Series Review

2011-03-07T15:25:00.000-08:00

"If the Gods are fucking you, you find a way to fuck them back. It's Baltimore, gentlemen. The Gods will not save you." - Commissioner Ervin Burrell

(POSSIBLE SPOILERS)

As with any medium you familiarize yourself with, you are gonna hear about the specific fancies within that medium. The stuff that people go crazy over. Now, I didn't have to be the TV series addict that I am now to know what the hottest new shows were. TV series' are advertised heavily on their given networks; they develop freakishly large or reasonably modest fandoms; they are talked about in magazines, by people, on the entertainment news programs. Such examples would be modern television addictions like Glee, Modern Family, and Big Bang Theory. Ones that are addictive for the more intellectual and substance craving viewers would be ones like The West Wing, The Shield, or the topic of today's review, The Wire. I tend to watch shows that fall sort of in between. I like shows with a great deal of substance, craft, and talent; they are the ones that make me think, while also having a good percent be of the quality of silly fun entertainment: Breaking Bad, Supernatural, True Blood, Dexter, and the late Lost. All shows that are essentially just very well told good stories.

The Wire is on it's own plane of intelligence, honesty, and storytelling. I realized a lot of people had nothing but good things to say about this show. I Wikipedia'd it, as I often do most things, and found that the show was apparently one of the more groundbreaking series to be introduced during the early 2000s. A few things really drew me toward it in the beginning, however. One happened during the final days of Lost, my main source of in depth reviews was Entertainment Weekly's Lost page. While there I found a listing they were doing that year of, like, 25 of the best badasses in movies or TV. They had a few of my favorites on their of course (Tyler Durden, Dexter Morgan, and John Locke). But I think the one in the top 5 was a character from The Wire, who would become my one of my favorite characters actually, Omar Little (played by Michael K. Williams). Pictured as what looks like the world's scariest gangster ready for war, complete with pistols, shotgun, bulletproof vest, doo rag, trenchcoat, and actual scar across the face. He is also described as a man who can walk to the store in his pajamas, unarmed, and have everyone in the streets still run away in fear. That's certainly cool.

Second, I start seeing The Wire on people's top ten lists for best shows, always very near the top. My mom starts talking to me about how her online political pundants always rave about The Wire and how awesome it is. People on Netflix write worshipping reviews, which don't fuel my expectations so much as the negative reviews which deem it as "slow and boring" more than anything. In my experience, when people call a movie or show slow and boring it usually isn't; the people are usually just low level ADHD cases who can't devote their attention to anything on the TV that doesn't followup immediately with explosions. So there was that.

What really caught my attention is that many well-known critics and common viewers as well have hailed it as "the greatest television series of all time." As a person who enjoys great entertainment, who has seen some of the most moving, mesmerizing, and absolutely enjoyable as hell shows of recent years, this seemed almost like a challenge.

So I began watching and what can I say?

I'd be lying if I said that The Wire isn't worthy of being called THE BEST. It'd be a crime if it wasn't at the top of those lists. And it's definitely a show worth talking about. Why? Because it is honestly a show about people, regular people. While I originally thought this was a hard boiled HBO cop series, like The Shield or something, it is actually about the various forms of politics within the city of Baltimore. It doesn't show every facet, but it at least strives to. The five season series details the workings of these institutions: the police department, the criminal underground, the court system, the union, city hall, the school system, the mayor's office, the newspaper, and the homeless. With many characters being based upon real live people who lived these kind of lives, The Wire's story and characters have a certain authenticity. It is about people who, whether they are employed in an institution or not, are trying to survive in a bittersweet world. A more discussed element, in the show and the audience, is "the game" (sorry you lost). "The game" is referred to often by characters. I think I've deciphered that "the game" is really just a natural order of things within society, one that these characters (or really everyone in the world) tries to live by, control, or disassociate with.

I will bring to light some of the main plotlines and characters.

The Wire does primarily observe the clearly futile war on drugs in Baltimore by going into the multilayered and freakishly shocking politics of both the police department and the criminals they try to catch in the act. Through Detective Jimmy McNulty's (Dominic West) interference, the department is forced by a judge to put together a Major Crimes division to set up an investigation against the city's biggest yet most untouchable drug kingpin, Avon Barksdale (Wood Harris) and his organization. The Major Crimes division are a central group of characters who usually find it extremely difficult to put a case against their suspects while the brass ruthlessly demands quick results or else every season.

On the flip side, we see Avon, his business savvy partner Stringer Bell (Idris Elba), dog-eat-dog "corner boy" Bodie (J.D. Williams), and the other various high or low level criminals try to be careful, stay afloat, and stay alive in their seedy world of crime, which is really only an order within chaos they've created, like every other institution.

Making their way through the cross fire of these two factions are the neutral characters, primarily "Bubbles" Cousins (Andre Royo), a homeless drug addict, who is wise, redemptive, but self destructive, and then the previously mentioned Omar Little, a peculiar gentleman thief who has a habit of robbing and picking fights drug rings, namely the Barksdales.

Season 2 has a lot to do with a stevadore and union boss, Frank Sobotka (Chris Bauer), a decent man whose interaction with a master criminal The Greek's smuggling ring and his quarrals with other institutions to grim results.

Season 3 shows how a district police commander, Howard "Bunny" Colvin's (Robert Wisdom)response to the drug war by way of laying down arms and letting the chips fall where they may is far less destructive, though no good deed goes unpunished.

Season 4, deals with the horrid machinations of inner city schools. We are thrown into the daily lives of a four school kids who see their world in uncertain ways and adapt to it in very unexpected ways. surprisingly compelling political aspirations of councilman Tommy Carcetti (Aiden Gillen), a mostly idealistic man who wants to do good for the city and weed out the corruption he is sickened with. After the Obama presidency, the way Carcetti's story plays out is kind of darkly amusing and very true.

Season 5 has the city in another state of decay as budget cuts hurt the police department. A young and malevolent drug kingpin is in over his head while trying to manipulate the criminal underworld. Some key cops cross lines in order to get real police work done. The last institution to be seen is the Baltimore Sun, the city newspaper, as a veteran editor sees the crooked nature of his young coworker and even his bosses. And, as with any final season, characters find closure, do not, or are destroyed.

The show is intentionally presented in a novelistic fashion. Each episode progresses slowly with much detail, acting more like book chapters that don't typically have standard beginnings, middles, or ends. Since I love quality TV and enjoy books more and more, this was a treat. Episodes do run the risk of dragging along with not a lot of eye candy, but it still advances the plot and the plot is always good. No episode has a particular arc, so every season feels like one full story. I actually think that it was intentional due to the producers never knowing if they'd get renewed every year, so every season finale was made as if it could double as a series finale. Each episode starts out with a quote, usually from a character in the episode. Since I have a similar tendacy, I thought this was cool. There is also a pretty good soundtrack to show, the main theme throughout the series is "Way Down in the Hole" played by various artists including Tom Waits (who wrote the song), Steve Earle (who has a good small role in the series), but mainly The Blind Boys of Alabama.

I couldn't possibly name all of the main characters here because, frankly, there isn't exactly any main character(s). I can probably say that just about every introduced character who serves some kind of a role in the plot, and even some who don't, are terrific. As such, this is also the first show I've seen with all around solid acting performances for every episode. Every character feels authentic; like they could be real people you meet. That's who they are playing: real people. Even the very mythic characters like Omar, The Greek, and Brother Mouzone feel real. By the end of the series (even if you're watching it back to back), this group of characters, perhaps more than any other I've seen, feels like old friends. Of course, I will probably have to go back and make a Top Ten characters list at some point. Definitely.

Ultimately, The Wire is a portrait of America, city life, or, more broadly, society itself. The aim of the creator, David Simon, was not to present a police drama as he had done in the past, but to show how people deal with the institutions they are associated with. Simon, a former Baltimore police reporter and author, is perfect at channeling all of his knowledge of the dog-eat-dog streets of Baltimore, the inner workings of the police department and newsroom, and the corrupt and selfish mentalities of those within various institutions. Another creative mind behind the show is Ed Burns, an ex-cop and teacher, who no doubt provided great insight into the minds of police officers and the seemingly hopeless inner city school systems. Renowned authors such as Richard Price (Clockers, Freedomland) and Dennis Lehane (Mystic River, Shutter Island, Gone Baby Gone) have written episodes for the show.

I couldn't possibly describe all of the depth and layers of The Wire in this post. I will simply say that it is one of the greatest shows ever, no one was wrong about that. I really enjoyed it. It has great characters, relatable scenarios (especially for adults), thought provoking themes, a story that might be too true, and an overall remarkable universe. It is addictive in its own right. You wanna keep watching to find out whether these people will rise up or fall down in this unpredictable world.

I forgot my new rating system for my last few review, so I am giving The Wire six out of five wiretaps.

This has been another series review from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.

Prison Break Series Review

2011-03-03T18:19:00.000-08:00

Tattooist: "Takes guys a few years to get the kind of ink you've got."
Michael: "I don't have a few years."

(POSSIBLE SPOILERS)

I watched the first episode of Prison Break when it first aired. That was back in a time when I was not really into the big, live action, one hour series'. Sure enough, it looked like a good idea. Finally, after being acquainted with a galore of other awesome big, live action, one hour series', I decided Prison Break sounded good enough to where I would give it a try. Of course, I do not regret this decision. It is an amazing show that has suspense enough to match Lost. Full of secrets, motley crews, secret organizations, government conspiracies, double crosses, action, drama, humor, and intelligence, Prison Break was a hell of a show. One that I wished I had watched while still on.

This is another great show that revolves around two brothers. Lincoln Burrows (Dominic Purcell) is a small time criminal who is framed for the murder of the US Vice President's brother. With all of the evidence against him to prove he's the one, he is sent to Fox River Penitentiary to await execution. Michael Scofield (Wentworth Miller), Lincoln's younger brother, is a genius structural engineer who designed the prison. Michael, convinced of his brother's innocence, devises a plan to break him out of prison and escape. After committing a crime, allowing himself to be arrested, and pleading guilty he is sent to Fox River where his plan is in motion, all carefully mapped out on his torso and limbs with tattoes. Along the way, the conspirators behind Lincoln's supposed crime try to tie up their loose ends and Michael must side with some of Fox River's lowest inmates in order to execute his plan. I can't spoil where the show goes from there.

I must admit, I have not seen that many great prison escape movies; The Shawshank Redemption was pretty awesome, though. I must say, though, that watching master planner Michael come up with new angles every episode was quite enjoyable. Elements from The Fugitive come into play later, obviously. The show is really kind of like a magic show: every week the characters get themselves trapped in new dangerous and intense situations where it looks like they can't escape and they use methods we didn't think of or weren't expecting to escape. It's really a lot of fun.

There are secrets revealed, and alliances made between characters that create dynamics throughout the series. Most notably is a shadow organization that you will come to know as The Company (not to be confused with the one from Heroes), of which Lincoln Burrows' frame job is the most minor of corruption and conspiracy. Another are the characters Michael meets, faces, or sides with within Fox River, who become players in the game he has thrown himself in. Questions such as why was Lincoln in particular framed, are very important and interesting. Of course, the biggest and most exciting question every episode is how Michael and co. are going to escape.

The show has a wide range of unique characters; granted they aren't all as colorful or as cool as those from other shows I've seen, but I felt for them and wanted most all of them (even some of the villains) to get away. Like Supernatural and, to a lesser degree, Lost, Prison Break's primary story revolves around two brothers: Michael and Lincoln. They are both different, but I ended up liking them both. Michael is portrayed early on as a calculating and efficient manipulator of events, willing to sacrifice freakishly in order to save his brother. While he tries to put on a cold demeanor, it becomes perfectly clear that Michael is really a man of morality and compassion who won't bring himself to kill even the worst enemies. His structurally intuitive mind is a character all of itself sometimes, when Michael is able to contrive methods of escape in a con or on a whim, decipher his opponents agendas, or improvise a situation to his best advantage. Along with actor Wentworth Miller's droll demeanor, with a bit of a deep suave voice, rugged good looks, and various emotions. Overall, Michael is, in general, a true hero. Lincoln is not a genius like Michael and is oddly looked down upon for not being as smart as him, which is used like an insult. After using an inheritance to insure his brother's future, Lincoln turned to a life of petty crime to help himself. He is a wounded man in the assassination plot, a fabricated conspiracy to insure specific political powers. Lincoln is a cunning strategist like his brother, and a tough fighter from living on the streets. He is an honorable man and often heroic, but he will do ruthless things should his family be in danger. Dominic Purcell is, like Wentworth Miller, another oddly cool, montonous actor. This guy makes Lincoln seem kinda chill. Other important characters include Sara Tancredi (Sarah Wayne-Callies), Fox River's idealistic head nurse, who immeditaly forms a kinship with Michael. Fernando Sucre (Amaury Nolasco), a small time thief and Michael's cell mate in Fox River; Sucre is a loyal, friendly guy whose subplot involves him trying to find his true love waiting for him outside of prison. Theodore "T-Bag" Bagwell (Robert Knepper, brilliant), a psychotic pedophile, serial killer and feared man inside of Fox River; T-Bag, though considered a perverted, dumb hick, is actually a master manipulator himself who can figure out plans and strategies of his own against the heroes. Other notable Fox River figures include Charles Westmoreland (Muse Watson), a convicted manslaughter case who is also suspected of being D.B. Cooper; Benjamin Miles Franklin aka C-Note (Rockmund Dunbar), a crafty smuggler who resorts to conniving methods in order to get back home; John Abruzzi (Peter Stormare), a shifty and brutal gangster; Henry Pope (Stacy Keach), the moral warden of Fox River; Brad Bellick (Wade Williams), the often menacing head of the prison's security; or Veronica Donovon (Robin Tunney), the brothers childhood friend who tries, as a lawyer, to appeal against Lincoln's execution. Later essential characters would include Alex Mahone (William Fictner, awesome), an intuitive but compelled FBI Agent; Paul Kellerman (Paul Adelstein), a cold, ruthless operative within the conspiracy; Gretchen Morgan (Jodi Lyn O'Keefe), a cold blooded, lethal, yet mercurial conspiracy merc; and the infamous big fish who I will only name "Pad Man" (Leon Russom), who is as shadowy figure appearing behind the scenes of the shadow organization. Wow. I just named almost every character. Whoops. Guess they are pretty good.

A main theme running through this show, which has also been either a primary or secondary element in other great shows, is the theme of love and what we will sacrifice for the ones we care about. A theme of family and brotherhood is prevelent in many characters. Even a theme of corruption, extremely illustrated through homicidal carnage. It's a very interesting story.

So, Prison Break, in the end, was a great show. It was a fun show. One I would have loved to tune into to watch on TV now. Well, thank all for the internet. This does something that shows nowadays have gotten better at doing and that is the classic trait of suspsense within the show. Prison Break's suspense is in overdrive for the majority of each episode. The characters are cool, as I have clearly mentioned, you know only a little. The plot is always snakeish and fun, make great twists. Definitely worth watching back to back, that's a lot of fun but I'll bet the real fun would be waiting a week in suspense for the next episode. Very awesome and highly recommended on this end, I'd say Prison Break is well worth the time. Five out of five tattoes

One of hopefully a trilogy of series reviews from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.

Two Lovers Review

2011-03-03T14:11:00.000-08:00

Neighbor: "Either of you ever use a fucking phone?!"
Leonard: "Josh, I want you to know, there is a fucking storm coming!"

Haha, I just loved that part.

But seriously, Two Lovers is a tense and breathtaking drama. It was released in 2009, directed and co-written by James Gray ("We Own the Night"), and stars Joaquin Phoenix, Gwyneth Paltrow, and Vinessa Shaw. It is a story not so much about love but about passion and dreams. It's about what people want for themselves, perhaps selfishly, as opposed to what they need that will benefit themselves, and maybe even everyone else. If love plays a part in the movie it only exists as an illusion. Some characters think that love is returned when given, while being blind to actual love in front of them.

The plot involves three main people in a neighborhood of Manhatten. Leonard (Joaquin Phoenix) is a morose and emotionally unstable young man whose been prone to suicide attempts following his fiance leaving him. He lives with his parents (Moni Moshonov and Isabella Rossellini) as of late and works in their dry cleaning business. Suddenly two women appear in his life. There is Sandra (Vinessa Shaw), the daughter of his parents' new business partner who is sweet, pretty, and fond of Leonard immediately. Then there is Michelle (Gwyneth Paltrow), Leonard's neighbor who is charming, exciting, and beautiful, and quickly befriends him. He has feelings for both women, but Michelle moreso than Sandra. Leonard senses right away that his parents and Sandra's want them to be together, given both families' new partnership in the dry cleaning business. Though Leonard likes Sandra, he doesn't like his apparant fate being arranged for him, i.e. being goaded into marrying an ideal woman and walking in his parents' footsteps. Leonard is taken with Michelle because she is fun and good to him; she seems to have no hand in his destiny, nor does she try to. But Michelle is a not-so-recovering drug addict and is currently in love with a married man (Elias Koteas) who refuses to leave his family. Sandra is clearly better for Leonard and loves him, but he still pursues Michelle even though she is a wreck and in love with someone else.

This is not exactly a new concept, but it really hasn't gone so in depth or felt so real. James Gray's directing is haunting, and the script is very nuanced and intelligent. It seemed like something of a passion project. The film has a true sense of characters. It knows their behaviors and personalities inside and out, yet what they will do is still unpredictable in many ways. Yes, this is a film that had me not be able to guess where it was going. There is an obvious conclusion, but it is somewhat less obvious in this movie. In fact, it makes you really think about what has happened and what will happen. For a movie that has been done before, been done before wrong, and could have gone so wrong in so many ways itself, Two Lovers was just a brilliant film.

I gotta give props to the cinematography in this movie. Very dark, shadowy, and cold, almost like the character's thoughts and intentions (or not.) James Gray uses this kind of style in his last movie too, and it really sets the mood. So yeah, props to that real quick.

Now for my favorite part: the acting. All were tremendous, because as you know I rarely watch movies with bad acting. I am saving Joaquin Phoenix's appraisals for last, as there is much to talk about. But I will first regard the two women. Gwyneth Paltrow, a favorite actress of mine and perfect choice for the damaged beauty, is her usual compelling and likable self here. She does unlikable things, mind you, but she still comes off as very endearing. Michelle describes herself as "lost" in the film, and that's a pretty good definition of the character, which Paltrow conveys sincerely. She is a good person who can't seem to help but make the wrong decisions. I will also say that I think this is probably the first movie since Great Expectations in 1997 to address how freaking beautiful Gwyneth Paltrow is. Vinessa Shaw, who should be in more movies, does not have as much of an emotional element, but hers is still a good one. She plays her character as confident but with repressed doubts that can clearly be seen; she knows what she wants but doesn't see that Leonard has even bigger doubts. Mostly, we feel sorry for her as she continues to love this man, but is tragically oblivious to what he is doing. I think her character Sandra was supposed to simply be a truly good person. I was trying to find some flaw, something unappealing about her that made Leonard continue toward Michelle. I couldn't. The parents in the film were particularly interesting. This is mostly because I found them so damn believable. Moni Moshonov, who played a gentleman gangster in We Own the Night, has a lot of presence as Leonard's father. Isabella Rossellini plays a concerned and loving mother very well. They are both real people who, though they expect certain things from their son, are very kindhearted. Elias Koteas for his brief scenes is good as the suave married lover of Michelle, who isn't really using her or anything. He does love her, but he also loves his family. (I've gotta say it now or I never will: Elias Koteas looks and even acts a little like a young Robert De Niro. I dunno, it's just always seemed weird to me; he could be De Niro's son.)

Now for the big show. This is the last movie Joaquin Phoenix made before he embarked on that legendary act of a burned out, wannabe rapper version of himself for the mockumentary I'm Still Here. Phoenix shines here as Leonard, the central character. A part of me wanted to despise Leonard for leading one very sweet girl into thinking he loved her while constantly vying for the affections of a girl who is in love with someone else. I didn't though. The way Phoenix portrayed the character, Leonard seemed more like a child or, at most, an awkward teenager. He is very confused, doesn't know quite what he wants except love and freedom, is constantly trying to make everyone happy so they will leave him alone to find his own happiness. He returns Sandra's affections as if he didn't want to be rude to her, not so much because he felt the same way. He crushes on Michelle like a timid high school kid. He really is an emotional wreck, not confident about where his life seems to be drifting toward, and sees what is instant gratification as a way to start his own life. Leonard is one of those perfect characters who keeps you summoning different ideas about and emotions toward, as if he were a real person. Joaquin pulled him off splendidly. Yes, if this was his last role it would have been a damn fine one to go out on.

So, all in all, Two Lovers was a very powerful yet subtle movie that will provoke many thoughts. It's fascinating. Though I don't particularly like The Graduate, this movie reminded me of The Graduate a little bit. Some of these characters do seem like they would be at total peace if they were sitting at the bottom of a swimming pool. Of course it is not all drama and/or melodrama, there are funny moments too. This may actually be the first serious drama film to feature break dancing in a night club (which Joaquin partakes in, again, with childish abandon). This is a film that definitely deserves a viewing. I won't tell you to expect a happy ending or not to, just don't expect too much because, like I said, it is kind of unpredictable.

This has been, of course, another review from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.

True Grit (2010) Review

2011-01-19T11:59:00.001-08:00

"The man wanted a proper burial, he shoulda got killed in the summer." - Ruben 'Rooster' Cogburn

Yep. It's me again.

I have not seen the original movie with John Wayne, nor have I read the book. Shame on me. I know. But knowing the Coen Brothers, I went in assuming that it would have their brand while still doing justice to the original concept. I suppoe they did that. I enjoyed this movie. I do have but a few things to discuss though, as usual. You know, when I'm not ignoring this blog.

The problem with having not seen the original film is that there is nothing to compare this too. I went in blind. All I saw in this trailer was Jeff Bridges = badass, Matt Damon = huh, this could be cool too; Hailee Steinfeld = I don't know you but you've already impressed me; Josh Brolin = Bran from The Goonies (jus kiddin); Coen Brothers = sold. Plus I'm a freaking nerd boy for western movies. It's a place I was very interested in seeing the Coens go.

The plot, which I suppose is kind of a classic story by now, revolves around the adventure of 14-year old Mattie Ross (newcomer Hailee Steinfeld) to capture her father's killer, Tom Chaney (Josh Brolin), dead or alive. Helping her in this mission is the aged and lethal US Marshall "Rooster" Cogburn (Jeff Bridges) and cocky but underestimated Texas Ranger LaBouef (Matt Damon) as they set out across the terrain to find their man. Along the way they encounter nature's torments as well as some of the worst of the worst outlaws the old west has to offer. Mix in the Coen Brothers' mastery of dialogue, violence, and storytelling, along with some very enjoyable quirkiness from Jeff "The Dude" Bridges, and you have yourself one damn fine movie.

Tonally, this movie feels more realistic than most westerns. I know I have no way of knowing, but it just all feels plausible. They even have former outlaws Cole Younger and Frank James (not really them, of course) near the end, shown being chastised by an older Mattie whilst they profit from their wild west shows. There are particularly interesting scenes of complete clarity of speech and activity, such as young Mattie's negotiations with a lawyer, Rooster's cross examination in court, and of course the very well choreographed gunfights. As much as we love it, this is not The Outlaw Josey Wales go up against ten guys straight forward and win unscathed.

But in another way, it holds true to everything we love about westerns. Loud and intense shootouts with aged revolvers and top quality repeater rifles. Droll and/or weird characters that stick with us even after the movie. Beautiful photography of the great terrain of the time when their were large trees and more land. Roger Deakins is probably one of the best cinematographers, and I can see why the Coen Brothers keep using him; he's been with them since their first movie. This film is full of true blue western images, maybe moreso than other westerns.

It touches on something that is sometimes overlooked in, but always interesting in, westerns which is the innocence of children in a time like that. Mattie Ross acts older than she should and is competent and brave even under very nerveracking situations, but she also shows instances of being a kid that are real. For as cold and professional she tries to be, she does tend to see a light in people who have little of it or none at all (even her father's killer it seemed). I felt that was interesting. I read that the book was largely from Mattie's point of view, and the Coens wanted to capture that. I think they did well.

Now for the acting. I will go right into Jeff Bridges' much anticipated and now praised performance of Rooster Cogburn, iconically played by John Wayne in the past. All I heard for so long was that Bridges would not outdo Wayne. The Dude would never beat The Duke. Well, guess what? Maybe I can't compare, but people who've seen both can and most who I have talked to have said that Bridges beats John Wayne in this department. I have seen bits and pieces of the original True Grit and it looks good enough. Wayne seems good in it but from what I saw he's not really playing THIS character so much as he's playing John Wayne (not a bad thing). Bridges is definitely not playing himself, at least not totally. Bridges' Rooster is a ragged, dirty, gravelly voiced body of experience, death, decay, yet still some nobility and decency. Bridges has so much presence that he makes something wholly original out of the character. Something many have agreed with is that Rooster seems to have a stench just by looking at him. He's also a total badass, as we all knew. Matt Damon is interesting as LaBeouf, we get the feeling he is a shady guy with his own agenda at first, but as we know him more we quickly find out he's a smart man who wants to be taken seriously and is anxious when he isn't. Hailee Steinfeld deserves her Oscar nomination for her amazing first major performance. To share the screen with Bridges and Damon and dominate along side them is quite impressive. The way she carries herself and the subtext the writing that she adds to is something to be fascinated with. In many ways she is the best character in this movie. Josh Brolin in the small role of Tom Chaney was funny and intimidating. I love how astonished and then amused he is in his first appearance. Brolin is a very good actor, I'm glad he's getting work these days. He makes Chaney a truly vile thing. But the bad guy who beats out Brolin is Lucky Ned Pepper, played by Barry Pepper of course. This ragged, wild eyed, yellow teethed renegade is a far cry from Barry Pepper's actual chisled good looks, so this transformation is cool. Plus he just makes this character somehow endearing, because for as vicious and nasty he is, Lucky Ned can still be a civil gentleman. So acting is top notch, and I wouldn't have it any other way.

The direction is marvelous. Joel and Ethan Coen are master filmmakers and I doubt I will ever say otherwise. Their editing, their writing, their casting, their photography, their overall style is all perfect. There are very few bad things I can say about this movie. A lot of people have said that they weren't trying to make "True Grit: A Coen Brothers film" but they were just trying to make "True Grit: A Western." I'd agree. You can see the tweaks and touches of their style or humor in the story, but really it felt pure and unbound by a brand, at least not a brand as broad as western. That's okay, because I get the feeling that if this was a Coen Brothers movie it might be one of their lesser ones like Burn After Reading. Still good, just not quite as good. This is a western and they understood that and liked that.

Since this review is pretty damn late on my account, I would say that you should definitely watch this movie when it hits the market. It is fun, interesting, funny, and breathtaking in many ways. At times it may seem slow and it won't thrill you through and through, but it is enjoyable. I definitely liked it so, like I sometimes say, if you like what I like you will probably dig this film. Watching it for Jeff Bridges alone is good enough, I think. So yeah, six out of five stars.

This has been the review I said I'd post months ago, but here we are with Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.

Tron: Legacy Review

2011-01-09T14:17:00.000-08:00

"You're messing with my zen thing, man." - Kevin Flynn

I've seen the majority of the original Tron film from the 1980s. Watching it, I thought that at the time Tron was a landmark for science fiction filmmaking. The virtual reality world the film presents was fascinating and extremely revolutionary. It paved the way for many other ideas of similar nature. Looking back at this moment, I'd say that in modern times, with all new kinds of technology in the business of film, you couldn't really leave a world like this alone. That's what happens with Tron: Legacy; it takes the atmosphere of the first film and makes as original as it was when first presented in the 80s. It's very refreshing.

The film continues the story of the first Tron's character, Kevin Flynn (Jeff Bridges). After his success following the first film's story, Flynn is a leading corporate game developer who has found a way to reinvigorate The Grid world of the Tron games. Unfortunately, once he does he goes missing. Years later, his son Sam (Garrett Hedlund) takes time off from his corporate espionage hobby to investigate an apparent message from Kevin. This leads him to one of the coolest arcades I've seen (mostly because I haven't seen one in a long time) where he himself is transported to The Grid. Here, Sam must find his father and help him to defeat a program doppleganger named CLU, who seeks to "perfect" The Grid, before he escapes and perfects our world. They also must protect Kevin's program apprentice Quorra (Olivia Wilde), who is mysteriously crucial to her world and ours. So grab a disc and hop on to your Light Cycle. We're in for a ride.

The entire Grid world in the movie is something to truly be admired. It almost reminds me of black white movies with its highly saturated and crisp light and shadow effects that basically is the structure of the world. Light Cycle battles have never been so cool. Where in the first film it seemed like we were watching people almost in some sort of simulation, here we actually feel like were riding on one of these things. And there is plenty of new things too. The bizarre, building-like helicopters, or the Light Gliders, it was all cool.

I will be honest, I was excited for the movie but did not think it was going to be that good just the same. I, like most people I knew, were going to see it for it's clearly amazing technical attributes. To my surprise, though, I really enjoyed this movie. The visuals and soundtrack was monumental (and I'm not using that word lightly). Daft Punk creates an electric ambience and pace that drives the movie more than the plot sometimes. Some visuals and set pieces brought to mind films such as Dark City, The Matrix, and 2001: A Space Odyssey.
The acting was not oscar worthy or anything but it at least interested me and impressed me in some ways. Jeff Bridges shines here, remarkably, as two characters: one is a man who has attained a God status while also being an outcast, he's wise, cool, but regretful; the other is a cold, angsty tyrant whose existence was based upon a flawed purpose. Garrett Hedlund was actually very believable as Sam, the rebellious son. To my surprise, I liked him, though he's had more impressive roles, of course. Bruce Boxleitner reprises his role from the original Tron to play both Flynn's friend Alan, still in the gaming business in our world, and as Tron (you know, the title character the movie could care less about) who has also fallen victim to Clu's vision of perfection. I was very amazed that of all of the characters, Olivia Wilde's Quorra was the one I found most interesting. Come now, we all knew going in that Wilde was going to sell us on this movie. She is very beautiful after all. But no, Quorra was a fascinating sort of character. She was almost that classic anime archetype, the sweet and cute badass who is also very special. She was fun to watch, and not in a perverted way. Of course a movie this cool, needs some character to send it over the top. It needs something shiny amongst this deep and dark stuff that the kids can go crazy over. And in that, we get Michael Sheen as Castor, an eccentric night club owner in The Grid. It just goes to show that every Disney owned movie these days can not escape a freaking Mickey or Goofy. For Pirates of the Caribbean we get Jack Sparrow. For Alladin, we get The Robin Williams Genie (and many other Robin Williams voiced characters. For Tron: Legacy, we get Castor. I mean, Michael Sheen is a great actor, everyone knows he is, but he's a bit like Nicholas Cage where he's great at one point and outrageous at ten other points. It isn't bad per se, just overbearing in such a short time. At least his character is resolved the way the audience wants it to be.
I do not need to say that Joseph Kosinski's direction is top notch, because it really is. He kept most everything balanced (save for mystery and explanation of course), but unfortunately this means the movie was a bit understated. By understated I mean it doesn't impact the viewers as well on all levels. No one can say that the technical aspects of the movie were underplayed by the story and characters. The special effects were in sync with the world's atmosphere, therefore they were believable and amazing. I really liked that this movie can kind of stand alone, because you don't necessarily have to watch the first Tron to understand this Tron. Despite a fairly unfocused and needlessly complex explanations (did I mention the guys who wrote this were Lost writers), I thought the movie had strong dialogue, good characters (save one), and gripping storytelling. The movie is a straight adventure and that's what I loved about it.

So all in all, Tron: Legacy is certainly not a great movie but it is very good. If you want to have a lot of fun kicking off 2011, than by all means see this movie. I'm sure it'll get you more pumped for movies this year than Season of the Witch. It's really good, surprised the hell out of me how good it was. I guess I was a bit wrong to underestimate it. Understand I saw the first trailer for this mid 2009 and thought it looked incredible, then I saw Avatar and thought nothing could impress me after that. A Scott Pilgrim and Inception later, I was even more convinced that I was going to be severely underwhelmed. And I wasn't. Maybe modern movies will have a major impact on the future of movies.

So yes, this concludes the first in my two Jeff Bridges sagas I will be reviewing. Speaking of which, if there is one thing a gallery of Big Lebowski fans will be snickering about after seeing this is this: The Dude is God! After Tron: Legacy, I can abide that.

This is yet another review from Your Modest Guru and really that's pretty much all I do these days. Thanks for reading.

Call of Duty: Black Ops Review

2010-12-14T14:43:00.000-08:00

"I can't get these fucking numbers out of my head!" - Alex Mason

I've always kind of wondered about our fascination with video games centered on warfare. Is the fact that game franchises like Call of Duty and Medal of Honor are so popular some kind of subliminal thing cooked up by the government. I think kids are getting a bit wiser these days about recruiters. But who needs some propagrazzi (propaganda + paparazzi, yeah I made it up) to tell people how cool it would be to be a soldier when they can just market a video game franchise that allows kids to take a first person look through the eyes of a soldier, even if many of the missions this soldier takes are highly implausible and some even hysterical. But enough of that. This isn't one of my thinking posts, it's one of my reviews. So without further a due, here's what I think about Call of Duty: Black Ops.

(I will not be mentioning the online play because I don't play online, but I'm told it's shitty)

Black Ops is without a doubt the best Call of Duty I have played. Instead of being some random yet inexplicably awesome grunt for a 70-year old war (why not WWI or the Civil War next time), this time we are the men behind the curtain. We get to play as a scarred covert operative working in alongside the CIA and other shady customers from our side and the others. And the game's frenetic action and fascinating non-linear storyline can keep the players on their toes and adrenaline fueled at the same. And if all of that isn't enough, you can get your blood pumping by playing the new and improved Nazi Zombies side game.

STORY

Black Ops is a sequel to the previous CoD game, World at War. You play as Alex Mason (voiced by Sam Worthington), a skilled wet boy who makes a living out of going to hell and back, during the height of the Cold War in the 1960s. After his involvement with the Bay of Pigs goes wrong, Mason is captured by Soviet terrorists and imprisioned in Vorkuta. He escapes after befriending Russian inmate Viktor Reznov (Gary Oldman), a character from World at War who helps you here and there during the game, Mason is able to escape and get back into his old line of work. Despite his mental scars, new missions granted by the CIA and President John Kennedy himself bring Mason and his compatriots to war torn Vietnam, the grimy Tokyo metropolis of Japan, and the harsh cold of Russia. All the while, Mason and his stealth comrade Reznov have their own score to settle with their targets.

BASICS

Okay, so Call of Duty is still the same basic first person shooter it's been since the beginning of the series. There are cool new things to be seen here, though. You can drive vehicles at times, which Call of Duty I don't think has done before save for tanks and planes. You pilot helicopters, drive cars, and ride motorcycles. All very cool, and a lot more fast paced. Most fascinating to me was that this game was a bit more story based and character driven. Whereas there was only a silent avatar as the protagonist in past games, Alex Mason has a personality and an arc (and an interesting one at that). You see things through his eyes, and you see how he has become mentally unstable through brief but vivid hallucinations (one in particular will catch everyone off guard, mainly because it doesn't seem like a hallucination). Also the story goes in detail and involves various situations, real or fictional or who knows, into the game. Realism seems to be a bit heavier here, even if there are moments of the usual Call of Duty improbability (moreso than usual in fact). Love the Vietnam standard music soldiers would play (CCR's "Fortunate Son" and The Rolling Stones' "Sympathy for the Devil") and subtle reminders of classic films. (Platoon, Hamburger Hill, Fullmetal Jacket, and Mason's partner Woods totally looked like Robert De Niro in The Deer Hunter) There is also a wealth of actual stars delivering voice work for the game: Sam Worthington, Gary Oldman, Ed Harris, Ice Cube, With all of this in mind, Black Ops is actually a more visceral, compelling, and intense Call of Duty game.

For Zombies, things have vastly changed too. There are three new and fun maps to play on (the latter two being unlockables). One is set in a run down movie theatre with Nazi decor. This map is set in 40s, but of course features health drinks ("Need a little REVIVAL!!!"), a teleporter, and a weapons customizer. This is also probably the easiest map for players, or for me at least. Here you can play as a gung ho American, a loud and strangely sexually frustrated Russian, a creepy German, or an eccentric Japanese man, all of them highly abrasive and over the top. The second map puts players in the 60s where the Pentagon's War Room comes under a zombie siege. In this instance, a player can play as President Kennedy, Secretary of Defense Robert McNamera, Fidel Castro, or Richard Nixon. The final map puts players in a 90s Arcade sort of setting where players can view things from an aerial point of view and watch monsters just flow and hand out a bunch cool upgrades upon dying. This can be fun, but is not entirely what I want out of Nazi zombies. All of these maps are interesting and put a new spin on the Zombies format to the game (a format that is becoming increasingly popular).

TOOLS

The tools department is a bit obvious. Aresenals for Call of Duty games rarely change, but then again most games don't. You get a new model of the same weapon depending on the era the game takes place. You get a wide range of assualt rifles, sub-machine guns, pistols, shotguns, explosives, and launchers of various sorts. A surprising change this time around is that a player can briefly drive a vehicle in a few instances. In this case, why shoot your enemies when you can plow threw them at the same time. I know a little bit about guns, and for some reason I felt like a lot of the guns seen in this game seemed almost out of place. By out of place, I mean, they seemed more modern and not like something you'd find in the 1960s. I don't know, maybe I'm wrong. Either that, or the black operatives just got better tools.

ENEMIES

The enemies are all virtually the same. They are soldiers, they have guns, and if they see you they will try to kill you. Simple war mechanics. I guess I can diffrentiate them based on their nationalities. Early on you will be fighting Fidel Castro's Cuban army during the Bay of Pigs. Then later, and for the most part (being it's the Cold War and all), you will be facing down Russian soldiers of the Soviet Union. In a flashback to Reznov's time in World War II, you go back to a World at War feel and kill some pesky Nazis. There's actually a point where Reznov and his men are allowed to kill everyone in sight: I think it included Germans, Russians, and the British. Finally a lot of excitement is when you are in the worst hot zones of Vietnam and fighting the NVA, Viet Cong and the like. While the enemies in the game are bland and artificial (no doubt, a major contrast to real life), they can definitely be intense and startling when they rush at you in huge groups. Of course, there is the standard dogs that will go for your throat from time to time. Strangely, I think these dogs have been the easiest to kill out of all of the others I've seen in past games. The main antagonist is General Nikita Dragovich, a Communist terrorist from the Soviet Union. Along side him are Lev Kravchenco, Dragovich's ruthless lieutenant, and Dr. Friedrich Steiner, a Nazi scientist (slightly reminiscent to Josef Mengele) who defected to the Reds' side. Fidel Castro is a bit of an antagonist in the beginning, having teamed with Dragovich in order to ambush his would-be-assassins.

For the Zombie gameplay, there is a bit of a difference. The zombies are a lot faster and stronger, and harder to kill at times. And it's not just zombies this time. Joining them are stout demonic crawling monsters that slash and explode in poisonous toxins when killed. And there are also hell hounds (yes, hell hounds) that show up from time to time to maul the player(s). hell hounds are kids stuff compared to massive crowds of zombies and crawlers. Somehow fighting zombies is always more intense.

GRAPHICS

The graphics are top notch. Probably the best Call of Duty has done so far. Character and weapon designs are especially well done. They look authentic and slightly real at times. For characters voiced by big actors, Gary Oldman and Ed Harris for example, the designs were made to resemble how the actors actually look. This was done very well. The environments had a richness and saturated look to them that made them all the more vivid and believable. And there are a lot of different environments, so this look never gets old. Environmental graphics are on par with the Modern Warfare games. So all is well essentially, though I'm sure there is an obvious bug or two. I didn't notice if there were.

OVERALL

Black Ops provides a very exciting new twist to the franchise. I hope it keeps it up if it is like this for good. I even hope it improves. The action hasn't been this exciting in awhile. Every time I fell I was very determined to respawn and keep fighting. Plus there are just so many things that has been done regarding the style and substance of the game that has just been delightful. The campaign mode was scripted by David S. Goyer, the writer of Batman Begins and the Blade trilogy. Pretty impressive job too, as the story is very intricate and involving. Black Ops actually feels like it could be a movie. And if players are worried that this game might be too easy, don't be. I think the difficulty was fairly high even on Recruit. In the end, Black Ops is just a fun game. A wholly good time. Plus if you can't get into the campaign there is always Zombie and Online modes to play on. It is definitely worth a buy.

This has been a second video game review from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.

Fallout 3 Review

2010-12-09T20:28:00.001-08:00

"War... War never changes." - narrator

A friend let me borrow his copy of Fallout 3 and I must say it is exactly my kind of game. I made it no secret in my Red Dead Redemption review that I love the free roaming sandbox environment modern games have incorporated lately. This is the perfect sandbox environment. Post nuclear Holocaust Washington D.C. and all it has left. You venture out into the irradiated and lethal Capital Wasteland with nothing but the clothes on your back. The primary mission is to survive. And it all plays out (pun intended) in an almost realistic way. I'm loving it.

The scale of the game is so huge that I've finished the main story mode and scoured the the map yet I'm still sure I did not see all there was to see. Even so, I feel I should review it now. Even if this review is already a few years too late.

STORY:
Set in a future predated by an alternate history, Fallout 3 is set in the American North-East. After the end of World War 2, the arms race was focused on primarily which led to the development of futuristic technology. It also led to the Cold War boiling over into full scale nuclear devestation. The world was thrown into chaos. Though before the bombs fell, thousands of Americans were hauled off into underground fallout facilities called Vaults, where they would be safe and comfortable during the destruction. The game begins with our nameless protagonist, called The Lone Wanderer, apparantly being born inside Vault 101, a Vault specifically ordered to remain closed forever. After getting acquainted with controls and environment while gallivanting around the Vault as a kid, we flash-forward a few years into the future where the player's scientist father, James (Liam Neeson), opens the Vault door and escapes into the Wasteland. It is here, the player ventures outside of the Vault as well to find his father. This also means adapting to the extraordinarily grim Capital Wasteland, once called Washington D.C. And the adventure begins.

BASICS:
Fallout 3, as I said, is a massive sandbox environment. Fortunately, this means you can run around all of D.C.'s famed monuments and sites (and also see how the harsh future has tressed them up). I complained that the Grand Theft Auto games had way too much going on. This game has that, but the difference is each new subplot you happen across can end up being just as, if not better than the game's primary storyline. Also worthy of noting, the game does not have a set main character. The player is free to design the character's adult appearance during the birth scene in the beginning. I always loved that aspect. The game is not exactly easy. If you really work at it, I suppose the main story can be finished in a few hours. But there is over 100 hours of gameplay entirely, and the whole map and the missions found there are like a scattered puzzle. Places aren't just there to go to, they have to be discovered. Also survival with wits and mitts isn't as easy either. Enemies on this game can be overwhelming. What I really liked though, was the moral compass of the game. This game strongly employs free will. Meaning you can choose to be the hero or villain or just passing through. I will say being a villain is extremely difficult with those thoughtful people out there, as the evil choices can be shocking (nuke a friendly little town-shocking). There is also a leveling up system which allows you to gain perks and enhancements. You can sometimes pick up friends who will want to help you along the way; they can be useful or a burden. The game combines political, military, and social satire with a surreal survival horror scenario that is very enjoyable. I've seen few games this nuanced and intelligent with its design and story. It is a pleasure.

TOOLS:
Set in the dystopian future the weapons categories vary considerably. There is a vast array of assault rifles, hunting rifles, miniguns, missile launchers, fragmentation grenades, mines, pistols, and knives laying on corpses or just anywhere sometimes. Then again, we are in the future. Their are rather cool energy weapons such as laser and plasma rifles, as well as their grenade, mine, pistol, and minigun varients. There are also interesting weapons such as Abraham Lincoln's repeater rifle, military officer swords, or even a mini-nuke launcher. If you have the right materials, skills, and schematics you can also customize or invent a new kind of weapon. All of these weapons can be particularly harmful if used properly. The game gives the freedom to switch interchangeably from first person POV to third person (I'm mostly third person). It also has a system that allows you to freeze frame and target and enemy's body to get a somewhat cinematic slow motion shootout. This is particularly useful because the standard real time shootout, no matter the POV, is extremely gritty, fast paced, and unnerving. Needless to say a little free frame shooting here and there, or a lot of it, is not exactly the sissy way out but more like the smart way. Aside from guns, just about any other item can be picked up (not that they are exactly worth something to you). In the Wasteland, scavenging is helpful but you won't always find something good. And if you do, others may not be so keen on letting you take it.

ENEMIES:
This game has a freakish and horrific rogue's gallery that haunts every corner, street, alley, and shadow of the Wasteland. As a player, you have to be on your guard at all times. Depending on how you act around people can determine whether they will become friends or foes, while others merely unload first and don't ask any questions. Many humans have fractured off into groups, and a lot of these groups aren't your friends right off the bat. The raiders are cold blooded killers and rapists who look like they came off the set of The Road Warrior. Being that they are just people (albeit heavily armored, armed, and crazy), you can kill them pretty easy. There's also the Talon Company, a mercenary group and hit squad that attacks with deadly force. The most lethal humans by far are the Enclave, the corrupt remaining remnants of the U.S. Government headed by the mysterious President John Henry Eden (Malcolm McDowell) and his right hand man Colonel Autumn, or the amoral Outcasts of The Enclave's enemy The Brotherhood of Steel. Both Enclave and Outcast fighters are covered head to toe in advanced battle armor that make Master Chief piss himself, and carry energy weapons that would make him do it again. You will mostly come across the Super Mutants, hulking simple minded brutes who tote guns and the most immoral of attitudes. They are in groups and a handful to deal with. You will also face the Ghouls, zombie like humans driven insane and animalistic by nuclear exposure. They are easy to destroy but are fast and make good use of their claws.

There are also a variety of extremely deadly robots roaming around the wasteland or droning around abandoned facilities. Though these robots are modeled after the ones seen off of 1950s science fiction comic covers, they are not fun to go toe to toe with. These things will do their best to take you down with arms that double as miniguns, laser blasters, flamethrowers, and missle launchers. Proceed with caution. Okay a bit of a spoiler, but players who are wary of robots need not fret because in the end Liberty Prime, a 50 foot tall android who spouts ultra patriotic Cold War slogans and obliterates all in its path, is on your side.

But like in RDR, it is the damn animals that pose possibly the greatest threat. The mutated bear, Yao Guay, can ambush you easily and take your health from 100 to 0 in a matter of only three or four slashes. They are also hard to put down. Speaking of putting down, you may find packs of mutated dogs that are fairly easy to kill. Super Mutants sometimes travel with the hideous Centaur, which I can only describe as a blob of the melted bodies of several humans that just spews waste and flings its tentacles (they aren't pretty to look at, so kill them quick and be done with em). Like in old '50s B-Movies, the hilly wilderness is inhabited by large mutant scorpions and the cities are filled with large fire breathing ants. There are the cold blooded Mirelurk creatures, which just seem to be humanoid crawdad (the Mirelurk King is probably the creepiest thing I've seen in the game). Then of course there's the throwaway puny animal antagonists such as the enlarged cockroach or fly. So animals are the scariest and sometimes the hardest things to kill.

GRAPHICS
This is a tough one, because on the hand you have graphics which bring forth a stark, detailed, and highly effective environment, while at the same time player and AI character models are very low grade. The in-game avatars and non playable characters have their hints of detail but are more often than not just tweaked versions of the same model. It's not impressive but it doesn't totally ruin the game either. But like I said, the environmental graphics are amazing. This game does a good job of showing a barren and destroyed wasteland while at the same time making it seem as if a true inhabitable place could have been the pile of stone and dust you are standing in front of. Day to night effects are very crisp too. The graphics aren't perfect, but they are good and unique in many ways.

OVERALL
For those who love this type of open world, survival of the fittest type of adventure, I of course recommend it. The really good thing is that there is just so much to take in. If players don't like the graphics, there is an incredible plot to the game; if the plot doesn't interest them, they can be amazed at all of the different game mechanics; and if none of that catches their fancy than they have a ball ripping and running all over the wasteland just for the hell of it. It will be a long while before you can say that there is nothing to do on this game. Stick with it, I'm sure you won't be disappointed.

This has been the first of two new video game reviews from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.

Give em a chance

2010-11-22T16:10:00.000-08:00

"An actor is at most a poet, and at least an entertainer." - Marlon Brando

Some people to this day do not fully appreciate actors. It takes a lot of freaking skill to make an audience believe a character even a little bit. But then again, not every actor was that shining star on Broadway or tour de force newcomer. Some just had the right connections and thought it'd be cool, and some got lucky. Very, very, very, very lucky. That's Hollywood. That being said, not everyone who comes along is going to be a new Brando or Freeman or Dicaprio. And ultimately some of these so called actors are horrible and can also destroy a movie they are involved with (I'm talking to you Sofia. No I don't care who your father is; you just keep directing like he did). Then there are some who are bad, but you can tell they are at least trying. These are the ones who usually end up being funny, likable, or at least memorable once you're done watching their performance. So I will take my time to talk about a few actors considered to be bad by some and how they are bad.

(Let me note that none of these things are limited only to "bad actors," because I've seen plenty of good actors do these things at least once, whether it is just a line or an entire performance. So there.)

OVER THE TOP:

Yeah, you know it when it happens. That point where your only reaction to a person's acting is "....SUBTLE!" Anyone can read lines, and I will go into those who do so with little enthusiasm later, but the more memorable are the ones who read the line and take it with too much enthusiasm. This leads to them being really goofy.

Going classic, my most memorable over the top actor is Charlton Heston. Heston was considered to be one of the greatest actors of his time, but looking at his films now, you can tell a lot of his roles were written as being a lot more subtle. Planet of the Apes is a prime example. While most remember his legendary line "get your paws off me, you damn dirty apes!" or better yet, "You cut up his brain, you bloody baboon!" I remember his reaction to one of his fellow astronaut's placing a miniature American flag in a small mound of rocks on the "mysterious new world" and all Heston had to do was deliver a cynical, perhaps even dry laugh. What does he do instead: he freaking guffaws. He does it again later, again unnecessary (maybe he was high). Oh yeah, and watch him hold his nose as he jumps from the sinking ship into the water. He does little over the top things like this in a lot of his movies. Sometimes the roles he was cast in were over the top just because it was him playing them; it is just weird casting the most red blooded American actor as the Mexican-American hero of an Orson Welles movie. Still though, I'll have to admit he was still a likable, fun movie actor who here and there had his moments of good performances.

Then there are really good actors like Nicholas Cage and Christopher Walken. Though they are very good in serious movies (both have been nominated at the Academy Awards before), they seem to take any role a studio throws at them and play it to the bone. This usually goes along with incorporating their own strange styles and mannerisms into any given role, so they are already a little bit over the top. And by a little bit, I mean "a lot." Nicholas Cage has this semi-smooth yet explosive hyperactivity breaking through the surface in his movies. And Christopher Walken just might be the most memorable actor alive, as well as the most impersonated. His monotone droll has been segued into just about every type of film scenario; he's been a Bond villain, a Batman villain, a scarred soldier, a struggling father, a mischevious hobo, the angel of death (twice), a gangster (god knows how many times), and let's not forget a war veteran delivering a boy a very interesting gold watch. The screen can barely contain these two when they're on, either by sheer awesomeness or absolute craziness. Look up their filmography, or better yet go on youtube and look up some of their craziest moments.

Then of course there is Arnold. Arnold-freaking-Schwarzeneggar. The Austrian body builder who took America by storm in the 80s and hasn't gone away since. We all love him. Is he a good actor though? Well, that's debatable. I mean if you look carefully at--...fine! He's not that good of an actor. I mean, I doubt there was ever a point the people at the Academy Awards were thinking "I think it's Schwarzeneggar's turn this year." They weren't as kind as California. No he's not great, but I still think he's at least good. I mean no one likes someone this much for this long if he's been terrible the entire time. There have been roles where he has played dramatic very well. And as easy as some people believe it to be, playing an emotionless cyborg has to be convincing or else we won't believe it and Arnold pulls it off. But really, he is best being over the top. Sure "Hasta la vista, baby" and "I'll Be Back" are great lines, but we remember the really over the top and cheesy ones moreso. It works well with Arnold because, with that thick Austrian accent, just about every word comes out of his mouth is funny. I mean there's a video editor on Youtube, hh1edits is his tag (look him up he does amazing stuff), who has not one but two ten minute videos just full of Arnold's corny ass or over the top lines. It is priceless. But hey, we love Arnold as is and he really can't get any better...well maybe the people of California would disagree, but I still stand by him.

UNDERPLAY

To put it simply, some actors just don't put forth the effort in their roles. Perhaps they've tricked themselves into thinking they are awesome. This comes down to a lack of emotion or just pure robotic line reading. Either way it can be just as unappealing as overacting.

Here are a few famous examples, all basically the same. Keanu Reeves, known for The Matrix trilogy, is notorious as a, frankly, wooden actor. While I think he has pretty much grown out of his bad acting stage, the majority of people just can't let go of his terrible acting in his early roles. I mean Point Break? Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure? I think the simulated world of the matrix was far more believable. Nowadays, he's either a brooder or a cocky bastard. He's good in each type. If you want to see some of his terrific acting I'd recommend Hard Ball or The Lake House (he cries in both, and is believable).

Kevin Costner is another A-list actor, and also a director and producer, who has starred in plenty of well known films. I think this is a case where it is how he handles certain roles rather than him simply being a bad actor. There are some roles where he is playing soft spoken or distant and ends up being just a boring actor. Other roles where his characters are very much alive and full of energy and he himself is alive and energetic. I really think people give him too hard of a time, but he really isn't bad at all. They give the same shit toward William Hurt (an Oscar nominated actor) who is a favorite of mine, and is also terrific.

There are a few very famous actresses who I've never understood why they were ranked so high at times. Kim Basinger won a Best Actress Oscar for L.A. Confidential (she was good, but not Oscar worthy) when a superb role like the trailer trash mother in 8 Mile is particularly overlooked. Or Halle Berry, who aside from the X-Men movies and Monster's Ball, has not been a particularly memorable actress. Then someone like Ashley Judd, who has more charisma and energy as a charitable activist type than an actress. Just perplexes me. Maybe these actresses' hotness gives them all certain benefits.

MUSICIANS

I have long backed musicians in movie roles. Most of them are pretty good. Rappers in particular have been interesting. Eminem, terrific in 8 Mile. He had real leading man presence, but then again maybe that was because the character was a lot like him. Tupac Shakur seemed to have an at least somewhat promising acting career before he was killed (his last movie had him and Jim Belushi playing dirty cops). 50 Cent was okay in Get Rich or Die Tryin' (a movie I really didn't care for), even if he did mumble his way through it. L.L. Cool J and Jamie Foxx both came into their own and have been very enjoyable. Of course the one we all think of when it comes to rappers turning to acting is the one. The only. Will Smith. The guy gained fame as a rapper, then gained super stardom as a TV star, then was Hollywood royalty as a film actor. Who the hell doesn't love Will Smith? Racists.

Country and rock stars have been so so for the most part. Guys like Gregg Allman (Rush, no band relation) and Keith Richards (Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End) have been good in minor roles. Sting is always memorable as hell; he has true presence, especially as a villain. I know Billy Ray Cyrus and daughter Miley have each dabbled. I actually found Billy Ray to be hilarious in a short cameo as a movie director's wife's lover in Mulholland Dr. a David Lynch movie of course. Speaking of Lynch, Chris Isaak is well known as playing the missing FBI Agent Chester Desmond on the show Twin Peaks and it's movie prequel Fire Walk with Me. Jared Leto, the lead singer for 30 Seconds to Mars, is a terrific and very talented actor. So I guess they are good too in their own ways.

Pop stars are 50/50 and that's all I will say.

WRESTELERS

I surprisingly always back up wrestlers and boxers too. I've always liked Hulk Hogan in movies. I think Roddy Piper was freaking terrific in They Live. Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson has pretty much solidified himself as an actor these days and I think that is freaking great. He is really good. He gets shit roles most days, which is unbelievable since movies like The Rundown (one of the best action movies in years), Walking Tall, and The Scorpion King both sealed him in as THE new action hero. Arnold Schwarzeneggar even cameoed for a second in The Rundown and only had one line while passing by The Rock: "Have fun..." I see that as Arnie informally handing over the rank to The Rock. I think it is great. He has great delivery, can actually read a line, and is amazing in action scenes. Give him more cool movies. NOW.

So there's some categories frequently mocked and downtrodden by uppity critics who think if someone doesn't Tom Hanks or Meryl Streep the hell out of a performance it isn't worth seeing. Well they can go to hell, because if you really look at these guys they aren't that bad. They aren't great but they never go Troll 2 = "They're eating her...And then they're gonna eat me! OH MY GOOOOOOOOOOOOD!!!"... Yeah. And for that we can be thankful. Then again, The Rock did star in Southland Tales. Bad Rock.

So this has been a post from Your Long Absent Guru. Will try to stick around this time. Try! Thanks for reading.

I'm Here Review

2010-11-17T18:04:00.000-08:00

"It was the best dream in the history of dreams." - Sheldon

I was very interested to see Spike Jonze's short film, I'm Here. It is a half hour independant romance set in an alternate history where robots exist in our time and are almost as common as a regular human, and act about the same. But being a robot can be very lonely, and two in particular find companionship with each other, despite discovering love's hardships.

The story centers on Sheldon, a polite if not timid robot who works at a library. The highlight of his day is when he is able to get a look at another robot, Francesca, driving in her car near his bus stop. Francesca, a free spirited robot, soon befriends him and they quickly fall in love. She shows him how to live really. The drama of the story is brought about by Francesca's clumsiness (a fatal trait of any robot), and Sheldon's subsequent self-sacrifice to help her. Sacrifices that leave one whole and the other barren, but neither unhappy. It is a very sweet story.

I can see this being up for an Oscar in the future. In such a short time, Spike Jonze is able to introduce to us a very simplistic yet fascinating version of our modern world, and one of the most convincing love stories I've seen in awhile. It is a subtle relationship. You may remember my bashing of Twilight's Edward and Bella chemistry. I claimed the majority of it was basically eye gazing. A lot of Sheldon and Francesca's relationship can be developing through their eyes, but they more take notice of each other's features and actions with complete joy as opposed to Twilight's sort of cold adoration. It is not a silent film, the two talk and talk very humanlike to one another. I especially love their conversations about dreams, which robots apparantly cannot do. The actors who voice Sheldon and Francesca, Andrew Garfield and Sienna Guillory, are especially tremendous. They establish great presence though they may not even be there, and with equally great emotion.

The special effects in this are some of the best I have seen in any kind of cinema lately. This is mainly because I can't even clearly define what kind of special effects it is. A part of me thought the robots were made with very well done CGI. I at first thought they were people in suits, and animatronics after that. I think perhaps the whole figures may have been people in suits (very well designed suits) and the only CGI involved were the mouths and eyes (both very human when conveying emotions). The design of the robots is particularly interesting because they aren't all I'Robot techy. Sheldon looks like he made his head out of a used Macintosh from the 90s; while Francesca looks a bit manniquin like. This makes the robots even more realistic. There is even a moment that I think was meant to be sex between the two, but it was done tastefully and in a sweet kind of way (plug ins through the back of the head).

An aspect worth mentioning would be the soundtrack. Just had to say it, the soundtrack was great. The song "There Are Many of Us" by Aska Matsumiya is used very well as a kind of theme song.

So yes, Spike Jonze, who has made great films like Being John Malkovich, Adaptation, and Where the Wild Things Are in his short career, once again proves he is one of the most talented and perhaps underworked American directors. He also wrote this, which earns him even more respect. I don't often watch short films, but I'm Here is one that caught my interest. I very much enjoyed it. It is a subtle and sweet little movie that tugs at the heart strings in poignant ways.

This has been the first short film review from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.

The Underrated: Malcolm McDowell

2010-11-17T17:26:00.000-08:00

"Now let's make things nice and sparkling clear..." - Alex DeLarge

As amazing as it must have been, one still has to think that a problem with playing a character as inevitably iconic, and with such greatness, as Alex DeLarge from A Clockwork Orange would be that people might always think of you as Alex DeLarge from A Clockwork Orange. I disagree however, as Malcolm McDowell, the actor who infamously played the sadistic and gleeful Alex, is still a great actor. Now, okay, I'm sure people don't all think of him just as Alex and nothing else and know he is a good actor. Therefore he wouldn't be considered underrated, right? Well, if this were true and he were rated to the amount he should be, he wouldn't be starring in Rob Zombie's Halloween "revisions" and guest acting on Heroes. The last big budget movie he was in was Book of Eli, and while good, that wasn't a wholly great movie (and he was only a cameo near the end).

McDowell's portrayal of Alex reminds me a lot of, and probably inspired a lot of, Heath Ledger's portrayal as The Joker. They both play twisted and relentless men of unspeakable violence and unimaginable joy, violence and joy that the actors seem to be taking and putting their own brand on to an untterly convincing effect. After The Dark Knight, Ledger would no doubt have been showered with other big parts (he was even getting some and completed some during filming) had he not died. One would think the same thing would have happened to Malcolm McDowell, who's character and performance were even greater in many ways. This might not have happened because of the backlash against A Clockwork Orange when it first hit the theatres. It was given an X-rating and banned in England after all. Stanley Kubrick, the visionary director behind the movie, soon rejected the movie and McDowell as well after the negative criticism (Stanley you were a master, but you were also a fucking prick sometimes). So instead of getting Shakespearan roles and big name villains afterward, McDowell got Caligula, a movie that started out a historical epic before morphing into a sleazy and tasteless porno that was later known as one of the most bashed and hated movies of all time.

There were good roles after the initial reaction to ACO, like his creepy part in Cat People, a thriller that is all kinds of strange. He's done some cameo work in raunchy cartoon shows like South Park and Robot Chicken. Most notably though, he took the role once dominated by Donald Pleasance: Dr. Sam Loomis from the Halloween series. Though Zombie's retelling of the first Halloween was pretty damn weak, McDowell was great as Loomis because he played a different kind of Loomis. Don't get me wrong Donald Pleasance's Loomis is perfect and my favorite, but he does come across not at all like a doctor and more of a badass version of that standard old guy in horror movies who goes around moaning "You're doomed. You're all dooooomed!!!" McDowell's Loomis seemed like a believeable child psychiatrist. He cared about his patient, but was later opportunistic when time came to make money off of him and write a book. His later transition to Pleasance's style made sense but didn't feel right. So McDowell did a good job as Dr. Loomis not because he played a big hero but because he played a believeable doctor.

A part I am more impressed with is McDowell's portrayal as one of the main villians of season one of Heroes. McDowell played Daniel Linderman, an Ozymandias type of anti-hero who believes destroying New York City can play a part in bringing the world to a state of peace. I found it ironic he played a villain mainly because his power was healing (not very villainous). Still, in the few times Linderman was there he was one of my favorite characters. He had an air of wisdom and knowledge but at the same time was an obvious manipulator. While on his own level of corruption, McDowell brought some subtle nuances of humanity that really worked. He was a fun character on the show. Fortunately he only starred in the seasons that were really cool, as opposed to the ones that were really bad.

The point is the same as any of these posts: why is this guy underrated? He's a great actor who is never given a role big enough or noticeable enough to show that off. I'm looking forward to watching a movie of his from a few years back called Gangster No. 1, in which he plays an older version of Paul Bettany's hoodlum character. Looks very good. Give Malcolm McDowell good roles, he's an old man it's not like he just needs time to blossom. If you don't, then I say great bolshy yarblockos to you!!!

This has been another edition of the Underrated from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.

The Scream Lantern

2010-11-17T16:15:00.000-08:00

Okay I've watched two new trailers that have just recently come out. And they both originate from very pop culture friendly franchises. The trailer for the superhero movie The Green Lantern, and the fourth installment of the Scream horror series. I will review both.

THE GREEN LANTERN

"Green Lanterns are supposed to be fearless, but I'm not." - Hal Jordan

Okay, so awhile back actor Ryan Reynolds was propositioned to star in the lead of either one of two superhero movies: one was as the classic DC Comics super friend Green Lantern, the other as Marvel Comics' infamous snarky anti-hero Deadpool, whom he played briefly in X-Men Origins: Wolverine. To our disappointment, he went with Green Lantern (I won't give up hope on a Deadpool movie though).

Now watching the trailer for The Green Lantern, I couldn't help but be reminded of a Marvel superhero who was in a movie (actually two) recently. The Human Torch from Fantastic Four. I mean Reynolds plays Hal Jordan, a US military pilot who spends his literal down time slacking, bedding beautiful women, and being a jokester (Flame on!). But when stranded in the desert, Jordan comes into contact with an extraterrestrial spacecract, manned by a wounded member of The Green Lantern Corps. Dying, the alien gives Jordan his ring of power (not the Tolkien one, people) and bestows upon him the title of Green Lantern. Not having enough time to register this dick move, Jordan starts learning of his powers as a GL, meets up with a whole society full of others, finds a nemesis in a strange looking Peter Skarsgaard, and a romance in Blake Lively's character who as near as I can tell is playing a bad actress (drum tap).

I will say that the story looks fairly decent and Reynolds, one of this century's best young actors, is really good and believeable as ever as Green Lantern. And surprisingly the Green Lantern suit, which is completely CGI, was better than I expected. It's not great and it's clearly CG, but it is just better. Most of the CGI I'm seeing in this does look pretty damn stupid. It's straight out of Phantom Menace-land, a term I very often say as of this post. That and... (sigh) Blake Lively. I mean come on, Blake, you just blew me away in The Town, you are a decent albeit sexy actress, you only have two lines in this trailer, and you bring my expectations down 25%? Don't be as bad as this trailer suggests.

So yeah, I may end up seeing this at some point and I may not. It's just iffy for the moment.

Now, onto...

SCREAM 4

"There's something really scary about a guy with a knife who just...snaps." - whoever the hell Kristen Bell is playing

So after another apparantly horrible outing behind the writer and director's with the recent My Soul to Take, sometime horror master Wes Craven teams up with screenwriter Kevin Williamson again for a fourth Scream movie. Before I begin, let me say that I love the Scream trilogy. They are smart, funny, suspenseful, and very intense modern horror movies. I still enjoy the hell out of watching them. That being said, this new movie looks like shit.

The lines presented appear horrible, the acting appears horrible, and whatever story they've tried to hash out appears horrible. They've got most of the principle cast members back: Neve Campbell, David Arquette, Courtney Cox, and the iconic Ghostface voice Roger L. Jackson. None of them feel right. There is also quite a few new additions to the cast of course. Emma Roberts and Hayden Panetierre appear to be either sexy new heroines or cannon fodder for the killer. Kristen Bell and Anna Paquin, both really good actresses, seem to be playing...well, blondes as far as I can tell. Rory Culkin and the lead singer of Crash and the Boys from Scott Pilgrim are playing what I'm calling the Twin Randys, cause all they do is explain the new horror movie survival rules. Adam Brody is here as well, he's usually good, though I don't know if this will help.
So yeah, it looks bad. Unless there's a theatrical trailer that will come out and prove me wrong, I'm gonna be very pissed off about this movie. Why? Because I had high hopes for it, even after My Soul to Take's negative reviews. This looks like a franchise ruiner. Old characters and eye candy aside, it is still probably gonna be horrible. I guess maybe it's because Wes Craven and Kevin Williamson can only have so few successes in the film industry. I mean Wes Craven has made some spectacular films like A Nightmare on Elm St., Serpent and the Rainbow, People Under the Stairs, and Red Eye, but I'm told he's made a lot more bad movies that I was lucky enough to stay away from. And Kevin Williamson was a good writer, but the first two Screams and Dawson's Creek creator credit doesn't save him for Cursed, another Craven fail as well. I mean, goddamn, the trailer looks like a low rent film by the guys who made Meet the Spartans, but like if they were trying to take it seriously. No way, not for me. I just hope I'm wrong and the movie is somehow glorious.

So yeah, check out these trailers and soak em up and see what you think because I know where I stand. One looks decent, one looks disquieting. Have a ball.

This has been some polarized trailer reviewing from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.

Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear thoughts

2010-11-09T18:46:00.000-08:00

"We live in hard times, not end times." - Jon Stewart

For those...I don't know, two of you wondering why Your Modest Guru hasn't been posting lately and missed his Halloween themed posts, I will have you know I was recuperating after a long vacation. This vacation is one that brought me to many states I had yet to visit, but my primary missions on the trip, and that of the captain of the trip, my grandfather, was to make it for Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert's Rally to Restore Sanity and/or Fear in Washington D.C. and then straight down to Florida to watch the Discovery space shuttle launch for its last time. Unfortunately we were only able to see one of those happen and that was the rally (typical NASA wasting my time with bah! safety measures).

Possibly in a parody to Political Media mogul and lunatic Glenn Beck's Rally to Restore Honor (no, no that's not a joke) as well as Al Sharpton's retaliation against Beck with his Reclaim the Dream rally, Jon Stewart had been planning a rally for people to get together and sort of just weed out all of the drama, all of the bullshit, all of the insanity that plagues this country every damn day. Stephen Colbert co-hosted in his satirical right wing persona as the man presenting the arguement for fear mongering in America (the Glenn Becks, if you will). As I am told, Stewart and Colbert expected a turnout of at 100, 000 to 150,000 people at the most to show up in the National Mall. It ended up being approximately 215,000 people, the ones who could make it, of course.

I was in the thick of it and it was quite a sight. It was a collection of people of numerous ethnicities, religions, and cultures, all together, tolerant and peaceful with each other. I suppose I shouldn't go into too much detail, seeing as how I had very long range view of one of the jumbotrons, my whole body was worn out from standing up so long, and summaries of the rally can be found from numerous internet sources. Still I will get my thoughts out there.

First off the musical guests were all top notch people. From the rally long performance of The Roots (with John Legend in the beginning) to the trio performance of Kid Rock, Sheryl Crow, and a recorded T.I., they were all wonderful. My favorite instance would most definitely have to be the unconventional duet of Yusuf Islam (formerly Cat Stevens) and Ossie Osbourne, playing back to back and back again their respective songs Peace Train (for Stewart's side) and Crazy Train (for Colbert's side); and The OJs following up with Love Train just topped it off. And though the music was good, it did seem to drag on a little too much (the opening act especially), but then again that's how I feel at concerts. Yes I know, I'm stupid. Still dragging or not, the music and the performers were top notch.

The comedy, which is what I imagine people were waiting for during the music, was very good. Stewart and Colbert can come off as cheesy out of their television element, but they are still very funny and clever. And the guests, ranging from Sam Waterson and his reading of Colbert's fear poem to the beloved R2-D2, were all stellar. The Sanity/Fear Awards were certainly entertaining. A couple of my favorite moments were when Anderson Cooper's tight T-shirt was awarded as well as the Qu'ran rescuing hippie from our latest 9/11's proposed Burn a Qu'ran Day (I love that the guy tossed his award into the crowd). Then of course the basis for the whole damn rally, the sanity against fear warfare between Stewart and Colbert. Colbert had some of the biggest highlights including his montage of media based fear mongering and his Fearzilla puppet that attacked the stage, defeated with the Pan-like assistance of hilarious Stewart co-host John Oliver. And who can forget for the rest of their days Stewart and Colbert's absolutely horrible attempt to sing their own song, The Greatest, Strongest Country in the World. The signs were also funny, and there were plenty of signs. My favorite one, and arguably one of the most simple, read "Calm the F*ck Down." Glorious.

The main highlight of the event was no doubt Jon Stewart's final speech to the massive crowd. It was from the heart and made plenty of sense. In tumultuous times like these, people should not be so bent on rocking the boat or just acting crazy or stupid. This get together was obviously important to him and turned out far greater than he ever expected.

The rally as a whole was an unregretable experience. It was amazing being there and the feeling that people were that ready to be good to one another and not try to get vicious about anything. It is true indeed that in a time when so much badness is going on that a bunch of us sane Americans can get together and say tell the world to Calm the F*ck Down. For a guy like me, it could be one of those once in a lifetime things, so I am no doubt holding this as a dear memory. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go through the rally crowd photos and see if I can find myself. Haha, just kidding...or am I? Yes.

This has been a return from another freaking long absence from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading, especially since my next post will more than likely have to unwrapped on Christmas.

Top 8 Reasons Dexter is not a monster

2010-10-18T20:13:00.000-07:00

"I live my life in hiding. My survival depends on it." - Dexter Morgan

(MAJOR SPOILERS; but if you don't plan to watch the show then I guess you won't mind)

I love Dexter. It is one of the smartest, edgiest, and most supenseful and fun shows on television. You will recall that it was in my top 3 TV shows. In case you haven't heard, Dexter centers around the titular Dexter Morgan, a mild mannered blood spatter analyst for the Miami Police Department who moonlights as a vigilante serial killer. The show focuses on his attempts to juggle a social life with family and friends while also satisfying his psychotic urges by murdering Miami's worst killers, as per a code taught to him by his cop father. Now a main element of the series that has thrived even into the fifth and current season is the mystery as to whether or not Dexter's good nature is merely an act, a building emotion, or true feelings. I'd go with the last, but here are my reasons for why.

8. He kills the evil people

Simple enough, right? If Dexter was merely a psychotic killing machine, he would have disregarded his father's code and satisfied his desires in any way he pleased. I would doubt even the sickest serial killers would want to take up the task of thoroughly investigating someone almost or just as dangerous as they are, stalking, and then killing them. Too much work, and very often risky. The fact that he has stuck with the code with such discipline and devotion, and his often strict and serious no-innocents policy, are not solid but they do make humanity somewhat evident.

7. Admittance

As the late-great and fictional John Locke once said "Crazy people don't know they're crazy, they think they're getting saner." Dexter knows he is a psychopath. He admits it very often, even to the people around him in very subtle ways. The fact that he knows, and is ashamed of the fact, that he does horrible things (killing bad guys is understandable, but there is also dismemberment) is very thoughtful for a man claiming to be an emotionless monster.

6. His longing for normalcy

One thing Dexter has always wished for is to be like everyone else. This is a wish that so far has always been so close and then taken away from him. Granted, Dexter's last nemesis, the terrifying Arthur Mitchell, also wanted to be normal and good (unlike Dexter, he never really tried). Still, because Dexter hasn't taken much pride in what he does and would give it all up if he could is a sign of humanity.

5. Sense of right and wrong

The main thing Dexter looks for in his ventures is evil, and if you've done murder you're done. Dexter doesn't let the murder of an innocent slide, not even for himself (he doesn't kill himself but the deaths do haunt him). The fact that he abides by that standard of good and evil, right and wrong that all people abide by is more proof that he is good.

4. Dreams

When his victims were found at the bottom of the sea, and the identities revealed, Dexter, called simply "The Bay Harbor Butcher" was given somewhat of a hero status. A comic book was made inspired by his deeds called "The Dark Defender." Dexter liked the idea of being a hero. Even if he does usually see himself in a negative light, he clearly knows and seems to feel at ease at the fact that he is ridding the world of true evil. Sounds like a hero to me, even if his method is vicious.

3. Kindness

Many of the people in his life (though they don't know what he does in his spare time) look upon Dexter as a true friend and an important part of their lives. His foster sister Debra sees him as the "strong one" and her best friend. Angel Batista and Vince Masuka, his cop colleagues, are probably the closest people he has to actual buddies, who both admire, respect, and appreciate him. Even his boss, Maria Laguerta, who at first only had a twisted kind of crush on him began to truly care about him. Of course the biggest impact he had was on the love of his life, Rita. He met her while she was broken and weak, and through their relationship and his being there for her (passive as it was for him in the beginning) built her up and made her a strong, confident woman again. All of this proves that Dexter doesn't have to kill the bad guys to make people's lives better.

2. Guilt

Dexter has done many things in his life that he has felt extremely guilty for. Notably when he kills innocents, Dexter is in a frantic and sort of dumbfounded state where he can't even mask his guilt and shame while in front of people. I would say however in the few times he did kill "innocents" they were usually innocent of murder (which is what he kills for) and another was a mercy killing. Then there are times when the people he really does love are hurt because of him. He murdered his long lost homicidal brother, the one person who would understand him, accept him, and love him unconditionally, in order to protect the other people in his life. After learning that him becoming the instrument of justice his foster father and mentor originally actually drove the man to suicide, Dexter was in a completely depressed and confused state. He felt his whole life was a mistake. Or very recently when his own selfishness got the woman he loved killed, Dexter murdered a vulgar stranger and then screamed his lungs out in anguish (and you could feel the pain and sense of failure he had). The monster Dexter so often described himself as would not feel guilty about anything.

1. Love

Dexter does love. He had love for his father, the mother he never knew, the brother he had to kill, the sister whose always stuck by him, the woman he loved and lost, the children he's helped to raise, his own son as well. Dexter has always thought he couldn't love, but that was because he felt someone like him didn't deserve it. He cared deeply about his foster father and was always trying to make him proud in his own twisted way. He of course loves his sister, who he always backs up whenever he can and has even killed his own blood to protect her. Then there is Rita and her kids Astor and Cody. He grew to love them all over time; he was especially enraged and terrified whenever an enemy would target them. Dexter has always had a kinship with children as they sort of represent his lost innocence as a child, so he was great with Astor and Cody. He eventually arrived at a point where disappointing Rita made him feel "like the scum of the earth." and often made strides to embrace the good she saw in him. Rita was his hope and the aforementioned anguish and pain he felt after she died because of him was proof of his love for her. Dexter has a lot of love to give and usually gets it right. I think if anything love will be his guiding light, the factor that saves him in the end.

So yes, I think any Dexter fan should be able to tell that he is not a monster, more of a necessary evil. He is a good man with a bit more darkness inside than most others. Still, I would be lying if I said the world would be a better place without him. The one thing people who do or don't watch the show can grasp, the one thing those who are intrigued or disgusted by the serial killer aspect can't deny: the people he kills deserve it and got it coming.

This is the first of hopefully several Dexter posts from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.

Movie Trailers 3

2010-10-12T21:16:00.000-07:00

Round 3 of my summing up of some recent trailers that have come to light. I will of course give my opinion, so you can judge from that and ask yourself whether you might want to see these movies. Not much more to say, so here we go.

DUE DATE:
Though this movie has Robert Downey, Jr. and Jamie Fox, who are both terrific, and Zach Galifinakias (know I'm spelling that wrong) who is pretty damn funny, I think this looks kinda lame. I mean I'm getting used to trailers showcasing 70 percent of the freaking movie, but when it gives away what looks like every good joke or surprise, how do you expect me to keep interest. That and some of the lines, mostly from Galifinakias, just seem totally weak. Still these guys are capable of great comedy and a lot of this does look funny. I don't know whether or not I should try this out, though I know a great many will.

THE DILEMMA:
I was very surprised to find this was a Ron Howard film; then again, I guess he did do How The Grinch Stole Christmas time upon a once. Still this looks pretty good, Vince Vaughn and Kevin James play two best friends who love the fact they have the perfect double date thing going on with their two perfect wives, Jennifer Connelly (son of a bitch!) and Wynona Ryder (son of a bitch!). It is perfect only until Vaughn discovers Ryder is having an affair with a younger man (Channing Tatum, for you ladies) behind James' back. This has the makings of a good movie because The Dilemma actually has a good dilemma; should Vaughn tell James about his wife's infidelity? Would it be a betrayal to tell him the truth and destroy a marriage or to say nothing and let the deception last? There are even guns and fist fights in the movie. It has potential. The only downsides are the majority of the trailer is devoted to a bad case of poison ivy Vaughn gets in the film that screws up his bladder (it was kinda funny though because it seemed like Vaughn was trying to stay on the primary dilemma). And secondly, how do these two seriously get such hot wives; and it's not just in this movie, they have a damn track record (Vaughn in Wedding Crashers and Old School, James in King of Queens and Hitch). Maybe chicks really do like guys who are just funny. Maybe Seth MacFarlane and Judd Apatow's frequent pairing of babes with slobs is rubbing off on our culture. If so, there's gonna be a great many lucky guys in this world.

TANGLED:
An upcoming Disney animated film, Tangled seems to be taking that old fairy tale story of Rapunzel and throwing into, well, the Disney style. Our heroine with the elongated hair and our hero who climbs up the elongated hair begin in that Han and Leia phase it seems and their adventure begins as hijinks ensue. Though the trailer gives way too much away, leaves no real mystery to how the story will play out, and it even pretty cliche at times, it still looks really fun and funny. With the voices of Zachary Levi and Mandy Moore in the leads, I think Tangled could be a very enjoyable Disney movie.

THE TEMPEST:

The Tempest right off looks like a movie I will like. I love new takes on old classics. Though I've read very little Shakespeare, his work is kind of alluring, and this is his last work so there's that as well. The stories can be revised in so many unique ways. The story features several colorful and unique characters as they get into misadventures on a tropical island (a storyline I am in no way familiar with). Many of the characters seem to be terrorized or manipulated by the sorceress Prospera (Helen Mirren, playing what was originally a male character). A great cast is in this: David Straitherin, Alan Cumming, Chris Cooper, and Bill Conti play Prospera's apparent shady victims; Russell Brand and Alfred Molina play a couple of weird, idiotic, but mostly hedonistic wanderers; Ben Whisha is a violent supernatural entity; and Djimoun Honsou is Prospera's eccentric island rival Caliban. The director is Julie Taymor, who directed another revisionist Shakespeare story, Titus, to much acclaim. This looks pretty good, engrossing. Some thought provoking fantasy perhaps, with themes defined as only Shakespeare could.

THE TOURIST:

This looks like a good thriller again because of the cast. Johnny Depp, Angelina Jolie, and Paul Bettany. Depp plays a regular tourist seduced by an alluring femme fatale (Jolie) into a North by Northwest type of scenario, while a determined agent (Bettany) strives to solve this mystery. The trailer gets the fundamentals in: Depp is seduced, framed, on the run, and yet still can't seem to not trust Jolie (well as good as she looks neither would I), but the nature of what is happening isn't clearly stated. Still it looks witty and action packed, not to mention well directed. It's got people I like saying and doing things I think are cool. I like the fact that Depp is being the nervous Cary Grant character while Jolie is the mysterious badass, when first hearing about the film I thought it'd be the other way around (either that or a Mr. and Mrs. Smith type movie); I suppose, though, Depp is more fun when he's frantic and Jolie is more fun when she's luscious and lethal. Might have to check it out sometime.

LEGACY:

Legacy looks like my kind of thriller. Suspenseful, enigmatic, claustrophobic, good action, intriguing performers, and an interesting story. The plot involves an ex-black ops commando (Idris Elba) on the run from bad guys and possibly even his old comrades. He is held up in a hotel room, living in fear, and being contacted by various people, including an old lover, friends, journalists, and his politician brother. The trailer isn't loud and action packed (though there is action scenes), it is more atmospheric and visual friendly. It gets the fundamentals down but makes them intriguing; I'm invested in Elba's character just watching the trailer, that's the mark of a good trailer. This looks like the first time I will really enjoy Idris Elba's acting, I've seen a few of his movies and his fine performance as Stringer on The Wire, but this is one where he looks particularly intriguing. Clarke Peters from The Wire is also in the movie, so that's awesome too. I am very interested, it looks intense as hell.

YOGI BEAR:

...This is not my expertise. Well, kids are gonna like it I suppose. They got Dan Ackroyd and Justin Timberlake as Yogi and Booboo. So that's weird, but they seem to be pulling it off. From a kid's point of view this probably looks like some good cheesy fun with talking animated animals, but my adult mind is telling me this could either pan out as decent children's film or The Country Bears 2 (shudder).

THE DEBT:

Here might be a really thrilling thriller aka espionage actioner. The story deals with two timelines, one which deals with young Mossad operatives (Jessica Chastain, Sam Worthington, Martin Csokas) who are on a secret mission to capture a Nazi war criminal in the 1960s. The other timeline focuses on the now older operatives (Helen Mirren, Ciarin Hinds, Tom Wilkinson) in the present as they are revered for their actions during the mission. I think the main plot comes about when proof arises that they actually made a horrible mistake during the mission (which we will no doubt so play out in the past) and have to make sure whatever secret they kept stays kept. The Debt looks intense, shadowy, and subtle, a bit like Legacy. Plus there are actors here that I like, which you've been and will keep hearing a lot.

HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS:

Okay, I've never been that interested in the Harry Potter series, book or film. I stopped watching around the fourth or fifth film because it was just kinda repetitive to me. Maybe I will follow up and watch the whole damn series at some point, like I plan to do with Twilight. Still no matter what old reservations I have for this series, this trailer looks epic as hell. I don't even know what the hell is going on but it looks cool. I only know that the pivotal fight that they were building up to since Philosopher's Stone between Harry and Lord Voldemort is gonna come to a head. A friend once described the ending of the book series to me, because these kinds of fans can't help it, and I had a hard time understanding (and this is the guy who thought Lost made sense). Still with cool visuals, locations, special effects, and a cast of just about every European actor or actress I adore, and of course a series fans around the world are in love with, I don't think this movie can go wrong.

SKYLINE:

Okay, this is one of my many cases where the teaser trailer for the film looks far greater than the theatrical trailer. Remember Inception's teaser which gave little to no clue as to what the movie was gonna be about, just that it was gonna be freaking amazing? Yeah, that's what I mean. Both trailers feature city-folk looking up in awe as alien ships begin hovering over every other roof everywhere, open up those doors of theirs, and start sucking people in. Now you just leave it at that, I'm in. But the theatrical came along and ruined that image. It keeps the image and a few other cool visuals, but then it goes on into clear bad acting, overly cliche story, and action that crosses War of the Worlds with Snakes on a Plane. It has actors I like, sure, like the underutilized Eric Balfour, Donald Faison from Scrubs, and the great David Zayas from Dexter, but even they don't seem to be saving this movie. The monster effects are shit too. So yeah, Skyline, you had me going there for a second, then you just went and cheesed it up. Hope I'm wrong.

THE ROOMMATE:

Single White Female much? This is indeed a pretty clear remake of Barbet Schroeder's Single White Female, only set in a college campus. So our recently crowned Sexiest Woman Alive, Minka Kelly, stars as a new student in your standard dream movie college. She has a nice roommate, Rebecca (Leighton Meester), goes to flashy night clubs, and even has a cute guy (Cam Gigandet). It all seems perfect, until it turns out her roommate is obessessed with her and will do anything to keep her for herself. Then the horror, oh the horror, begins. Though this trailer has some really intense and scary moments, it is hard to take seriously. I can handle the spiritual remake aspect mostly because I haven't seen Single White Female, but you know the story. For one thing, key scares from classic horror movies and thrillers are rehashed here; the Rebecca chick fades in out of darkness behind the heroine like Michael did in Halloween, stabs a guy to death during sex like in Basic Instinct, there is that cool "Go check it out!" shot taken from The Shining, then of course the trademark stalker stare. Also, I can't take Leighton Meester, the uppercrust Blair from Gossip Girl, as a friendless psycho. Why? She is hot as hell, even when trying not to be; more like 200 friends on Facebook. Oh yeah and for us guys there is apparently a kiss scene between Kelly and Meester (there's something to look forward to). The thing that really freaked me out is that my friend is in college and her roommate was a chick named Rebecca (watch your back, jk jk).

HOBO WITH A SHOTGUN:

This looks like a grindhouse movie that'll put the actual Grindhouse movie in it's shadow. Hobo with a Shotgun is based off of the Canadian faux trailer submitted to Grindhouse for its collection of faux trailers. Now it has evolved into a full blown, crazy ass movie. The movie looks like a collection of hardcore violence and action. It puts Rutger Hauer as the Hobo in a city that is on a fast track to Fallout 3 territory. He finds a shotgun, sees the violence corrupting his world, has nothing better to do. The choice looks simple. So we pit the Hobo against the cities worst and it looks like cartoonishly graphic exploitation at its strangest. I mean, I really don't know whether to watch it or shy away from it. It looks too crazy actually, but in a good way. The one thing that really sells me on it is Rutger Hauer, an actor who will never cease to be intimidating and awesome. The trailer mainly features a monologue he gives to a hospital nursery full of newborn babies, as he bitterly laments their likely bad futures. It'll be good just to see him be a badass again. I am pumped as hell.

THE GOON:

Based off of the popular comic book (which I've not read unfortunately), The Goon is an animated film that will feature too cartoonish but nevertheless badass partners, the musclebound and gruff Goon (Clancy Brown) and the stout and talkative Franky (Paul Giamatti) as they go to work fighting supernatural forces. The trailer shows their daily activities: passing beers and playing games around a bar, killing zombies, and looking back on the old days when vices weren't as messy. The last featuring The Goon and Franky piling through a street filled with zombies, firing off tommy guns and swinging baseball bats to the sound of country rock sold me. It is also being produced by David Fincher. It looks like a fun, graphic, and clever little movie.

SUCKER PUNCH:

From the mind of Zach Snyder, here comes a movie that looks freaking awesome but doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I won't try to describe Snyder's premise so here's some things featured in the trailer that will catch people's interest: guns, swords, WWII, mental patients, gangsters, robots, dragons, samurai, martial arts, gun fu, 50s culture, and, above all else, a cast of scantily clad young women who can kick some ass. And every nerd in the world jizzed in their pants. The main cast of girls include Emily Browning, Vanessa Hudgens, Jena Malone, Abbie Cornish, and Jamie Chung, as well as Carla Gugino, Scott Glenn, and Jon Hamm supporting. Sucker Punch looks like every style choice Snyder has ever put into a film evolved times ten and thrown together to make a CGI laced action picture that looks as if it seeks to outdo Sin City or 300 or even Kung Fu Hustle. I mean all the trailer really is is action, pure, fast paced, and heavy hitting. And damn if I am not ready for it.

BLACK SWAN:

Okay, now this looks fucking crazy. The trailer seriously freaked me out. This is Darren Aronofsky's new film, a psychological thriller centered around a paranoid star ballet dancer (Natalie Portman). Portman's character has been rising high in the ballet industry. Succeeding a previous star (Wynona Ryder), she becomes her handsome director's (Vincent Cassel) grand pupil. Her insecurity kicks in on a dangerous level however when the director seems to have found a new rising star in another dancer (Mila Kunis), resulting in a possibly unstable state of mind. The trailer features such surreal, horrifying imagry that I imagine it will be hard to sit through this movie. The last visual suggests a Cronenberg-esque body horror aspect. Aronofsky's direction, no matter the genre he pursues, seems to be very stark and powerful. The acting looks tremendous, Natalie Portman in a type of role I don't think I've seen her in before, looking frantic. Mila Kunis needs a role in a movie that looks this dark and edgy, a right career move. The supporting cast of Vincent Cassel, Wynona Ryder, and Barbara Hershey will no doubt add to the movie's success and outcome. I think this movie looks like a haunting, surreal, thought provoking thriller. I will definitely want to see it. One thing though: does every film these days have to feature a lesbian kiss? Is it like an obligation? Don't get me wrong, I am just as ready for a Portman/Kunis lip-locking anytime, but still I just find it odd. I think it's probably just a cheap route to draw male audiences in (and its working, though the movie looks great anyway). Maybe trailers should feature more kisses between gay men; somehow I think the result would come back negative?

HEREAFTER:

Clint Eastwood's new film, and most times that's all I'd need to say. For the past 20 years, Eastwood has in more ways than one confronted life and death within his films, and with Hereafter it seems as if he is making a film primarily about the subject. It centers around various people who have had different experiences with death, as we all have. Many of these people look to a once renowned spirit medium (Matt Damon) for help, but he has his own troubled conscience to deal with. The subject of death is particularly interesting for a film to base itself around, especially since we all think about whatever hereafter there might actually be. If it's Eastwood I'd imagine this is gonna be a bold, emotional, compelling movie that definitely leaves an impression like the majority of his movies. Though I certainly hope this won't be his last one.

TRUE GRIT:

I know I will have to see the John Wayne original beforehand, but still how can I not be totally pumped for this movie. A remake of the classic western, revisioned by the masters of the craft, The Coen Brothers, and featuring Jeff Bridges as the A Number 1 badass. I'm in all the way. With Matt Damon and Josh Brolin in the supporting cast, this just looks like a terrific western and I'm glad as hell that there are still terrific westerns (it's just a totally classic genre). So yes only three words needed to sum up why this movie is gonna be great: Coens, Bridges, Western.

127 HOURS:

I think this might be the movie I'm looking forward to the most. Based on a true story, Aron Ralston (James Franco) is a young adventurer always looking for new obstacles in far away places. During a hiking trip in the desolate terrain of Utah in 2003, he literally gets stuck between a rock and a hard place when his arm is crushed by a boulder while between a narrow canyon wall. Low on supplies, with no help coming, Aron will be forced to go to the extremes in order to survive. Though having a cast with Treat Williams, Amber Tamblyn, Kate Mara, and Clemence Poesey on the side, the movie will primarily feature a solo act from the great James Franco. For a movie about a guy stuck in one place, it looks intense and exciting as hell. I unfortunately know the outcome of this story however. I can't imagine how its gonna be on film, but I'm sure it will be effective. This is the latest film from the master filmmaker Danny Boyle, director of Trainspotting, 28 Days Later, and Slumdog Millionaire. I am excited as hell for this movie. It looks amazing.

So those are some recent trailers to movies coming our way soon or a little ways down the road. But these are just my opinions, you have yours and I advise you to see what you want.

The Underrated: Freddy Got Fingered

2010-10-11T20:01:00.001-07:00

"Argh! My characters are lame, my characters are lame! I'm a loser! I WISH I WAS DEAD!!!" - Gordon "Gord" Brody

For those who have actually seen the film, and are about to turn away from this article in disgust, allow me to plead my case. I watched the Tom Green written, produced, directed, and starred movie Freddy Got Fingered a long time ago and then rewatched it a year or so back. I liked it both times. I then came to realize that I was in the minority having liked it. I wouldn't even say I "liked" it now as I have a fresher opinion on it. Putting a thinking man's analytical sights on this movie, I've come up with a bit of a reasonable argument for why, like it or hate it, this film is not necessarily terrible and why it is, indeed, underrated.

A brief synopsis: The film stars Tom Green as Gordy, a slacker in his mid-to-late thirties who cycles back in forth to pursuing his dream of being a cartoon show artist and part time cheese sandwich factory worker to returning home in failure to his disappointed parents. It already sounds a little absurd and a little dramatic, but Gordy embraces every failure, every misstep as if it were a new opportunity to change the world in some ridiculous way that is even worse than his bigger "goals." This leads him on a very strange and deranged journey to find himself and make peace with his father, played by a very eccentric and angry Rip Torn. I won't lie there are some very stupid, mind boggling, disgusting, twisted, and just absolutely horrifying things that go on in this movie. Things that, if viewed back to back, would make you wonder why the movie isn't rated far lower than it already is. But again, there is my case.

First I will quote Roger Ebert in his damnening review of the film: "The day may come when Freddy Got Fingered is seen as a milestone for neo-surrealism. The day may never come when it is seen as funny." I can agree as much as I can disagree. The film is no doubt surreal in its own way. But I am one who always says that certain things can be seen as funny if the audience can accept the context in which it is trying to be funny. That being said, Freddy Got Fingered is in the retarded complex. Please, don't take offense to my usage of the word "retard," if you've seen the film you'll know I'm not wrong.

I do in fact label this movie as retarded. Despite what we may think, there are very few things we can label films these days. We mostly constrict labels to old genres. In that sense, I don't necessarily see Freddy Got Fingered as a comedy. I honestly think it can be seen as a horror movie as much as a comedy. I will describe a few "jokes" in the movie: the movie opens with Gordy laying on a bed narrating some actually well done drawings, losing focus and giggling at his own story in dopey glee; in the wake of his failures he pretends to be a scuba diver looking for teasure in his shower, or constructing a device that allows him to play piano (badly) while dangling stringed up sausages in front of his mouth to eat with not hands; he accidentally kills, purposefully mutilates, and wears a moose in order to "get inside his characters"; a go-lucky kid is horrifically injured throughout the film; Gordy at one point delivers a baby, swings it around a room by its umbilical cord, then chews the cord off; near the end of the film he somehow jerks off an elephant to a grotesque effect. People laugh at this, I laughed at this. We aren't laughing because it is funny, we are laughing because it is absurd, or laughable; we can't take it seriously. And because we cannot take it seriously, we can laugh; we accept the film's twisted sense of humour, or sense of story.

I justify the "retarded" label because the things Green's character does and the situations he gets in are absolutely ludicrous, stupid, and even disturbing. But to see it is to be overcome with an urge to laugh because it is ludicrous, because it is stupid. The disturbing part is just the bad after-taste. Even the title doesn't make sense; the "Freddy got fingered" plot point is pretty miniscule in comparison to the other things that happen in the movie. From one point of view, yes, Freddy Got Fingered is a bad film. I watch and I know it is a bad film. But why then should it be a hated film? There are plenty of bad movies that are absolutely beloved by some people. This movie is like the Eraserhead of the Y Generation; it is absurd, but creative in its absurdity. Creativity is beginning to be a hard thing to come by in Hollywood. I would much rather watch Freddy Got Fingered for sheer amazement and shock/entertainment value then Vampires Suck, a movie that you can tell from promotional material is going to be horrendous and not even entertaining (save for the people and fandom it is mocking, ironically). When it comes down to it, would you rather watch a bland bad movie or an out of this world bad movie?

Now, a hater would immediately jump to conclude that I must be some kind of cult fan of the movie or something. Not at all. Just because I saw the movie, realized what it was, ran with it, and enjoyed it doesn't mean I rank it with comedy classics like Dr. Strangelove, Annie Hall, and The Jerk. I just saw it differently then other people. So I don't think I quite like it just for how retarded it is, but the ambition behind its retarded outcome. Freddy Got Fingered is underrated in relation to the aspects I have detailed above. Do I recommend it, that depends on what you thought of this article.

This has been the longest Underrated article thus far from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.

The Event: Premiere Review

2010-10-03T17:08:00.001-07:00

Okay, I'll admit, even I was a little intrigued by the enigmatic promos for this new NBC show. The show's own title was a slogan: "WHAT IS THE EVENT?" Though I knew it would more than likely be one of the many ambitious shows that will try to imitate my favorite (you know the one), I still figured why not give it a chance. Maybe this one will succeed where others failed and live up to what it tries to be, or, better yet, become something of its own. With that, I've watched the first two episodes of The Event.

(Possible spoilers)

STORY

I was just shaking my head and rolling my eyes a lot after a bombardment of familiar set pieces appeared such as a sunny Island where bad things are going down and an airplane in peril. I was wondering if they were even trying.

One thing you will notice right off the bat is that this show is extremely, extremely non-linear. I mean, you thought Lost jumped around you should think again. The show's BAM-BAM-BAM approach to present and jumbled past situations will be very disorienting for those who aren't used to and won't immediately roll with it. What makes up for it is that there are at least interesting things going on in this madness. Okay, in the flashbacks we are shown the point of views of two different groups. Group 1 includes this show's everyman Sean Walker, his beautiful girlfriend Leila, and her family. Sean and Leila are going on an Island vacation together (where Sean plans to propose to Leila, of course) while Leila's parents watch over her daughter... or her sister (I wasn't really clear on it). I don't think the show is ballsy enough to go Chinatown and be both. While on their vacation, Sean and Leila's calm is hampered by another couple who are shady without being shady. Eventually, Leila disappears and Sean is on the run. Meanwhile, gunmen descend on Leila's parents and daughter/possible sister. Okay, now the more interesting Group 2 involves the President of the United States Elias Martinez, a newly elected, no nonsense, and idealistic man who has recently become aware that his shady lieutenants and successors have detained a massive and mysterious group of people in an Antarctic facility. Now in the present, we are shown Sean and Leila's father on board a plane with Sean, armed and trying to rally help because Leila's father is about to crash the plane into Martinez's press conference. The press conference that Martinez hopes will expose the false imprisonment and shed light on this "mysterious group," with the group's soft spoken leader Sophia Maguire as a representative.

Now I really thought of this as a simple government conspiracy story, like Persons Unknown mixed with a little 24 and Lost. But the very end of the episode more the anything is what will bring people back for another viewing, while also reminding fans of the pivotal plane ride of Lost's fifth season.

The second episode builds on Sean's on the run storyline, culminating in his capture for a murder he didn't commit. Meanwhile, Martinez and his advisors are led to believe that a long missing faction of the "mysterious group" is responsible for all of these events, although apparent group leader Sophia proclaims that the group actually saved them from the plane attack. She won't elaborate more, of course. A task force is set up to find the missing faction, which is led by CIA Agent Lee, who we get wind early on that he is actually a mole for the "mysterious group." We do however get some elaboration on the "mysterious group" in flashbacks. They are an apparant missing link in the human species, having a .1 percent difference to our DNA. They are no doubt above us in many ways. In this light I assume they could be called Homo Sapien Superior, or Mutants of X-Men fame. The only really interesting traits behind them is that they have superior and unparalled technology backing them up and they age much slower than normal people; Sophia, for instance, has gone from 1944 to 2010 and has only gotten a few wrinkles.

This episode ends on just as big a cliffhanger as it shows the shocking conclusion to the plane in peril arc. This insures I will come back, naturally, as I am easily persuaded by shows like this.

CHARACTERS

Though Sean Walker is your standard reluctant, everyman hero, I gravitated towards him because he is acted by Jason Ritter correctly. I felt more for him in the second episode as he desperately pleads his unbelievable case. I want him to get through this. Elias Martinez, played by Blair Underwood, is also likeable. He's like what we all expected Obama to be; the badass diplomat, the shining knight whose gonna fix the system. He's a guy who tries to do the right thing and not compromise, though both could come with risks. And for us guys, Leila is played by Sarah Roemer, who pulls off the role just as well as Ritter as Sean (neither one requires much of anything special, they're just correct). Laura Innes shrouds herself in calm mystery as the mysterious group leader Sophia, trying to protect her people but not make waves with the masses. Sophia is no doubt a principal player. Second to her in the mysterious group is Clifton Collins, Jr. as a renegade member who would prefer to go Magneto on everyone. If this series takes off, I'm at least glad it is vehicle for Collins, Jr., an actor who doesn't get as much praise or as many roles as he should. Zeljko Ivanek, who I think has made a career off of playing corporate douchebags, plays what I believe to be Secretary of Defense with all the smug cynicism and cold calculating nature he brings to just about every role. Tony Todd was there as a general or something for like a second (way to utilize a good actor). All the characters are good so far, we just have to hope that they aren't expendable episodic drifters who die in their second or third appearance.

PROS

The story has potential, but then again so did FlashForward and Persons Unknown. The characters and the situations they are in are all cryptic as hell, which guarentees that the curious ones will stick around to figure why these things are happening. Also the dialogue is pretty good, sharp, intelligent, believeable; again, something those other shows screwed up on. There is a high level of compelling mystery that can capture an audience's intrigue as well as characters you can kinda care about. So that's two things you have to keep an audience, namely me, but both of those things need improvement.

CONS

I've already mentioned the uber-nonlinear story structure. The Event's frantic need to be on the go and not slow down will either increase tension at an over the top rate or completely lose people. And each episode's flashbacks aren't to something specific but mainly just keep jumping around from anywhere to 10 minutes ago to 60 years ago. I mean Lost had flashbacks, but this is a little much. This also means there may not be enough time to fully get to know characters and thus not care as much about them or their predicaments. Speaking of characters, there have already been about three who introduced right off, given a little depth, and killed very soon after. I hate that. Also there is just a high level of confusion. I don't if the "event" the show is titled for has just happened, happened a long time ago, or if it is still coming. And you probably noticed I had little clue of who some of the characters were and what it was they did (I'm currently watching the third episode and I guess Sean is all of a sudden a former computer hacker...ok!). So there's that.

ALL IN ALL

The Event is no "new Lost", but it does have its own brand of mystery and intrigue and can at least keep me interested when I'm watching. Despite its somewhat incoherent story and pacing, The Event is well written, acted, and shot. For now, at least. I will keep watching unless it eventually sinks into the same slump other "new Lost" shows find themselves in sooner or later.

This has been an update from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.

Lost: My theories

2010-09-30T15:24:00.000-07:00

Okay, I know. I know I said I was gonna do another one on the anniversary of the show's end. But it was requested, the anniversary of its beginning was only awhile ago, and I'm always up for one. With that here is a new Lost post. This time I will do something that has always been part of the joy of watching the show: theorize. Since so many people could not answer so many questions themselves - even when those questions were clearly answered or you could come up with your own logical explanation if you used your head - I will give you my theories on some of the things that weren't completely spelled out for those less intelligent or easily confused fans... and some that were.

1. The Cabin

This is one that confuses people still, even though I think its simple. In Season 3 we were introduced to what we believed to be Jacob's lair: a small, isolated cabin in the woods. As Locke and Ben went into the cabin, white ash was found to surround it and inside was empty. Once the two started arguing inside over the validity of Jacob's existence, the cabin started shaking, sounds of the Smoke Monster erupted, and a man was briefly seen inside (he also asked Locke for help). After escaping the cabin, Locke and Ben believed it was Jacob.

My theory: it was not Jacob. It was actually his nemesis, The Man in Black. I'm guessing Jacob used the cabin between the 80s and 90s as one of his hideouts (along with the cave on the cove and the Foot Statue). Jacob probably abandoned the cabin when Oceanic 815 crashed, knowing the survivors would be searching through the jungle. With Jacob retreating to the Statue, The Man in Black found an opening inside the cabin and used it as part of his ploy to mislead Locke, Ben, and the rest. Evidence: the man we saw briefly inside both times looked more like MIB than Jacob (and at one point he had Christian Shepherd's corpse in the rocking chair); there were smoke sounds surrounding the cabin when everything went crazy; MIB was of course seen operating out of there for awhile; the ash around the cabin clearly meant Jacob was hiding there originally.

2. The Numbers

No introductions are really needed. Hurley's backstory primarily involved his lottery winning numbers that he believed to be cursed. The numbers were even showing up all over the show before and after that. Eventually the numbers were revealed to be Jacob's six last candidates for a new Protector of the Island, one of whom was Hurley.

My theory: the numbers were a sign. Jacob's sign. They appeared everywhere for a reason. The numbers showed up in the lives of every character, Hurley was just the only one who noticed. them. They were either two things: a) a calling from Jacob that beckoned people to The Island, or b) a mark that set a chain of events that would lead the candidates to The Island, seeing as how bad things usually happened when the numbers were seen, and not just with Hurley. I think it could be both actually. Perhaps Hurley being the only one who knew there was something more behind the numbers was a measure of his candidacy.

3. What was with that talking bird and polar bears

This frustrates me because, like most of the unanswered questions, it is best solved by piecing things together. Yes, a few of the "mysteries" out of the many of mind boggling mysteries of Lost was what were strange animals doing on the Island, including polar bears and a bird believed to have talked.

My theory: I barely registered the so called "talking bird" in either scene it was in. Yes, in a few instances there was a bird thought to have called out the names of characters as it flew by. I think it was the season 1 finale where it was believed to have called out Locke's name, and then in the season 2 finale where it apparently shrieked "Hurley!", even Hurley thought so (because Hurley notices everything of course). I knew what the polar bears were after season 4. I think they were mainly used by the Dharma Initiative as experiments and then eventually messengers to test the power of The Wheel, that teleported people through space and time. If you want a little more elaboration watch the Lost epilogue.

4. Libby

Oh, Libby. What a great character you could have been. Yes after her shocking and unexpected death half way through her first season, and the level of mystery still surrounding her, there was much spectulation about who Libby was before The Island. There was even a long time theory that she was a part of the Dharma Initiative. I had my weird theories but it was probably pretty simple in the end.

My theory: Before season 6 I was getting the feeling that we'd never have closure for Libby, and just randomly theorized that she was Jacob's illegitimate daughter. How's that for major father issues? But Libby probably was only a victim of circumstance. Maybe she was just mentally unstable at one point. Maybe it was because of her husband's death. Maybe she was cured and that inspired her to be a therapist. Maybe she was, like many others killed on Lost, an innocent bystander who got on the wrong plane.

5. The importance of Walt and Aaron

There was much ambiguity around two primary children on the show, Walt Lloyd and Aaron Littleton. Walt had for most of his life been seen as "different" or "special", and many times it was clear he could do things beyond the limits of possibility, i.e. birds falling dead when he's angry, and an overall ability to sort of will things to happen. It was never really touched on but always a big mystery. Then there was Aaron who was an enigma even before birth. A psychic told Claire that she could not let anyone else raise him but her alone and later changed his mind and told her to get on doomed Flight 815 to meet people who would raise him. This left people wondering if the psychic knew what would happen.

My theory: I will get Aaron out of the way first by saying that, even though I think he could be a future candidate along with Ji Yeon, the psychic was probably only lying. He may have known that Claire was giving up the baby and made her hold off on it until he could secure a deal with a couple in America, no doubt for a large check. In one flashback, the psychic told Mr. Eko he was a fake. So, even though I think Jacob had a hand in stalling Claire's adoption process, I ultimately think that evidence shows that whether or not Claire raised Aaron would not have made much difference, except maybe helping her keep her sanity after she was left behind. However, Walt is a bit like Desmond and Hurley, except he has greater potential. Desmond had a unique resistance and almost fluidic nature with the Island's energy which allowed his consciousness to travel through time and in some cases through life itself. Hurley could see and interact with the dead. Walt, in a very miniscule and untrained way, could alter reality. If trained he could do great things, perhaps even be what the Island has needed for so long, instead of worthy but flawed Protectors. In the end, I think out of all of the numerous candidates, Walt is THE candidate.

6. The Man in Black's role throughout

Now that the show is all over we know what Lost's highly deceptive and lethal antagonist's true goal was throughout the series (or at least what he had planned up until he was able to escape The Island), but really how much deception was there. He was doing plenty of shady things as the Smoke Monster before we even knew what he was. For those who were wondering what he had been doing in all of his appearances before he set his long con into overdrive during Season 5, here's what I came up with.

My theory: After his failure at making Richard, Robert Rousseau, and possibly many others his personal assassins, The Man in Black saw potential in a damaged little boy within The Dharma Initiative named Ben Linus. MIB drew him toward The Others where he would be groomed into a ruthless operative, and an eventual recruit as such. He was no doubt planning his last great scheme soon after Oceanic 815 crashed. Perhaps, he saw the passengers as more potential Jacob followers he could slaughter. That's what I think happened in the cockpit during the first episode. He tried to kill the gang of castaways, only succeeding in offing the pilot, and more than likely would have killed Jack until he saw Jack was Candidate 23, thus realizing that the other candidates had arrived too. His next move came when he encountered John Locke, Candidate 4, hunting for boar a few days later. Upon doing a quick scan of who he was, MIB realized Locke was damaged, curious, gullible, and malleable, and knew he would be come in handy. He nearly got Jack killed when posing as his father Christian, whose body he preserved in the now abandoned cabin. I think this was planned so Locke could gain leadership and influence over the castaways and thus be more useful. After failing to capture and recruit Locke and realizing his fate was faltering upon entering the Hatch, MIB turned his sights to another flawed man of faith, Mr. Eko. Posing as Eko's brother, MIB tried to use him to do either two things: a) further drive Locke to not press the button and destroy The Island, Jacob, and the candidates, or b) become another potential recruit/assassin. Both failed because of Desmond's brave interference and Eko's unwillingness to bend to MIB/his brother's will. Finally he turned all of his focus on Locke and Ben. The chain of events in seasons 3 and 4 allowed MIB to convince Ben and Locke to turn The Wheel, taking them off The Island and setting in motion his plan to kill Jacob. We know where it goes from there. As for what he would do when he left The Island, a big part of me thinks he was planning to recruit or kill everyone. Either way, none of this matters now. He's thankfully very dead.

7. Eloise Hawking

Though she was often presented as a former high ranking Other, there was still clearly a lot more to her than just that. She appeared to have a sort of omniscience, especially when dealing with Desmond. We first met Eloise when Desmond mind jumped back to the 90 where he was gonna marry Penny. Here she seemed to have a knowledge of time travel, course correction, what would eventually happen. She was even completely self aware of the flash-sideways environment. All things that were left unexplained. Yeah, that bugs me too. While people were still wondering what was up with the polar bears in the final season, I was wondering what was up with her.

My theory: During the series, Desmond's union with The Island put him on an extraordinary plane of being only a few other characters could share (in different ways of course). While Desmond's extreme ability fragmented his consciousness and soul through time and space and even through life and death, Eloise may have had the same thing, but instead of fragments she had clarity. Meaning she could not glimpse random future so much as she could see definite courses or destinies. And instead of having a hazy, quick meeting with the place between life and afterlife, she could have as much free range knowledge there as she could have while alive. Did this make any sense?

8. The Rules

Okay, The Rules were always a frustrating concept for me. Mainly because they were the most easily changed rules imaginable. Maybe Island leaders construct The Rules much like a game of Senet (the board game Jacob and The Man in Black played as children) where there are no specifiic rules. Here's how I have classified them.

My theory: Okay, in actuality there were about three different sets of Rules on the show: there were Jacob's Rules, The Others' Rules, and The Sideways Rules.
Jacob: his rules are apparently limited to the power any Protector of the Isalnd is granted. The one thing I've noticed more than anything is that a Protector's word may as well be god. Where basically they can bend the rules of fate that bind people. Essentially you can be like "hey you, you can't kill that person" and you can't; "hey you, you can't kill yourself" and you can't; "hey you, don't age" and you get Richard. Once these things are said they are rules and can't be broken by those that they are specifically given to. Also, a Protector can change the rules to choose who can become a Protector that will have as much freedoms as the previous. Very confusing
The Others: Others' society and politics was very confusing in general; I mean you got the neighborly, proper Barracks section, the isolated and ruthless Temple section, and the random cold calculating operatives section. Their rules are most likely ones that began as Jacob's but were very likely manipulated by any of the coldblooded leaders of the society. They are not allowed to kill each other and family is especially off limits during personal quarrels between each other. A big part of Jacob's philosophy was proving that people can be just as good as they can be evil, but every new era of The Others doesn't abide by that. They label their enemies as bad and their allies or assets as good, even if it is the other way around, and most I've seen are highly amoral. The Others' Rules are often changed but the larger ones are still passed down from Jacob and, even though they are very loose, the principal Others still obey and try to appease Jacob. Still very confusing.
Sideways Rules: these were probably the most simple, even if not completely explained. The Sideways Universe, or Afterlife or Purgatory or whatever, is pretty much a construct that allows people to face who they were in life, all of the good and bad, hopes and dreams and cruel realities presented in a literally timeless scenario. Judging how they handle this situation determines whether or not they realize that their life ended and they have to move on. Some within are aware of what is going on and wish to preserve whatever happiness they've found. I think The Rules here basically boil down to free will. If those who are content with this reality, whether or not they know it is false, they can remain oblivious and just run with it, but prove that they can't let go of their past. For those who accept who they were and the lives they led, they can let go and move on to be one with The Heart of the Island, what I call the source of human essence (I'll get to that in a moment). Either way all of these Rules are confusing as hell and are really just there for plot convenience a lot of times.

9. What was The Island

Oh this has been the big question for, like, the entire series. I honestly didn't think there was anything up with The Island itself for a long time, just that there were some crazy things on it. But huge pockets of electromagnetism underneath can get the mind working just a little bit. So essentially this was, along with the Afterlife, explained well enough for me. My problem was that it was explained a bit too late. A part of me thinks that 'Across the Sea' should have been midway through the last season like 'Ab Aeterno' instead of just two episodes before the finale. I don't think the whole explanation for what is so important about the Island had enough time to sink in, but it still worked for me mostly. I mean it was a bit too simple and really meaningful at the same time.

My theory: not really a theory as much as it is me building on what Jacob's Mother said. While Jacob looked at the Island during his time as a prison for his evil twin (wow this sounds really cheesy when reading out loud), Mother explains it is a place that holds a Source of energy that the keeps stability in the whole world. Within this source is what I call life's essence. The Source's light shines in every person, a little slice of heaven it would seem. If close enough, like on The Island, it's energy resonates with some. It can heal, enlighten, influence, and even change people. But when people find it they want more, which leads to either total corruption or destruction. It's kind of like the apple tree in the Garden of Eden; the light can only be given, but if you try to take it you ruin everything. If the Source is interrupted and the light put out the essence is gone from all life and The Island goes down, no doubt followed by everything else. So, to sum it up, The Island holds everything together. Don't screw with it. Keep the light on!

10. What did it all mean

The most important question is what was the true meaning of Lost, the show in all of its aspects. There really can't be a mythology as big as this and not have a spectulated meaning. The truth is there are many and it is ultimately left to the sole viewer to decide.

My theory: I'm not telling you... yet. This post is already way too long and taken up a lot of my worthless time. I'd rather end it now. Don't worry I will get to what I thought it meant in due time, along with a few other Lost articles of course. So in the meantime, if you watched the show, what do you think it meant? Comment or tell me elsewhere, you little fan girl. That's all I got for now though.

This is Your Modest Guru fully illustrating his nerdiness, or Lostness, again. Thanks for reading and Namaste.

brought to you by the letter K

2010-09-30T14:12:00.000-07:00

"You! Your sex is on fire!" - Kings of Leon

I felt I should mention a little something about singer Katy Perry's recent appearance on Sesame Street alongside childhood icon, Elmo. I will try to sum up what happened, but if I don't know certain things or anything its because I haven't seen Sesame Street in ages. This skit features Perry and Elmo having a little bit of playtime around the colorful Sesame Street... and then the desert... and then Antarctica. Basically the entire thing is a clean and fun rendition of her Hot N Cold song. I must admit I kind of enjoyed this skit. I mean it has all of the playfulness of Sesame Street. Elmo dancing to the pop beat is funny as hell in it; I even think Oscar pops out of his can at one point to yell at Perry. Really it is all the same on both ends, the long lasting Sesame Street is just as fun lovingly wild and innocent as always, and the apparently Christian musician Katy Perry is just as ambiguous and eccentric as always. Now, Perry showing up alongside Elmo has been criticised by critics and parents alike for a particular reason: Katy Perry is too freaking hot.

Seriously? No, but for real, I can understand where these people are coming from to a point. However the only thing I can really see being wrong is that her skirt is a bit too short and she is showing some cleavage, which is what you can expect from Perry and essentially any other modern 21st Century girl under the age of 55. It really could have been worse, America. She could have gone all California Gurls, spraying cans of whip cream from her breasts with diasy dukes and a bikini on top (or nothing at all if you watched the music video... not saying that I have, of course... many times...). So yeah, it could have been much worse. The way Perry dresses, that weird but nevertheless sexy attire, is just the way she rolls and we really can't judge her too much, not for that at least. I saw an older episode of Sesame Street that featured Robert De Niro talking to Elmo about acting, which transitioned into De Niro looking like Elmo and the two laughing. I love the hell out of Robert De Niro but that was a little disturbing, not because of the roles he has played in the past but because of the idea of De Niro acting all playful like with ELMO. De Niro's work didn't reflect on himself no more than Perry's has.

Though there are moments in the skit when I was a bit put off. I think Elmo was actually the first one to be a little uneasy about Perry's appearance. Either that or the video made it seem like he was really confused sexually and socially. As soon as Perry shows up, Elmo gets all flustered and even more uncomfortable when she starts suggesting "dress up" until he eventually runs away. Cut to music video section, where Elmo seems to be doing anything from dancing to run around Perry in a shot that seemed to suggest he was looking up her skirt (I'm just telling it like I saw it). At the very end, he forgets all about everything that happened before and starts playing tag. (Parents note: no lewd content was featured in the video. Nor was any actual "dress up" seen at any point) This skit was just really weird and confused it seemed. Though, looking back, a lot Sesame Street was like that. It is after all a show where playful little handpuppet monsters, a giant bird, and a man sized elephant all interact on an inner city street. Katy Perry showing up only ices the cake slightly more than it already is (anyone making jokes about that last sentence should can pat yourself on the back for being as childish as me).

In the end it comes down to the children. I will think of the children! Personally, I don't think this will affect them much, if at all. I'd wager the kids watching Sesame Street are between 1 and 5, they should be moving on to stylized violent cartoon shows and Americanized Japanese animes after that. And at that age, the fact that a woman shows up on the show whose style does not hide her bustiness should not even be subliminal for a kid. At this stage all grownups just sort of blend. So really no harm done yet. Really, one way or another your kids are gonna get wise to modern styles and personalities. So it really doesn't matter whether they learn it from Sesame Street now or E later, those little sponges are gonna soak up some dirt.

So ultimately, if you couldn't tell, I don't think that Katy Perry shocked some audience by revealing to kids those things that we almost immediately expose and shove in their faces is controversial. I only really have two criticisms. 1, Katy Perry needs to learn to act just a little bit; I know it's only Sesame Street, but there could have been some effort to be good (oh well not everybody can do it. I'm talking to you, Sofia Coppola). And 2, there wasn't enough Oscar. It's just a given, in my mind.

This has been some strange news mixed with nostalgia from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.

Joaquin yo ass!

2010-09-29T15:41:00.000-07:00

"A mind is a terrible thing to waste." - various people

I can remember first reading the news that Joaquin Phoenix was planning to retire from acting. I was very disappointed and confused. Then after his infamous appearance on Letterman, where he was overweight, grizzly, obnoxious, and antisocial, I was totally bewildered. Then shockingly more bewildered when I heard he was quitting acting to pursue a career in hip hop. Finally, I was absolutely convinced he'd suffered a mental breakdown when I actually heard him rap. It was almost too crazy. And thankfully it was, because Phoenix didn't quit acting. In fact, he was doing the most challenging act of his life.

Yes readers, Your Modest Guru wasn't the only talented, mysterious, and handsome celebrity to return to the scene recently. Turns out the freaky new Joaquin Phoenix of recent memory was an elaborate acting venture that Phoenix and friend, brother-in-law, and fellow actor Casey Affleck were responsible for. I'm not sure what the purpose was then Phoenix and Affleck were hoping for some kind of virtuoso acting experience undercover in Hollywood, as well as sort of observing society thrown into a state of chaos over one man's apparently shattered stability. Well it worked on me, though I refused to believe it for awhile. But it only proves how great of an actor Joaquin Phoenix really is, because he really sold his performance as himself.

This plot by the two actors bottomed out into a documentary (a feaux documentary as of late) about Phoenix's "self-destruction" titled I'm Still Here. When I first saw promos for the film, I was even more confused about what Phoenix was doing. I mean sure the film would showcase his misery and deterioration, but then again he said he was done with movies. Either way, I didn't see it but I heard it was pretty good, especially at convincing folks that this thing going on with him was real.

Thankfully though, this whole thing was only a new acting method conceived by two actors/actor brothers who, for the most part, successfully executed a pledge, turn, and prestige. I was very glad to see him return to Letterman recently where he was thin, clean cut, and very presentable. Letterman's reaction was also good. Even though throughout this little project I was convinced that a man with so much talent, with incredible performances in movies such as Walk the Line, Gladiator, and We Own the Night, and whose own brother, River Phoenix, a young actor with much promise, had led a self destructive lifestyle (ending with River dead in a gutter) could transform like this. Not to mention, his rap was just embarrassing to watch; imagine his Johnny Cash singing voice juxtaposed with hip hop rhythm and posturing that makes 50 Cent look downplayed. But no, he wasn't totally insane, he just convinced us he was. Now that I think about it, Phoenix and Casey Affleck are really quite genius. I mean, how often does something truly surprising emerge from the Hollywood limelight these days? Joaquin Phoenix's breakdown was more fascinating than Paris Hilton getting a, like, week in lockup for carrying a bag of coke. Nearly all reality TV is fabricated and just bullshit, and very transparent when it is. Phoenix and Affleck were making doing the same thing, but it was not transparent in the slightest. In fact it did what most reality TV fails at: it convinced us it was reality.

Anywho, I look forward to whatever work Phoenix has planned now that his rap career clearly went nowhere. It's good to have him back. And for his performance, I must say: bravo, you sly dog.

This has been a new post from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.

Guess who's back

2010-09-28T13:26:00.000-07:00

"You know, sometimes you just gotta say "what the fuck?" - Joel from Risky Business

No, Your Modest Guru did not suffer that nervous breakdown you expected to follow my last post. Actually I just needed time to recuperate, because, honestly, I was just being bombarded with news of just horrible events in the world. I didn't even talk about a lot of the bad stuff, just a few things. Even so, it made me miserable hearing about it all and even more miserable getting my thoughts out in the open. Anyone who reads my blog knows that I have good days where I'm an utterly cheery, clever, and charming bastard, and bad days where I am a depressed, downtrodden, and pessimistic sonofabitch. Also, I thought about taking a break from the blog anyway and it worked out for the better. I wrote a neat little short story and lifted my spirits. I will accept the fact that the really miserable subjects will not go away and I will have to make mention of them if I am to do this job. I will try to do it professionally and as an adult, and not let my personal feelings hamper my work. Emphasis on the word "try."

I held off coming back until my birthday, when I knew my outlook would be a little sunnier. So in celebration of seventeen years of life, I am back and ready for action. I have a whole bunch of little stories lined up to talk about and am staying away from the depressing shit...for now of course. So for those few people who actually know what this is, keep reading and thank you for sticking around.

This is the return of Your Modest Guru. Let's keep reading, shall we?

Post 9/11...post

2010-09-12T09:52:00.000-07:00

"When it rains, it pours."

Don't think I didn't have plans to blog this week. I had a whole laundry list of shit that needed to be said. But it ultimately came to a point where I knew it was meaningless. I mean what was I going to say? Is there anything that I could have said that someone else hasn't already said; any new spin that I could put on this? No. Yesterday was 9/11 and like a holiday it comes and goes once a year and leaves us exhausted in some way.

Also, I don't think it's any surprise what I thought about the whole Koran book burning party down in Gainesville. Just another fucked up situation in a fucked up mess of them. I mean news isn't even news anymore. It's a circus. All it is is real facts glossed over to be juicy and entertaining. Yeah, I don't care what anyone says, the news is purely for entertainment. What do you think I'm doing? I'm mixing irony, sarcasm, and sometimes straight comedy with real news for your entertainment when really I should just be supplying facts. No actually a guy like me shouldn't be reporting the news, because I'm terrible at it. If you are on the news or supplying the news you are a celebrity. All of these people are just celebrities and are tools to get people talking. Terry Jones? Who the fuck is he? Nobody. Sarah Palin? Did you honestly even know who she was before 2008? Charles Manson? For some: a monster, for a freakishly large amount: a hero, because the bad guys are celebrities too. Logan Cox? Who? These people are not important at all! Celebrities who are not celebrities, people who have found fame, some just an inkling of fame, and revel in it. And now I'm ranting. What am I doing here?

I could go into the politics of Terry Jones' little limelight moment. How what was originally just a good ol' southern book burning turned into a threat from Jones so the New York mosque wouldn't be built. How there were numerous lies that the Imam conceded to Jones' will, how the book burning would be called off or the mosque would be called off. I honestly went from intrigued, to disgusted, to just completely uninterested in Jones, the mosque, and 9/11. I am actually going to try from now on to not make a big deal of 9/11 when it is brought up. I will do it out of respect for those who died. Those people who have been used, twisted, with families victimized and berated, and exist now as weapon for a Left Wing or a Right Wing. It's a tragedy these people, me included, drag into the circus far too often. They died, it happened. What more do I need to say?

I can remember, being home schooled at the time, my confusion at my mother's shock. I was six days away from being eight. I saw the smoking buildings, which honestly I'd never heard of, and thought it was a plane crash. I'd been even more against the news back then so I really didn't know what was going on. When the second plane hit, my mom was very scared and because of that I was very worried. That's what I know about that day. And ever since then, I've lived in this world of politics, of media mayhem, of the blurring line of good and evil, of growing cynicism and anger, and in this world I can't breathe. I know I live here with you. And I know I can never get away. This is life, laying bloody in the gutter alone, yet convinced that everything is going to be okay. And we all lay there with it, hoping that its not too late and never knowing if it is or isn't.

The only question is: did you really need me to tell you this?

This is Your Modest Guru, signing off for awhile now.

The Underrated: Big Trouble

2010-09-02T15:17:00.000-07:00

"Was that a goat?" - multiple characters

A very quotable, fun, and entertaining movie is Barry Sonnenfeld's Big Trouble. I consider it a sort of mini-Pulp Fiction. It features an ensemble cast of characters who are all funny, a multilayered story, and plenty of action and laughs. It isn't a great film, but it certainly deserves a little more credit in my opinion.

The plot contains several stories of different characters whose lives intersect at one point or another within a few days in Miami. These characters include divorced father Eliot (Tim Allen) and his rebellious son Matt (Ben Foster), superficial businessman Arthur Herk (Stanley Tucci), his sexy but miserable wife Anna (Rene Russo) and Anna's also rebellious daughter Jenny (Zooey Deschanel), a light hearted drifter Puggy (Jason Lee), and two dim witted thugs Snake (Tom Sizemore) and Eddie (Johnny Knoxville). A series of events puts Eliot and Anna in a romance, a price on Arthur's head, various people being attacked or robbed, and the entire city in danger of a briefcase stored weapon of mass destruction. The result is a pretty enjoyable movie.

Really there isn't any real deep analysis needed or a meaning to be provided, it is just a smart, funny movie that did not get as much recognition as it should have. But a movie smart enough and funny enough to have gained a little more recognition. A lot of movies have running jokes that go nowhere or are just unsatisfying, this movie has quite a few running jokes that are all pretty well enjoyable; I especially love the two northern hitman (played by Dennis Farina and Jack Kehler) being completely bewildered by all of the strange things they are coming across down south.

Maybe I am wrong and it is not as good as I say, but really everyone I know who has seen it has enjoyed it and I know some people who are pretty savvy when it comes to movies. If you wanna watch something good one night, Big Trouble is just as good a choice as any and you more than likely will not be disappointed.

This has been another segment of The Underrated from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.

Good is Bad says religious fanatics

2010-09-01T16:40:00.000-07:00

"Up is down, black is white." - Eddie "The Dane" Dane

Okay very quickly, because I am sick and do not want to write in detail about more absurdities that piss me off.

Apparently a fanatical religious organization (I can't remember which one, too many to count) believes that the gay community's recent crusades against children bullying is some kind of sinful agenda that will make America's youth a flock of freakin' fairies. Yes, you know what this means readers. You know what this means America. Bullying is now the surest way to stay on the straight (as in sexuality) and narrow (as in genitalia) path to eternal paradise. Children! Children all across the world bully each other as much as possible, kindness and respect for one another will only make you as queer as a sold out Ricky Martin concert! Be angry, be violent, be bullies, and you will be SAVED!!! I can already feel the lord's everlasting bliss bestowed upon me as I dunk this 11 year old's head into a toilet and t-bag his brother. Praise the lord!

For those who weren't completely disgusted and were aware of my utter sarcasm, I must say that this whole notion is crazy. This religious group is not quite Westboro Baptist level, but crazy is still crazy. Seriously, are they that against people loving who they want to love that when the gays are doing something extremely positive it must be marked as something ungodly? Are they really that low? By saying this they are indeed saying that they would rather have bullies than gays trying to stop bullying. It just continues to show that too many of these groups use the name of a deity to commit their own selfish deeds. It's just...stupid! The only one doing anything wrong are these fanatics, because they are in fact doing nothing but bitching about people actaully doing something right. For those who believe in the actions of these fanatics, there really is nothing at all I can do to sway you from these delusions of holiness you seem to have haloing over your head so I will just say why don't you just pretend that whatever little man in the sky ruling your universe will hurt the ones you hate when their time comes and just mind your own damn business.

This has been more proof that this world won't get better delivered by Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading and to anyone with a cold, I'm right there with ya.

Puppy Murder

2010-08-31T20:36:00.000-07:00

"There is good and there is evil and evil must be punished." - Rorschach

Is there anyone who believes people can be just bad? I mean bad like evil. Like they are just bad people inherently? Just asking.

Wow, it really seems as if I'm being bombarded with bullshit stories this week. Usually it's every other week but no I am just having a hard time understanding how much bad news I'm getting, personally and worldly. I will be brief about this if I can.

So this video has been posted on the internet, of this girl, who I think is Croation and looks to be anywhere from 14 to 25 (you know the type), and it's a short video of this girl down by a river and she has a box of puppies and she is cheerfully hurling them into the river, no doubt killing them. It is around 30 seconds long and it is sheer cruelty. PETA is tearing their hair out no doubt.

I just have got to ask: Why dogs? Puppies, specifically? Are you that much of a fucking sadist that its not enough to snuff something that can't really defend itself against you, but you have to kill the absolute picture of sweet and innocent. And this time a FUCKING BOX OF THEM! I almost hope this chick is a budding psychopath, that way I could somewhat understand it. But honestly it is more than likely the motive of the chick who threw the cat in the trash can: because she was bored or because she could.

This whole thing was especially ironic because my grandfather's girlfriend's daughter just died of drowning. I got into a conversation with my friend about it, he brought that someone once said they thought drowning would be peaceful. My friend and I, being clever ol' geniuses, clearly believe drowning would be agony. And nearly ten puppies got to experience it. It's a vicious world.

I mean what did I watch?! Gummo part 2! This isn't the first video that has gone viral displaying the abuse of a dog. A year or two back there was that infamous US soldier punting a puppy into some canyon in Iraq (god bless America, right?) and then there was the foreign video featuring some guys dropping a dog off of a bridge and then laughing as it moaned in pain...and don't let me forget you, Michael Vick. Cowards all of them. I would hang them by their thumbs for three days if I could. Although I'd say little miss puppy killer tops them all.

I was happy to hear however that many people were so outraged by the video that they are actually trying to find the girl who did this. The people of 4chan, who I guess double as a vigilante group, believed to have found the people responsible for the video/abuse and they are being harrassed. Still no one has come forward and no one has been legitimately tagged as the puppy killer. I personally hope some pseudo lynch mob finds this girl, because she is evil and she deserves to be punished.

There will be those out there, heartless people, who will regard this thing like the cat tosser did: the "it's just a dog, what's the big deal" rationale. Well fuckheads 1) it is not just a dog, it is several dogs, puppies in fact. 2) if they were just dogs, they wouldn't be called man's best friend, they matter. I know, plenty of human lives are wasted in situations just as pointless every day, but this is still a fucked up story. I once again bring up my wish that people like this should not be real.

Okay, I'm too angry. I'm done. Fuck the girl, fuck animal abuse, fuck this whole thing. I have nothing more to say.

This has been some thoughts on some really sick shit from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.

"Black-speak"

2010-08-31T17:44:00.000-07:00

"Brotha please!" - translation: Oh come on; yeah right or other variants

For those who think the title is racist, you're probably right. Black-speak is only the unpolite way of referring to Ebonics, which I also believe is a little racist. Oh right, for those who have not heard, Ebonics or the African American Vernacular English as it is clearly defined has been made an actual language. I'm just wondering if this is necessary.

Ebonics came to prominance during the days when Africans and African Americans were still enslaved, but since after their freedom it is has stuck around and apparently evolved just the same over time. But I don't quite think that because people have "unproper" word phrases, combinations, uses, colorful dialects, or just overall overkill of slang means that it should be a totally different language. Although I must admit it would be cool if Ebonics could be a foreign language course in schools (probably not, but just imagine). Ebonics really is just highly developed slang, and there whole groups of people all over who have variations of that. Are the Cockney speaking a totally different language too, I mean if Ebonics is pretty much black-speak than I guess Cockney is pretty much British-speak. I'm at an impasse at which speak is more fun.

I really don't know what kind of worldly or national effect this could bring about, probably not a very big one. I'm not even sure if this is correct. My sources could be wrong. It does sound a bit too ridiculous I think. Who knows there could be some positive things to Ebonics becoming a language: if I learned it I wouldn't have to keep rewinding scenes when I watch The Wire. It just goes to show that the 21st Century is becoming an interesting and undeniably absurd century every day. Oh 2oth, how I long for thee. I suppose it could be worse, my mom was born in 1969, right after Woodstock and the Moon Landing and a galore of other cool shit. What do I get? iPods, iPhones, iMac (think), iHome, fuckin' iPads, and now apparently Ebonics. Hardy-goddamn-har.

This has been Your Modest Guru's most racially ambiguous joint. Thanks for reading.

Mosque Pit

2010-08-27T18:16:00.000-07:00

"An angry man opens his mouth and shuts his eyes." - Cato the Elder

In case you weren't informed, an Islamic Mosque is being formed in New York City coincidentally a few blocks away from Ground Zero of the World Trade Center attacks. There has been some backlash due to this construction by a vast number of people, who apparently would like the much revered right to religious freedom to be ignored in this matter. This may actually be the one time I have heard not just someone, but droves of people come out and basically say "it is too soon for religion."

You know, people who frequently blur the lines between religion and state tend to come off as a bit hypocritical to me. Many of the right wing masses (to be fair, those goaded on by the right wing media) are typically pressing the government to get back to the ways of the Constitution. Of course, this means for white, conservative Christians and not for brown, politically ambiguous Muslims. Yes freedom is good until it applies to the people you don't like, then it's obscene. This is only another scapegoat for the conservative media and loose cannon GOP wolves. It is just something else to get their followers afraid and angry about something. Something else that threatens whatever blanket of security the rich and paranoid think they sleep under. It's simple: when the Man says something is good, it's really good; when the Man says something is bad, it's really bad. It doesn't matter if he later says something is bad that he earlier said was good or vice versa. Whatever the rich yet inexplicably relatable guy you believe is looking out for you tells you has got to be true, right?

Quickly: A highpoint of this drama has led up to a protester brutally stabbing a man in the face and verbally abusing him. The man was apparently just someone who "looked Muslim" to him (I guess the guy was bearded with tanned skin). The attacker was some insignificant film student, essentially America's text book bottle of repressed fury. I think the victim was a cab driver, who I think might not have been Muslim but just some passerby. Muslim or Middle Eastern or not, the pudgy lover of the arts has just committed what could be called a hate crime, proving this protest is one big gathering of rage to a particular group of people a la discrimination. How does one look like a religion, I've never gotten that. Too many stupid people confuse religions with race. Let me clear this up: people don't look Muslim, they look Middle Eastern; people don't look Jewish, they look Israeli; people don't look Christian, they look like Toby Keith. Let's go a step further and not categorize a certain people as having to remain of a certain faith. A white man is just as free to be Muslim as an Iraqi man, just like the Iraqi man can be just as Christian as he wants to be in America.

Obviously, I understand the mindset of the people against the mosque. The terrorists involved in the attacks were mostly, if not all Muslim. Still, the terrorists were under the command and fighting in the name of a radical organization that used religion, as many radical organizations do, to justify murder and warfare. So in a sense, the Islamic religion was a victim to the crimes of Osama Bin Laden as well. Do the actions of the few spoil the many? That's a question heard frequently in the past. The people protesting the mosque apparently think so. I might understand their side of things a bit more if The Taliban was setting up shop near Ground Zero, seeing as how they were the ones responsible for the attacks that made it. Just because the people involved were Muslim doesn't mean shit. Do people just forget all the horrifying things have come about from the actions of other religions in the past? Anyone remember the pointless bloodshed of The Crusades? Hitler was a Christian, but we aren't afraid that all Christians wanna slaughter Jews and rule the world these days, are we?... well come to think of it... nope, no I'm not getting into that.

Another thing is, the people of New York or wherever angry assholes come from are acting like this thing just hunkered down right next to the site. As if the trash from the mosque being tossed out around back is landing right down into the thick of the disaster point. It's over two blocks away! It's not like the stench of Islam is going to rise up from the air and glide over and infect the holiness that is Ground Zero. Also, I thought New York City was supposed to be one of the most ethnically and culturally diverse cities in the world. Major hypocrisy! There is just as much of a chance of a Taliban cell residing within this mosque as there is of a Christian church housing the next Jim Jones; both are just as probable as they are improbable. 9/11 is often compared to the Pearl Harbor Attacks of 1941. After the attacks many Japanese-Americans, Japanese tourists, and some just Asians in general were hualed off to internment camps for fear of being enemy operatives. Of course we didn't keep them in those camps forever and they certainly aren't looked upon with hateful eyes anymore. We as Americans should know just like anyone else that the little people do not have any say in the actions of the powerful. Many Muslims were no doubt horrified about 9/11 too, and even more terrified of retaliations once Muslim men were revealed to be the terrorists. They are just people.

The protest of the mosque goes against one of the most crucial elements of our constitution. Freedom of religion is very essential to this country. Though I am not a particularly religious man and pretty non-denominationally hinged, I think it is great that people in this country are allowed to practice a faith of their choosing. Faith is an important thing, it is not something that should be toyed with. So in my opinion, New Yorkers should be able to go into a little mosque and bow to Allah in peace if that is their choice. Anyone's got a problem with that, then they should take it up with their God, otherwise leave them alone.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say that people should get over 9/11. How can someone get over a thing like that? I'm saying that we should move on. It happened, there is no changing it. But we can change and with the way things are we certainly need to change. But to change some need faith. In this country that luxury should be free for everyone.

This has been some commentary on recent controversy from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.

Lost: The New Man in Charge

2010-08-27T17:11:00.000-07:00

"We deserve answers!" - Hector of the Dharma Initiative

As I've said before, fans who saw the ending to Lost were, like with many endings to many popular shows, heavily divided in their thoughts. Many loved it to tears, many hated it with a passion, many were still confused. I was the first one. I would have to say that the show's true climax does the right thing by resolving the arcs of the many characters we've cared about over the course of the series. They were the ones that were really important essentially. And by focusing on them and the end of their journey, Lost ended with a breathtaking, emotional ride that concluded a multilayered adventure and reminded us of how much history we've had with it. That being said, answering mind boggling questions was not a major factor. But it's not as if the minds behind Lost were totally oblivious to fans lust for mystery solving or were just copping out. To those who were unsatisfied with the one side, a DVD featurette for Season 6 gives us an epilogue: The New Man in Charge, that answers some of the things you didn't find the time to just interpret for yourself.

(Spoilers)

The plot of The New Man in Charge centers around the missions of the newly appointed representative to the Protector of The Island, Benjamin Linus. His first task leads him to Guam (destination of Ajira 316) where he goes in to shut down a Dharma Initiative warehouse whose primary function was supplying the food drops that we saw in Season 2. The two sole DI employees there are baffled at all that's happened in the past 20 years (they apparently thought the Initiative was still around). Ben pays them but is persuaded to provide them both with an answer to each single questions they have. This leads him to mention the moving Island as well as play DI Orientation tape that explains a few things: the odd selection of animals on The Island and their purposes, the purpose of Room 23, and the infamous "Island pregnancy disorder." Ben soon departs and heads to his next and infinitely more important location. Arriving at Santa Rosa Hospital in Los Angeles, he arrives to meet "Keith Johnson" who we soon learn is Walt Lloyd, the "special" former castaway. Walt was apparently institutionalized when no one believed his story about The Island (I'm assuming because he discovered Michael died). Ben convinces Walt that The Island needs him, and more importantly his father needs him. "Just because he's dead doesn't mean you can't help him." says Ben. Hmm... Anyway, Ben leads Walt out and to the Dharma Bus, where Hurley awaits in the back seat. Walt is overjoyed that one of his old friends came back for him and Hurley assures Walt that The Island is exactly where he is supposed to be, now more than ever because Walt has "work to do." With this, the three drive off into the night, on their way back to The Island where Walt is to take up "a job." Even though I'd say I've had my fill of Lost with the series finale, this was a delight.

Though I would have been more impressed with my original vision of this epilogue: Hurley and Ben just shortly after their inaugerations, burying Jack, with Hurley asking his questions and Ben sort of tutoring him in all things Island; maybe even discovering some new things together, this was still satisfactory for the answer starved part of me. The answers weren't even my favorite part (although I'm glad they finally addressed the pregnancy issue). My favorite parts were the little character moments: Pierre Chang in his omniscient orientation zone; Hurley totally Jacob-in-the-back-of-a-cab esque ; Walt and Ben reminiscing their rather flawed past; the Lost-liners like "we're gonna have to watch that again," "you have work to do," "What happened, happened." Callbacks are always nice when a show has this great of a mythology.

Still this has its flaws. I'm actually less thrilled about answers than I let on. For the most part, when big, drawn out questions were answered on the show they felt pretty anti-climatic. The ones that rarely were were ones regarding the characters (again, characters were more important). Although after awhile the lack of subtlety with question answering was worked in a way that made the show hilariously metafictional (just more props to the writers). There are many times the fans of the show seep into the dialogue of the characters in the later seasons (kinda like Supernatural too). It even happens in here, the two Dharma workers are really just two fanboys confused and looking for resolution to things that puzzled them, and when they got answers to their questions they were even more bewildered. I also felt as if this short was way too short for what it was packing. The answers section in the beginning is clever and interesting but more time was devoted to that section than the Walt section, which I felt was more significant.

This gave more of a sense that the story of Lost continued on even after the point at which the day is saved and everyone goes home in literal or figurative ways in the last episode. There is gonna be, dare I say, even more speculation about the show after this thing. I liked the fact that after five seasons and the shows end, Walt's arc is still present and notoriously undiscovered. He is now a young man whose hasn't found what the others found before or later in their lives: himself. My theory on what his job will be is to hone his gifts to form some kind of powerful Locke-esque communion to The Island. Ben uses Michael as incentive for Walt to return. Michael's spirit told Hurley midway through the final season that "the whispers" on The Island were that of lost spirits who couldn't move on from life, probably due to the terrible choices they made. The whispers parallels the sideways spirits of our characters in the final season who were able to move on due to the fact they were able to find each other again even after death. Walt's primary job: help the lost souls find their own great LAX in the sky, where I'm sure in time the eventual spirits of Walt, Michael, Ana Lucia, Eko, Miles, Richard, Frank, Daniel, Charlotte, Ilana, Eloise, and Widmore will arrive at that church and find Ben waiting so they can find out what comes next. Of course that's just me.

In closing, the epilogue provoked some fun thoughts, but it really is kind of soon for this, like Oliver Stone making W. before Bush was even out of office. I really don't think it will provide the answer seekers any real satisfaction. The twelve minutes of answers that lead to more questions doesn't compare to the two and a half hour epic that was the last and apparently answerless episode, or the entire series for that matter. But being a lover of Lost, just seeing a couple of the characters again and getting excited at speculating their mysterious futures was still enjoyable in its own right. Watching The New Man in Charge isn't by any means necessary, but I wouldn't say it isn't worth seeing. In the end, the only question I'm actually thinking about is how many times have I said "this Lost post will be my last." In truth their will probably be more to come for future anniversaries in tribute for a show that was my first true television addiction. Okay, I'm ending this right now.

This has been more Lostiness from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading and Namaste.

The cat's in the bag

2010-08-26T14:35:00.002-07:00

"Bitches be crazy." - modern expression

Okay so this is a short little rant about this recent event in which a woman in the UK was caught on a street camera walking along the street, saw a cat perched, and then, just for the hell of it I guess, put the cat into a nearby trash tin and left it there. The cat stayed there for around 15 hours before it was found by its owners.

So I often talk about just how fucking crazy people are in this world. This is one of the simpler examples. No deranged Austrian has to breed a family with his daughter in his basement, no father has to waterboard his child, Lindsey Lohan doesn't have to bawl her eyes out for having to spend a few weeks in jail, no some average ordinary woman can just be minding her business and then all of a sudden just toss a cat into a trash tin. Instant WTF.

This broad goes on to prove she is crazy just by the way she reacted when confronted by the authorities. She apparently didn't know what the big deal was, seeing as how it was just a cat, right? She also didn't know what she was doing was wrong and was just trying to be funny, that's sick enough but we can clearly see she is being as inconspicuous as possible before pushing the cat into the tin. My theory: this chick just wasn't a hunting girl as a kid so honing her homicidal tendacies was out of the picture, so whenever there's a random animal or something around she'll abuse it in some way. I've actually only heard of such a random and unproved act of animal cruelty, namely a cat, in one other place. It was actually in the book In Cold Blood by Truman Capote, where one of the killers apparently enjoyed running down stray cats he saw on the road. For those readers confused, yes, I am comparing this cat bagging British chick to one of the killers from In Cold Blood.

This whole thing is just so stupid. The things people do don't make sense. There was no motive, no logic, no reason behind this random act. Nope, this average ordinary person just knew she could and did it. That is my pet peeve motive. Any violent or terrible action is at least somewhat barable, but when someone does something bad "because they could", that is what I hate the most. After that the person isn't a villain, they aren't even a monster, they are just a douchebag. Fuck you, douchebags. All of you. Fuck you, random cat tosser. Fuck you, Mel Gibson. Fuck you, Jersey Shore cast. This just goes to show how even one of the most insignificant things can inspire wide and deep discussion. It's almost brilliant how much trouble this one woman caused just by getting the idea in her head to toss a cat into a trash tin. Because now I'm here in America talking and tearing my hair out about it. In that aspect, it's kind of an amazing world we live in. I'd think the world was great if people weren't so fucked up all the time.

This has been some ol' bullshit from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.

Scott Pilgrim vs. The World Review

2010-08-22T19:52:00.000-07:00

"An epic of epic epicness" - Tagline

Looks like something just tied Inception as my movie of the year. I really shouldn't be surprised. This comes from filmmaker Edgar Wright (director of Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz) one of the most inventive guys making movies, so what can you expect? Greatness that's what. He may have already hit his magnum opus with his lastest film Scott Pilgrim vs. The World. Really this movie is one of a kind. I don't know if it is one of the greatest movies ever made (many in the nerd, and I mean MEGA nerd, kingdom will hail it as THE greatest movie or something), but it certainly is one of the most fun movies to come out in a long while.

The story of Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is a simple tale of love. Boy meets girl, boy and girl fall in love, girl's seven evil exes do battle with boy over control of girl's romantic future... maybe it is not that simple. So yes, Scott Pilgrim (Michael Cera) is a nerdy bass guitarist in Toronto, Canada who has a love at first sight encounter with oddly hairstyled American girl Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) and he has to literally fight to keep their relationship stable as Ramona's exes have formed a league to destroy Scott. What ensues in the process are a series of monumental brawls in a world of unusual and somewhat cartoonish circumstance, almost as if the world's ultimate fanboy dropped a shit ton of acid.

Now for once I will say that the real treat in this film is not the acting but the style. This movie's style is almost beyond comparison. The only way I can put it is: Quentin Tarantino, Brian De Palma, David Lynch, Kevin Smith would probably climax at this shit and be ashamed they thought they made a ton of references in their films (okay, maybe exaggerating but I don't care). Props to Edgar Wright for joining Christopher Nolan as one of this century's top new filmmakers. Upon seeing promos for the movie, I knew I wanted to watch but didn't know if it was going to be good because I had no idea if even a director with a style as high velocity as Wright's could make the madness I was seeing briefly flow in a way that was almost cartoonishly coherent. I mean this is set in a world where real logic is almost completely absent. I don't want to give away too much of the insanity that goes on. I will say that Scott Pilgrim is the supremely choreographed, energetic, perfect blend of comic books, video games, movies, alternative rock, and martial arts. Seriously, there is so much to take in I don't even know if I could describe it. That may be one of this film's drawbacks for some however, because some of these things will go over people's heads. Not everyone is gonna get why Scott's band is called "Sex Bob-omb" or the "Nega Scott" scene. I wouldn't be surprised if a helluva lot of stuff went over my head too. It is that culture laced. I forgot to mention, the whole basis of Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is from the comic book of the same name created by Bryan Lee O'Malley, who I imagine is at the top of the subcultural food chain having been the mind behind this beast.

The acting isn't Oscar worthy in the movie, but it works solid for this movie and all of the characters are enjoyable. Michael Cera recites his repetitive acting routine once again as the title character, a selfish, arrogant, and overdramatic bastard who somehow manages to keep you on his side for most of the movie. Yeah, enjoy your time as a badass Cera, for not even this can make me forget you were, and have remained as far as I'm concerned, George Michael Bluth from Arrested Development. Mary Elizabeth Winstead, who I don't think has made an appearance since Death Proof, plays the mysterious and emotionally detached Crying Lightning girlfriend very well. She really needs more roles, if this isn't enough proof. The most badass of the Culkin family, Kieran Culkin stars as Scott's "cool gay friend Wallace...who's gay!" a wise roommate who doulbes as a sort of droll fight announcer. Ellen Wong has a hilariously bittersweet role as Scott's infatuated recent ex with the badass name of Knives Chau. Everything involving her is so sad but so funny. Allison Pill, Johnny Simmons, and Marc Webber round out Scott's neurotic garage band. Oscar Nominee Anna Kendrick has a small but effective role as Scott's sister.

However I think the biggest treat for the people going to see this will be The Seven Evil Exes. Each one of them shows up almost out of nowhere, they make big entrances, show themselves to be wholly unique characters, and deliver on a huge epic fight. Every fight is amazing and you have no idea how the next one will be as good as the one you just saw, but somehow every new fight surpasses the other in awesomeness. It is fantastic. I am the not the first to say that where most films try to cram two or three villains into a movie and have it come off unconvincing, this one has over seven and they are all fun as hell. Three exes will be enjoyed the most in particular: Chris Evans as a macho skateboard champ/A list actor; Brandon Routh as a stoic telepathic vegan; and finally Jason Schwartzman (in what might be his best role since Rushmore) as the "big boss" I suppose. The Exes are the icing on the cake for this movie, without a doubt.

Still, with this feast of amazing proportions under my chin, there is, looking back, things that kind of brought me down. Immediately after watching it I felt as if this was going to be the Napoleon Dynamite of action movies, where you either love it or hate it. But now that I think about it, there were things that made it less satisfying. Two in particular: Michael Cera and the hipster overkill. Now I've been a long time defender of Michael Cera, I've always thought he was funny in his own awkward, weird, Peter Lorre's son kind of way. But his delivery with the very hipster dialogue and his position as this sort of badass didn't mesh well for me. I know it's sort of the point when he's put into these roles and most of the time I don't care, but here it really just took me out of the movie a lot. I just wanted to slap him most of the time. I would've believed it if he used his Francois personality from Youth in Revolt, now that would've been badass. Then there's the hipster stuff. To put it simply, being this is a very hipster classified movie, the hipster emphasism was overkill in the worst ways. I'm what could generally be called a hipster and it was way too much for me sometimes. Then again they are in Canada in the movie. Who knows maybe hipsters are a little more hardcore up there. They don't sully what is good about this movie, but they really do annoy me enough to make this review only slightly lower.

In short, though it has its few problems like any great movie, Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is an absolutely exhilerating and hilarious experience. Honestly though, this might as well have been called The World Revolves Around Scott Pilgrim, he is some dweebish 23 year old child in a rock band that is actually good, is revered by most, has hot girls all over him, has a whole netherrealm to hide in when feeling down, and is peculiar enough to get into monumental battles with mystical super villains. He's got a lot more going for him than most. Even so, go watch it right now. It is not an experience you will regret. In fact, alongside Avatar and Inception, it is probably one of the most thrilling experiences you are sure to have. Three and a half bob-ombs.

This has been the third review as of late from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading and I hope you'll be watching.

A Single Man Review

2010-08-22T19:26:00.000-07:00

"Staring in the mirror, looking back at me isn't so much a face as an expression of a predicament." - George Falconer

A Single Man was surprisingly a film I enjoyed on a personal level as well a film level. It is just brilliantly made. The movie is introspective, with a sometimes dry sense of humor, knowledge, and a true passion for its characters. It almost reminded me of Catcher in the Rye (which I read and reviewed recently). The character has that sort of absentmindedness or deep thinking attitude about him and the thoughts he has are wholly interesting.

The film revolves around George Falconer (Colin Firth) on the day he plans to kill himself. Why does he want to kill himself? Jim (Matthew Goode), the man he had been in love with for sixteen years, died recently, leaving George heartbroken, lonely, and essentially weary of life. He plans to simply get through the day in an orderly fashion, have nice conversations, teach his class, have dinner with a friend, and go home and end it all. But the events of his day will either inspire him that life is worth living or truly convince him that dying is the only he can breathe again.

You might not think it at first glance, but A Single Man is one of the most well made movies recently. Like Oren Moverman with The Messenger, this film is the debut of Tom Ford, a popular fashion designer. Combined with the set crew of the show Mad Men, Ford is able to pull off a very realistic and fresh 1950s Los Angeles setting. The cinematography, sets, and wardrobes are all top notch. There's a very beautiful scene where George and a local trick have a gaze at the beautiful, smog fueled, pink sunset in a convenience store parking lot. The movie throughout always looks as if it had been made by someone who had an eye for things in the production department.

The acting is ace as per my tastes. Colin Firth, who I've not seen in a lot (though he's been in plenty), no doubt makes one of the finest characters I've seen in movies lately. Firth brings such quietness, wit, and sadness to the role of George that you can't help but want this destroyed man to make it. It isn't hard to see why this man was Oscar nominated. Julianne Moore is very intriguing as George's old friend Charlie, a heavydrinking, nostalgic woman who parties with her friends, or maybe just friend, almost as if it were denying that she is an older woman whose made too many mistakes. Charlie is the kind of wreck who does well to distract you from that fact. Moore as Charlie is very convincing, and she's never been sexier than with her British accent. Matthew Goode's role is occasional but always nice because Goode is such a charming bastard. In just the few flashbacks he appears in you get why George would be so sad after losing him. Other actors who have good parts are Nicholas Hoult as an infatuated student, Ginnifer Goodwin as a friendly neighbor, and Ryan Simpkins as Goodwin's weird but curious daughter. Acting good all around.

So yes, A Single Man was a very interesting film, engrossing and thoughtful. It gains our sympathy and attention as an audience and any film that can do that is bound to be good. Props to the whole damn thing. It may not be for some people, but some people aren't me. Four out of four bullets.

This has been the second of three reviews from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.

The Messenger Review

2010-08-20T17:20:00.000-07:00

"It could be worse. It could be Christmas." - Capt. Tony Stone

Most modern war movies are doing the right thing by not focusing on THE war, but instead focus on the soldiers. The Messenger, a film that came out last year like The Hurt Locker, does not feature the war in the Middle East but we feel it's presence in the main characters. The soldiers in The Messenger are not fighting a physical or environmental enemy, but mental and emotional anguish. The job of the heroes in this film is to inform citizens that their son or father or daughter or mother has been killed in the line of duty. Many war movies display a soldier dying violently with great effect, but seeing a piece of that soldier's family die in their own living room can be just as tragic.

Fresh from the shit, the decorated and recently recovered Sgt. Will Montgomery (Ben Foster) is given job of Casualty Notification as a way of serving out the last few months of his tour. His commanding officer is Capt. Tony Stone (Woody Harrelson), who has never seen combat but knows the stoic procedure down to a T. Montgomery has to deal with his own demons, his trouble seeking CO, and a need to care for a woman (Samantha Morton) whom he notified of her husband's death. The end product, which is the first film made by Oren Moverman, is startling and devestatingly effective.

Getting the technical aspect out of the way, I will say that this film has a unique visual style. The camera is very often shaky, almost documentary like, during many tense scenes, while also having its wealth of fine angles and steady shots.

Now for my favorite part. The acting. It was phenomenal. Once again, the cast does a lot in spite of the fact that there is no ensemble group. Ben Foster, like Joseph Gordon Levitt (Maybe moreso), is proving again and again to be one of Hollywood's most terrific modern actors. He brings so much depth and emotion to his role. He almost embodies this very haunted man. Woody Harrelson (Oscar nominated for this) pulls off one of his best roles as a man who is precise and focused as hell on the job but still finds time being Woody Harrelson while off duty in a way that fits the story. Harrelson is still awesome, you won't see it at first but he was the one who damn near made me weep. The female lead of the movie is Samantha Morton who really is never anything but good. She has a great, subtle, and natural screen presence, her face almost breathes hope and light (lets say if I were to cast an angel she would be it). I'm not sure if she actually put on weight or is wearing a suit or makeup of some kind but she is a bit heavier in this to pull off a sort of average woman look about her. Her performance is very touching and never goes cheesey or cliche. A real surprise here was Steve Buscemi in a small but incredibly powerful role. He plays a father due for notification and his reaction to his son's death is one of the most, if not the most incredible moment in his career (next to the "I don't believe in tipping" scene from Reservoir Dogs). Any other actors, unknowns I'm pretty sure, who play those being notified of the deaths of loved ones are heartbreakers. Jena Malone has a small role that again shows her maturity and not just because of her sex scene (yeah she isn't young Jodie Foster from Contact anymore) but she's still Jena Malone and charming as hell and always nice to have in a movie so there ya go. So once again acting gets an A++, because I really don't watch a lot of movies without something close to that.

The Messenger is a deep, compelling, emotionally charged story about the effects that war has at home. It should be viewed with an open mind and a prepared box of tissues. It nearly made me cry and left me unsettled for the next two days. It is that powerful. Four out of four purple hearts (that's right I'm adding a rating system).

This has been a heavy hitter review from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.

Vampires Suck: why bother

2010-08-18T17:18:00.000-07:00

My first taste of the parody films was from the Wayans Brothers. Now their older stuff was hilarious, the hood movie parody Don't Be a Menace to South Central while drinking your Juice in da Hood, Scary Movie, Scary Movie 2 were all hilarious. Later the Scary Movie franchise was taken over by the folks behind the older parody films such as Airplane and The Naked Gun series, now these were chuckle worthy but not nearly as funny. But now Scary Movie has evaporated into nothing and a slew of movies that anyone with the slightest shred of taste in films could see from the promotion is terrible. I am talking about the films of writer-directors Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer, who have made such films as Date Movie, Epic Movie, Disaster Movie, Meet the Spartans, and, very recently, Vampires Suck. These are young, aspiring filmmakers who watched the Wayans Brothers' films and said to themselves "Huh? I don't get it. I bet no one else will either. Let's make some movies that we understand." Unfortunately, the above filmography was the outcome of that decision.

Now these films have been bashed by almost every critic, major or otherwise, but I don't need them to tell me. No, I can find out these films are shit by way of two fundamental things: the trailers that give away just about every possible joke (lame as they are) and the reactions the people at my school have had to them (because most people at my school have very little taste in such things). Come on, Meet the Spartans? I could understand it if the trailers showed all of the jokes if the jokes had meaning, were intelligent, or were just, you know, good. But the jokes I see in these things seem to come out of nowhere (and they apparently do in the trailer), are parodies of other things instead of what the film claims to be parodying, or are just really lame. Take that joke about the "James gang" being the Black Eyed Peas in Vampires Suck. It doesn't make sense! Yes because The Black Eyed Peas consisted of three people, one black and two white. Only an idiot would actually make a joke like about the Twilight villians looking like The Black Eyed Peas. I believe that the critics at Spill.com said it right when they said the jokes made in the movie are jokes that could have been conceived by the fans of Twilight.

This begs another question. I go to school with many young ladies and older women who are immensely fond of Twilight and they all want to see this movie that mocks and parodies it, yet these same fans berate and are offended by the people who mock it on an every day basis. So it's not okay when someone with some taste mocks it, but when shitty filmmakers with no taste do it it's dandy? Hypocrisy anyone? Just shows how freaking weird some (hear me, SOME) Twilight fans are.

Anyway, the guys at Spill are right: I think audiences appreciate jokes more if they have to use their heads to get the jokes. I can also tell that the Spill crew is right when they say that the absolute majority of the jokes in Vampires Suck are just references to other things/"hey look at that, it's funny because it exists." That's not comedy! The rest I'm told is, as I predicted, "comedy" that consists of jokes that haven't been funny in years (prat falls, being hit over the head, flatulence, there's probably even a few animal reaction shots). I really don't see the point of this movie. Why watch inconceivably famous people make lame jokes about Twilight when millions of regular people can make good jokes about Twilight. Vampires Suck, if anything, only adds to Twilight's ever growing popularity. I'm getting the feeling the series is even starting to overshadow the work of Anne Rice or, dare I say it, Bram Stoker.

None of this changes anything. I don't heed the call of Twilight fans who urge me to read the series one because the only fans I trust are a few friends (most of whom think Vampires Suck looks hilarious) and my brother (because Twilight may be the only book he has read for himself). The only vampire book I plan to read anytime soon (which is probably way off still) is Stephen King's 'Salem's Lot. Why? Because my dad (who knows his books) said it was the best vampire book he's ever read, and my dad's word means a lot more than the word of the Twihards', many of whom are people who can't imagine why I wouldn't read Twilight yet scoff when I suggest to them The Dark Tower. I'm sure one day I will pick up each Twilight book and read them dilligently and set them down and realize that I was a fool all along but for now I'm sticking with what I know is good.

Anyway, yeah, Vampires Sucks looks awful and you won't convince me otherwise. I recommend you have your children watch good movies and good literature at very young ages, graphic or not, because they will develop good taste and therefore sense and gravitate away from the bad shit.

This has been some intuition from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.

The Underrated: Michael Keaton

2010-08-15T20:14:00.000-07:00

Michael Keaton. Star of Beetlejuice, Tim Burton's Batman, Batman Returns, Pacific Heights, Desperate Measures, Porco Rosso (english version), and Mr. Mom. Had supporting roles in Jackie Brown, Out of Sight, and just recently Toy Story 3 and The Other Guys. The first true, and in my opinion best, Batman. He is a charming, likable, and very effective actor. With all of that in mind, I have only one question: why the hell is he on my underrated list?

Seriously, Keaton is just one of those actors who was big a long time ago but only seems to be getting very small roles these days. It's a shame because he's mentioned all the time by every reviewer I keep up with, people who wish he'd come back to really good acting. At some points I think maybe he and actors like him are taking smaller roles because their hearts not fully into it anymore, or maybe they've gotten older and just don't want really big roles. I don't think that's quite true about Keaton though, in 2009 he made what was as close to a true starring role as he could in The Merry Gentleman. That was a pretty good movie, and he was terrific in it. The Merry Gentleman was also his directorial debut, proving not only is Keaton still a great actor he is a great director too.

Perhaps The Merry Gentleman was a project he just wanted to do for a long time. I think I heard in a movie once that everybody interested in film wants to be a director at some point, so maybe it was something like that. Still a good movie though. Something I thought was funny was that Keaton was actually cast in the role of Jack on Lost before the show aired because back then Jack was supposed to have died in the first episode. But once Jack became a main character Keaton dropped out. Understandable, but still Keaton on Lost would have been awesome (Lost was a show full of great actors who aren't given enough credit and were allowed to really shine). I mean Lost certainly would have been a step up from White Noise and First Daughter.

Looking back at his roles, whether it was the totally insane Beetlejuice, the deranged mastermind in Desperate Measures, the zany cop in Jackie Brown, or of course the menacing and somber role of Batman, it just seems kinda sad. I don't know. Maybe Michael Keaton will make a big acting come back someday like Robert Downey, Jr. or Mickey Rourke. Either way it's still good to see him whenever he's in a movie. I'm actually really liking the voice acting he does these days as the shifty doll Ken in Toy Story 3, the cocky Chick Hicks in Cars, or of course as the soft spoken cursed pilot in Hayao Myazaki's Porco Rosso. While Michael Keaton may or may not be held in high regard in Hollywood, he is rated very high by us lovers of film.

This has been an issue of The Underrated from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.

The Catcher in the Rye Review

2010-08-13T10:47:00.000-07:00

"Anyway, I'm sort of glad they've got the atomic bomb invented. If there's ever another war, I'm going to sit right the hell on top of it. I'll volunteer for it, I swear to God." - Holden Caulfield

I figured why wait to read this in school. I don't like assigned reading at all. So I've finished reading J.D. Salinger's teen angst masterpiece The Catcher in the Rye. Now needless to say I had a lot of expectations for this book. It's almost a book I read as a challenge, like "oh yeah, you think you can blow me away, Salinger? Bring it." I'm like that with most books, I think. But I just finished it last night (or this morning, I'm a slow reader) and upon doing so I knew I would have to do a review on it and here it is.

For those who don't have that good an idea what it is about, Catcher in the Rye follows a few days in the life of the teenage antihero Holden Caulfield. Holden is a deeply cynical, repressed, awkward, deep thinking young man (sound familiar?) There is no real arc to this story, it's just his life and how he lives it. This is also a first person narrative, so the main treat for the readers is we get the in depth, private thoughts of Holden. And believe me, he has plenty to think about. Through his often pessimistic and angsty narration, we are shown the confusion, fears, alienation, and a wealth of other thoughts that are no doubt streaming through the minds of most teenage males, or just teens in general. Can ya dig it?

What inspired me to read this more than anything was Salinger's recent death. I wanted to know if he is as great a writer as everyone claimed. I wanted to know how strongly I should feel that he is not around anymore. After reading his highly acclaimed and most renowned work, I have to say it's a damn shame. Salinger has such command of writing, such a knowledge of dialogue and stream of consciousness. I especially love how he's not trying to push a message or anything. The character of Holden is intelligent but he is by no means a wise person. The reader is supposed to be the one applying their own wisdom to the things that happen to him.

Holden was where I came to an impass. He is considered to be one of the greatest literary characters. I began reading the story and very quickly I realized that I was really annoyed by him. If you've read this you'll know and you're gonna read it you will know, Holden is always complaining about something. He sees almost everyone as phony and if someone does something he doesn't like he exaggerates like it is something "they always do" or "never do." Sometimes he places himself as inferior, other times he has amazing thoughts of granduer. He envisions himself being something of a badass a lot when in reality he is a weakling, which sometimes he admits. A lot of times he seemed emotionally detached from situations he is in or thinks about, while at others he shows a lot of emotion toward something else. There are even times when he seemed truly emotionally unstable: "then all of a sudden I started to cry." WTF? But really, honestly, the reason he was so frustrating a character for me is because, of course, he was like me. Most everything I said above about him could also be attributed to me, or maybe any teenager. It's the mark of a great character I think, one that is crafted to mirror the reader in some way. In that sense, I think Holden is probably one of the most relatable characters I've come across. He's a person. He will do things you don't like and things you do.

So yes, I'll admit it, The Catcher in the Rye is a genius book. It's a book that doesn't require much of a plot, but is good mainly because it is brilliantly written. Props to J.D. Salinger and may he rest in peace because he made something extraordinary. Love it or hate it or both, I definitely do believe it is one of the most important books a person can read.

This has been another literary review from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.

Frustrated yet witty title

2010-08-12T20:56:00.000-07:00

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve niether and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

I hate people sometimes. Scratch that. I hate people a lot of times. I'd kill em all if I could. But let's be serious. You aren't here to listen to me talk about my fantasies, you are here to listen to me talk about our reality. What concerns us all. What should concern us all. And what is absolutely, positively, extremely, frustratingly, unethically, disgracefully, immorally, ludicrously, inevitably wrong with our reality sometimes.

What I'm going to talk about is some pretty bad people. I hope I won't sound like I'm pushing some kind of message, because there's nothing I hate more than people talking down to other people. And I don't want to criticize the beliefs of whoever reads my blog. I mean if you're reading my blog, I am thankful as hell and it is much obliged that you give a damn. Anyway, on to the bad guys.

By a message, I meant of course a political message. The people I am talking about are politicians. They are what is called Conservative these days. Liberals and Conservatives, why have these lables. Everybody is a liberal about some things and conservatives about others. Okay screw it, I'm calling them Donkeys and Elephants, and the Independants will be Snails (I saw a mock Party logo that was funny). So being the spawn of two particularly Donkey oriented but outspoken Snail people, I have had my qualms with the Elephant group. But in the past I more often than not have only disagreed with what the Elephants were doing. There is nothing wrong with that, I disagree with plenty of people about plenty of things. I mean as somewhat of a Donkey oriented Snail I too have had problems with The Donkies. But lately the Elephants are just kind of loose cannons. The things they propose and the things they do do not sit well with me. Take this Angle woman, a new Elephant oriented politician that has hit the scene. She seems to be urging the integration between church and state, which goes against old constitutional rules. Some have talked of making so that American workers cannot retire until they are at age 70. That's ten more years for grandpa. Then there is talk of changing the 14th Amendment and making it so the children of immigrants, illegal or otherwise, cannot have US citizenship if they are in fact born in the United States. So it's not enough that we are going after the adults, or at least the illegal adults who are in fact guilty (though their intentions are understandable), but now we have to go after the children. Isn't that kind of, uh, heartless? WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!?!? They are even talking about internment camps for immigrants. Because if barbed wire fences and a tent for the whole family doesn't scream American Dream I don't know what does. I don't wanna tell the Elephants how to do their job but if I could I'd say "Think of the people. Think of the children."

The other people I wanna talk about are far worst. They take religion, one of the most influential things in the world, something that is supposed to be good and inspiring, and turn it into something ugly. I am of course talking about the horror of humanity The Westboro Baptist Church. No one else is as hate mongering, infuriating, revolting, and absolutely inhuman. They are the KKK without the white suits, or at least they're gonna be. The brain child behind this cheery congregation of cunts is a mister Fred Phelps. I know some people who don't like old people. I can never really understand why. Fred Phelps is why. He is such a stereotypical old, angry, bible thumping bag of bones it'd be cartoonish if he wasn't an actual person. A man in his 70s, Phelps has had quite the charmed life: he's been arrested for numerous assualt cases, has reportedly abused his children, and started a church that has hellfire gospels galore, in turn creating a generation that will spawn more generations of angry, radical, religious fanatics. The pass times of the Westboro Baptist Church are picketing the funerals of soldiers, gays, and I guess these days nerds, hating America, and making me want to trip balls so as not to think about them. If this is what a proposed God digs, as they claim, I really want nothing to do with him and I will gladly go to hell for that. Phelps' daughter, whose name I didn't bother to remember or chose to forget, is considered the most hated woman in America. She explains with a homely, calm smile on her face that things like 9/11, Columbine, Virginia Tech, the wars, death, destruction, mayhem are "awesome." None of it registers as pain and suffering to this woman, it only means we are getting closer and closer to Armageddon and the Apocalypse. Her teenage daughters, who seem like pretty and ordinary young women, have said with teenage girl giggles how they've been taught and do hate America. Oh yes, I'm not lying when I say that Phelps has said that if anybody has gotten the way to practice religion right in the world (ya know, his way) it'd be the Taliban. Also when asked about the parts of the bible in which God displays his forgiveness and kindness, Phelps says outright that "whoever says that obviously has never read The Bible a day in their life" and I'm pretty sure went on to criticize them and a dozen other things. The insanity of the WBC is so great that they have recently protested Comic Con, where all the hardcore nerds flock every year, believing it to be a form of idol worship. The nerds of Comic Con protested back in response however. I mean it is honestly remarkable how fucking crazy this guy and his group is. They might as well put up a sign saying "RACISTS, FANATICS, ANGRY OLD FOLKS, COME ON IN AND HATE TOGETHER" because if history has taught us anything, really hateful people like to band together with other really hateful people to hate everything. Fuckin' conformist fucks! I mean I know I say there are people out there I want to die and I usually don't really mean it, but this time I am pretty sure I mean it. I really want these people to die. You hear stories about how God has a church cave in on his worshippers (so says Hannibal) but it's usually good religious people. Why can't the bad guys by smited?

PEOPLE LIKE THIS SHOULD NOT. BE. REAL! They are people I sometimes think don't deserve to breathe the same air as me. People that make me feel bad that I am a person. Isn't that a terrible thing to feel. Like you are almost ashamed to be cut from the same cloth as someone else. I'm no saint, but I like to think I'm a pretty good guy. But I'm also a conflicted and, admittedly, angry person. It might just be a period in my life. For all I know I could do a total 180, a C.S. Lewis if you will, in the future where I'm a non-descript, polite, straight laced accountant paying for my kids tuition, going to church, choosing self gratification as opposed to marital relations, living in a small town just a few miles from where I used to live, watching Lifetime TV movies and Two and a Half Men reruns, and wondering what happened to who I used to be. Maybe, but let's hope not. Right now I'm a cynical bastard, who feels and thinks too much, wants to do something that has meaning, wants to live in some other country for three years, who knows he will struggle and win some and lose some, who has a distinct personality people would remember, who would gladly make love to a wife or domestic partner or possibly a ONS (One Night Stand abbreviated), who watches HBO and Showtime, who likes pondering the mysteries of the universe instead of knowing, who is on a journey to figure out who he is. I'll try to be that person for as long as I can. I'm trying to be that way right now. But the way I am right now, I can't even kill a bug without saying "sorry," and feeling like shit afterward (Not extremely, I mean given the ant hills I crushed as a kid I should feel like Hitler but it's not like that). That being said, when I have the knowledge that people so horrifying can be in this world I just don't know how I can stand it. But I do stand it. I stand because we all have to stand it and if I couldn't I wouldn't make it in the world. I bottle up the hate I have for it, it and the bullshit that looks me in the eyes every day. And I'm gonna try to keep standing it until someday hopefully it doesn't bother me as much as it does now. I find it a lot easier to say "I'll try" than to say "I will." All I really can do is try. Win or lose, I'll still try.

[I watched Chaplin the other night. I've never seen an actual Charlie Chaplin movie but I've seen a scene from one that really spoke to me. And for anyone who would like to know how I, and how I would like for everyone to view things, I'd recommend you all look a Chaplin's speech from The Great Dictator. Really listen to it. I wish things could be that way.]

This has been a fight to fulfill a promise from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.

Top Ten Movie Openings

2010-08-09T14:49:00.000-07:00

Introductions can either go very well or very badly, either way an introduction can tell someone whether or not they are going to enjoy the rest of their company. This is just as true for movies as it is for people. Some movies can let you know, or mislead you to think, how great it is going to be for the duration of the film just from the opening scene. I will be listing and explaining my favorite movie openings right now.

10. Citizen Kane

"Rosebud..." - Charles Foster Kane

Yeah, everyone remembers this one. I'm sure some would rank it higher, but it is so obvious that I think ranking it any higher than tenth place would be contributing to Citizen Kane's already monumental glory. What is considered to be the greatest movie of all time opens as the camera cycles through Kane Manor I guess. It is gloomy, dark, and lonely, just like it's inhabitant, who we will come to know as Newspaper mogul Charles Foster Kane (played by writer/director/producer Orson Welles). We finally find Kane as an old man in his death bed. Clutching a snow globe in his hand, Kane utters his last word: "Rosebud..." and then dies. That last word is the macguffin for the entire movie. Though this choice is obvious, I still can't deny that this is an amazing opening. Citizen Kane is notorious for being a film way ahead of its time. In the opening we have an effective excess of superimposition, very well designed set pieces, great shadowy lighting, extreme closeups among many other unique camera angles, and extensive makeup for Orson Welles. So yes, Citizen Kane. Had to be on here.

9. The Shining

The opening of The Shining would seem pretty standard, being it is a tracking shot with the credits sliding along the screen, but with Stanley Kubrick directing, it becomes one that sticks with you. It is a serene, steady cam tracking shot that sweeps over a still lake and along a mountainside road. It follows a car overhead through in a mazelike fashion. Until we come upon the very majestic Overlook Hotel. And being it is a Stanley Kubrick movie, a straight horror movie to boot, their is an incredibly unsettling and ominous score playing throughout this opening. This opening is designed only to let you know we are going someplace we don't wanna go.

8. Goodfellas

"For as long as I could remember I always wanted to be a gangster..."

Martin Scorcese wastes no time when telling the violent story of the 1970s New York mafia. The highly acclaimed Goodfellas opens as three gangsters Henry (Ray Liotta), Jimmy (Robert De Niro), and Tommy (Joe Pesci) are riding in a car. They start to notice a noise coming from the back and pull over into a secluded area. Opening the trunk, we find a bloodied and bashed man on the inside begging for his life. Angered that the man is alive, Tommy viciously begins stabbing him with a butcher's knife, followed by Jimmy unloading a gun into his chest. After this, Henry, not as horrified as he should be, closes the trunk and begins his narration. This scene is the first minute of the movie.

7. Terminator 2: Judgement Day

"...They lived only to face a new nightmare. The war against the machines." - Sarah Conner

In the opening to one of the greatest action movies of all time, director James Cameron finds the right tones when depicting peace and stability in contrast to war and devastation. It shows simple shots of a sun baked Los Angeles, with cars in traffic, crowds of people crossing a busy street, and children laughing happily on a playground. But these images fade into blinding light until we are faced with the same images in the future. Los Angeles, and the world for all we know, is a dark wasteland of destruction. The traffic has halted altogether and the people in cars are charred skeletons. The streets are empty, the playground is empty. Sarah Conner, the hero from the previous Terminator and the mother of mankind's last hope, narrates as a battle breaks out between human survivors and Skynet's machine army, complete with a league of terminators. A scarred warrior emerges from a bunker and oversees the battle. John Conner, the leader of the resistance, Sarah's son. Sarah explains that the machines' attempted to once again kill John in the past, but that John again sent another soldier to protect his past self. After this a tracking shot of the city in flames is shown with the epic main theme playing until finally we focus on a burning terminator face staring into the screen. This whole opening gets the point across, we know we are in for a ride just here. Kudos to Cameron.

6. Halloween

"Michael's around some place," - Judith Myers

Following the haunting opening credits, the horror classic begins with a single take from the POV of the killer (inspired by Touch of Evil's opening scene). On Halloween night, he approaches toward a house and watches as a young girl makes out with her boyfriend. They quickly go upstairs and the killer makes his way inside the house as the lights go out. We see him grab a butcher's knife from the kitchen and hide in the shadows as the boyfriend leaves. He creeps upstairs, donning a clown mask. Then he stalks behind the oblivious naked girl. As soon as she sees him, embarrassed, he begins stabbing her, watching his hand go back and forth as he does it. She soon falls dead and he hastily makes his way downstairs and out of the house as a car pulls up at the house. Two confused adults get out and take the mask off of the killer. We see it is a six year old boy, he has just killed his sister. This boy is Michael Myers. I love this opening because it is so atmospheric and shadowy, it makes the audience the killer using the point of view camera effect. The scariest aspect however, of the whole movie in fact, is filmmaker John Carpenter's chilling score. It is the music that accompanies death in my opinion.

5. Every Coen Brothers movie I've seen

Okay so maybe I haven't seen every movie by Joel and Ethan Coen but the ones I have seen have some pretty great opening scenes. They are always scenes that get your attention immediately by any means. They are usually pretty funny or just kind of weird. Some open with actors with distinct voices narrating usually on top of landscape shots, rural or urban, or otherwise: M. Emmett Walsh's wise good ol' boy talk about the dog eat dog way of things as we get shots of Texan countryside in Blood Simple; Nicolas Cage's goofy monologue regarding how his repetitive and ill conceived criminal career led him to the love of his life as he keeps going back and forth out of jail in Raising Arizona; Sam Elliot's laid back introduction to "The Dude" as a tumbleweed travels into Los Angeles in The Big Lebowski; Tommy Lee Jones' haunting, quiet southern reminiscing of lawmen before his time and the violence he has seen during his own while the lethal villain is arrested (temporarily) in No Country for Old Men. Other times it is a standard scene that introduces most of the principal characters and their main problems: Jon Polito talking about "ethics" while Albert Finney gives him "the high hat" in Miller's Crossing; John Turtorro as egotistical and neurotic Barton watching his play anxiously at the beginning of Barton Fink; William H. Macy discussing the plan to kidnap his wife with criminals Steve Buscemi and Peter Stormare in Fargo; George Clooney, John Turtorro, and Tim Blake Nelson arguing after escaping from the chain gang in O' Brother, Where Art Thou; John Malkovich being fired by the CIA in Burn After Reading. Or there is A Serious Man which opens with what seems like a random scene: an early 20th century Jewish husband and wife in Poland are greeted by what the wife believes is a shapeshifting Jewish demon, but it turns out it is a demon, and it leaves after wifey attacks it. What the hell was that about? I have a theory but won't get into it now. The point is from what I've seen so far, the Coen Brothers' movies have always had great openings. And that's fitting because I think just about every Coen Brothers' movie I've seen is a masterpiece. I recommend watching every one I talked about.

4. Star Wars Episode 4: A New Hope

"A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away..."

Of course this is on here. It's Star Wars! The first movie opens in space of course with that always epic John Williams theme and that crawling yellow summary that I never paid attention to but always loved. Once the summary is over and the music fades out, we are faced with a ship being attacked by an Imperial vessel. The ship is boarded and the guards have a shootout with the Stormtroopers. At the same time droid C-3PO is becoming hysterical, while his partner R2-D2 records a message from Princess Leia to Obi Wan Kenobi. The droids stow away in an escape pod and launch themselves out to the nearby planet of Tatooine as Darth Vader strides on board and seizes control. This opening was a sci fi fan's delight. It is just iconic in every way. I don't think there is a moment of it I don't remember. It is just awesome and incredibly memorable.

3. Jaws

"Dun, dun, dun, dun, dun, dun, dun, dun DUN, dun DUN!!!" - John Williams' danger music

Jaws opens as any good horror movie should. It introduces a cute guy and girl, sets a calm and sexy mood, one that puts us the audience at ease. They meet at a beachside bonfire, and he follows her off to the water. She strips down and dives in, while he passes out drunk. Once she is far out, we get a POV shot of course (because what could be scarier) from below as something watches her legs dangling in the water. Then that John Williams score kicks in and we know we are in trouble. Now the really cool thing about this scene, the only thing we see is the girl and her reaction to what happens. Soon her tranquility is shattered as she is abruptly yanked under water again and again. She is then violently dragged back and forth screaming. It keeps pulling and pulling until finally she goes underneath one last time, her screams for help drowning out. That is how you open your freaking movie. With one of the scariest scenes ever. We feel just as confused, shocked, and terrified as the girl. Steven Spielberg say hello to your very long career.

2. Reservoir Dogs

"You see this? This is the world's smallest violin playing just for the waitresses." - Mr. Pink

Now it was between this and Pulp Fiction, both diner scenes in Tarantino movies, but I went this one because I think it is much more inventive. Reservoir Dogs opens with a bunch of guys sat around a table in an LA coffee shop. They all look like tough guys too. Most of them wear black suits you'd see gangsters wear in a Hong Kong movie. A few of them have concealed guns. Reservoir Dogs, a movie renowned for it's violence and vulgarity, opens with these guys just having regular conversations. It starts off with Mr. Brown (Quentin Tarantino, also writer-director) explaining how he thinks Madonna's song "Like a Virgin" is a metaphor for big dicks, which stirs up various other thoughts on Madonna and music; Mr. Blue (Eddie Bunker) says he liked "Borderline." After that Mr. White (Harvey Keitel) expresses his frustration at his boss Joe (Lawrence Tierney) mumbling a bunch of names from an old address book, which White takes. When they are about to leave, Mr. Pink (Steve Buscemi) won't pitch in for the tip because he "doesn't believe in tipping" unless the waitress "really puts forth the effort." Everyone gets into a political arguement against Pink, whose further monologue on minimum wage and work is hilarious. Pink finally tips when Joe orders him to. They all leave and a cool slow motion shot ensues as the group walks to their cars. What a great way to open this movie. It really is an example of Tarantino's filmmaking chops (and this was his first film). What really punctuates this scene is the fact that the next shows Mr. White driving a getaway car, while Mr. Orange (Tim Roth) bleeds and screams from a gunshot wound in the backseat. It is just very naturalistic and effective. It misleads in a good way.

1. The Lion King

"Nants ingoyama bagithi baba (There comes a lion)" - Circle of Life lyrics

Honestly, yes it is indeed The Lion King. Few movies open so beautifully, so majestically. It really paints the perfect picture of this world in the wilderness. It shows every creature across the land arriving at Pride Rock at the dawn of a beautiful day, as the newly born Simba is embraced by his mother and father, blessed by Rafiki the monkey priest, and then raised up at the cliff, against the sun for all to see. And the massive crowd of animals bow to their future king. In the middle of this the Circle of Life plays, adding to the harmonious feel of this scene. This opening has such crisp and defined animation and imagery. Everything fits together perfectly. You really feel the atmosphere of this world. This is a Disney film at its finest. It is always just a pleasure to watch. It is amazing every time I see it. That's right people, The Lion King is my favorite opening thus far.

So those are my top ten film openings. I hope you've enjoyed them, and maybe after reading this you will be inspired to see some of these openings and the entire films for yourself. I assure you they are all very good. At least I think so, and I like to think I am guy with good taste when it comes to movies.

So this has been another top list from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.

Lost Review

2010-08-03T18:12:00.000-07:00

"Everything happens for a reason."

POSSIBLE SPOILERS (Though I'll try to keep it to a minimum, being it is a review)

Okay, I've finally decided to settle down and try to write the review, instead of stalling with more analysis' and theories. Once this is finished, there will be no more Lost related posts (though you can almost guarentee I will continue referencing it a lot). I hope this flies by rather quickly, seeing as how I'm combining two things I love writing about: Lost and reviews. Now I'm going in depth on the saga I dedicated three years of my television experience for. I will tell you all what I loved about it and why I think it is so great, and at the same time I will try not to gush too much and make this as standard a review as possible. So, without further introduction, let's get lost.

The story of Lost begins in 2004, when Oceanic Flight 815 crashes on what appears to be a deserted island while flying from Sydney to Los Angeles. Around fifty passengers survive the crash and soon realize that rescue is not coming. While a battle against nature is inevitable, it quickly becomes apparent to the castaways that there are other forces at work on The Island. Tensions rise as the castaways begin to reluctantly unlock the mystery of The Island, ponder who they are at heart, discover what dangers lie in their surroundings, and face trials they could never even imagine. In the middle of this story, the haunted pasts of the primary castaways are explored through flashbacks, revealing hidden natures and flaws in their personalities that could reflect or influence their present troubles. All of this makes for an engrossing, intense, and amazing story.

While the concept was not unfamiliar to television audiences, filmmaker J.J. Abrams (who had great success with the Alias series beforehand) brought Lost (originally titled Nowhere) to its eventual starting point. Shortly after, writer-producers Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse took over as the show's primary creative team. And this team took the original idea for the story -- "Cast Away" meets "Survivor" meets "Gilligan's Island" -- and took it to levels beyond all three. Many people think that the creators had no idea where the story was heading and were just making it up as they go along, but cryptic scenes in the beginning suggest there was plan from the beginning. As the mystery is uncovered, the show is allowed to evolve more and more and thus so are the characters. I really love how Lost is a show that doesn't have one particular genre. It can be just as hilarious as it can be dramatic. Season 1 is more than anything a drama, which is what I basically categorize the series as, even moreso than mystery. Season 2 was more of a psychological drama. Season 3 a bit of a conspiracy thriller. Season 4 was like an action adventure. Season 5 total science fiction adventure. Season 6 was undoubtedly a supernatural drama. And it maintains all of these genres throughout the entire series with an almost always balanced level of suspense. So really I am not lying when I say Lost has everything to keep a person interested. The show's primary themes are classic: redemption, destiny, coexistence, self discovery, love. The storytellers can also be thanked for making a story that contains a crazy Island, polar bears, a Monster, long lost scientific experiments, hostile natives, gunbattles, fistfights, explosions, and love triangles and have it be so character driven. If the gallery of strange plot points on this show don't keep people watching, the unique, multi-dimensional, and extremely well developed characters will. So yes, the writing aspect is beloved by me more than anything because it is always brilliant (yes, even the pointless Nikki and Paulo episode, it did have Billy Dee Williams...as himself).

Many shows have a big story that a group of main characters revolve around. Lost is a show that has a group of main characters the big story revolves around, and that is why it is so good. With all of the mysteries that are thrown at us, the real mysteries are the characters, their pasts and their futures. While every episode focuses on one character in particular, there is still time to peak in and out of the lives of everyone else. So we get a lot of development along side warm ups for even more development. That must have been an attractive idea for the cast, having really compelling and fleshed out roles. The acting is one of the shows most extraordinary aspects. It goes without saying that Lost probably would have sucked had it not had such great acting. When I started watching Lost the only actors I knew right off were Harold Perrineau who played Michael and Dominic Monaghan who played Charlie, but as I kept watching I realized that I'd seen just about every one of them somewhere before, and even more recognizable people show up later on in guest roles or otherwise. I'd be writing all day if I went through every one of the great performances on the show. I can say that no matter what incredible things happen, the cast always bring out moments of true heart and sincerity in their characters. As far as ensemble acting goes, Lost is some of the best I've ever seen.

Now for the technical detail. I will get the CGI area out of the way. For the instances CGI has appeared on Lost, it has been pretty hit and miss. In some areas such as the Monster and The Wheel, the effects are pretty simple but very convincing at the same time. Other moments look a little cartoonish, but don't take anything away from the moments. As far as any other special effects go, the rest are great. I love how makeup was always consistant: Ben was beaten to a pulp around the middle of season 5 and remained bruised until the end of season 6, which seemed like a two week period in the show's time. Lost is pretty consistant in regards to most things. The set designs are always interesting. I loved The Swan Hatch interior of season 2 and The Temple of season 6. All of the sets capture the feel they are supposed to and are convincing due to that, especially the castaways' camp. The main and most pivotal location is the Island, which is actually the Hawaiian island of Oahu, which is utilized amazingly to make up the very intricate world of Lost. Even more impressive than that is how Honolulu and other locations in Hawaii is used to place characters in locations all around the world, including Los Angeles, London, Iraq, Miami, Nigeria, South Korea, and of course Austrailia. With the number of locations, the Island being the most beautiful of all, a door is opened for great cinematography. I don't think I'm alone when I say Lost is a show that is breathtaking to look at; some visuals could belong in National Geographic. Aside from a few CG hiccups, Lost's technical detail is just as top notch as the others.

In my closing words, I will say this review does not do the show any justice. Even though it may sound like I think so, I will have to admit that this show won't be for everyone. I know some people who just can't follow it, or find it too confusing (yeah right, try watching The Wire). Others claim to want to watch the show just to figure out the mind bending mysteries. Telling as little as possible about the ending, I will only say what I always say. When it comes to the ending, you are gonna have to decide for yourself why you are watching Lost: for the mysteries or the characters. Some people may feel it is a cheat, others may feel it is very moving. Or both. I don't know. All I know is I loved every minute of it. It is a show I highly recommend, if you couldn't already tell.

Farewell Lost. At least until I rewatch the series after awhile. Which I absolutely will.

This has been a mission accomplished from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.

Lost: Mother what have you done

2010-08-03T11:16:00.000-07:00

"Every question I answer will simply lead to another question." - 'Mother', basically summing up Lost

SPOILERS (In fact everything on my blog Lost related needs a spoiler warning; so for you readers who start reading Lost stuff and don't watch Lost, just keep the Spoiler warning in mind)

A recurring element on Lost is that the majority of the characters have bad fathers. Jack's/Claire's dad: a cold alcoholic/adulterer; Kate's dad: an abusive drunk; Sawyer's dad: suicide case; Hurley's dad: ran out on his family (but made amends); Sun's dad: crime lord; Sayid's dad: proud, agressive and unsymapthetic; Ben's dad: abusive drunk; Penny and Daniel's dad: Charles Widmore, nuff said; Locke's dad: yeah, that's pretty much all you need to say. I think the only ones who had good dads were Charlie and Jin. But no one really ever looks at the mothers. Plenty of characters had mother issues. Jack's mom: estranged and blames Jack for what happened to dad; Kate's mom: betrays her for murdering her abusive husband; Sawyer's mom: adulterer; Jin's mom: blackmails her own son's wife; Locke's mom: insane; Ben's mom: dead; Daniel's mom: led Daniel to his death by her own hand; Boone's mom/Shannon's stepmom: selfish bitch. So there are a helluva lot of mother issues too. Almost enough to match the number of father issues. I'm surprised mother issues aren't referenced as much, considering the most important actions of the show's two most enigmatic characters are inspired by their own mother issues. Issues that shaped them into the men that would cause all of things that happen on the show to happen. I am of course talking about Jacob and The Man in Black's Mother.

Though 'Across the Sea' was not an overly compelling answer episode, or Lost episode for that matter, I was still very intrigued by the lives of the two boys who would become the two men behind everything that happens. But even more interesting was the woman who raised them, the woman who claimed to be their 'Mother.' Over (what most estimate as) two thousand years ago, Mother was the current Protector of The Island. She found a pregnant woman stranded on The Island. After helping the woman deliver her two sons, Mother killed her and raised the boys as her own. Then of course as a kid, the very curious Man in Black (The Boy in Black, if you will) was guided by the spirit of his real mother to mistrust Mother and try to side with the other stranded people on The Island. Eventually The Man in Black was able to figure out how to get off of the Island, but when he did Mother destroyed his means of escape and killed his entire castaway camp. This led him to kill Mother in a fit of rage. All of this could have flown easily together if it hadn't been for Mother's last words to her prodigal son: "Thank you..."

That last line made me wonder if everything that happened to Jacob and The Man in Black since childhood was according to plan. Mother's plan. When Jacob was born, Mother was happy mainly because she has found a successor to protect The Island. She looked a little unsettled though when the second baby came. I think after that she had a different plan for him. I think maybe her plan for The Man in Black was to drive him to kill her. Why? Because I think she was the first Smoke Monster. Whenever Mother talked about The Heart of The Island, she had a bittersweet way about her. When she said what happens to those who go into the Heart is "worse than death" it seemed like she was speaking from experience. Also, I agree with others when I say that it does strike me as a little odd that one middle age stuck woman could sink in an entire well, destroy a village, and kill dozens of able bodied men singlehandedly. Compare the aftermath of The Man in Black's massacre at The Temple in "Sundown" with Mother's village massacre and it looks exactly the same. Also, being Protector of The Island can make you immortal and powerful but certainly not invincible, both Jacob and Jack were skilled fighters but they were both killed very easily. After Mother slaughtered the villagers, she didn't look like she had even been scratched, or even broken a sweat. She was a Smoke Monster. Of course my theory is kind of nullified by the fact that a Smoke Monster cannot be killed by a simple knife through the heart. Maybe there were different rules back then.

Anyway, yes I think Mother's plan for The Man in Black all along was to manipulate his feelings until he eventually ended her life. She knew Jacob was too good natured to ever do it, and plus he was the obvious choice to be Protector. It started out with little things like using the Senet game box to peak his interest about places beyond the sea and encouraging questionable behavior such as lying. Phase two, Mother appeared in the form of MIB's real mother to make him completely mistrust and even hate her. Finally the opportunity arose to send MIB over the deep end when he found a way off the Island and she totally ruined it. After that, she quickly gave Jacob his Protector inaugeration just before the other son came back to get revenge. I do believe she wouldn't let The Man in Black leave because she loved him, but she was also tired and I imagine being an immortal monster would become a heavy burden after awhile. I think she loved Jacob and The Man in Black very much, but as it has been proven before, by Jacob and then in the future with Ben, that when it comes to the Island some people are willing to sacrifice everything, even love. Oh to be a Protector of The Island. Although I don't think Hurley will stand for things like that to happen. Not in a million years. He had a good mother.

This has been another of and one of my last Lost analysis' from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.

Lost: Black Smoke = Demon?

2010-08-03T10:27:00.000-07:00

"It's very unseemly, making deals with devils." - Azazel (The Yellow Eyed Demon)

Okay this is far off and I'm sure I'm not the only one who has noticed, that is if you are a fan of both shows, but did anyone else catch the fact that the foot soldiers of hell in the show Supernatural bare a striking resemblence to the mystical form of Lost's main antagonist. I mean both the demons' and The Man in Black's true form is a cloud of black smoke (with the occasional flare of light from within. Coincidence? Maybe not.

There has for a long time been spectulation that a show like Lost could exist in the universe of other shows. Some have thought it was Heroes, but I think given Lost's very spiritual and mystical traits Supernatural would be more likely. Going back to the black smoke connection, I started to wonder if all The Man in Black really was was a powerful demon, some kind of anomaly who could function not by possessing a human host but by shaping himself in the appearance of the dead. I mean he really does fit the profile. He was manipulative, sadistic, organized, and very evil. And with his level of power he was practically up to par with The Yellow Eyed Demon. And sure the castaways didn't have Ruby's demon slaying dagger or The Colt, but remember The Man in Black's main problem was that he was unable to leave The Island. I don't think all Jacob had to do to make that so was just say "it's the rules, brother" and that would be that. Think about it, Hunters commonly use what is called a "devil's trap" to keep demons locked in or out of a certain area (an area that could range between the trunk of Dean's Impala or half a freaking state). Maybe Jacob set in place a devil's trap around The Island, insuring his brother would never escape. And remember no one ever said what would happen if The Man in Black left, neither Jacob or MIB himself. The most we got were really omnious but vague responses: "If he escapes it's over, everything is over", "If he escapes then this all ends very badly." And given that we know how much he absolutely despised humanity even before his possible demonizing, it's not wrong to theorize that maybe The Man in Black was going to try to help Azazel and Lilith bring about The Apocalypse. Maybe? Maybe not.

Come to think of it, a lot of things on Supernatural can be related back to Lost. Walt being special: maybe he's like Sam, mixed with a little demon blood as an infant (we really don't know what was happening to him while his mom took him all over the world). Let's not forget the spirits and "Jacob's" cabin. Hurley and Miles are both spirit mediums for some reason. The light at the center of the Island is the source of human essence but turned The Man in Black into a monster/demon: could be some kind of strange Door to Hell, like a gateway that is both the source of Lucifer's corruption and God's energy? Maybe the entire Island is the link between heaven and hell? Maybe if Lost is the mystery, then Supernatural is the explanation? Maybe I think way too much about this stuff? Yeah, that's probably it.

Still thinking about it now, these are some cool possibilities. Still if all of these explanations are possible, I don't think I'd wanna know. Once again, I am one of those weird people who didn't care that they didn't answer the important questions in the end. I loved Lost because it was mysterious and secretive. And really the most important question for me was what was going to happen to the characters on the show. Persons Unknown has a pretty mind boggling mystery, but it is also a pretty lame show because the characters are mostly bland, unconvincing, or uninteresting. Lost is over now, I still feel the same way about it and I don't imagine those feelings are gonna change any time soon. But Supernatural is still on so I'm gonna see that adventure through to the end as well. I don't think I'll be disappointed. And for readers who have not seen either of these shows, I urge you to watch them.

This has been a very late Lost analysis from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.

Cyrus Review

2010-08-01T16:03:00.000-07:00

"John met the woman of his dreams...Then he met her son..."

Okay, so I sort of didn't plan on seeing this movie, like ever. Still even with that in mind I thought promos for the film made it look interesting and funny. Yes, even things that I'm fairly certain will appeal to me remain undiscovered by me as of yet. But fortunately I went to the movies with my dad and he wanted to see Cyrus. I figured why not, I mean what else was I gonna see? Cats and Dogs 2: The Revenge of Kitty Galore? I think not, not for me. But I did see Cyrus, and here's my review.

Now going in, I already knew this had "independant filmmaker" written all over it. I was right it is a pretty independant movie. It also looked pretty funny, a darkly kind that I am attracted to, and also disturbing. Like a Cable Guy kind of feel, but not that tense and unnerving. The story deals with a man named John (played by John C. Reilly) who goes to a party to meet a girl at the urging of his ex-wife (Catherine Keener). Just when things seem hopeless for John, he meets Molly (Marisa Tomei) a sweet, funny, and attractive woman and they hit it off. In just a very short time things seem to be going great, then there's the but. Molly has a son named Cyrus (Jonah Hill) who remains in her home and universally babied despite the fact that he is 21 years old. Though he seems welcoming and polite at first, John gradually becomes aware of Cyrus' true intentions: Cyrus wants John out of their lives, fearing he will ruin the tight mother-son bond he's maintained over the years. So ensues some rather realistic emotional warfare for the love of a woman.

The story is kind of classic. Someone falls for someone else, someone else's child doesn't like someone, they quarrel. It usually paints the guy trying to get with the girl with child as the villain, but here the child is the villain of sorts, who is also not really even a child. The movie is written and directed by Jay and Mark Duplass, indie filmmakers whose last film Baghead (which I have not seen) was met with Reservoir Dogs-like reviews: "It's good, but you have potential to do better." I guess this is their better. It's a good film, indeed. The writing features realistic people acting out a movie cliche in a realistic way. Cyrus is a movie filled with awkward moments, but whereas some movies may seriously overplay the awkwardness to the point where it is almost unbelievable, this one does it so it feels like something that could happen. Whether it's being in the presence of the shifty young Cyrus or the party in the beginning, it is all very uncomfortable. With the heavy realism in the picture, it also means that the movie isn't the comedy of the summer. It is more of a drama after all. Still it is good movie to see and when you are meant to laugh, you will laugh. It's smart with it's dark humour, but not so much that it might go over some viewers' heads.

My favorite part of the movie was the acting and the cast was perfect here. It's good when a very small cast of characters can generate such power and energy in a movie. They are all believable in their roles too. John C. Reilly, an actor who looks funny and is funny, pulls off the character of John with utter sincerity and confusion, he makes him a strong and loving person who may not want to notice his rival is a "rival" but will do battle when he accepts it. I was glad to see Marisa Tomei play a lovely woman with a good relationship, her last few roles have had her playing the sexy lover of men who don't know how to be with her (Phillip Seymour Hoffman in Before the Devil Knows You're Dead; Mickey Rourke in The Wrestler). You have a lot of sympathy for her because she needs a good man like John and deserves to be happy as much as he does, but wish she wasn't blind to what her son does to keep her from getting what she wants. Jonah Hill was what really surprised me here. Too many times has this guy been recycled through different movies as the fat, bitchy, curly haired, mini Rogen after Superbad. It was pretty annoying in Superbad, and even more irritating after the other movies he starred in after that featured him as the same guy. But here he is different. He's clean cut, neatly dressed, intelligent, and seemingly nice. This adds not only to his acting credibility, but the manipulative, creepy nature of Cyrus. It amazed me that this guy could go from being the whining Cartman-esque character to the cunning Benjamin Linus type. Though there were moments where I thought the Cyrus character could have been the love child of Mark David Chapman and 70s Patty Hearst, he was still as well-developed and realistic a character as the others. A character that was pretty genuine. So yes, Jonah Hill keep choosing different roles like this one, don't allow yourself to be typecasted. Also Catherine Keener is always great to see. Here's another actress who plays a woman with at least one bad experience with someone (40-Year Old Virgin; Being John Malkovich; Synechdoche, New York), but still she was a nice, sweet person here and I'm glad her character's relationship with Reilly's was a friendly one. Acting gets an A-Plus.

Cyrus will certainly not be for everyone. Some people out there will see John C. Reilly and Jonah Hill and the jokes in the trailers and immediately think this will be Step Brothers meets Superbad. They will be wrong. For people who just enjoy various kinds of movies, this will be for you. I recommend it because it's the kind of movie I like, and if you read my blog you should know what kind of person I am. If you are like me you will probably enjoy this movie. If not, then I'm sorry I led you astray. Either way Cyrus was a clever, involving, and very discomforting (in a fun kind of way) movie. That's all I've got to say about it.

This has been an August review from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.

Viewing Obama/There's something about Snooki

2010-07-30T15:39:00.000-07:00

"To be angry is easy. But to be angry with the right man at the right time in the right manner, that is not easy." - Aristotle

I agree with the notion that it doesn't matter what President Obama does, he will remain criticized to no end. I'm sure Barry O'Bama (his name Irished) could rush into a burning orphanage, save everyone inside, put out the fire himself, kiss the head of a baby, end world hunger, bring an end to international turmoil, find and singlehandedly capture Osama Bin Laden, and solve the mysteries of the Kennedy assassination, Jimmy Hoffa's disappearance, the identities of Jack The Ripper, D.B. Cooper, and the Zodiac Killer, as well as all of the alien sightings and there would still be those people out there who can swing all of those things in a way that make him seem like the most inept president ever, despite the fact that he is more sincere, infinitely more intelligent, more likable, runs a tighter operation, and is overall head and shoulders above the last one. Does it matter to the neo conservative masses? Fuck no.

Consider Obama's recent choice to be a guest on The View, that show I never watch with the people I've lost interest in. You better believe Fox News had something to say about this. Mainly making points like Obama should have done something different like make an appearance for the new Boy Scouts of America, or remarking The View and the women who host the show as if it was just a bunch of yappy harpies bitching about nothing. First of all, I agree maybe showing up for the Boy Scouts of America could have been a nice chance for Obama to give one of his eloquent and inspiring speeches (though I'm sure if he did, Fox would probably right it off as showboating), but it's not like these kids are gonna grow up to be rapists and crackheads because he didn't do it, and the fact that Obama didn't doesn't mean he is totally inconsiderate of America's youth (remember that very inspiring message to the students of America that everyone freaked out about and called socialist propaganda despite the fact that nothing in the message indicated socialism?). Yes clearly the choice between visiting The View or The Boy Scouts of America was horrendously executed, no way can it hold a candle to the outstanding strategic decision-making of George W. Bush when he was faced with a choice between immediately dealing with The World Trade Center Attacks or reading a story to bored schoolchildren. Clearly. And the second point, about the View and View Hosts, if any show features nothing but a bunch of yappy harpies bitching about nothing it's Fox fucking News. Yeah so what did the clearly dim and ditzy women of The View talk about with Obama? The Healthcare Reform, the Stimulus Package, the wars in the Middle East, you know the little things. I'll admit, from what I've seen, the people of The View do talk about a lot of very gossipy, uninteresting stuff, but they aren't dumb by any means. And the choice to appear on The View, yeah maybe it doesn't seem like the most solid idea for a President, but being the President is still one of the highest forms of celebrity in this country and every celebrity needs to promote himself to the people and sometimes a big political rally with a bunch of folks from your own demographic isn't the way to go. Sometimes you need to get on a talk-show with a specific person or persons that a specific demographic reveres. Barry and VP Joe Biden have sat down with Jay Leno a number of times. This View nonsense is just more cannon fodder for Fox News, more incentive for them to continue complaining.

Do you ever get the sense that the length of which the conservative media and populace attacks Obama is a just a little cartoonish. Like, have you ever thought to yourself some of these people actually don't have a problem with or even like Obama. Who knows, maybe the Right Wing sends everyone a check every time they talk shit about the conservative parties' opponents. Probably not, but it still seems off to me. Like I've said before, I actually try not to keep up to date with politics, so I may be a bit wrong about some of the stuff I'm saying. At least I can admit, unlike some people.

Anyway, who the fuck cares about Jersey Shore? I mean honestly, how many people can seriously be interested or entertained by the activities of a bunch trashy, douchebag New York 20-somethings shipped off to New Jersey and passed off as New Jersey residents, their activities being getting wasted, getting laid, being bitches, fist shaking or something, overkilling their hair gel and spray, constantly affirming themselves and begging for self-affirmation from others, and overall putting shame to our founding fathers. I can find it entertaining as if it was a parody. A very, very, very over the top parody. It seems designed for those who thought Jackass needed to be dumbed down for them. I can't expect anybody who has a shred of self-respect, an ounce of common sense, a gram of taste would watch Jersey Shore. So how can anyone honestly expect the President of The United States of America to watch Jersey Shore? One of the minor, less intelligent questions the ladies of The View asked Obama was what were his thoughts on Jersey Shore alum "Snooki" possibly running for Mayor of Wasilla, Alaska and Obama had no idea who they were talking about. Yes, while Obama was recently holding rallies in the factories of Michigan, even coming up with the new little slogan "I'll bet on the American worker any day of the week", I'm sure he'd cut in time to tune in to the current misadventures of Mike "The Situation" and Jenni "JWOWW." Seriously, we are gonna pass judgement on our President because he doesn't keep up to date with America's latest television fads? A few years ago Obama apparently claimed his favorite TV show was The Wire, which was hailed by many critics as the greatest show on television and beloved by even more. But why watch the intricate sociopolitical exploits of Baltimore's finest against the drug and gang violence that plagues the streets when you could bare witness to what I pray is un-reality TV's selfish, obnoxious, but nevertheless proud Guido heroes, who are lucky enough to get girl on girl action and a possible three way in the first fucking episode.

Honestly I only heard of Jersey Shore from The Soup and how it makes fun of it, and I've seen it playing on TV. And for those brief moments my mind was absent and I allowed myself to linger on it, it was still repulsive. I honestly tried to give a show I knew was shit a chance and I couldn't even pass thirty seconds, it's that bad. Maybe by some miracle I just hit a rough patch when I incidentally tuned in for those short few times. Maybe Jersey Shore is a powerful reality television show that looks into the souls of these select dysfunctional and confused young men and women. Maybe it was the one people wrote off because they were angry with the recent slews of reality shows that have endless spinoffs or sequels. Or maybe my instincts are right, maybe everything everybody I admire and even some I don't has said about it is correct, and maybe it is just total shit TV. The ratings would certainly agree, they were so poor that audiences will thankfully not have to endure more of Jersey Shore. The fact that Fox criticized Obama because he was NOT aware of it should tell you readers something about Fox. And regarding rumours of Nicole "Snooki" Polizzi running for a mayoral position in a small Alaskan town, I will say that, considering Alaska's past electoral outcomes (one in particular), I'd say she definitely has a shot, even if her recent and inevitable arrest does hamper that ambition.

I was almost a little intimidated by the fact that I was going to be mixing another one of my many Obama defendings with my bashing of Jersey Shore. I think, all things considering, I did a fairly good job. The notion of such a feat sounds really surreal and ludicrous. But hey, I'm always willing to try new things when it comes to writing. It's been awhile since I've had myself a good long rant. This was kind of refreshing.

This has been a comment on the recent bullshit from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.

Red Dead Redemption Review

2010-07-23T15:05:00.000-07:00

"It's either me or you. And the way I see it, it might as well be you." - John Marston

I finished playing the story mode of Red Dead Redemption awhile ago. I figured it's about time I got around to reviewing this game, the first really good one I've come across in a long time.

STORY:
Rather than the acid mixed with revenge genres of western the game's predecessor Red Dead Revolver had, Redemption has a bit more of an Unforgiven tone to it. Set in 1911, the wild west is ending, but many of the gunfighters of that age are still alive. John Marston was happy to leave his bad past behind him and settle down with his family on a farm, until federal agents threaten his family's lives unless he hunts down the destructive members of his old gang. After this you trek across the open and treacherous deserts and plains of America on horseback looking for the bad guys. Maybe after catching or killing them, John can finally find his peace and earn his redemption. The story is full of good dialogue, bizarre or cool characters, and situations patterened off of the best parts of the greatest of westerns. If only more games could have stories this good.

BASICS:
Redemption has a sandbox setting very reminiscent to Grand Theft Auto. The game is practically GTA in the Old West, except not as vulgar and more fun. GTA always had a little too much ambition. There was too much stuff to do that distracted you from the main plot. RDR does have stuff like that but the extra stuff is often miniscule and not that difficult and it most importantly is not all just random stuff that doesn't tie in to the main story. It'll be hard to distract yourself from the main story anyway, because the main story is just so much fun. It is not always an extremely easy game like ones I've come across before but if one devotes their time to it the story mode can be over quickly. Even then there is still plenty of trouble you can get into. There is a constantly shifting weather pattern very similar to real life, with beautiful sunsets and dark, heavy storms and the blistering bright blue skies. It is a visual delight more than anything. But gameplay is basic point and shoot, you should have all of the button systems memorized in about a minute. Otherwise this is a very fun game that is very easy to get the hang of.

TOOLS:
Obviously you can't go in expecting some kind of Toruk type of arsenal. You get as many weapons that were prominant in the American West in that period. You will have a series of revolvers (six shooters or otherwise), a few semi-automatic pistols, rifles (repeating, scoped, or bolt action), and shotguns (double barrels, pump action, or automatic). A knife and your own fists are standard if you are looking to dish out some quieter damage. There are special items you can pick up along the way: molotov cocktails, sticks of dynamite, and throwing daggers. Occasionally you can get a hold of a monstrous gatling gun to wipe out some of the larger groups of villains. A lasso can be obtained to wrangle up an escaping target, or to catch a wild horse.

ENEMIES:
Though anyone with a gun is a potential enemy, I would try not to kill any random person unless they are trying to kill you or someone else. On the missions you take you come across a whole gallery of gunfighters, Native American renegades, and crazed lunatics. If you commit a crime, be it stealing a horse or attacking a bystander, local police will be gunning for you immediately or eventually. Thankfully in this game you have the option to give up if you stand still and unarmed for them to see, although they can kill you before you get a chance. If you cause too much trouble a posse of US Marshalls will be hunting you. You can come across a series of disturbed individuals who terrorize the innocent or a cocky duellists, but whether to face them or not is by choice. The majority of your enemies are just men with guns so they can be killed with one or two shots, but being that you are also a man with a gun you can die just as easily. The ones you really have to watch out for are the animals. Most animals are pure game that you can hunt and skin for profit, but others are very deadly. More often than not you will be attacked by wolf or coyote packs or step on a snake here and there, but what you really have to watch out for are the big ones. It is crazy how often you can be pounced by a mountain lion or trampled by a boar, but the worst is when you get mauled by a bear. You can find most of the really bad animals in the woodland and mountainous areas, that's where you will have the most trouble. Nature can be a bitch. But remember you've got plenty of guns to deal with these problems.

GRAPHICS:
The graphics for RDR deserve the most praise. This is really the most beautiful looking game I've seen. There is such attention to detail with the landscapes and terrain. It is amazing just to go riding out on horseback. I've already mentioned the everchanging weather and skylines, which just sweetens the pot. Character designs are also very well done. A lot of games rarely have the character's facial movements sync up with what their saying, but this one does it perfectly. It is just top notch.

OVERALL:
Red Dead Redemption is a fun and exciting third-person action-adventure. It is the best free roaming game I've played. It has surpassed Red Dead Revolver in every way, and I loved Red Dead Revolver. Redemption has a story and a character that are both interesting and fun to play around. You won't be disappointed once you've beaten the story mode, because there's still plenty to do. Gameplay is fast paced and enjoyable. The graphics beautiful and extremely well detailed. It delivers on everything I hoped for when I bought. It is a fun, deep, gung ho, cool as hell western. Let me remind you that I said this game is better than Grand Theft Auto. If this sounds like your type of game, then by all means, totally buy it.

This has been a review of one badass video game by Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.

The Underrated: Hard Eight

2010-07-23T14:41:00.000-07:00

"You don't know how to count cards. Better stay away from blackjack." - Sidney

Let me introduce you readers to the Underrated. This is a new format I will be doing every once in awhile where I talk about something I feel is too and unfairly underrated. This can be movies, art, music, or people.

The first underrated item I am starting out with is the 1997 crime drama Hard Eight. The film is directed by Paul Thomas Anderson, a vastly talented filmmaker (known most recently for the acclaimed There Will Be Blood). Hard Eight was one of his first big breakthrough movies. Though it doesn't have as much fan fare and praise as Anderson's Boogie Nights and Magnolia, Hard Eight, a movie that got good reviews despite it's current underrated status, should still be given as much a chance.

The plot of the film is no where near as ambitious as Anderson's other films, but it is unique and captivating in its own way. It starts off as an older man named Sidney (Phillip Baker Hall) rather randomly partners up with an aimless young man named John (John C. Reilly). Sidney takes John under his wing and teaches him to count cards like a pro at the Las Vegas casinos. Over time they develop a father-son type of bond. Things are complicated however when Sidney and John befriend a tough but sweet prostitute/waitress (Gwyneth Paltrow), and Sidney sees bad company in the form of a cocky criminal (Samuel L. Jackson). It all winds into a very savvy, emotional story.

It is all brought together by the performance of Phillip Baker Hall (who is an underrated actor himself) as Sidney, a mysterious old timer whose past is clearly catching up to him and all he can think to do is take care of the true innocents he knows. His character is very deep and sympathetic. John C. Reilly uses his traditional spacey type of attitude while seriously playing a guy who is not as dumb as he seems. Samuel L. Jackson is, well, he's Samuel L. Jackson and that's awesome. Gwyneth Paltrow is very good in her role, sweet if not a bit stubborn. Oh yeah, Philip Seymour Hoffman, a frequent Anderson collaborator along with Hall and Reilly, has a brief scene playing a total competitive dick at the craps tables.

P.T. Anderson uses his skilled direction and writing that blurs the lines between the over the top and the poetically human. The intellect behind the dialogue and the characters' motivations are thought provoking and interesting. Hard Eight was not an astounding movie but it is a very good movie that should be given a chance if no one has ever seen it. It has a fair amount of humor, dread, drama, and heart as any other work of Anderson's and was a joy to watch. This movie being underrated is a shame.

This has been the first of hopefully quite a few issues of The Underrated from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.

What may come of dreams

2010-07-20T17:02:00.000-07:00

DISCLAIMER: ANYTHING THE BLOGGER KNOWN AS YOUR MODEST GURU SAYS IN THIS POST IS PURELY SPECULATIVE, SATIRICAL OR USED TO MESS WITH PEOPLE'S HEADS. YOUR MODEST GURU DOES NOT PARTAKE IN DRUGUSE WHILE WRITING TO HIS FANS IN FEAR THAT HE IS MIMICKING RENOWNED GONZO JOURNALIST HUNTER S. THOMPSON. ANYONE OFFENDED BY THE FOLLOWING NONSENSICAL RANT SHOULD EITHER STOP READING OR SIMPLY GROW A SENSE OF HUMOUR.

"Dreams are the touchstones of our characters." - Henry David Thoreau

No, I am not familiar with the work of Henry David Thoreau. I got it off of Wikiquote two minutes ago. I do that with almost every one of my precious quotes, and the majority of my information and facts comes from Wikipedia and Youtube sources. So now you can clearly see I am almost totally transparent. How's that for modesty you cocksu--

(YOU MUST EXCUSE YMG. IT IS MEDICATION TIME. MEDICATION TIME.)

I have to apologize for what happened before, I replaced the uppers I got from the guy on the corner with downers my struggling artist friend Lionel supplied. Fortunately I am now stoned out of my mind, and therefore I am in the right mindset to do this post. In this post I will be giving you my input on funny existential things like the mysteries of the human mind, dreams, hallucinogenic drug research, and tons of other gibberish inspired by my current state. Let's begin,

First off I just have to say, I LOVE spam and green beans. It's the goods. Mmmmm......

Anyways, dreams have always perplexed human beings. Some people try to find meaning within them. Most people think it is just their imaginations working overtime while they sleep. Some people believe dreams are a passage way into different realms and reveal knowledge beyond human comprehension. I honestly don't know. I think it's just one of those mysteries of life that we may never solve.

What spawned these thoughts, aside from my recent viewing of the cinematic mindfuck pleasure that was Inception, was my recent introduction to the widely popular hallucinogenic Dimethyltryptamine (tee hee, try saying that ten times fast). This drug can be found in plants and certain areas within animals and humans. It is believed the drug, abbreviated DMT, plays a key role in dreams, near-death experiences, and supposed alien sightings. It is something of a brief trip to the road of your own subconscious. The experience is different for everyone, but many come back with similar and positive viewpoints on it. Whatever visceral world they are brought to leaves them with a sort of renewed sense of the world. I won't try DMT anytime soon for a number of reasons. 1, because I need to start taking actual psychedelic drugs before I try something this big. 2, because DMT is the most expensive psychedelic out there. 3, because a user of DMT has said it is not wise to try DMT until you have a clear understanding of how things in the world work.

Though the prospect that DMT reveals a deeper part of a person's subconscious in a sort of waking dream rather than vivid hallucinations raises an old theory of mine. A quick trip that apparently supplies people with some further insight into the world and maybe even the universe itself. If the average human being uses 10% of their brain, with NASA scientists and various other Einsteins using slightly more, and with all we've accomplished with that 10 to 15 or 20 percents, than what would happen if we were able to tap in to the full hundred percent? Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that DMT can grant that kind of brain power (if I'm right, at the very most it only shows a glimpse into our full potential). But if by some miracle we were able to harness that knowledge, human beings could possibly leave behind any primordial part and be like these godlike beings. It would be as if for the past few thousand years we've existed we've had this unfathomable power locked inside of us. But I guess that saying that is kind of like saying the mind is a prison for our true essence. Maybe that's what god or deities like it are, if there are such things, an essence rather than something with a mind. I don't know, I'm getting too what iffy about all this. Just a theory.

I never like to believe anyone's "the meaning of it all theories" because really I think if there is a meaning of it all we aren't supposed to know what it is. And if I did know, it probably wouldn't make me any happier or sadder about my life. No drug, no dream, no one can give me any sense that there is some way someone like me can be blessed with knowledge such as that. I never liked the idea that when we die we either go to a paradise if we were obedient and devout or a prison if we were disobedient and bad, nor do I like the idea that our minds evaporate and our bodies just rot in the dirt. When I die, if anything has to happen, I would only like to be shown the answer to that question: the meaning of it all. After that I think I'd become one with the universe and that's what happens when we die. Still, I don't really know. Can't know.

I will only say dream on and don't think as much about this as I obviously do. It makes your head hurt.

This has been a little trip down the rabbit hole with Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.

Fuck the Pohlice

2010-07-20T16:36:00.000-07:00

"...If you want to test a man's character, give him power." - Abraham Lincoln

The stereotype that police officers around the world regularly abuse power has not deteriorated over the years. You give a man weapons and a badge and turn him loose on the world, you have to expect that just maybe the man will have a higher opinion of himself. America has become somewhat infamous for it's high level of police brutality within the last few decades. Some may recall the The Watts Riots of '65 and The Los Angeles Riots of '62. Many believe the riots in Watts were brought on by a boiling point of people of different race enduring police brutality. The latter definitely, as it was ignited by the beating of Rodney King, an African American man beaten by multiple police officers.

My generation is not without its share of this kind of injustice. Many remember the college kid who was brutally, unnecessarily, and illegally tasered by police officers, who were clearly conservative, for asking former Presidential candidate legitimate but nonetheless liberal questions at a conference. "DON'T TASE ME, BRO!" Yeah that thing. It didn't stop there either, we've got all sorts of situations these days involving innocent and clearly non-violent people getting physically assualted by cops. The tasing penalty is reserved for anyone, from insolent five year-olds to misunderstood fifty-seven year-old school teachers. So yeah, apparently if you don't listen to a cop there's no rules and regulations, it's just taser time. God bless America.

Of course I'm not saying all cops are powertripping loose cannons, but there is this never-ending element of control and power that some people with the badge seem to desire. You know who else have those kinds of elements: rapists. Come on officers, the motto is "to serve and protect" so hop fucking to it. To all the good guys out there, keep the streets safe, even from your police bretheren. Help take a bite out of crime... and corruption.

This has been a slightly more modest Modest PSA from Your Modest Guru. Thanks for reading.