"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.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
"Black-speak"
"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.
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.
Friday, August 27, 2010
Mosque Pit
"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.
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
"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.
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.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
The cat's in the bag
"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.
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.
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Scott Pilgrim vs. The World Review
"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.
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
"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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)