Now that Shawn of the Dead showed us that zombie movies could be funny, we've got another good one. In fact, it seems you can't go wrong with the zombie-comedy, which I'll go ahead and tag "Zomedy"...rent "Fido" for another great groundbreaking genre-buster. There's nothing new here in terms of character-arcs, which are kind of boxed-in when you're dealing with zombie flicks: the only family you have is the survivors you're with. Well, very good. Gold star. No, where Zombieland shines is the visual storytelling style (think Fight Club apartment catalog scene) and the chemistry/humor between the main characters. Also, watch for a truly unexpected (and inspired) cameo. Solid flick.
0.3
Here's another tired entry into the Blair Witch Project School of Movie Making. The only difference is that that movie was genuinely scary. Paranormal Activity was aptly named because it was paranormal cinema: the pacing was far too slow and the characters were super annoying. The visual effects are used minimally but I think that's a good thing. I just wish there were more scares here. I admire the filmmakers' fortitude but so much more could have been done to heighten the terror.
0.3
Tarantino does his thing once again, quite effectively at that. By creating an alternate version of WWII (where every single German soldier is a Nazi and Hitler is shot to death in a theater), he is free to explore plot lines and characterizations without having to check any history books. Purists will hate it for this reason, of course, but since when do we require their approval? The way Tarantino constructs his scenes as preludes to violence reminds me of a child diligently making a house of cards. But instead of doing it the way we all did as kids, Tarantino uses about three-dozen decks of playing cards. He's got to fight the childish urge to become bored with the procedure, taking several days, ladders, scaffolds, and brow-mopping, the structure eventually reaching to the ceiling; then suddenly, nonchalantly, knocking it down during a lunch break. Hitchcock was a master of suspense because he adhered to the "bomb theory" which states that the audience is given more information--the ticking bomb--than the characters are given to create suspense, thereby involving the audience. Hitchcock explains this effect simply when he says, "There is no terror in the bang, only in the anticipation of it." Well, that's all fine and good, but what else does a bomb do but explode? Tarantino understands the limited value in anticipation of a situation that has only one outcome (the bomb). Instead, he weaves characterization, story-arc, plot and ultimately humor, together with an everyday situation to create his suspense. There is nothing as obvious as a bomb to explode in Tarantino's scenes but because we've been given just enough information about the characters and the story, we know *something's* about to happen, so it's far more subtle. I think Mr. Hitchcock would have liked Mr. Tarantino quite a lot.
0.3Zack and Miri Make a Porno (2008)
2009-04-01 09:34
Another lame attempt at comedy from the mind of Kevin Smith. It starts out very promising: two friends stumble upon fame with a viral video and they decide to springboard into the porn biz. But, in pure Kevin Smith fashion, the story has to wade through insincere sentimentality and clumsy pathos. I had to stop watching it early. Note to Kevin Smith: please stop making comedies. Make the movies you clearly want to make: ponderous drama.
0.3
Funny flick. I'm very much enjoying the recent wave of comedies starting with Old School in 2003.
0.3
George W. gets a pretty fair shake from Oliver Stone here. Especially good are all the supporting roles: Thandie Newton is indistinguishable from the real Condi Rice, Richard Dreyfus does an amazing Dick Cheney, and Jeffrey Wright's portrayal of Colin Powell is very memorable.
0.3
Given his one-take-is-good-enough directorial style, Clint Eastwood's movies are approaching the point of lameocity. Watch this flick and see if you can suspend your disbelief.
0.3
What spell does M. Night Shamalama-ding-dong have over the studio execs?
0.3
I never understood why so many people disliked 2003's "Hulk" with Eric Bana and Jennifer Connelly (who is far far sexier than Liv Tyler, the Betty Ross of this flick) and I also preferred Sam Elliott as General Ross over William Hurt, who was miscast, I think. But what do I know? The five-year-old version was far more of an introspective look at Hulk than this one and what is so terrible about introspection? Ed Norton is also miscast a little bit but Tim Roth was excellent. So I'm perplexed at this "reboot." It wasn't bad but I liked the other one.
0.3
Great effects, good story, and it's got Robert Downey Jr. and Jeff Bridges. I liked it a lot.
0.3"Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip"...
2008-04-21 01:23
I've been watching some TV shows on Hulu.com, which is NBC Universal's answer to YouTube and iTunes. On it, you can watch several dozen different TV programs for free, but you've got to suffer through a few commercial breaks. So it's basically TV via the internet. I had discovered a way to deal with their commercial breaks so that I'd skip them completely but now they're starting to put logos in the lower-right corner: for "Ragu" and the like. So my time with Hulu may be over but not before I sound off on Aaron Sorkin's failed TV show Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. It's a reflexive take on a sketch-based, late night TV show featuring Matthew Perry and Bradley Whitford as the new producers that've come to save the sagging show, the operative word here being 'sagging.' Sorkin sure doesn't mind taking himself seriously, does he? With The West Wing, Sorkin's tendency to get heavy-handed and portentous was forgivable because it was subject-matter appropriate. But with a show about the inner-workings of an SNL clone, it just feels like bad TV. All 22 episodes are available on Hulu but I had to stop mid-way through the season, it was that bad.
0.3
George Clooney's weird delivery normally bothers me. He's got this "who me" style of acting that strikes me as kind of slimy. He's got the same thing going on in Michael Clayton but because the story so perfectly crystallizes what's wrong with corporate America, that even all the weird acting delivery styles amount to little more than half a hill of beans. Michael Clayton is a study of human nature left alone to do it's thing: greed trumps common sense and power trumps the question of right and wrong. Clooney plays a corporate "fixer," the guy you call when you find yourself chest-high in shit. When a fellow attorney, played by Tom Wilkinson, working on a high-profile class-action lawsuit strips naked during a deposition and chases the plaintiffs through the parking lot, who ya gonna call? Clayton discovers that his colleague didn't suffer a breakdown but an awakening. The film is put together brilliantly.
0.3
This documentary does a superb job in disseminating precisely what went wrong with the Iraq invasion and who was responsible. It doesn't get involved with debating the "why did we invade Iraq" question too much, rather it itemizes specific mistakes made by men with too little experience and too much bravado. Ultimately, these mistakes piled up to the fiasco we have today. See it.
0.3
I've been watching season one of 30 Rock via Netflix's Instant Viewing feature. It's really funny in a typical sitcom fashion but the episode that made me post this was "Black Tie" where Paul "Pee-Wee Herman" Reubens plays the Austrian Prince Gerhardt. That entire sequence threw me into such a laughing fit that I very nearly approached death. So if you watch only one episode of this sitcom, make sure it's Black Tie.
0.3
When it comes to creating a fictional world in which we can sense something out of place yet immediately feel at home, Quentin Tarantino is the undisputed king. Consider the thieving world of Reservoir Dogs, the haphazard gangster world of Pulp Fiction, the assassin-for-hire world of Kill Bill. He does it here again with Death Proof, which is both an homage to the wave of muscle car movies of the 60's & 70's as well as a signature Tarantino movie: where characterization remain at the forefront. This is why films made by goofball filmmakers like...say...Kevin Smith...will always seem childish in comparison, and also why they likely will not stand the test of time. Why am I attacking Kevin Smith in a Death Proof sidebar review? Ohhh, no particular reason, just to emphasize the fact that Tarantino exists on a totally different plane from his contemporaries who also rose to prominence in the early 90's, like Smith, and is so clearly a powerhouse filmmaker whose work eclipses a hack such as Smith with such deft confidence that it borders on criminality. Yep, that's why. Anyway, I enjoyed Death Proof a great deal. See it. By the way, I plagiarized much of this review from Kevin Smith's mother.
0.3
The way documentary filmmaker Michael Moore got to be the King of Polemics is that he wasn't above making the odd distortion here or there in order to make his point. I've been very critical of his Oscar-winning film, Bowling for Columbine, because of the obvious way in which he manipulated the facts. I'm thinking primarily of the way BFC was edited. Now, I'm no NRA nut by any means, but that film just annoyed me because I could see the manipulation right in front of me. His new film, Sicko, on the other hand, strikes me as more than fair. I watch quite a few documentaries as part of my film entertainment and Moore's docs are obviously different than the others because of his willingness to inject so much personal opinion into his narrative thread. Other documentaries take more of a journalistic approach and I enjoy those docs too. But I believe Moore wants the world, and in particular, America, to be a better place. What better way to accomplish this than to point out some shortcomings? Many die-hard Republicans believe that pointing out America's shortcomings is tantamount to treason. It's likely that none of those die-hard Republicans have ever been refused health care the same way as many of the subjects in Moore's film. And that's a shame because it seems the only way the American health care system can improve is if the wealthy and the powerful can know what it's like to be denied that benefit. It's baffling to see so many people be so critical of his position. Do they really think the health care system in this country is OK the way it is? I recently had to pay cash out of my pocket for two trips to urgent care because my employer-provided health coverage did not cover it. I hope this film does well and that Moore's word gets out there.
0.3"The Sarah Silverman Program."...
2007-06-12 11:57
Sarah Silverman is getting a lot of airtime in my house lately, but her brand of humor is directly up my alley, and I rarely fight such a thing. This show is her stand-up act incarnate in much the same way that "Seinfeld" was Jerry's stand-up act, only much more mean-spirited, which I love. All the cast has something to do here, and they each contribute to the comedy. In particular, I like Brian Posehn and Steve Agee as the wacky neighbors. Also, my Mr. Show favorite Jay Johnston is on hand as the straight man to all the remaining goofiness. But the star here is Sarah, and she puts it out there like no other. The scene in the 6th episode, "Batteries" where a driver with the same car as Sarah pulls up next to her to celebrate the similarity, and what Sarah shoots him down with took me by complete surprise and it also took me a good while afterward to catch my breath, I was laughing so hard. So if you hate people like I do, this is the show for you.
0.3Sarah Silverman: Jesus Is Magic (2005)
2007-06-06 18:48
When Sarah Silverman went into her bit about how sexy Jewish women could be, I fell off the couch I was laughing so hard. Stand-up comedy, funny songs, and she's a way-rockin hottie to boot. That gets you 5 stars, m'dear.
0.3
This Michael Mann television show from 1986 was in the shadow if his other shining star, Miami Vice, but it is superior is just about every way. The first season comes about as close to perfection as you could hope for: the conflict between Lt. Mike Torello (Dennis Farina) and Ray Luca (Anthony Denison), the set design depicting 1963 Chicago, the music is first rate, and who could forget the hilarious comic relief provided by Pauli Taglia (John Santucci). Even the guest stars are fantastic: Ving Rhames, Pam Grier, Andrew "Dice" Clay, Michael Madsen, the list goes on and on. This show is just as good as anything on TV today. Rent the box set and you won't be disappointed. [Important Edit: you may, however, be disappointed in the final episode of season 1, as it seems like they just got tired of writing and wanted to go home...but still, it's a rock-solid show]
0.3
Finally, a Bond picture about James Bond. This flick sheds the stylistic trappings of all the other 007 pictures and presents a film that could have passed as independent art-house fare. Make no mistake, there are still huge action sequences. The opening chase scene, for instance, is amazing. But Casino Royale is about who James Bond really is, not the James Bond we've all known since Dr. No in 1962. It's worth a look.
0.3
I first saw this on HBO a few months ago and I thought it was utterly ridiculous. HBO is showing it again and on second viewing, it's still utterly ridiculous but I can see some brilliant ideas in it. Based on a Ray Bradbury story, "A Sound of Thunder" tells the tale of time travellers who inadvertently change the past which in turn alters their present. Tragically, the film's budget cannot allow those ideas to be properly expressed. For instance, the scene where Edward Burns and Catherine McCormack have a conversation in a CGI-generated street, with golly-gee-wiz futuristic cars speeding by. Or how about the plastic-looking T-Rex that menaces our heroes? Or the pre-historic eel sequence (this is one of the most unintentionally funny sequences I've ever seen). Such corner-cutting makes it impossible to suspend your disbelief. The producers should all be sent to CGI jail. If you can ignore the goofy images, however, what you'll find is a pretty complex storyline. It's one of the worst-looking good movies I've seen.
0.3
Here's another must-rent, kids. Grilled is Pulp Fiction meets Glengarry Glen Ross. It's unpredictable, funny, dramatic, and best of all not cliched. It's everything independent cinema excels at. I didn't think Ray Romano could make a good film after Welcome to Mooseport but he's simply perfect here. The plot will have you guessing and the story is solid. It's not a laugh-out-loud comedy but I don't think that's what they were going for. Kevin James (of King of Queens) is also great, although he's already proven himself in Hitch. I guess the best thing I liked about Grilled is that it avoided being just another vehicle for established television stars. It could have been easy for them to screw this one up by writing these characters as TV actors on the big screen. But these are real movie characters: fleshed out and whole. Great movie!
0.3
My dog Jake got a lot more out of this movie than I did. There are plenty of dog snarls and growls that, if sent through a properly amplified surround sound system, will frighten the bejesus out of any pooch. Other than the value scaring your dog brings you, there's not much else here. I think Donald Sutherland and Sissie Spacek had an I'll-do-it-if-you-will pact between them. I gave it 1 star but Jake insisted on giving it 3, so we averaged it out. Woof.
0.3
The story behind this film is pretty remarkable but I'm very much a latecomer in understanding it. In 2002, the Fox Network aired a little-seen sci-fi television series called Firefly. I never watched it back then, and to be sure, I wasn't alone. Creator Joss Whedon, whose credits include the critically acclaimed TV shows "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" and "Angel," got a green light to produce 13 episodes but because it got such poor ratings, Fox yanked it from the roster after airing only ten. Not to be stripped of yet another quality television show, the series' rabid and very vocal fanbase started a grass roots effort (the likes of which put Trekkies to shame) to save the show. Several million Firefly DVD box sets later, Universal Pictures green-lighted a major motion picture. This is something that has never ever happened before: a movie was made based on a TV show with a downright disasterous rating. It only happened because of the "Browncoats," which is the fanbase's preferred nomenclature. As a film, it's not perfect. It moves just a bit too quickly to be understood at first viewing but as a continuation of the wonderful TV show, it's shiny. There's a line in the series' pilot episode, spoken by Nathan Fillion's character, Malcolm Reynolds: "We've done the impossible and that makes us mighty." So, too, have the fans. I reccomend that everyone watch the TV show on DVD and then watch this film. It's quite a tale, indeed.
0.3
I'm so thankful that I didn't know very many details about this film before I watched it. Directed by Neil Marshall of "Dog Soldiers" fame, it's documentary quality makes it seem like it's merely going to be a story of six adventurous women who get trapped in a huge cave complex in the Appalachian mountains. As these women begin their descent, I specifically remember thinking "it would be great if it's just them in the cave, trapped with each other, trying to find a way out, like Cube, but underground. If this thing turns into a monster movie, I'm going to be a little disappointed." I was very wrong. Not only about the plot but about how great it could be WITH the monsters. If you've never been in a cave deep underground like I have (Carlsbad Caverns, NM) then you may not have the same reaction but man oh man, this movie really freaked me out. This inventive film completely bucks the formulaic trappings of a typical horror film and that's a difficult thing to do. The ending is the thing that truly elevates this film from entertainment to art. Rent it. Shut off the lights. Watch it. Have a roll of TP handly because you might just shit your pants.
0.3
Upon learning that Fred Durst, lead caterwaller for the aptly named Limp Bisquick, had a very prominent role in this film, I was all prepared to hate it thoroughly. But as the film went on, I really got into it. This is a very well-made and effective horror film but with a minimum amount of blood. Not that blood's a problem per se, but there's accolades to be handed out for making a solid horror film without resorting to gore. Starring Jeremy Sisto and directed by television producer/director Michelle Maxwell MacLaren, the film is about a census taker who comes to Rockwell Falls to investigate why they've had the same population for 100 years. This film makes use of the old "slow reveal" device to make it's secrets known, like Amnityville Horror or The Omen before it. The difference is that we already knew the house in Amnityville Horror was haunted. We already knew Damien was the Antichrist. In Population 436, we might THINK we know what's going on in the beginning: the arrival or birth of one person in Rockwell Falls means the death of someone else. But there's a lot more going on here and how it all works in the end is not without it's surprises. Jeremy Sisto, whose debut performance I made special mention of when I reviewed Grand Canyon for my college newspaper in 1991, continues to be a major presence while on the screen. This film is most certainly deserving of a rental.
0.3
Yikes! What a miscalculation! Bryan Singer directs a much darker version of the man of steel by filling the docket with one ill-concieved scene after another. Every single major role was miscast: Brandon Routh as Superman, Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor, and the biggest casting mistake since Jack Black in King Kong: Kate Bosworth as Lois Lane. Even Jimmy Olsen and Perry White were all wrong (Sam Huntington and Frank Langella, respectively). Man, I'm not exactly sure what Singer was going for here but it really doesn't work. All the joy and ebullience found in the first two Superman films with Christopher Reeve has been completely extracted, leaving an empty, mean-spirited tale replete with terrible performances by everyone listed above. The only thing going for this cinematic suppository is the spectacle of Superman's deeds: he can finally do some really super things. Except act. Want an example? Fine: I saw no fundamental difference between Clark Kent and Superman. They were both dweeby little douches. Brandon Routh lacks the emotional range to make it clear that these two people are different, something Christopher Reeve seemed to do effortlessly. One thing this movie did very well was it made you appreciate Reeve's performance in the originals. He truly was the man of steel. Here's another example: every time Kate Bosworth is on the screen. That's it, that's my example. She is so wrong for Lois Lane that I question the producer's desire to make a winning film. Margot Kidder effectively defined Lois Lane as an energetic, slightly scatter-brained dynamo. I can't say if she was that way in the comic book (because since I turned twelve, I no longer require pictures with stories) but the effect Bosworth has on the movie is like a plague. She's a sucker of scene-energy. It was almost painful to watch. Here's a funny thing. The label printed on the Netflix DVD envelope reads "Superman Returns: The Movie" I believe I shall do the same.
0.3
Because I'm a big fan of the "religious horror" genre, I very nearly endured a theater experience in order to watch this when it was released. While I'm glad I didn't, because the original 1976 flick with Gregory Peck was a little better, this remake with Liev Schreiber wasn't without it's merits. The new scenes, which consisted of dream sequences by the mother, played by Julia Stiles, were quite good and creepy. Regarding the myriad remakes of late, I'd much rather watch a shot-for-shot, faithful to the original remake with some new ideas than sit through some auteur-in-training's idea of a retelling. There are exceptions, of course, like Batman Begins, which was excellent. But director John Moore clearly likes the original film and uses it as a blueprint. So basically, the remake was good because it follows the original, which was great. If you're like me, it's worth a rental.
0.3Metallica: Some Kind of Monster (2004)
2006-10-08 09:53
This documentary by Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky (the pair behind some of the very best documentaries ever made) gives us an all-access pass to Metallica, argueably the biggest hard rock band today as evidenced by selling over 90 million records worldwide. What I found enjoyable about this film was the way it revealed how human these guys are. It shows the struggle the band went through to make their comeback record, St. Anger, and it reveals how they hired a therapist to help them with their issues, how they fight with each other, and how they hired a replacement bassist for a tour. I don't really like Metallica's music very much but this doc was mesmerizing.
0.3
Here's a film that has the balls to take a pretty controversial topic and tell it from the "bad guys" perspective. Jason Reitman, son of Ghostbuster director Ivan, writes and directs this film to utter satirical perfection. Aaron Eckhart plays big tobacco lobbyist Nick Naylor while at the same time trying to remain a role model for his young son. Funny stuff!
0.3
I have no particular love for comic book superhero movies. No disdain either. I just like well-made films and out of all the X-Men movies, The Last Stand is the best. It is rife with conflict involving a miracle "cure" for mutants. There's more character development, more action, more special effects, more everything! Chameleon director Brett Ratner takes over for Bryan Singer and outgrosses Superman (the movie Singer left the X-Men series to helm) domestically by $35 million. But I couldn't find a single flaw with this film. Great stuff!
0.3
The tagline for this movie reads "the most brutal film ever made." I don't think that's hyperbole because after watching this film, I felt quite depressed and deeply saddened. There's no story as you might find in a regular film and no character development at all. It's all plot, all the time, and what this plot contains is beyond indecent. While I despise this movie on nearly every moral and cinematic ground, I'll always defend the filmmakers' right to create such a work. For whatever that's worth.
0.3
I revisited this supernatural thriller about a cop who crosses paths with a fallen angel named Azazel who's busy bringing about the fall of Babylon. Everything seems to work with this film except maybe for the ending, which was a little too cutesy for my tastes. But overall, not bad.
0.3
This movie was flawed here and there but overall, it was pretty good. Elijah Wood plays a student expelled from Harvard who travels to London to visit his sister (played by the amazingly yummy Claire Forlani). While there, he gets involved with European football hooligans. I don't know how much of this film was factual, but those fans go way beyond face-painting and wearing "we're number one" hands made of foam.
0.3
I didn't think this was nearly as funny as Scary Movie 3. It seemed haphazard and pasted together. Craig Bierko, from Cinderella Man and Sour Grapes, was actually pretty funny but Anna Faris seemed to be phoning it in this time. Maybe this franchise is like Star Trek: every other movie in the series is good.
0.3
I really liked this one. It's a mystery thriller with a unique narrative style. Robert Downey Jr. proves that he's a better actor when he's coked up and Val Kilmer's never been better. There are plenty of twists so pay attention. Very funny too!
0.3
I liked the approach newcomer Rian Johnson created: film noir inside a high school. It worked for most of the scenes but for the few scenes where it didn't work, it really didn't work. I couldn't get it out of my mind that these were just kids as I watched the interactions between Brendan and Emily. Perhaps I'll have to watch it again but overall, it worked. Mostly.
0.3
I admire this movie for not having what sci-fi thrillers usually have: an idiot plot: where characters do moronic things just because the script says so. Dominic West, a british actor whose American accent is less than perfect, has the best screen moment. Watch as he remembers his daughter for the first time. It's an impressive piece of acting! Solid flick!
0.3
Halfway through Season 1 of this Showtime original series and I haven't made up my mind exactly. It's put together well and the premise is pretty solid: an undercover FBI agent has infiltrated a cell of Muslim fundamentalists in America. But I'm waiting for something to actually happen.
0.3
I don't think this film is meant to be understood. Rather you're supposed to get the feeling while watching it that there are big things going on in the world of politics and oil and that one cannot exist today without the other.
0.3
I've finished watching Season 1 again and now I'm on Season 2. Again. This show is brilliantly written, beautifully shot, and well-acted. I probably won't be able to slog through Season 3 as it airs on ABC because of the commercials but that's fine with me.
0.3
Australia's entry in horror's recent resurgence, it fails to tie in the real story (that one of the victims was a prime suspect) but succeeds at exhibiting dread. Not bad but not great.
0.3Battlefield Earth: A Saga of the Year 3000...
2006-08-01 07:41
What a fucking mess this movie is! At the core of all the problems is the obvious agenda to present a Scientology manifesto instead of a real story.
0.3
This movie really spoke to me. No, not because I'm a pimp and it's hard out here for me, rather, the struggle of recording music and the creative process is captured brilliantly. It's a really great story too.
0.3
Red Dragon has all the creepiness of Silence of the Lamb but without the clunkiness of Hannibal. Chameleon director Brett Ratner is able to convince everyone that he can be as versatile a storyteller as Michael Crichton. I particularly enjoyed how in-depth the examination of the killer was, providing so much more emotional context. Well done!
0.3   |
 |
Choppa
City |
Pseudo
Placebo |
 |
 |
Where
I Am |
Cruel
& Unusual |
Oh man, this is a great gag. Some kids hung this electronic device under a bridge in Boston, freaking out beantown but at the same time, promoting Aqua Teen Hunger Force, the movie.
Those kids!
Edit/Retraction: Turns out it wasn’t a bunch of kids after all, it was The Cartoon Network. And there were 38 of these signs! Wow.
Yep, it’s still funny.
I never thought I’d be quoting Arlen Specter on this blog in a positive way, but bravo to the Republican Senator from Pennsylvania for standing up to our jackass, know-it-all, fuckwit president who regularly dines on retard sandwiches.
“The Constitution makes Congress a coequal branch of government. It’s time we start acting like it,” said Sen. Russell Feingold, D-Wis., who presided over a hearing Tuesday on Congress’ war powers. He also is pushing legislation to end the war by eventually prohibiting funding for the deployment of troops to Iraq.
It looks like Bush may get himself a nonpartisan Congress after all. Hee hee!
See what can happen when you try to clean your house? I was dusting with my new Dyson vacuum cleaner (which is quite a piece of design, I must say) when I lost my balance and fell. Damn, that smarts!
According to this story, Bill Gates says that the internet will revolutionize television in 5 years due to the enormous impact of internet video.
Wow. That Bill Gates is a regular Kreskin. Next he’ll say we’ll be getting a new president in 2008.
Has this man innovated anything ever? I love citing this fact (because I’ve done it multiple times on this ol’ blog) but the first edition of Bill Gates’ 1995 book “The Road Ahead” does not contain the word “internet” at all. He’s a businessman and absolutely nothing more. Sure he’s quite philanthropic too, having given away the bulk of his personal fortune to charity but what could I possibly glean by reading the above-linked story?
Barack Obama is the freshest political voice I’ve heard in a long time and today’s announcement gives me some hope that the country could be turned around.
On the other hand, the religious right is bigger and more powerful than ever. I hope Obama doesn’t homogenize his message to appeal to these idiots the way Kerry did. That was a big mistake.
What Say You?
No, not because of intelligent design (ID) pundits. Darwin faced much stronger opposition to his theory of evolution while he was alive so I doubt intelligent design, as a springboard for creationism anyway, contributes to his pirouetting corpse. No, it’s their interpretation of Darwin’s own theory that has him spinning. After hearing so many IDers scoff at the notion of “blind chance” and “randomness,” I can finally see what the problem really is. I may be the last one, but that’s another blog post.
ID pundits have characterized Darwinism as a series of purely random events. That’s completely wrong, of course, but such a lie makes their endorsement of a grand collaborator much easier to sell because they are allegedly perfect opposites. Chance is the opposite of design and no fight works as well as perfect opposites slugging it out. So you can see the importance of believing that Darwinism is all about randomness.
In truth, Darwin’s theory of evolution, natural selection together with genetic drift, is the actual exact opposite of chance and anyone who takes (and pays attention to) the most basic high school science class can tell you how it works. Of course, that class would have to have been attended no fewer than ten years ago. But these days, understanding the opposing viewpoint is optional to constructing a national debate, especially to those for whom reason and critical thinking are worthless.
ID Creationists have even attempted to claim that Darwin, in the last days of his life, rescinded his theory in favor of the word of the bible. Well why wouldn’t they? Who better to flip-flop than the man who got that ball rolling? Needless to say, it isn’t true but it’s a pretty ballsy fabrication and one that falls completely in line with religion’s “fuck-the-facts” principle.
Another maddening thing creationists have done is to fiddle with the scientific definition of the word “theory” by making it seem like it’s just some idle thought that crosses your mind on a sleepy Saturday morning. Never mind that the “theory” of evolution has been studied thoroughly by thousands of scientists in countries around the world.
George Orwell said “Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act.” Hopefully, this revolution will be televised.