On PETA, gay sheep and ignorance

I want to like the people of PETA, but they make it so damned hard. Don't get me wrong I care about animals as much as the next guy, but I enjoy my steak as well. But where I really loose PETA is when their members threaten to kill people over what they deem is bad and ignorant. In a recent NY Times article about scientists trying to discover why 8% of male sheep (rams) are gay they received over 20k letters from PETA containing quotes like these:

“you are a worthless animal killer and you should be shot,” “I hope you burn in hell” and “please, die.”

How ignorant do you have to spend all this time and energy to spare the lives of a few fuzzy mammals when there are so many other problems that deserve their attention. I know they want to stand up for the things that can't do it themselves that is why I have a list of issues that I feel are infinitely more important and deserve their help. It is only human to help other humans (though they may not realize this).

1. AIDS in Africa: Of the 2.4 mil that dies in 2002 over half of them were in Africa
2.Stopping the Iraq war: Less people have died in Iraq than in Vietnam, but about the same % of troops deployed and it is not winnable (war is never winnable)
3. Choose one: rebuilding after Katrina, genocide in Rwanda, gun violence in the US, world hunger, pollution/global warming (no animals we destroy their environment)

Any of these issues affects more people and sometimes even animals than some test sheep. Let the scientists do their jobs and help all of us with cures and research. They are the ones that are trying to help the whole by hurting the few which is the only logical way of doing it. Gains are not made by making everyone happy. Just know that for every 10 dollars you donate to PETA to save a rabbit or organize a protest you look like a heartless inhuman asshole because you could have given that 10 dollars to save a human life. But saving a small child in a 3rd world country is someone else's job, right?

Apocalypto 2.5/4 stars

First off, this movie is beautiful to watch and for the most part, Mel Gibson does a great job with the film. For me, the movie misses on a few huge aspects and we are left with a movie that should have been great but ends up being humorous at times. It is a story about the Aztec civilization and there quest to appease the gods with human sacrifice. They seek out the natives in the forest to enslave and kill them. This is the first part of the movie where Mel starts messing up. The Aztec’s behead their slaves, but this beheading is not only humorous, watching the heads bounce down the stairs, but it ruins the drama and brings the tension back to square one. So while the tension of the prophesy coming true is beginning, the audience is laughing at the head with the body following it down the stairs. The next problem I have with this film is due to the predictability and improbability of the second half of the film. Most of the battles and deaths you could see coming from a mile away and though the big chase through the forest was interesting and intense at times it was over the top. For instance, the main character, Jaguar Paw, receives an arrow wound to the stomach and somehow manages to run for over 12 hours without stopping. I realize he is the prophecy but this is a little extreme and the events that follow the chase are a bit too much like Rambo. I am being a bit more harsh about this movie than others of its type because it had the making to be a classic, to be like Last of the Mohicans, but it will end up being just another decent movie that tried to wow the audience with blood and comic one liners. Check this movie out, but wait for video. check out http://www.filmcrave.com (coming mid 2007)

An American Haunting 1/4 stars

Since most of the movie was utterly disappointing, I will start with the only positive aspect, Donald Sutherland and Sissy Spacek. Both of these actors played their part well and if it weren't for such a terrible story and generic scare tactics, they may have been able to save the movie. Alas, like many of the PG-13 horror films of today not even good acting can make up for a shady plot, bad directing and terrible editing. The film is based on the poltergeist story involving a family in rural Tennessee in the early 1800's. The story is filled with the garbled and incoherent dreams of seemingly possessed Betsy Bell, played by Rachel Hurd-Wood. In a movie built around a ghost story it was disappointing to see cheap scare tactics instead of making the movie all around eerie. I am not sure what director Courtney Solomon was thinking when he chose to film the movie with a style similar to a low budget "hack 'em slash 'em" film from the 80's, but clearly there are better ways of scaring an audience. While the filming style could have used some work, the editing and special effects were a disaster. It mostly resembled a bad soap opera. It jumps around between dreams and reality faster than Ricky Williams' in a Marijuana haze. A movie like this doesn't need a whole lot of special effects but the few that it had were terrible and even ruined the scenes. The poltergeist was nothing more than Betsy with a slight hue around her.

The only scary thing about this film was how many 13-year-old girls turned up to the theater to watch this on opening night. As a fan of horror films I understand if you want to judge this for yourself, but listen to my words wisely; don't bother. Check out http://www.filmcrave.com(coming mid 2007)

Not all movies are equal

Watching and talking movies is a big hobby of mine, but one thing that frustrates me is how to rate a movie. I get frustrated because there is no set formula, and nor do I think there should be. But it is this grey area of films that makes it frustrating to me, especially when it comes to selecting a top 20 or top 50 list.

Sometimes I watch a movie and it fits my definition of what a GREAT movie is. This doesn't mean it is great for someone else, this is where the top movie lists and myself differ. To me a movie is not just art, but it is entertainment, emotions and a host of other things that make a movie great. This is why movies like "The Goonies" should not be compared to movies like "The Godfather". It is simply not a fair comparison. They are both great in their own ways, but one is childish and humorous. The other has an amazing story and great acting. Both are executed flawlessly... but which movie is better?

The is no real answer to the question. Both movies have different things to offer and to different audiences. I try to keep this in mind when watching a movie like "Eragon" which I do not find satisfying. But at the same moment, it is not made for me it is made for kids and for the die hard fantasy crowd. This doesn't make the movie bad, it just makes it less enjoyable for myself. The things that are universal such as good acting, directing, dialog, cinematography and special effects are the minimums. Anytime a movie executes these categories well it is hard to say it is a bad movie. Plot is the relative part of the equation.

My point being, sometimes it is okay to have a plot that may seem weaker than average, it is whether the movie entertains or not. Many comedies fit this profile and are quite good. Other movies, dramas in particular, are held to a higher standard of plot but it doesn't mean they are a better movie. It just means that the movies of different types offer different experiences and benefits. We should not judge a comedy against a horror film against a drama, the answer is not that simple.

Nintendo Wii loosing appeal

A recent BBC article suggested that the Nintendo Wii may be a short lived game console because it is loosing its appeal since the games aren't as in depth as the competition. I have a Wii and I have to say I may agree. To me it was great fun at first and I got a bunch of games, spent a lot of money on game cube accessories, and now I am finding that I enjoy the x-box just as much. In fact I don't even play the Wii games, I play the game cube games since the remotes don't do much for me anymore. I think they are innovative and great for sports games but for normal games they are basically the same as having a normal controller. The long-term verdict is still out on the Wii but hopefully the next wave of new games will keep the Wii entertaining for years to come.

First Post

This is my first post, it is long overdue.