http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Tue, 17 May 2005 19:24:18 EDT http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/ Phillip WinnSunday, August 26, 2007, marks the switch of all Blogcritics.org article feeds from full-content to short-content. This is the result of several converging factors, and is unfortunately a permanent decision (as permanent as any decision can be on the web, that is). We are aware of all of the reasons that this is a Bad Idea, and we are aware that some of you will be quite upset about having to click on something to read the free content, and we're sorry. Unfortunately, despite great effort, full-content feeds are not currently economically viable. Two other factors are involved: full-content feeds have resulted in an unprecedented level of content theft, with BC content appearing on many websites, usually spam sites, without attribution or permission. This duplicate content causes a cascading set of problems, not the least of which is that search engines generally aren't favorable to duplicate content, and don't always guess correctly. Finally, our RSS advertising partner is strongly in favor of short-content feeds. We hope that you'll continue to subscribe to BC via RSS, and when an article grabs your eye, it's only a click away, still free on the BC website. Thank you for your understanding. Administration0@blogcritics.org Sun, 26 Aug 2007 12:00:00 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/05/17/192418.php James GoreAn action movie can result in three things. The first--which should be the intention of all filmmakers--is to create a movie with mass appeal; one that is entertaining and that your girlfriend will enjoy too. The second is one that is entertaining, but has a real dumb story or it is critically flawed in many ways; perfect for a night out with the guys or if there is nothing better on cable TV. The third--which happens more often than not--is the creation of a movie that is so bad, that only people who crave senseless destruction will take the chance at recording it on their VCR when it plays late at night on TV.'Assault on Precinct 13' is saddled with the second result. While the film does have potential with its decent action sequences and solid acting performances all around by the stellar performing cast, the story is simply way too flawed to be taken seriously. There are times in the story where even those who would dismiss mistakes as a result of making fiction would be left scratching their heads.Ethan Hawke plays a cop named Jake Roenick who has hasn't had it too good in the last little while. Someone under his command is shot while performing an undercover drug bust and Roenick himself is shot in the leg while trying to pursue the criminal. Afterwards, he's stationed to a desk job as a captain of a run-down police station and developed quite the booze and painkiller addictions. While on duty for the station's last day of operation on New Year's Eve, he and his skeleton crew of a desk clerk (Drea de Matteo) and a retiring cop (Brian Dennehy), he's stuck to hold a couple of prisoners who were in the process of being transported to prison, but were forced off the road due to a heavy snowstorm.Enter Lawrence Fishburne, who plays mob boss Nicholas Zambrano, one of the prisoners on the sidetracked bus. When the almost-deserted police station comes under siege from unknown gunmen, it's assumed that those on the outside raining bullets inside are Zambrano's crew. The twist is that the attack is coordinated by dirty police officers sure to see jail time if Zambrano ever gets to court. Roenick is forced to allow the prisoners to help him fight their way out of the situation.In Jean-Francois Richet's American directorial debut, he presents us with a movie with good acting performances, witty dialogue, and entertaining and suspenseful action sequences. However, there is very little substance in between. There were too many head-scratching instances in the movie that overshadowed the positives. Richet's failure to make plausible solutions to several critical errors and oversights seriously hinder the film's potential.The first big problem with the movie is that no one seems to figure out that the entire tactical force of the Detroit police department and their equipment is missing on New Year's Eve, which includes a helicopter and more guns than the Americans currently have in Iraq. There is no way that they could have taken all that artillery and other equipment without someone higher-up in the chain of command being tipped off.As well, the final climatic battle takes place in a forest, which seems quite bizarre, considering that throughout the movie, of all the aerial shots taken of the police station, the forest is never seen. We, as viewers, are supposed to believe that downtown Detroit has plenty of forests. While the final scene is filled with suspense (although in the end it is quite disappointing), one can't help but frantically try to figure out how they ended up in a forest.Finally, most bizarre of them all, is that fact that Maria Bello is in this film. Her character, Roenick's shrink, has no relevance to the story. What psychiatrist books appointments on New Year's Eve? She returns to the station after she had left earlier in the morning because of the traffic, which makes no sense either because it's not as if Detroit is an incredibly huge city that takes three hours to get from one end to the other. For the amount of time she had been gone, she could have been anywhere in Detroit by the time she returned to the station. Her big scene in the movie is one which could have had her character replaced by any other. It's a shame to see someone of Bello's talent wasted. The chemistry between her character and Roenick was awkward and failed to exude any hidden sexual feelings that the script intended to bring out.Despite these faults, the movie is still very watchable. The action scenes are not impossible, although one has to figure out how eight people were able to fend off the tactical unit of the Detroit police department for over half the movie. The relationship between Roenick and Zambrano is interesting and the supporting characters (John Leguizamo and Ja Rule) are enjoyable to watch as people who you know aren't going to make it to the end of the film and are fun to see how they interact with the main characters. While the movie does provide a predictable twist, it keeps you second guessing throughout and it only becomes clear at the end of the movie instead of being obvious through most of it.'Assault on Precinct 13' is nowhere as good as something along the lines of 'Spider-Man' or 'The Bourne Supremacy', but it is still a good watch. Richet would be wise to see his errors and work on them for his next movie. Yes, this movie is flawed; and at times seems critically flawed. However, if you suspend reality and just watch this film as a movie, it is quite enjoyable. If you're expecting an Oscar-worthy film, you're looking at the wrong movie. Have fun with this action and ignore the crap in-between.6/10 - Mild Recommendation Video29652@blogcritics.org Tue, 17 May 2005 19:24:18 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/05/15/185601.php James GoreSo everybody has weapons of mass destruction, or deception, or delinquency, the world is heating up from confrontation, constipation, and carbon-dioxidification, and we're stuck in the dark, gloomy, slushy, freezing, dreary season that is awards season, Canada knows which issues to go forward with and solve. Yes, our military couldn't fend off an attack from Luxembourg, let alone a country with a decent military. Of course, we have a serious homeless problem (or if any IOC members are reading this, Canada has absolutely no homeless problem). And obviously, because of fiscal and social inequalities we have Inuit killing themselves and Newfounlanders making the Quebec separatist movement looking like a whiny child telling their parents they're going to run away from home, but can't do much because they're not allowed to cross the street without their parents permission.Canada is not a super-fantastic nation. We are no longer the top-ranked country as deemed by the United Nations. We, as Canadians, must do something. We must stand strong and show why the land of the beaver, locked-out hockey players, and the double-double is something that should be admired, nay, we should be something that other nations should be in awe in. So we, as a country, have tabulated what are the three biggest concerns and (some would say greatest threats to the dominion) that the country has ever seen. And they are as followed:3) Marijuana 2) Smoking 1) Gay MarriageThat's right, forget the homeless, screw the destitute, let's leave our borders unguarded because we have to fight these three atrocities right now. Not later, now is the time to act. For if we don't act right now, we might have MAJOR CONSEQUENCES RESULTING IN THE END OF THE WORLD OR AT LEAST ANOTHER FOUR CRAPPY BEN STILLER COMEDIES!!!While the dust, or shall I say smoke, has settled quite a bit on this subject, legislators are still pushing for the decriminalization of marijuana...and why shouldn't they? Marijuana, from the fine people who brought you 'Pink Floyd', is an incredible substance that gives you the incapacity of alcohol and the health risks such as cancer and heart disease as cigarettes. There is no real good reason why marijuana should be kept illegal. It's all evil propaganda made up by the US government, man. I know this because I read it in High Times who, most recently, finally cracked the conspiracy on who killed Martin Luther King, Jr. (or so says David Cross).You would think that with all the stuff being forced down everybody's throats concerning the dangers of smoking that people would have a clue about marijuana. Smoking anything is BAD for you, period. Even if you smoke paper, you will eventually do damage to your body. People's lungs and blood do not like smoke. While it is hard to argue if marijuana does any long-term damage to the nervous system or brain function (just because every week there's a new study coming up with a new counter-claim for each position), there is no argument that marijuana is just as harmful for you as cigarettes. For the government to currently angle themselves in a position of wanting to ban cigarettes without actually banning them, it's silly for them to go with the proposal. Is Canada trying to conjure up an image as the hip country in the Western Hizzle? Besides, Inuit children will tell you that sniffing glue is where it's at. But of course, we don't care about that. It's all cold up there in the arctic...and they wear fur. Those bastards!!!So marijuana is coming in and smoking is on the way out. Two items of interest have popped up. First, Saskatchewan has won an judgment from the Supreme Court of Canada barring depanneurs (convenience stores) from displaying cigarette along the back wall behind the clerk. The "Power Wall" has been deemed too influential in regards that the wall makes kids want to buy cigarettes. You know, it seems to me, if we're subliminal influence was causing sales to skyrocket, you would think that due to the way everybody in this country is acting, douche would be sold out of pharmacies nationwide.So you can't see any cigarettes in Saskatchewan before you buy them, causing people not to want them "out of sight, out of mind" (which is the slogan of anti-tabaccy folks in Saskatchewan). Quebec, not wanting to be out of the spotlight for too long is pushing threw with plans to eliminate smoking in bars (those of the normal and strip variety) and every other public place that smoking wasn't banned years ago. Before, you could walk into a video store in most places in Montreal and there would be ashtrays in between the rows of shelves. Now, if you're caught smoking in a public place, you're treated as you've just been on a three-province wide killing spree.I don't smoke and I prefer not to hang around smokers, but this is getting ridiculous. While I have no problem that any place where minors are allowed to go into, whether it be a fast-food restaurant, department store, or a sporting facility, should not allow smoking; I believe that any place that restricts access to minors should be allowed to do whatever they want in regards to cigarettes. It should be up to the proprietor if they want to allow people to smoke. People who are smoking will not be doing any damage to anyone who is not old enough to fully comprehend the consequences of hanging around second-hand smoke. If you're over eighteen and you have a problem with a club that allows smoking, go somewhere else. Or, if you're really ambitious, get smoking banned from all places. What's next, people are going to have to start breathing from their mouths because sometimes through their nose can be quite loud and cause either ear damage or brain damage due to annoying noises emitting from the person sitting in back of you on the bus. What I'm trying to say is blow your nose...and, so help you God if you decide to sneeze on the back of me.But forget about marijuana and cigarettes. Those issues are up in smoke compared to the biggest, largest problem that Canada has ever had to face: two people getting married...as compared to two people having a public ceremony in which they declare their love to one another (which is completely different). This situation is so volatile that we may go to a quick election over it. A couple of days ago our PM Paul Martin (which, with each passing day, I'm beginning to think that it stand for Principle Moron) said that he would was considering taking the issue of gay marriage to election. Licking his chops, opposition leader Stephen Harper couldn't have been reached for comment quick enough when he essentially told Martin something along the lines of...BRING IT ON!!!!!! ARAAAGGGGGHHHH!!! (I may be exaggerating a bit).This is because Harper isn't stupid. While virtually all of Canada have no real problem with two people of the same sex doing the hippity-dippity and most don't have a problem with gay civil unions, a good size more than half are against two gay people getting married, most of which cite religious conflictions. And while the Liberals along with the New Democrats and the Bloc Quebecois in favour of gay marriage, the Conservatives are the only party that is staunchly against gay marriage. So, if you do the math, if we were to go election and this was the key issue, the Conservatives would prolly win.So when the statisticians finally told Martin the obvious facts, he recinded his bold and confident statement, and said that a free vote within the House of Commons is not a confidence vote, and if he and his government were to lose the vote, the government would not fall. Damn, because I really hate Paul Martin. I mean, I really hate Stephen Harper too...and I think NDP leader Jack Layton should be doing something more than preaching the virtues of a healthy diet, which he seems to be doing a lot of recently. If an election were to be held today, I'd vote Bloc...but since the Bloc Quebecois only runs in Quebec, there's no chance than Gilles "Where the cheese at, tete-carre?" Duceppe has no chance at all of winning.So, in summary, with all these really non-important problems taking over the headlines in Canadian press and the lack of a Canadian military to stop anyone, I'm begging Luxembourg: please invade us. We're good people and I'd be willing to learn Luxembourgese. Please, pretty please? Dear God, just put us out of our misery, or put hockey back on TV or an episode of CSI; that'll keep us distracted from those crack-heads in Ottawa. Politics29528@blogcritics.org Sun, 15 May 2005 18:56:01 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/08/01/225427.php James GoreOk, so there's this guy in the United States by the name of Don Kerry who's going to be erected as the President of Pepsi Presents the United States of America because the other guy whose last name is the pun of Whoopi Goldberg's jokes took the country into a war that everybody thinks is sticky and icky and should have never happened in the first place.Ok, now that I have my goofy cynicism out of the way, I would like a pose a question to my readers. Why has the whole point of the war been the possibility of "Weapons of Mass Destruction" that Saddam might have had. But for those suspicious about George W. Bush's motives and intelligence, tell me where are all the weapons that the Americans gave the Iraqis during their conflict with the Iranians during the 80s. Chemical and biological weapons can not simply be put to the curb on trash day and picked up for collection. Now, before the angry e-mails come in, I'm not saying that Iraq could not have been able to get rid of their forbidden weapons in the years since the end of the Kuwaiti conflict, but considering Saddam Hussein's vehement determination to keep the U.N. weapons inspectors out of the country, I am very suspicious. I don't know and I don't think that Hussein attempted to continue or try to improve his weapons arsenal, but I do think he was trying to hide a private collection of weapons to devastate one or a couple of his neighbours.True, the Americans have picked apart the country looking for these fabled WMDs but have failed to unearth any. Funny, the problem might be the earth under the feet of the soldiers. It's very possible for Hussein and his army to hide the WMDs in the desert. If you think that's impossible, maybe the fact that the Americans finding 30-40 fighting jets in the desert makes the idea that they haven't searched under every grain of sand not so crazy.There's also the notion that if Hussein and his army actually had these weapons, that they would have used them to prevent the invading Americans to take over the country. However, if they had the weapons, not using them has turned into a brilliant strategy. The anti-war movement gained support, not only from foreign countries that were leaning on the fence on which side to be on in this issue, but from a majority of the population inside the U.S.A. They've received this support because the Americans have not found any weapons and it seems to many that this was a vendetta that George W. Bush had against Saddam Hussein and that he need to brush his teeth in Iraq's sweet oil. Had Hussein used the WMDs, Bush could have said "Ha ha, you see? I was right! Evil-doer!". If Iraq had used WMDs, even the Germans and the French would have had to agree with the position that the Americans took about the pre-emptive strike on Iraq. Right now as it stand, the country is in despair. Insurgents are blowing up anything that can be blowed up. Security is non-existent in the country. Electricity and clean water is not available to the majority of the population in the country. There is no clear signal that Saddam Hussein will actually be found guilty for his crimes. Considering that there seems to be a total lack of security in the country and that insurgents seem to be able to take out targets at will, I would put money on the fact that either someone helps Hussein escape or the current government is overthrown and Hussein is freed.I believe that the Iraqi war was a good idea, but not for a search for WMDs. I always thought of that as a minor issue. I think, that Hussein and any other ruthless dictator who oppresses their people and tries to create a cloud of fear around their neighbours, There's no question, Hussein was not a nice person. He deserved what's coming to him. However, what gets my goat is that people are so angry about the Iraq war, I think that it's one of the reason why there has been all but very little help for those being killed in the genocides that are taking place in Sudan and Uganda. Sure, Kofi Annan and Colin Powell can plead and say they are doing their best, but then again, what right do they have to say anything? It's not their conflict. If the Americans or NATO tried interjecting to the genocide that's killed hundreds of thousands in people in Sudan, who knows how people would react. Hopefully if anything does happen, the protestors would do something else. I mean, don't those people have jobs?Ok, the protestors do have their purpose though. They do inform the general populace on matters that lobby groups try to hide. Without demonstrators, we prolly wouldn't be as knowledgeable about the environment and atrocities that are happening in the third world as it pertains to world hunger, poverty, and human-rights violations. However, I do think that there are times where anti-establishment protestors are doing more harm for good. When I spoke to some of them at some of the various anti-war demonstrations in Montreal, most of them said that the main reason for the war was for the oil and that there should be no blood for oil. Other than the government contracts given to Halliburton for reconstruction of Iraq (which included many other industries than oil), there was no proof that Americans needed or wanted Iraq's oil. It would have been much easier had the U.S. attacked Iran because they have the oil and the WMD trail is much more solidified in cement towards that country instead of Iraq. Why did the Americans attack Iraq? I think that too many people on the Bush team were hell-bent on ousting Saddam Hussein because they failed to do so during the Kuwaiti war. George W. Bush may or may not be a puppet in all this. He could be doing this to show the country that he did something that his father and Bill Clinton could not do. I highly doubt that the freedom of the oppressed Iraqi people was a major factor in the administration's decision to attack Iraq despite protest throughout the International community, but they figured it would be one of those kill two birds with one stone and in the end it would make them look good.So what happened? Why did the war fail? Simply enough, it's the same reason we Canadians make fun of the Americans. The American army overstayed their welcome. Before the Abu Gharib torture scandal, there were many reports of Americans acting in poor comportment in the land they've conquered. Iraqi citizens complained that the conquering American soldiers were rude to innocent civilians, throwing their garbage out of helicopters and acting like they were the new kings of the land. This all started when a U.S. soldier wiped the American flag in the face of a falling Saddam Hussein statue as they took control of Baghdad. The people of Iraq weren't complaining about other coalition partners outside of the British, although they had far fewer complaints about their behaviour, Austarlians and the other coalition soldiers seemed like they actually cared about helping the Iraqi people, or is it because they had no choice but to do the dirty work for the Americans to do the "glamour" work.And then there was Abu Gharib. The Americans rightfully lost not only respect but integrity among the international community for their disgraceful behaviour. While it seems evident that the soldiers who committed these atrocities received their orders from higher up, those lower down who committed such horrid acts should have had their morals in check and either refused or defied orders. The glee in some of those soldiers faces as they tortured the POWs is sickening. The Americans, supposed defenders of all that is right and just had just become as wrong as the government they disposed of. They began to fight the wrong fight. Now it wasn't a war about bring freedom to an oppressed part of the world, it was about dominance.What now? If Kerry wins, does this mean that the U.S. government will right it's ship. Who knows? I don't know what to think about John Kerry. I've read about what he stands and he seems like a better choice to George W. Bush on paper, but he doesn't seem to be the person like the way his campaign writers want to make him out to be. I don't know how strong his opinions are and if they would change just to get elected. I mean, everyone jokes about how Dick Cheney seems to be more of a president than George W. Bush, but if I could vote in this election, I would rather be voting for John Edwards as the Democratic presidential candidate and John Kerry as the vice-presidential candidate. Edwards seems to be know exactly what he's talking about when the words are coming out of his mouth. Kerry seems to be guessing if he's giving the right answers.If Kerry wins, there's not much he can do. Americans can definitely just up and pull out of Iraq (and if to appease the far-left, Afghanistan) in a snap. Iraq has been devastated and needs help to repair it's infrastructure. Would insurgents try to take over the country if the American's pull out? I would like to think no, but that's not a guarantee. Would the Iraqis welcome a UN peacekeeping force or would they see them as Western outsiders? It's going to be an interesting couple of months. Al-Qaeda may or may not attack America before the U.S. election. There is so much uncertainty that many feed on to help their views. The media uses it to sell their stories. The current U.S. administration seems to be thinking that their only way to stay in office is to keep a state of fear in the minds of the American public and giving it a misappropriated name such as preparedness. It makes you wonder who the real terrorists are. Culture18148@blogcritics.org Sun, 1 Aug 2004 22:54:27 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/07/30/151454.php James GoreNOTE:: This is a review of the double CD set as pertaining to the track listing and song quality. While I have not actually heard this CD, I have all the songs, therefore, the end result should be almost, if not, entirely similar to if I actually had the double CD set.Millions of Van Halen fans have been in the dumps since the dismissal of lead singer Sammy Hagar from the group. Although some did find solace in the addition of Gary Cherone to fill the hole, things looked bad as Van Halen and Cherone in 1998 released the worst album in the band's 20-year history and Cherone's departure seemed to put the nail in the coffin. Numerous rumours of David Lee Roth's (the first lead singer from 1978-1985) or Hagar's reunification with the band surfaced but nothing came to the forefront for years. When rumours of Hagar hanging out at the 5150 studio with the Van Halen brothers started to circulate at the beginning of the year and no one was saying anything other than "no comment", Van Halen fans around the world anticipating the long-awaiting reunion they've sought for so long.The reunion was more than just rumours; they became reality. Sammy Hagar made peace with lead guiatarist Eddie Van Halen, drummer Alex Van Halen and bassist Michael Anthony, they've hit the road this summer on a sold-out North American concert tour and July 20th they released a double-CD best of compilation titled "The Very Best of Both Worlds" which is very appropriate considering that they are split between the Roth era songs and the Hagar era songs. Along with some of their greatest hits like "Jump" and "Right Now" are three brand new songs and three live songs (which were previously released on Van Halen's 1993 live CD "Right Here, Right Now").The three new songs are true to Van Halen form. Each could be great, but each has a serious flaw to them. "Learning to See", the weakest of the three, needs better structure, but it sounds very good nonetheless, but is not the track that Van Halen fans were waiting for after 10 years in limbo. "Up for Breakfast" is a cool, upbeat track, but it smells of 1986, which was what I immediately thought of the first time I heard this song a couple of weeks back. Don't get me wrong; it very enjoyable and poppy in the good way, but it's not going to storm it's way up the charts. The best song of the three new ones is definitely "It's About Time". The title, which is so appropriate of the reunification, is very well done. If it wasn't for the first couple of seconds at the beginning with the hard pulsating guitar beat, it would be an amazing song. In fact, those first couple of seconds might be so brutal for a casual listener that they may be turned off by the whole songs. Minus the first couple of seconds though, the song is incredibly ferocious in it's melody, making you want to sing out the words.The track listing is bizarre. The songs are not in chronological order whatsoever. It would have been nice to at least have the first CD all DLR and the second all Hagar. As well, there are many notable hits that are missing from 2two-CD set. A couple of songs such as "Everybody Wants Some" or "Feels So Good" could have been replaced by other more popular hits such as "Mean Streets", "I'm the One", "Mine All Mine", or "The Dream Is Over". Gary Cherone's tenure in the band is non-existant on this set, which may be a little unfair ("Without You" definitely deserves to be on a Van Halen multiple-CD collection). While there may be problems with the track listing, those who complain about that Van Halen hasn't done much since they previously released a "Greatest Hits" (1996) should find their fears unfounded. More than half the songs on this compilation were not on the "Greatest Hits" CD, which is not including the new songs. All the tracks on this 2-CD set have been remastered. As far as the sound, I can't comment on this much considering I haven't heard any of the remastered songs from the Hagar era. I have the remastered Roth era CDs and the sound quality is excellent. Warner has yet to do the remastering treatment to the earlier Hagar era records so I don't know how they turned out. However, as far as I'm concerned, the original albums sounded fine to me and only those with very sensitive musically-inclined ears might find problems, so the remastering has probably improved them.If you don't have most of the existing Van Halen albums, you should definitely pick up this 2-CD set. Even if you already own the previous "Greatest Hits" album, you should definitely consider buying this compilation. I would avoid it though if you're like me and you already own all the albums. The three new songs aren't that groundbreaking enough to warrant a purchase if you've already own all the other songs. You could probably buy them from a music download site like iTunes or Puretracks for pennies. Eddie isn't that broke from his alimony payments to Valerie Bertinelli so he doesn't need you to desperately buy this album. Music18069@blogcritics.org Fri, 30 Jul 2004 15:14:54 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/07/22/000036.php James GoreI really wish that women would revolt against the beer ads that plague television. Frankly, I think they're getting pretty bad and disgusting. If I was a cop, I'd look the other way if a group of feminists torched the Labatt and Molson main breweries.Do these commercials really do anything? I mean, they all have the same thing: a couple of guys and a couple of thousand semi-naked gyrating women. Even the 'I Am Canadian' commericals, which strayed from the 'women/eye-candy sells beer' mantra when it first started, has women in there that aren't exactly dressed for an executive meeting. I mean, beer sells itself. People love their beer. When they took away the right to drink alcohol in the U.S. about 80 years ago, the people went berserk and resulted to having seedy underground bars. When you go to an event of any kind and they sell beer, it's usually the highest selling concession item. But at most of these events and at smaller bars, you don't have much of a choice in the beer company that you can drink, if any. So what does this eye candy accomplish.I don't get it. I mean, you don't see companies selling computers with a couple of women in a swimming pool arguing over functionality or a group of bikini-clad ladies having a party over the greatest cookies ever. I know beer is a party drink, but it doesn't need such drastic advertising measures. As well, women drink quite a bit of beer themselves. It's not just a man's drink. How come there aren't any commericals with semi-naked guys?Uh, you know what? Maybe I should stop complaining. Semi-naked women is good enough for me. I'm thinking about the Moose Light campfire commercial. I'll stick with the women. Sorry feminists, I sympathize, but I'll pick the devil I'm comfortable with.* * * * *TV right now sucks. I can't put my finger on it. I can't tell if with the increase of cable television stations has it saturated the market and watered down the talent pool or if the writers have run out of ideas. There are very few shows that I actually make a point to watch or if I don't watch them on a regular basis, if I'm flipping through the channels, I'll stop on it. This is including reruns.The Daily Show with Jon Stewart South Park The Simpsons Law & Order Chappelle's Show Da Ali G Show King of the Hill Countdown with Keith OlbermannI used to watch a lot of TV, but now it's only background noise. It's odd but after years of growing up with having the TV in front of me for hours on end, I have to have the background noise of the TV and the pitched sound emanating from the CRT of the TV playing in the background or else I have serious difficulty doing non-complex homework (essays and projects have to be done in complete silence or music playing or else I'm easily distracted). I think that with the limitations of cable, TV isn't as much a viable source of entertainment. Satellite TV is nice and all and the selection of channels is great, but if you don't like watching movies on TV, then satellite TV is too expensive. I mean, do you really want to spend 60 dollars or more a month for a system where in which you don't even watch half the channels? I suppose PVRs (personal video recorders, or they may stand for something else) are they way to go because the machines record what you like to watch and shows that are similar to your favourites, but they aren't as easily accessible in Canada and they're still kind of pricey.I doubt television will improve any time soon. With it's reliance of providing a venue for shoddy reality programming and being a haven of smut, the only real hope the world of television does have is that Law & Order and C.S.I. create so many spinoffs that they fill the entire schedule of prime-time TV. With the availability of TV shows on boxed-set DVDs, movies on DVD, the Internet, and the possibility of people actually going outside (which everyone should be doing at least more than once a year), television doesn't have a chance.* * * * *I was outside barbequing some hotdogs when I heard a familiar song. The radio was playing Van Halen's great new song, "It's About Time". Although it was on Montreal's only classic rock station, CHOM, they're not usually know for playing Van Halen. In fact, when I asked CHOM's morning show host Terry DiMonte on why there wasn't a lot of Van Halen airplay despite them being one of the most successful bands of all time, he said something along the lines that they don't have the popularity of Led Zeppelin or the Beatles. Granted, in classic rock circles, those two bands were great. However, I find that CHOM's greatest problem is that they lack diversity in the bands they play. They seem to usually play the same 20 bands over and over again and rarely play other great bands or one hit wonders. CHOM plays a setlist similar to their Top 500 which is an awful compliation of great songs. Prime example, Van Halen's 'Jump' is not on the list, but the band does have other ones. Considering that 'Jump' was one of the bands greatest hits and one of the biggest songs to come out of the 80s, it's surprising that the song doesn't chart. CHOM, however, does one thing right and play some great album track from some legendary bands. You don't normally think of the song 'Dragon Attack' when you think of Queen, but CHOM will play that song, among other Queen hits. CHOM is a decent radio station and much better than most of the other radio stations in Montreal (mainly due to the poor quality in the other stations). If I could get CHOM from my house, I'd be much happier (stupid Ste. Anne's and it's crappy 'Bermuda Triangle'-type signal loss).On the topic of classic rock radio, I really enjoy listening to K-Rock from Edmonton. Their morning show is great and their selection of music is awesome (at least these people thing Sammy Hagar is any good). Because Edmonton doesn't need to have that many French radio stations, they can have a greater variety of radio stations than in Montreal. They have several classic rock stations in Edmonton, but K-Rock is far superior to the rest of their competition. Thank goodness for satellite because if it wasn't for the radio stations on my satellite dish (is there anything it can't do?), I would have never found this bastion of great classic music.Another station that I like on the satellite is a jazz station from Toronto called Jazz FM. It's got a great selection of jazz music and I've never heard a piece that I didn't like. In the fall, Montreal will be getting a jazz station of it's own in the fall, but I'll still be listening to Jazz FM. Great station whenever I'm in the mood to listen to jazz. Culture17697@blogcritics.org Thu, 22 Jul 2004 00:00:36 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/07/18/011645.php James GoreI must offer an apology to Anthony Housefather. He's a city councillor Cote St. Luc/Hampstead/Montreal West and was a major supporter for the yes side during the demerger referedums. I said somethings about hiim that wasn't kind nor appropriate and in retrospect, I should have not applied such mean things to him. I've never met the guy and the only contact that I've had with the guy prior to today was watching him give interviews on TV. Therefore I can't really can't and shouldn't comment on his character. I spoke with him through e-mails today and must say that the guy seems really nice. I mean, considering my apprehensive behaviour on this site towards the guy, I was surprised that he was open and diplomatic to open conversation than I was. He and I have a difference of opinion (although I didn't really take a side in the issue until the very end and it was not because I felt one side presented a better argument than the other, but because I didn't like how the yes side was presenting it's argument), which is ok. Difference of opinion is a good thing because only with debate will we be able to learn and consider new ideas. What rubbed me in the wrong way about the guy was his passion which is hypocritical of me, because usually when take a strong opinion on something, I'm prolly just as vocal about my views as him. I bet there are some people that think that I'm an asshole for my strong opinion on some issues like two-tier health programs, but I shouldn't call someone an asshole for being passionate about something that one truly believes in.So in summary, Anthony Housefather = good guy. Edward Janiszewski = major league asshole.Oh, and I'm not going to apologize to Janiszewski because I've met the guy and if you haven't heard about my encounters, click here.Oh, and remember my funny sign that I took a picture of? It was funny because it made it look like anglophones supported Quebec independance. Well, it turns out, the yes side of the demerger campaign did not support the signs. I found this interesting story in the on the Google cache. I don't know how long it'll be there though. But I find this story funny. Well, funny because the whole mess is over. Culture17559@blogcritics.org Sun, 18 Jul 2004 01:16:45 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/07/15/123019.php James GoreI was watching the news the other day and there have been complaints about the prices for parking at the various hospitals in Montreal. They range between $11-$14 which is more than private parking lots which can go as low as $8. Supply and demand? If that was the case, would it be wrong? Well, theoretically in our society...it is. Canada takes pride in it's free health care. One of the major hits that the Conservative Party took in the recent election is that some of the higher-ups in the party supported two-tier health care in some form. Shouldn't parking at the free hospitals apply as well?That's an interesting theory. The problem is that what would happen if the hospitals would give away free parking. I mean, I don't think there would be anyone dishonest enough to use the free parking at the hospitals rather than have to pay at a private parking lot maintained by some guy named Guillaume. I mean, wouldn't you rather have a nice comforting parking spot in extra wide lines maintained by someone named Dr. Guillaume?Ok, sorry for that, but I think that if you give away free parking at the hospitals people are obviously going to take advantage of it for other purposes other than going to the hospital. If they offered the parking there cheaper than the private parking lots, people are still going to use them. Only by charging more for their own lots will guarantee that people who want to use the parking lot for hospital purposes will actually get a spot.I wish there was a better alternative. I mean, going to the hospital is not the most emotionally easy thing to do and charging someone $14 is not the greatest way to help the anxiety. If we only had teleporters... Culture17474@blogcritics.org Thu, 15 Jul 2004 12:30:19 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/07/13/133031.php James GoreThis is a movie review for a french film called 'A Bout de Souffle' that I wrote for a film class that I had this past semester.Very few films can change how films are both watched and made. Jean-Luc Godard's 'A Bout de Souffle' (1959, 1960) not only changed how movies were made, but defined how they should be made. Godard's use of editing, sound, mise en scene, and the story helped make this film regenerate new thinking on how a film should be made and begin the French New Wave of cinema.For someone who has only watched movies that strictly stick with the classical Hollywood style of filmmaking, the editing of this film would make someone have a seizure. The most blatant "disregard for the rules" is Godard's use of jump cuts within a scene. He would focus in on a character and as they spoke, he would jump cut to another scene while still focusing to the same character sitting in the same chair or car and the character continuing their dialogue. The scenery around them changes around them changes but the dialogue stays intact, giving the feeling that they've been talking for quite some time. There are many examples of this in the movie such as at the beginning of the movie when Michel is driving through the countryside at the very beginning of the movie, in the various scenes when Michel and Patricia drive about town, and when Michel and Patricia are riding in the taxi midway through the movie, among other scenes. Godard did this for a variety of reasons. Mainly, he did it to condense time, but still give the illusion of the scenes taking place over a long period of time. As well, it gave the film an edgy, rough look to it; very unpolished. Additionally, Godard did it to break the rules. This type of jump cutting within a character's dialogue not something that was done in 1959 (and still isn't common today) and was one of the many ways that Godard was telling everyone that films did not have to be prefabricated and conform to a set rule list. Godard, in another attempt to shorten the time of the movie, underdramatized the some scene that, in any other movie, would have been the complete opposite and perhaps overdone. A example of this would be at the beginning of the movie when Michel shoots the police officer. Michel pulls out the gun, tells the officer he's going to shoot him if he doesn't leave him alone, and pulls the trigger, all within a matter of seconds. There are a couple of quick jump cuts there as well within the very short time frame. The idea of editing was actually quite brilliant. We see gun, we hear bang, we see someone fall down; therefore someone is obviously been shot and killed. Godard didn't feel that wasting a whole lot of time on a standoff would be complementary to the story. Instead, a quick instantaneous scene of someone getting shot does the trick. As well, the editing captures Michel's frame of mind; panicked, instinctive and scared. Paradoxically, there are scenes of nothing but pure dialogue that are quite long. In fact, there is a scene involving Michel and Patricia in her apartment that lasts over 20 minutes long. Most of that time is basically them lying in bed and talking about random stuff involving their lives and what they are thinking. Godard thought that these scenes were important because it resembles real life; people talk to each other about nothing and everything at the same time. It also humanizes the characters. We can emphasize with Michel now that we know that the he's not simply some crook and murderer; we know now that he has feelings and concerns just like anyone else.Sound was something else the Godard liked to experiment with. His techniques involving background sound was ingenious at the time. Instead of editing out sounds that didn't fit into the movie, he allowed them to remain in the final soundtrack. During the 20 minute scene in Patricia's apartment, there are sounds that are coming from outside the apartment, including the sound of an ambulance rushing by. This technique as well helped make the movie seem less like a movie and a window into the lives of the people in it. When background music is heard, half the time it's diegetic because either one of the characters are listening to the radio or to a record. When it's nondiegetic, it's to emphasize dramatic effect such as when Michel gets shot. Background music is probably one of the only areas that Godard was not revolutionary but his use of background sound was.Godard seems to have a really weird way of mise en scene. His actors don't seem like they are acting, which is barely noticeable for a movie quite heavy with dialogue. The only actor that seems to display any emotion at all is Michel. Patricia always seems have an innocent pondering look on her face, as if she's unsure about everything. There isn't any heavy-dramatized scenes, even when Michel dies. You can tell Patricia's sadness and disbelief, but she's not bawling her eyes out, cursing the sky and yelling "Why?". Everything seems natural, complementing the style of the film. The lighting is natural as well. Most of the scenes are shot outside, in a room with bright lights or a giant window or two allowing sun to engulf the room. When there isn't any real reason why there should be light, there is none. In the scene when Michel and Patricia are walking through the tunnel to avoid paying for the taxi fare, the tunnel is completely dark except for a small light at the end of it, when they get closer to the end where the light is, the tunnel gets brighter, although not bright enough that you can only see the figures of the characters and not what they look like. At nighttime, the light illuminating from the building of Paris act as the lighting for the characters, rather than obvious fake light which would have compromised various night scenes such as the one at the café when Michel finally meets up with Antonio. The lighting is dark with nothing brightening the scene except for street lamps and the lights on the signs of buildings. In addition to the lighting, the use of actual locations rather than having it all done on a private lot was quite different from other movies at the time. The movies was shot in the streets of Paris (which at times would make passersby look into the camera or the actors weirdly, wondering what was going on). It opened up the scenery of the film and it looked like it was actually taking place in the real world. The story of the movies is not would be considered bizarre for a Hollywood film. The main character ends up dying in the end, which isn't common, although it doesn't never happen. The main story line isn't apparent. We know that Michel is trying to search for his money and we know that he wants to spend the rest of his life with Patricia and move with her to Rome but rarely do the two interweave within the film. It's almost like they are two separate yet closely related storylines; definitely not parallel. However, that may be the point; that the movie isn't really about either story. The film seems to be about the relationship between Michel and Patricia. Even whenever the two are apart (other than when Michel is in search for his money and the scene in which Patricia is kissing her co-worker in the car), they are contemplating their relationship with one another. Half the film is simply dialogue between the two of them with no real action. The story essentially ends when Michel gives up all hope for himself when Patricia rats him out to the police and gets shot with Patricia looking down on his fallen body thinking to what extent is this her doing.A Bout de Souffle was either going to a great film or an awful film when it was going to be released. Because of the radical directing techniques employed by Godard, there was not going to be a middle ground for this. Either the general population was going to reject his experimental techniques because they were too weird or bizarre or they were going to embrace it because it was different and unique. The way this film was made, it seemed more of an anecdote of a friend rather than a story about two anonymous people that no one will ever meet. All the factors that Godard employed helped make this a tale that stands out from the rest. Video17402@blogcritics.org Tue, 13 Jul 2004 13:30:31 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/07/11/230345.php James GoreI don't know what to think about the American president. For all his flaws and negative qualities, George W. Bush does not deserve all the blame. Yes, he sent Americans into a war that they'll prolly lose, but it was a war that even Bill Clinton has said he would have supported on many occasions throughout his book tour. The peace process in the Middle East involving Israel and the Palestinians was pretty much FUBAR before he even took office. As well, he wasn't even in office when the North Korean and the Iranian nuclear proliferation problems started to arise or when outsourcing jobs to India and other foreign countries who can get away with low minimum wage laws became a serious problem. Now don't get me wrong, I'm surprised that the guy can tie his own shoes, let alone have the capacity to be President, but he should not be the reason behind everything wrong with the world. He wasn't given a shiny world to deal with when he became President. However, he has done very little, if anything to clean the world up. His defiance towards the Kyoto Accord, the international outcry towards his plans for the militarization of space, and his imposing of negative foreign policy upon so-called "friendly nations".Many people cry about America imposing it's will upon the world. However, whenever they can, they cry for America's assistance. You can't have it both ways. The Iraqi's may want America out of their country, but considering the damage done to the infrastructure of the country (some of the damage done by America and some done by the resistance movement in Iraq), they must remain to help clean up the damage caused by themselves and others. NATO or the UN will not help out due to the outcries of the French and German governments about America's involvement.But then again, who's a far greater threat to the security of the world: George W. Bush or French President Jacques Chirac. Chirac will not allow UN peacekeeping forces to be sent to Iraq to help out in keeping the peace and repairing the damaged infrastructure nor will he allow a greater contingent to help out in Afghanistan (that's the good war folks), where elections are trying to take place, but the only area that seems secure to have them is Kabul, despite pleading from Afghani Interim-President Hamid Karzai. Chirac, seemingly destined to limit America's voice in international affairs, told Bush that it was none of his business if Turkey is ever admitted to the European Union. Chirac's mindset right now is very dangerous and if his top priority is to undermine Bush in the international area, he's not fighting a good fight. In a time where Islamic extremists have declared a war against the Western Hemisphere and it's values, this is a time where Chirac shouldn't second guess the Americans over every single issue. Maybe Iraq was a bad idea, but what sinister motives could America have for aide to Afghanistan and Turkey's acceptance into the European Union.Another question people should be asking is if John Kerry is a suitable person to be elected president. I don't really know that at this time. For what I've read about John Kerry, all I really know about the guy is that he's not George W. Bush. It might help him win the election, but it does not comfort me that this is the platform that he's running on. He backed the war in Iraq. He's not the most liberal guy out there. He doesn't support free health care, and he does not support gay marriage (although he does support civil unions), and he has not said anything about outsourcing jobs. However, he does support lowering the costs of tuition of college (but not eliminating it), the raising of minimum wage, and the implementation of the Kyoto Accord. The problem with all that is that I only found all this out after looking on John Kerry's website. After reading countless issues of Time, The Economist, The New Yorker, watching countless news shows, and reading around on the 'Net, I knew nothing about the guy except that he wasn't Bush.Yes, Bush is an idiot. A blooming idiot. There are countless people that should replace him as President. John McCain, Al Gore, Bob Dole, Bill Clinton (if they re-write the Constitution), Hillary Clinton, Bill Bradley, Howard Dean (sorry, but I like the guy), or Jon Stewart would all be great alternatives to Bush. John Kerry doesn't seem right to me though, but I don't think sticking with Bush is a great idea either. However, Bush is not the source of all the bad in the world. There is still Osama bin Laden, Kim Jong Il, Jacques Chirac, Rosie O'Donnell, Bill O'Reilly, and Rupert Murdoch roaming the earth. I almost feel bad for Bush. He seems to be the ultimate fall guy in this, although some of this is his doing. What I'm trying to say that the guy isn't scum, but he's pretty damn close. Culture17338@blogcritics.org Sun, 11 Jul 2004 23:03:45 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2004/07/11/005827.php James GoreUsually I complain about music and it's industry and complain how corrupt, convoluted, and all around crappy it has become. However, I myself tend to forget that the movie industry is in the same downward spiral. Every week, Hollywood throws out some garbage and we, as society, gobble it up. They charge us $11 for a pounding up the ass and all we do is ask for extra butter on the popcorn.Hollywood is quite content with putting out the same thing over and over again and spinning it as something newer, and better, and more exciting than what came out last week. Sequels are commonplace in today's theatres. Just this year we've seen: Lion King 1 ½, Agent Cody Banks 2, Scooby Doo 2, The Whole Ten Yards, Shrek 2, and Spider-Man 2. That's not even including re-makes (such as The Stepford Wives) and old re-hashed TV or comic book ideas (Starsky & Hutch, The Punisher) and recycled products (pick any of the various Ben Stiller flicks). Still coming this year in the way of sequels will be: Starship Troopers 2, Alien vs. Predator, The Bourne Supremacy, The Princess Diaries 2, Baby Geniuses 2: Return of the Super Babies, Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence, Resident Evil: Apocylapse, The Ring 2, Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason, Seed of Chucky, Ocean's Twelve, Blade: Trinity, and maybe if they can rush it out in time...Rocky VI, Seriously Dude, Where's My Car?, and Anaconda 2: The Black Orchid.Looking at the list of sequels that have already hit theatres, I've only heard good things about Spider-Man 2, Shrek 2, and Lion King 1 ½. As for the others, I have heard that they are completely awful. The Whole Ten Yards (a movie in which I hated the first one) is destined to be on many critics worst ten lists for the year. The upcoming sequels don't look too promising either (Sinatra must be rolling over in his grave about Ocean's Twelve).Sequels are a big problem, but there is also of original crappy films: Gigli, Crossroads, Daredevil, From Justin to Kelly, The Real Cancun, Adventures of Pluto Nash, and Driven. These films were beyond bad, but people were doing interviews and there were commercials and collector glasses you could get when you gas up your car, and Happy Meals, and other junk to promote these films. These films sucked though. And I don't mean, "it's raining today so I can't go to the park today, this sucks". I mean sucks as in being stuck in a stalled elevator with Pauly Shore. Luckily, these films made very little money at the box office. However, people will still support crappy cinema. Just look at Kangaroo Jack. It made $66 million. That's right...two sixes, it's not a typo. It made $16 million in it's first week making it the number one movie in the country it's first weekend in release. However, considering it's competition (a debuting National Security starring Martin Lawrence and Steve Zahn and the just as awful comedy Just Married starring Ashton Kutcher), it's no wonder that it took top spot.There's also the concept of the stolen movie idea. Jersey Girl had been made for a very long time before it was released in theatres because Miramax didn't feel it was the greatest movie ever made and considering all the heat that Gigli was getting about Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez heavy, they decided to shelve it for a while. The plot was this guy (Affleck) must leave his ritzy job in the big city to take care of his daughter and must overcome obstacles such as leading a quieter life and being a parent for a change. Fast forward a couple of months after Jersey Girl was released and you get Raising Helen starring Kate Hudson. The plot was this gal (Hudson) must leave his ritzy job in the big city to take care of her sister's kids and must overcome obstacles such as leading a quieter life and being a parent for a change. Wow, I wonder where the writers for Raising Helen got the idea for their movie?You see, because we keep seeing these crapfests, Hollywood will keep churning them out. They're reasonably cheap to create because a script can be produced in ten minutes (or longer, depending if the 1000 monkeys are on their coffee break). We shouldn't have to settle for such junk. I mean, do you really want a Kangaroo Jack 2 Video17319@blogcritics.org Sun, 11 Jul 2004 00:58:27 EDT