Razor-thin margins...
Mood:  a-ok
Now Playing: (see the website)
Topic: General

Remember me?

Well, anyway, for whom it concerns, TYPERS' chapter "On the Razor's Edge" is up.

It's long....

It's very long, actually (not so much as Cohesion-Tension Theory, but still...)

Actually, it's kinda like a few smaller chapters sourrounding one main storyline, making it a conglomorate of chapters (in other words, nothing could stand alone, so I bunched everything up).

Not that I'm trying to screw readers over with huge chapters on purpose, mind you, and remember your Heinlein, people: don't mistake my stupidity for malice, eh?

Now that's a razor that can cut through a lot of complications, isn't it?

 

Anyway, after this and the follow-up "If one Wake at midnight" I'm looking at two more chapters before we close the book (he,he...) on His Moral Antipathy...

...wanna see the closer-chapter's cover art?

(Well: since whatever you say is actually irrelevant to this post, here it is...)

 

Eyes look familiar? Nah...

And as for foreshadowing the finale (besides the note I made in the header on page 1...): those eyes 'belong' to Quint, presumably...

For the love of God: no!
Mood:  incredulous
Topic: A Hello to Arms

I don't wanna talk about movies anymore, and after this post I won't for awhile. So there... 

Right, we're getting in the height of the 'Summer Blockbuster' era and all, so I've got one last comment on movies for the time being: as we all know (or desperately want to ignore, anyway) The Mummy 3 is out today (yeah: it's got a real name, but given those dumb-as-toast trailers for it (complete with the unforgettable line: "you've all got mummy-madness!"... ah, brilliant...) and of course the pickings off the rancidly-rotten Tomatometer, it is not deserving of even a very long name for its title. Hell: 'Mummy 3' takes too many syllables to describe this effort, even).

By the way: ever notice how usually a movie's title will correlate negatively with its goodness? There are exceptions, of course. I, for one, really liked *deep breath* Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World, Second Star to the Right, Third Ocean from the Left, Down the Hall from the Bathroom, No Your Other Left....

But, generally, any film with a colon or a comma in its title should immediately reek of suspicion.

Let me be clear: I do not hate the 'Mummy Franchise' (at this point). The first movie was a delight for me: just about the right combination of heavy-handed CGI-pulp-action and irreverant genre-mocking put together (I'd use the word 'serio-comic'.... but I hate that word, so I won't). It kinda channeled Raiders for me, in a way, because there wasn't a moment I didn't feel entertained, nor a moment that I felt bogged down in stupidity. Unlike Raiders, of course, it wasn't... well... brilliant and completely without a flaw... but it was quite good.

Even the second one was at least watchable, although quickly drifting into the realm of stupidity and worn premise (it's a bad film, by any account, but not horrible...). In fact I just watched the whole movie a few days ago on television while treadmilling (this movie is made for that kind of thing: enough flashes and colors and semi-cohesive plotiness to keep one's brain marginally occupied and distracted from the screaming protest of one's own aching muscles).

Ironically, then, this film does not appear to be the Achilles's heel of either the franchise or of me.

...unless you wanna compare it to Casablanca, or something... by comparing any film to a great film we find that every movie will "always have  [its] Paris"... 

That's enough of that.

Now, they say that the Scorpion King ain't technically part of the Franchise, but I say that's a cop-out: that movie is so utterly and blatantly retarded (in pace as much as wit, even) that it could leave the Mummy Franchise, head on over to the Friday the 13th Franchise and raise the IQ of both Franchises by 50 points.

(but, again, the first one is quite good...)

I seem to have gotten off track (fancy that, eh?) My point is that I don't hate the Franchise, per say, and I'm not utterly biased, but c'mon: dumb-as-toast is dumb-as-toast, and this third film is an embarrassment, indeed.

So what's got me so hot under the collar? The making of one bad film, you say?

Nah... not that. See, the guy the've got playing the O'Connol kid in this one (who inexplicably grew quite old in no time at all... or did he?) has given some news to the media...

He's apparently signed on for THREE MORE MUMMY FILMS.....

 

*Sigh*...

In the mean time, I'm hoping this film makes no money (which, for various reasons, it is quite unlikely to do, unless the Chinese flock to it, and their government says it's okay, of course). If it makes no money, then how, pray tell, can you make THREE F**KING MORE FILMS?

Answer: you can't. And so the Mummy, like its namesake, will be given the proper respite it needs in the necropolis of spent film franchises (barring a spectacular reboot, or something, which has been known to happen sometimes). Other than that it deserves a much-needed rest.

Because (to paraphrase a sagacious source): the dead really ought sleep forever. 

 

 

The Blaming of the Shrew
Mood:  chatty
Topic: Pseudoscientific Musings

So, as I sit in my parlor (yeah: I actually have a 'parlor'... you don't see those too often these days. But Shane also has a front porch, too; I'm nothing if not anachronistic)...

what was I talking about?... Oh, yeah:

So, as I sit in my parlor nursing my second Grolsch of the day, the wan light of the afternoon sun gently caressing my skin in a dusky golden hue while blue fire rising off my computer monitor glints lazily over my deep brown eyes, I'm reminded of the story of the guy who walked into a bar...

...he said ouch. Get it?

Maybe that guy had one too many. Well, there's a certain tree shrew in Malaysia that seems to be unable to have 'one too many', physiologically, anyway: the little f**kers live entirely off an extract of palm oil with a 3.8% alcohol content exclusively, meaning that nearly every moment of their tiny li'l lives they're scampering around with a BAL several times the legal limit (adjusted for body weight, 'natch) and yet they neither succumb to the effects of alcohol poisoning or, more amazing yet, participate in drunken fratboy games:

these guys are incapable of being affected by the intoxicant ethyl alcohol.

Neat, huh? Also of interest: these li'l guys are candidates for the most recent common ancestor of the entire primate lineage. What does that mean? Well, effectively, it means that at one time all our furry li'l ancestors were immune to alcohol's deleterious effects (again: maybe) and as we diverged from the critters everyone started picking up the habit, genetically speaking...

...you know what I mean...

God-damned shrew! Can you imagine what life might be like if we were like those widdle mammals?... 

 Something like this, maybe? 

...it's not that good. Really...
Mood:  irritated
Topic: Entertaining Insights

So, in addition to shattering just about every box office record known to man (and by 'shattering' I mean beating the downright bad film Spiderman 3 by about 3 million dollars...) it seems that the Dark Knight is currently in another lofty position, indeed...

It is the #1 movie of all-time at IMDB (I'll resist the urge to time-stamp this link, but suffice it to say, it ain't gonna be there for long at all...) But since it's there right now, I'll comment on it:

Really? The Dark Knight? The greatest cinematic film of all time?

...nope. It is not. Not even close.

Don't get me wrong: terrific movie. Terrific with a capital T (well, at least that 'terrific' has a capital T, given that it's starting a sentence... well, wait: actually that was a fragment, so... I dunno...)

As a superhero movie, well, it's the best ever made, prompting me to hand it 4-stars out of my own hat. Also, as part of the appeal, it wants to be more than just a genre-flick: it wants to be a high-crime drama film (like the Godfather, in some ways...)

On that level it does not fully succeed: its ambition is clouded by a glass ceiling, but not totally obscured. It gets about 3-stars for the effort, making my final tally a 3.5 star movie. Very, very good, but not the greatest effort ever.

It just isn't. Deal with it, fanboys.

Heath Ledger's performance has been overhyped (given his death, 'natch) but not by that much: he steals the show in every scene, sure, and in fifty years whenever someone brings up 'The Joker' in coversation it will be Ledger's performance that springs to mind. However, it ain't the best acting I've ever seen: again, it is just very, very, very good. Excellent, even.

Of course this IMDB list is nothing official and it is rank with the swarms of fanboys (and gals, I suppose) that fester in internet forums like mold on a shower floor. When LOTR:ROTK came out all the Tolkenite fanboys inflated the thing up to the #2 spot in short order (a perch from which it fell faster than Icarus himself as soon as the hype wore down and the TRUE timeless performers rightly overtook it... as things stand it is STILL greatly inflated at the #14 spot: I could see it possibly making the top 25 legitimately...maybe...)

Look for the list to sort itself out soon: the Dark Knight would be hard pressed to make even the top 150 as it stands, and no way on God's green earth is it the 'bestest ever' offering from Hollywood...

...but again it is really, really, really good. Really great, even.

And it is yet another example of something that benefits more from the audacity of hype than the capacity of substance.

"He's gonna save the world at Casino Royale..."
Mood:  cool
Now Playing: ...see post...
Topic: Entertaining Insights

Bein' an unspeakably fanatic Bond fan I'm finding myself psyched for the latest installment of EON's movie franchise to finally come out.

Still got awhile, naturally... November, by my reckoning.

No need to look into the future, though, when we've got such a colorful past: remember when the great Woody Allen himself played James Bond, agent 007?

...what? Don't look at me like that. He did, matter of fact, and that movie had hands-down the happiest and zippiest little opening theme song to any bond movie before or since...

 

Mea Culpa
Mood:  accident prone
Topic: A Hello to Arms
So, I think I might be a bit of a liar...

...well, that's not true: I f**king know I'm a liar, what with all the 'daily update' talk earlier this month and all.

Truth is, I got sidetracked again (wouldn't you know it...) and there ain't much of an excuse. While droning on with ROE I've been halting and hemming at TYPERS, and I get pissed off more than usual with every artificial wall I hit on the way (despite the occasional spelling or grammatical error in a chapter I am, actually, very perfectionistic about things; I just don't have the ability to create perfection, as such).

Add to that a recent addition to my daily routine- a five-to-seven mile walk/run regimen- and time gets even scarcer.

People keep comin' here checking things out, though, and a few e-mails trickle to me. And (most importantly) I myself really feel that gnawing ache when I slack as such, so I again resolve not to tarry too much.

The secret to life is to learn to tarry just the right amount, after all.

Begotten, not made.
Mood:  celebratory
Topic: General

She was born in a cold hardscrabble backwater surrunded by disease, suffering, and death.

She was raised as an awkward, ungainly stepchild, with her treatment topping any complaint Cinderella might have.

She was stupid enough, audacious enough, to think of herself as more than that, and when the dust cleared she was left alone in a big, cold world to mature on her own and try to defend her honor.

Since that time she has been a worker, a soldier, a consort, a princess, a queen, a whore, a lover, a fighter, a champion, a conceder, a uniter, a divider, a mother, a daughter, a leader, a follower, a heart-throb and a source of unbearable heartache.

And today, on her 232nd birthday, while she's still unspeakably young and though she bears a decidedly mixed track record in her short, meteoric time, she can only be addressed with one moniker above any other:

She's a Lady.

Here's to the best damned country in the history of humankind. God bless America, and happy Fourth of July.

Now, then: go "celebrate the birth of your nation by blowing up a small piece of it"...

and, thus, we're all really just chips off the old block.

The only 'unclean' thing about him is what he left in that police hat...
Mood:  caffeinated
Topic: Random Political Diatribe

Right, so the Muslim community in Scotland (all ten of them... no, I kid, but it's a solid minority, what...) is gettin' all hot and bothered over...

This unholy demon of evil intention and ill repute.

...

*sigh*

Well, the idea here is that, of course, dogs're considered 'unclean' by Quaran-standards and, well, therefore (apparently) any reference to the fact that Scottish police use them must be repressed in all facets of Scottish society, including the offending telephone cards being sent out with that adorable li'l guys' face on 'em.

Kinda funny that, technically, by Islamic law, Harems are one of the only things that aren't actually considered Haraam as far as things go, if you get my meaning...

I just said that for the word play: I know that it's actually us Yanks that're currently having the most problems with polygamy, but count the Quaran as one of the books that explicitly condones such a thing... 

I digress... 

Anyway, I can appreciate the cultural aspect to all this: you wanna think of a dog- mankind's greatest ally in the animal world for 100,000+ years and counting (like it or not)- as filthy, untouchable and, well, evil, then you go right ahead. They eat 'em in Korea, after all, and I eat cows, which are themselves venerated by Hindus, so everyone's got the right to their own opinions and practices.

But here's something that ain't an opinion: police forces around the world use dogs 'cause they're fantastic animals to work with (given that 100,000+ years thing I previously mentioned). What I can see here is the beginning of a slippery slope: today it's outrage over a picture, and tomorrow outrage over the very sight of a cop and his canine ("I cannot adhere to any laws administered by this man", one religious man might say, "because he associates with those unclean beasts".)

Then Scotland'll find its whole canine police force in the doghouse, so to speak.

As far as stories of outrage go, the anti-postcard-people in this one are certainly barking up the wrong tree.

But always remember: when it comes to Political Correctness (especially in the UK) even an idiot's bombastic voice can carry a far stronger bite than its bark...

...alright, I'm done, I think.

The law of lenzes...
Topic: General

One thing I kept semi-active during my haitus is the shutterbuggin' thing...

I've got a small collection of stuff as 'Revolver Ocelot' on Wikimedia.

Some of it's downright decent, I think, but of 1000's of pictures cluttering my HD, the fact that these're the best kinda shows what a lousy success rate I have when it comes to snapping shots.

'Course, if I had the drive, I could always plop down 600-plus-bucks for an entry-level semi-professional camera and get the REAL good shots.

Or I could save up to snag a PS3 when the price drops so I can play MGS4:GOTP...

...decisions, decisions... 

'cause there ain't no doubt I love this laaaand....
Mood:  celebratory
Now Playing: ...see title...
Topic: A Hello to Arms

Well, now, it seems that during the week the justices of the US Supreme Court went and upheld the constitutionality of... well... the Constitution.

The Second Amendment actually means something, apparently!

Whatever one's view on gun politics, I've always been amused by people who believed that the 'militia clause' in the 2nd meant that only members of the armed forces could have firearms (remember: during revolutionary times a 'militiaman' was ANYONE of fighting age who had something to fight for).

On top of that, to believe that the Second Amendment was meant to TAKE AWAY a right from the people would be to believe that it is the ONLY RULE in the Bill of Rights that LIMITS personal freedoms: EVERY OTHER ONE of the original amendments either granted the people extra freedoms, or limited the government's own freedom.

Now, we've since created such freedom-limiting amendments, but it should be noted that any laws added to the Constitution that limit freedom often suffer terrible fates... 

As I've said before, I agree with this interpretation of the constitution, and wholeheartedly support the right of law-abiding and responsible citizens to keep AND BEAR arms (and by using the term 'responsible', yes: I am not averse to background checks and other safety measures).

As for 'gun violence'? Tell you what: add an additional 20 years on to the sentence for anyone who commits a crime with a firearm. I'd support that.

Ironically, many of the people who so loathe the Second Amendment do not support such draconian anti-violence laws, though...

After all: the gun made 'em do it, right?

Whatever your personal view on this ruling, one must understand that it's absolutely the right one, and not just a shot in the dark.