Speaking of Star Trek...

The Replicator, finally!

"What's it doing?"
"I don't know. I ordered a chai. But...nothing."
"Nothing?"
"No, it just kind of made a fizzing sound."
"What the hell!"
"What are we going to do? I don't know what chai is."
"I think it's liquified beef and sugar."
"No, that can't be right."
"Well, bang on it with your fist."
"Thanks. I tried that already."
"Did you try turning it off and then on again?"
"Um, yeah. I'm not an idiot."
"Well, did you wait a few seconds before you turned it back on again."
"I'm not going to answer that."
"Hmm."
"I really want some chai."

Mud: McConaughey plays southern hick, impresses critics with acting range

I kid, I kid. But c'mon. Nobody seems to be mentioning this. The Dazed and Confused One's performance is described as "authentic" and riveting, adjectives which I think deserve further examination...

Authentic
My performance would also be authentic if I tossed some prosthetic teeth into my mouth and continued with my standard daily operating procedure. Speaking of which, if we have learned anything from Nicole Kidman (and we have learned so much!!*) it is that there exists a direct link between facial prostheses and surefire Oscar wins. I predict now that M.M. takes home an Academy Award come next year.

Riveting
The character of Mud has not taken a bath in a very very very very very long time. Was it difficult for me to imagine Matthew McConaughey not washing for days, possibly weeks, on end?

The answer is "No." No. That is not difficult for me to imagine.

Often, I couldn't tell if what I was observing on McConaughey's skin was an extremely advanced tan or the dawning of a new bacterial civilization. And, frankly, this confusion was...riveting.

*     *     *

Other critics have compared "Mud" to "Huckleberry Finn" and "Stand By Me." Undoubtedly, the former is more analogous thematically, but I'm simply not literate enough to make that kind of connection on my own. So let's just ignore that because it's hurting my self esteem.

Instead, let us focus on the second movie association, which offered me a more satisfying feeling of validation because THIS ACTUALLY OCCURRED to me while I was in the theater. Mostly because Jacob Lofland bears an uncanny resemblance to a young River Phoenix. Do the movies describe similar motifs? Contain parallel plot elements? Bear cinematographic resemblances? No no no. I don't truck in that. Ladies and gentleman, I am shallow! Shallow!! Shallow!!! Shallow as the day is long. I am not interested in any delicate undertones of loyalty, chivalry, and camaraderie that may be elegantly and unobtrusively expressed in this story. I want to know why that kid's name is Neckbone!!

Neckbone, Mud, Juniper, Senior...I did some investigating and the current leading baby names in the state of Arkansas are: Catfish (boys) and Used-Tire (girls). Do with that what you will.

"Listen, it's important. I need you to bring me back some lye and a flamethrower."

Postscript
For the sake of authenticity, I feel it's my duty to inform our dear reader that I did actually enjoy this movie. Tye Sheridan steals the whole show with his sensitive and highly credible performance. But in one particularly emotional scene near the end, he delivers the raw frustration and heartbreak that occurs when childlike idolization discovers the fragility and fallibility of love. I was honestly riveted by this moment's authenticity.

*Not sure what else we've learned from N.K. but something will come to me. Sometime.

Star Trek 2- Dammit Jim, It's an Action Movie, Not A Novel!

It's blockbuster season at the movies. Bang! Boom! Kerplow! There is action at every turn to satisfy our apparent need to constantly be entertained, every...single....second. I've taken in Iron Man 3 and Star Trek 2 in the past couple of weeks. While both movies were somewhat visually stimulating, with some mildly humorous dialogue mixed in, something key is missing, and that something is a story.

While watching Star Trek 2, The Quest For Curly's Gold, I came to the realization that I only had a vague notion of what the plot was really all about. Now I realize these movies are not made, or viewed, for the storytelling. The masses want to see these movies to be entertained for a couple of hours and then go back to being over-stimulated by other forms of media. I also realize there isn't that much to "get," it's essentially good guys battle bad guys and the good guys come out victorious. However, I did want to know what the actual story was. I became a little worried during the movie, because I only had a vague notion of the intricacies of the plot. There were two possible reasons for this. The first possibility  just couldn't be true. The second possibility is more accurate I think. The plot seems to be something that is haphazardly thrown in as a way to get from one action scene to the next.

Here's how these action movies tend to go nowadays: An action scene. followed by some witty banter, followed by another action scene, followed by a two minute, rapid-fire explanation of the plot. "You see, (insert bad guy name) was brought here by an alien ship that was nearly destroyed in an alternate universe on the planet Voltar, but due to the current galactic rule 875,25, section A, (which you'd know about if you read the graphic novel) which doesn't allow him into the universe until he's had intergalactic lap-band surgery which can only be performed by Dr. Xulu (also from the graphic novel), so (bad guy) must destroy the world to avoid having intergalactic lap-band surgery!" Got all that? Okay, good. Now watch as the good guys fight the bad guys while jumping 200 feet onto a moving spaceship travelling at 300 MPH.

I'm not trying to pan Star Trek 2. It had some good moments, and it was successful as a somewhat entertaining summer blockbuster. I guess I just wish filmmakers wouldn't make the assumption that audiences have the attention span of a concussed manatee. I think technology has actually hurt the science fiction and action film genres. For instance, why was the first Star Wars prequel so awful? It was because the filmmakers fell in love with the idea of CGI and the limitless capabilities of modern special effects, and it seemed contrived and fake. What made the original Star Wars so great was at least partially the story, which, while simple, was still fleshed out throughout the movie. If someone asked you to explain the plot of Star Wars, you could do it pretty easily. With Star Trek 2 and similar films, you know just enough that you can follow along, but there certainly isn't a real story being told.

*pop*

Gluhrrhrglrurhghhg

"There Was Actually A Press Release About This" Of the Day

But as I was reading the results of Public Policy Polling's most recent glimpse into the social landscape of America, I couldn't help letting out a great gusty sigh of relief.

46% of respondents believe that hipsters "soullessly appropriate cultural tropes from the past for their own ironic amusement." Phew! I thought. Here is confirmation that I am definitely not a hipster. My amusement is quite literal when I soullessly appropriate cultural tropes from the past.

Goodbye To Some Comedic Phrases

As a public service, we'd like to announce the passing of some key interoffice guffaw-inducing phrases that have outlived their usefulness.

Got ____? (an homage to the Got Milk? ads)
1993-2013

Got___? had a smooth, but uneventful 20-year career. A phrase used often by armchair comedians, this was a joke that would occasionally elicit a smile, but rarely a laugh. Sadly, even the original ads featuring various celebrities with milk mustaches became unfunny early on, and mildly nauseating to those of us who don't enjoy sloppy eating and drinking habits.


I could tell you, but I'd have to kill you.
1990-2013

I could tell you, but I'd have to kill you had an illustrious career as a water cooler favorite. It was heavily used in the early 2000's, but had recently fallen on hard times. Originally funny because the thing that you would theoretically be telling was something very tame, such as "hey where is the executive washroom?" Usually followed by a courtesy chuckle by the recipient.

I'm not a _____, but I play one on TV.
1972-2013

Based off a popular Excedrin commercial from the 70's, in which the phrase, "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV," was uttered, this phrase grew in popularity to the point where most any career could replace doctor. One key to the phrase's international adoration was the interactive aspect. As someone said, "I'm not a ____," the person with whom they were speaking could quickly chime in with, "..but you play one on TV..." and the two parties in the conversation could enjoy a humorous moment together.

Some passings not previously reported: : Imitating Sling Blade, "Show me the money," "Let us never speak of this again," "Wazzzup" (The Budweiser guys), "Bud-Wei-ser," (the Budweiser frogs), and "You the man."

You Are Not To Mess With Texas

Texas, your leader. Good lord, this blockhead ran for President, and was considered a front-runner at one point!!

I don't know whether to laugh or cry. Actually that's not true, I can't stop laughing at it. I love the drawn-out, wistful gaze. Defenseless animals, watch your backs, the guv-nah needs dinner.

UFO's! Lobbyists! Politicians! Religion!

This article made me think about several points that I felt like blabbing about.

There is a UFO advocacy group? And they are actively lobbying politicians??? I'm pretty excited about what could come of this actually.

The article states, "When asked about the fact that he was compensated for his participation in the hearing, Gravel says it did not influence him to agree with the testimony." Of course he would say that. A politician would never admit they were fighting for a cause simply because they were paid by a lobby/advocacy group. They can't think anyone would believe this statement can they?

This goes to show, politicians will shill for absolutely anything for the right price. If I started a lobby to blow up the moon, and gave a senator a million dollars, there's no doubt in my mind there would soon be a debate about how important the moon really is, and what dangers it presents.

In general, I am a believer in UFO's. A very skeptical believer, but a believer nonetheless. I have heard a few stories first hand, and it generally seems somewhat believeable to me. I'm not 100% convinced by any means, but I don't dismiss it out of hand. Why is it that almost all of the sightings are in remote areas? If I were travelling to another planet, I'd want to take a look at the more populated areas. Heck, just by accident you'd think one of these UFO's would fly into New York, or Beijing.

I find it humorous that people who claim to be absolutely, without a shred of a doubt, convinced that their religion is unequivocally true, yet scoff and snicker at anyone who might believe in the existence of UFO's or alien life. Believe in neither, believe in both, even believe in one more than the other, but I find it contradictory to believe so strongly in religion while questioning the sanity of someone who believes in the possibility of UFO's. An argument could me made that the existence of aliens is actually significantly more plausible.