Public Enemies

We went to see Public Enemies the other night. I'm not going to review it too much other than to say that I definitely did like it.

What I did want to talk about was this feeling that I couldn't shake throughout the movie, a feeling that I'd seen this before. It's not that I've seen the story of John Dillinger previously, but rather that it seemed like Michael Mann was remaking Heat as a period piece. (I'm not saying it's a good or bad thing, just that I observed it.) I know I'm probably over-simplifying this, but let me give you a few examples of what I'm talking about.

vs.

Spoilers for both Public Enemies and Heat from this point on.

Of course, the most obvious similarity is the theme of bank robbery where the similarities go from the very general, machine gun fights outside the banks, all the way down to the very specific, a robber tells someone during a heist, "We're not here for your money. We're here for the bank's money."

In each film, Mann assembles big name stars as the headliners and then populates the rest of the film with other famous actors or character actors so that just about every scene leaves you saying "Hey, isn't that..." or "I've seen that guy before."

Two actors who usually don't share top billing play a criminal with a distinct sense of honor and a lawman who becomes obsessed with catching him to the point of being self-destructive. While these two actors do share the film, they share only a single scene together before the final showdown.

The criminal is always noting the bad ideas that the other robbers have and describes his philosophy about what to do and what to avoid to stay safe. He eventually gets involved with a young woman who gets inside his defenses and exposes the humanity underneath. Unfortunately, the feelings he has for the woman cause him to go against his better judgement and specifically violate the philosophy he outlined earlier in the film. In both cases, this leads to his downfall, and our criminal is not the type to be taken alive.

I'm sure there are others things that I've forgotten now, but stylistically, thematically and even in plot, the similarities between the two movies were quite striking. As I said at the top, I'm not saying it's a bad thing, just that I had a hard time not thinking about this while sitting in the theater.

Have any of the rest of you seen this, and did you notice the same thing?

Guess what? I have a blog. I know, I thought I'd forgotten about it, too.

In this post I shall attempt to slake your thirst for my opinions on the most mundane of matters through three brief advertising/shopping related discussions. Or maybe I just didn't have anything else to talk about so you're getting a bunch of junk that poured out of my head. It's a glass half-full/half-empty thing.

I've never been a big fan of changing the name of products, but when a company changes the name of similar products, making it hard to tell the difference between them, it is very frustrating. For years, if I wanted to buy a container of the lower fat Pringles¹, I knew that they were labelled as "Right Crisps." Was it a stupid name? Sure, but I knew what they were, and the name was always the same. Now there are Pringles labelled as "Light" and Pringles labelled as "Smart Flavors". One of these is the reduced fat version and the other is the "fat-free" olestra-containing version. If they aren't going to stick with one name, they should at least make it clear on the packaging whether or not you are buying the version that causes anal leakage.

The Wendy's commercials about "Threeconomics" bother me. The entire set of commercials bothers me because threeconomics is a stupid-sounding non-word. However, one commercial in particular really irritates me. It goes something like this:

[scrippet]
INT. BREAK ROOM - DAY

Three GUYS are sitting around the table eating SANDWICHES from Wendy's.

GUY 1
I'm going to use this Jr. bacon cheeseburger, crispy chicken and double stack to explain to you the basic principles of Threeconomics.

Guy 1 reaches across the table and takes the sandwiches from Guy 2 and Guy 3.

GUY 1
Supply.

Guy 2 reaches to take his sandwich.

GUY 2
Can I have my doubl-

GUY 1
(Pushing Guy 2's hand away)
Demand.

[/scrippet]


Clearly this commercial works only because the guy getting his burger stolen isn't a fat guy². If that were the case, the commercial would go more like this:


[scrippet]
INT. BREAK ROOM - DAY

Three GUYS are sitting around the table eating SANDWICHES from Wendy's.

GUY 1
I'm going to use this Jr. bacon cheeseburger, crispy chicken and double stack to explain to you the basic principles of 3conomics.

Guy 1 reaches across the table and takes the sandwiches from Guy 2 and Guy 3.

GUY 1
Supply.

GUY 2
What are you doing?

GUY 1
Demonstrating demand.

Guy 2 reaches over the table, punches Guy 1 and takes the sandwiches.

GUY 2
Hostile takeover.

[/scrippet]

My favorite thing about commercials now is that just about every one has the phrase "these days" or "in the current economy" while talking about how much you will save if you use their product. Do they enjoy trying to scare and/or depress people or do they really think people don't know that anything is going on³? I guess that's a possibility. It's not like it's been mentioned on the news, every TV show, ads, and articles as well as every other conversation that people have had with friends or coworkers.

¹ Shut it.

² I'm allowed to say that because I'm talking about my people. Unless you're one of us, you can't.

³ I know. They don't really enjoy it; they're just trying to use everyone's problems and fears to sell their product and who are we to criticize them for it.

What Lies In The Shadow Of The Statue

I have less time than I'd like to write this and I have not had nearly enough time to digest what happened, so this Lost finale post will probably be fairly short.

By the way, this would be a good time for those of you who haven't seen the finale or who really just don't care about Lost to wander off and find something else to read.

As I said, this will not be a review nor will it be comprehensive. It's mostly going to be thoughts I had that I wanted to get out as well as some questions and almost certainly incorrect theories.

-I've never been a huge fan of the love triangle or love triangle plus Juliet part of the show. Juliet and Sawyer together after those three years in the DI worked better than any of the other attempted couplings of this group of four, so it disappointed me to see how Sawyer looked at Kate.

-I'm not one of those people who claims they'll stop watching if a character dies, but Hurley and Sayid are two of the characters who I would hate to have the show be without, so I hope Sayid pulls through somehow.

-I'm so used to Ben lying that I thought he was lying when he said that he didn't know Locke would come back to life and that he'd never seen the island do anything like that.

-This was the first time since at least the second season maybe even the first season that I had not heard (intentionally or inadvertently) what happens in the finale. I like it better this way, but at the same time theories take longer to form.

One of the big topics of discussion is what happened with the bomb and whether it really did what it was supposed to do. I don't think it did, and (if you'll forgive me for quoting myself from a comment I left elsewhere) I'm with Miles that what they did was cause the incident. Whatever happened, happened. See also: Chang staying, but sending his wife and child, just like before. Chang loses an arm, just like before. Daniel's mother shoots him, just like she knew she would have to when she sent him back. All of these things were already going to happen, and they happened in the events leading up to dropping the bomb down the hole. They are causing the events that are in the past, not changing them. Jack always threw the bomb down into "the pocket" and caused the incident and Sayid always shot 12 year old Ben, the events happened in the past, but they didn't remember because it was their future. You basically have two options with time travel (ok, more if you start creating new realities, but what does this look like, Star Trek?), you can change nothing important or you can have issues with the Grandfather Paradox (simply stated, you cannot go back in time to kill your own grandfather because then you would never have been alive to kill him). Allowing the 815ers to change anything that brought them to the island creates a paradox: The bomb keeps them from coming to the island, but if they never came to the island they couldn't have set off the bomb, and if they didn't set off the bomb they would come to the island and set off the bomb, preventing them from ever crashing on the island. This goes on in an endless loop. The only way to have a change of this nature work would be to have someone who exists outside of time (or has a paradox-correcting time code) be the one to reset things. Someone special. Someone like Desmond. Craphole Island's not through with him yet.

Now, about the whole NotLocke thing...Early in the episode, we see Jacob and some other guy (he needs a name, so I'm calling him Esau...He's got a nice rivalry going with Jacob and it's better than calling him that guy who isn't really Locke.) watching the Black Rock approach the island, and we find out that he wants to find a loophole to kill Jacob. As we saw toward the end, that loophole was to become Locke, who is dead and take the position of the leader of the Others. So, was Locke ever truly special? I think so. He always had a connection with the island and it healed him. In addition, we saw Jacob speak to him just after he was thrown from the building by his father. (For the sake of my theory, I'm going to assume that whenever we saw Jacob off the island, we really did see Jacob.) This connection made Locke the choice as leader of the Others and meant that when Esau pretended to be Locke, he could get access to Jacob. (Tangent: It's interesting to see that he was able to be Locke, because this makes me wonder if perhaps the other dead people we have seen might also have been him: Christian, who sent Locke off the island and told him he'd have to die, Alex, who told Ben to do whatever Locke--who wasn't Locke anymore-- said, anyone else who was dead and gave advice that lead to Ben killing Jacob. Ok, tangent over.) With Jacob and Esau, I couldn't help thinking back to the theme of duality that has run through the entire show. Black and White. Good and Evil. Locke is a playing piece in that centuries-long game of backgammon. Just before Esau-Locke takes Ben to meet Jacob, the new group from Ajira 316 reaches Richard and asks him what lies in the shadow of the statue. He knows the answer, so they show him what's in the box, and rather than Gwyneth Paltrow's head, it's the corpse of John Locke. With Jacob stabbed and apparently dying, I can't help thinking about what lies in the shadow of the statue. "Ile qui nos omnes servabit"He who will save us all." And who is lying there right now is John Locke. Could this mean that we will soon see a Jacob version of Locke and an Esau version of Locke? I don't know, but at this point nothing seems to be out of the question.

You Know You Want To Watch This Too

Throughout history, mankind has asked one question more than any other: "Why am I here?" We need a sense of purpose to feel fulfilled; we need to feel as if we are part of something larger. Individuals have come up with their own answers, but never has a single event or a single theme been able to unite us all.

That, my friends, is about to change. All of modern technology has been building to this, the pinnacle of this or any other civilization. Yes, I speak of Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus.

Why are we on this planet? So that this can be made and so that we can watch it.

Movie Trailers - Movies Blog

I know it's difficult to wrap your mind around this if you are just learning of it, but let's consider just a few of the glorious things we see in this trailer.

1. Lorenzo Lamas
2. Debbie Deborah Gibson
3. Not just a shark, a Mega Shark
4. Giant Octopus
5. Mega Shark and Giant Octopus fighting each other
6. The octopus is so giant that it destroys an oil rig
7. And slaps a fighter jet out of the air
8. The shark is so mega that it attacks what appears to be a battleship*
9. And the Golden Gate Bridge**
10. And a commercial airliner--in flight
11. One or both of them appear to destroy a submarine
12. Something is making the smoke monster sound from Lost

The movie comes straight to DVD later this month and it may or may not*** be at the top of my Netflix queue waiting for the release date.

*I can only hope this leads to a "It sank our battleship!" line in the actual movie. Movies this bad need lines that awful.
**The bridge, people! It jumps up to take a bite out of the bridge. Can sharks in any other movie do that? No, they aren't Mega enough.
***Oh yeah, it is.

Oh Look, Something Involving Science Is in the News and Craig Is on a Soapbox. Everyone Act Surprised.

I've debated on posting something about all of the swine flu panic and have restrained myself because I don't want to try to sound like I'm putting myself out there as an expert (mostly because I'm not even remotely qualified to be one). In a turn of events that is surprising to absolutely no one, I can't keep my thoughts to myself and have to at least give you a little bit of commentary. 

I went to the store yesterday after work, and as I walked down an aisle I saw this.

That's where the hand sanitizer should be, but there are only a few bottles left. Alcohol-based hand sanitizers are good and should be effective at eliminating influenza on your hands¹. So, I suppose it's understandable (though perhaps a bit sad) that people have reacted to stories of the potential spread of the flu by buying so much hand sanitizer that it's almost sold out. 

However, do you know what else does a good job of inactivating influenza? Soap. Yeah, just plain old hand soap. It doesn't have to be any special soap, just soap. With this in mind, it bothered me to see this right next to the almost completely empty sanitizer area.

Sanitizer is great for when you can't get to water, but the reality is that your best bet in avoiding illness is hand-washing. Seeing the Purell, Germ-X and every other brand of sanitizer sell out while hardly a dent was made in the stock of soap² seemed a sad, but perhaps fitting, metaphor for panic winning out over common sense.

¹It does work for influenza and for many bacteria, but there are still a lot of things from various bacteria to Norovirus that it doesn't do much for, so washing your hands is still more effective.

²I realize I may be oversimplifying the reasons behind the shelves being this way, but I'm trying to make a point.

Trivial Tuesday

With Star Trek coming out this week, I figure why not make it three questions in a row that have to do with Star Trek. As you have probably heard by now thanks to the non-stop media blitz leading up to the movie's release, Eric Bana plays Nero, a Romulan who travels through time. In an interesting coincidence, Bana also refuses to be temporally bound in his next film. What novel-adaptation is his next role?

Answer quickly to earn a fleeting sense of superiority over your friends.

Also, did I make this one way too easy? It feels like it to me.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine - Pro and Con

Con: The title.

Pro: Stuff blows up.

Con: Computer graphics when Sabretooth runs on all fours.

Pro: Fight scenes.

Con: Attempt at a plot failed miserably.

Pro: Attempt at a plot is just a way to justify action sequences.

Pro: Deadpool*

Con: Deadpool*

Pro: Introduced to new mutants

Con: Most new mutants are basically cameos and are often very different than comic versions.

Pro: I've always liked Gambit's power.

Con: Why doesn't Gambit have an accent?

Pro: Did I mention stuff blew up?

Con: Holding arms out while looking up at the sky and screaming. (Did Wolverine just find out Padme was dead?)

Pro: Jackman and Schreiber seem to have put a lot of effort into getting into shape for the movie.

Con: What did they do to [actor's name held back for spoiler] in the escape scene with the kids? That scared me.

Pro: Most of the action was over-the-top and unrealistic. (In a movie where a guy pops metal claws out of his hands, that's allowed to be a pro)

Con: Wolverine butt

Verdict: Bad, but not so bad that it wasn't still fun.

Random note: I realized after writing this that X3 also got a pro/con list instead of a real review, but even that was more thought out than this one.


*I can't really explain that one without a lot of spoilers and an attempt at explaining the plot and it's really not worth it.