Thursday, July 31, 2008

The Dark FREAKIN' Knight!


Without further adieu, your The Dark Knight review!

Shock of all shocks, I thought the movie was absolutely phenomenal. I'm a bit of a Joker mark (I own somewhere between 5 and 10 Joker t-shirts, and there's a classic comic book version Joker bobble head on my desk at work), so I was obviously looking very forward to this movie, and my expectations were understandably high.

And boy, what an effort it was to see this! I saw Batman Begins at an IMAX theater, and what a difference it made. So I was determined to see The Dark Knight on the (super) big screen as well. I figured I'd try to see it at an IMAX theater at a mall near me on Tuesday night, so on Monday I called my friend to make arrangements. We had both pretty much figured that we wouldn't have much trouble getting tickets for a Tuesday evening show at a relatively random theater. In fact, we were just going to drop by the theater before showtime and get the tickets then. Nevertheless, we decided to check availability online. Much to our surprise, tickets for every showing the next night had ALREADY sold out. Long story slightly less long, we ended up having to go all the way to White Plains (over a half hour from my house and about an hour from where I work) in order to see it on an IMAX theater. But boy, was it ever worth the effort.

Anyway, click the link below for my full (and it's a long one!) review of the movie (spoilers within).

Of course, the true tragedy of Heath Ledger's death is that his parents lost their son, and his young daughter will now have to grow up without a father. But as a movie goer, after seeing this film, his death really hit me. For one, I think it's absolutely tragic that so many people are proclaiming that he is only receiving so much praise because of his death, because I was personally blown away by his magnificent performance. I really thought that it would be a surreal experience seeing him on screen -- considering how much publicity his death has received -- but honestly, I'd watch him portray the Joker, and I would completely forget that I was watching a young man that had recently died. In fact, there were select moments when I would momentarily think to myself, "I really hope he's in the sequel."

And that's the other great loss signified by his death. In my opinion, there's still so much fuel left in the Joker character, and Heath hit such an incredible home run with his portrayal, that he can easily be integrated into one of the next installments. I don't think I'd make him the focus of another film, but I could have easily seen them using him in a brief cameo, much like they did with Scarecrow (by the way, what an unexpected treat that was). It would have been great seeing him stir the pot in prison, perhaps paving the way for the next great villain to attempt to take down Batman.

The fact is, this man WAS the Joker. He totally became the character, and you got completely lost in his performance. I honestly believe that Christian Bale does a fantastic job as Bruce Wayne and Batman, but, to me, at the core I'm still watching Christian Bale portray Batman/Bruce Wayne. On the other hand, I really did feel like I was watching the Joker, and not Heath Ledger with some clown makeup splattered on his face. From his distinctive walk to his voice to his devious cackle to his great lip smacking, it would be a tremendous disservice to deprive this man of an Oscar nod. And this is coming from a guy who said "What the hell are you thinking?" when it was announced that Heath Ledger would be taking over the iconic role.

I absolutely loved the psychological aspect of this film. Everybody has one of those friends who asks "would you rather drink a pint of your own piss or a small piece of your own shit?" In my case, that person is my friend Mark. Well, this movie pondered similar predicaments (albeit less gross and more twisted). Would you kill an innocent man to save a hospital full of people? Would you kill a boat full of other people to save yourself or somebody you love? Would you reveal your true identity if it spared the life of one of the people you were trying to protect (knowing full well that the revelation of your identity could essentially destroy the hero and lead to more deaths in the future)? And, of course, is it ever appropriate to break your code of honor and kill somebody who is pure evil?

That's one of the brilliant things about Joker's character: He was fully willing to die if it meant that Batman crossed that line and killed him. Hell, he WANTED Batman to kill him (hence his "hit me....hit me...." when Batman was heading towards him in his Batpod, and his laughing hysterically as he was dropping to his death, only to shrug in disappointment when Batman caught him -- an awesome moment).

Of course, Joker wasn't all doom and gloom. Indeed, there were some moments that made me laugh. I especially loved when he first met with the mob, and he opens up his jackets and reveals all of the grenades. One of the mobsters says something along the lines of, "you think you can steal all of our money and just walk in here and make demands?" and Joker deadpans, "yes." And was there a more disturbingly funny scene than seeing Joker walk around in that nurses outfit? I loved when he stepped out of the hospital and started blowing it up, only for one of the detonators not to work, forcing him to fidget with it for a bit.

While it's not completely fair to compare Heath Ledger's Joker to Jack Nicholson's (they're too different), I do believe that The Dark Knight captured the magic between Batman and the Joker better than the original. The first Batman needlessly attempted to connect these two characters by making Joker the person who murdered Bruce Wayne's parents, and making Batman responsible for Joker's disfigurement.

From my admittedly pedestrian understanding, The Dark Knight is more in line with the comics, where Batman and Joker are essentially both victims of circumstance, but while one character used this as motivation to do good, the other used it to create chaos. This is the theme of The Killing Joke, perhaps the greatest graphic novel ever written (go out and buy it now. Really). The premise of the story is that Joker had "one bad day," which made him the maniac that we know him as. As a result, he's determined to prove that any average Joe could be driven to insanity if his day is bad enough. One of my favorite lines is when he says to Batman: "You had a bad day once, am I right? I know I am. I can tell. You had a bad day and everything changed." These two iconic characters -- Batman and the Joker -- are essentially mirror images of each other. As the villain says in the movie, "we cannot exist without each other."

You can also tell The Killing Joke helped inspire this movie based on Joker's "Why so serious?" retelling of how he got his scars. He tells one character his father did it, he tells another that he did it to himself. As the comic book character says (in regards to his "one bad day"), "Sometimes I remember it one way, sometimes another... If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!" In hindsight, this makes you realize how unnecessary it was to do a back story for the Joker in the Tim Burton film. Truth be told, the lack of origin and motive makes Joker's actions that much more disturbing and frightening. Hell, the reason why so many people were freaked out by The Strangers is because there was apparently no motive for terrorizing these innocent people. To paraphrase Alfred's assessment of the Joker, "Some people just want to see the city burn."


I don't want to go on TOO much about how awesome Heath Ledger was, because virtually the entire cast nailed their roles. I thought Harvey Dent was portrayed perfectly. He was indeed the "white knight" (opposed to Batman's "Dark Knight") that could save Gotham without resorting to a cape and cowl. This is reminiscent to one theory on the Batman character: Batman attempts to stop crime by putting on a costume and creating terror, when in actually Bruce Wayne -- as a billionaire -- may actually be a more promising solution. Perhaps Bruce Wayne should use his enormous wealth to ensure that the next generation of citizens have the opportunities necessary that they won't need to resort to crime later in life. In my view, Harvey Dent fills this role. He's a public persona that's out there in broad daylight doing what he can, by the books, in order to make Gotham a better place. Indeed, he's so effective in this role that even Bruce Wayne feels the need to gush over him -- despite the fact that they're both pining over the same woman -- and Batman first considers retiring altogether, before ultimately taking the blame for a series of murders.

Gary Oldman was also great as Lt. Gordon, a character who was enormously mishandled and underutilized in the original movies. When it appeared that he had been killed, I was legitimately saddened. Like, it upset me that he wouldn't be in any of the other movies. That's a HUGE contrast to the whole-lotta-nothing Gordon contributed in the original four movies. And is it me, or is a jump from lieutenant to commissioner pretty significant (by the way, LOVED Joker clapping during that scene)?

I suppose it would be unnatural to do a review of the movie without mentioning, ya' know, BATMAN! One thing I do love about this re-imagining is that there's a concerted effort to try to hide the fact that Bruce Wayne and Batman are one in the same. Sure, the "Batman voice" can get a little distracting at times, but honestly, it does very adequately mask his actual voice. Considering the fact that Bruce Wayne and Batman often interact with the same people, this is an important tactic. I also love how Bruce Wayne is not portrayed as some altruistic saint, like he is in many of the animated series. He's portrayed as rude and disrespectful in the business world, and overall snobby and spoiled in the social circuit. Even when he does something heroic (by saving Mr. Reese's life), he blows it off and presents himself as being self centered and ignorant to the world around him. This is all necessary, as I often muse that our society has somehow, someway, for some reason made people who are rich into celebrities (the Paris Hiltons of the world), so being a billionaire with a secret life is a lot easier said than done.

But make no mistake about it, this movie was ALL the Joker.

There were some portions of the movie that surprised me, though.

Perhaps most of all, I was shocked that they screwed the pooch and used Two-Face as a villain. I thought for sure that they were setting him up to be the next installment's central villain. If Two-Face actually is dead (the jury still seems to be out on that one), then I'm even more perplexed. That being said, I thought the character was handled perfectly. It drifted away from the whole split personality thing, instead focusing in on a man so consumed with rage that he believes that the ends ALWAYS justify the means. I really liked how Bruce Wayne and Harvey Dent are put at some odds -- with Dent admirably playing the white knight, as Wayne hides behind a mask to become the Dark Knight -- when in actuality, Batman honors his code, while Two-Face abandons his (the former isn't willing to kill, the latter is).

I also appreciated the fact that, for better or worse, Two-Face left all of the major decisions up to his coin. It drove me crazy how in Batman Forever, Tommy Lee Jones' Two-Face repeatedly flipped the coin until he got his desired result. That act shows how much they totally missed the point of the character. On top of all that, Two-Face looked freakin' bad ass. That eye STILL freaks me out.

I wasn't expecting them to kill off Rachel, although I thought it was brilliant that they did. First off, her character had already served her purpose (especially if Catwoman is ever incorporated into one of the movies, hence giving Bruce a new love interest), and secondly, it was a wonderful way to (a) show how deliberately cruel Joker's humor can be (purposely sending Batman to rescue the wrong person), and (b) give Harvey Dent the motive to completely lose it and become Two-Face. It also showed "what could have been" in a sense, as Harvey ended up taking the path that Joker had paved for Batman.

One thing I didn't get, though, is why exactly Batman had to take the blame for the Two-Face murders. Yes, I understand that they had to preserve the noble image of Harvey Dent, but why exactly is Batman taking the blame the only other option? Why not say Joker did it? Some might argue, "but he was already captured by that point." That doesn't really cut it for me. As viewers we are aware of the fact that Joker was captured at x o'clock and that the murders happened x hours later, but the citizens of Gotham City don't know that. Or why not say that one of the Joker's goons committed the murders? I follow that they were sending the message that Batman is truly heroic because he's NOT the white knight....and I see how this is setting up the premise for the next movie, but it just seemed contrived the way it was handled.

Provided that there's a third installment (and really, there has to be after the boatload of money this version made), who should be the next villain? Personally, I'd love to see either Penguin or Riddler, or Penguin and Catwoman (although, obviously, this pairing has already been done). I'm actually not a huge Penguin fan, but considering that the Christopher Nolan movies tend to take a more realistic approach to the villains, I think a "re-invented"/old school Penguin could be great. In the comics, Penguin is actually a high class crime lord, a la the Kingpin (of Spider-Man fame). With Joker behind bars (or in a padded cell), and the mob apparently disintegrated, the next movie seems tailor made for Penguin to swoop in and take over the mob (in fact, if I recall correctly, there was a nightclub scene in The Dark Knight. In the comics, Penguin's nightclub business is the cover to his criminal activity). I actually think an overweight Tim Curry could excel in this role. The rumored Philip Seymour Hoffman would also be interesting.

The movie could easily be spiced up with a separate storyline including Catwoman or Riddler. With Catwoman, you can do the obvious romantic story, and the juxtaposition between high class mobster and petty cat burglary could be interesting. To tell you the truth, I think the Catwoman character could carry a handful of movies, provided she's never the central villain. She can escape capture, and essentially become the "one who got away." To Batman, she's the one person he couldn't capture. To Bruce Wayne, she's the love he can't be with. Perhaps in the fourth movie (which may never come to be), she can be the anti-hero that fights by Batman's side. I think somebody like Charlize Theron would make a wonderful Catwoman, for what it's worth.

I actually think they can take a really intriguing route with the Riddler's character, however. I actually think somebody like Johnny Depp would do great in this role. They can make the character light and quirky (Penguin can handle the "dark" load), but I think it'd be really cool to focus on the psychological compulsions of the Riddler's character. They can hone in on the fact that this criminal is powerless to his obsession -- he MUST leave clues as to what his next crime will be. He has no choice. And he can't just kill somebody, he HAS to put them through some elaborate trap. Imagine Monk, but a criminal genius instead of a genius detective.

One final point. I also love how slowly but surely, the caped crusader is becoming the Batman we are accustomed to. With the demise of the tank-version Batmobile, I have no doubt that we'll see the slicker, more familiar vehicle in the next film. With Wayne Manor being rebuilt, I think it's fair to say the same will be true of the Batcave.

Read more!

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

The greatest book of all time


Buy it. Love it. Enjoy gems such as:
  • Chuck Norris can slam a revolving door.
  • Chuck Norris can turn back time simply by staring at the clock and flexing.
  • Chuck Norris clogs the toilet even when he pisses.
  • Chuck Norris once roundhouse kicked Bruce Lee, breaking him in half. The result was Jet Li and Jackie Chan.
  • When the boogeyman goes to sleep every night, he checks the closet for Chuck Norris.
  • The Virgin Mary saw Chuck Norris in her grilled cheese sandwich.
  • Chuck Norris can kick a fart back into an ass.

And that's just a sampling, folks.


UPDATE:
My buddy Neal over at Oblivious to Melody will appreciate this one:
  • When the Incredible Hulk gets angry he turns into Chuck Norris.

Read more!

Monday, July 28, 2008

Movies, with a TWIST! Part 3 - Vantage Point


I figured I should probably finish up this Movies, with a TWIST! trilogy before I get to the awesomeness that was The Dark Knight. And, with that, we complete this trifecta with Vantage Point, starring Dennis Quaid and Matthew Fox, of Lost fame.

I actually really wanted to see this movie when it was out in theaters, but due to the negative reviews it had received, I couldn't find anybody to go with me. Said reviews also lowered my expectations, however I truly did enjoy this movie. While it wasn't perfect, I thought it was clever and unique. I enjoyed seeing each person's perspective, which I believe really paid off in the end, when we discovered that certain assumptions weren't all that accurate. I also thought the actors did a phenomenal job. It's not easy to convey certain emotions to the audience with such vague material.

Overall I would recommend the movie, but it's definitely not for everybody. While I enjoyed seeing all eight vantage points, I can also see how some people might feel like it dragged on a little too long.

Click the "Read More" link for my complete, spoilery review.

I typically have a rule of thumb when I watch movies and television: If you don't see it, it probably didn't happen. Like, for example, if a character allegedly dies, but we don't actually view the death (like Jin on Lost), I tend to believe that the person somehow survived. Using that logic, I typically would have spotted the Matthew Fox turn a mile away. However, the "vantage point" style of storytelling helped mask an otherwise obvious twist. By the time the revelation was made, I wasn't exactly shocked, but even so I thought it was pretty well written.

The movie's other twist, in which we come to learn that the President wasn't actually shot, WOULD have been extremely surprising had it not revealed in one of the commercial previews -- WHILE IT WAS STILL IN THE THEATER! I will never forget how some commercials had that clip in which one of the advisers says to the President "You can't make a call, everybody thinks you've been shot" (not an exact quote). Nevertheless, I thought this was an excellent twist -- and one which actually makes a great deal of sense. When we were first introduced to the President, I couldn't help but notice how cold and standoffish he acted, especially with Dennis Quaid's character (who had once saved his life). Later on, post-twist, we see that the President actually speaks of Quaid's character with great fondness and respect. All of this made their eventual reunion, in which Quaid's character again saves the President, all the sweeter.

One of the story points I really enjoyed was the ending, where we discovered that practically the entire plot was executed by one man's cellular phone.

Some additional false-assumptions that I especially liked include:
- That the Middle Eastern guy who stormed the stage after the President was shot was a terrorist (we learned he was actually a cop).
- That the Middle Eastern man and woman who romantically linked, and both terrorists (turned out she was a terrorist, but that he was just a pawn attempting to rescue his captive brother).
- That Forest Whitaker's character had spotted the sniper (he actually just saw the secret service agent checking Dennis Quaid's lead).

Overall, it really was a fun movie that kept you guessing while filling in some gaps with each new perspective. I think it's worth the four bucks to rent, but yeah, it's probably not for everybody.

Read more!

Saturday, July 26, 2008

Things are getting a little catty at Disney....

Geez, this is like the sequel to the ridiculous Hilary Duff/Lindsay Lohan/Aaron Carter love triangle. I guess the story is that Miley Cyrus used to date one of the Jonas Brothers, but they broke up, and now he's seeing Selena Gomez (who I had no idea even existed before I started checking Just Jared). And I guess Selena Gomez posted a YouTube video of her girlie shenanigans, only for Miley Cyrus to pretty harshly mock the video, verbatim. Give it a look see:



Is it me, or was this exceptionally mean spirited, especially when you consider how public it is? I mean, I know these girls are, what, 15 or something, but this came off as extremely childish and immature. The fact that Miley Cyrus and her friend (is she famous, too?) practically copied it word for word sends the message that this isn't a simple parody or imitation. They're just plain old making fun of them.

Listen, Miley, I know your pile of money is probably twice the size of my HOUSE, but petty crap like this isn't going to do you any favors. No ifs, ands, or buts, but she DEFINITELY came off as the bad guy.

But I did kinda laugh at EMO-MAZING!

Read more!

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

What's up with Punk and what's in Kane's bag?

Just some brief wrestling thoughts before I review The Dark Knight, hopefully later this week.


While I admittedly tend to view things with the proverbial rose-colored glasses, I have to say that things are getting very interesting in WWE right now, particularly with Raw (while I've always had a soft spot for Smackdown, it's a lot tougher to fit into my schedule). I'm especially fond of the ongoing Batista/Punk/Kane feud, as none of them are OFFICIALLY heels. Yes, you've got three sorta faces just plain old not liking each other (very reminiscent of that OTHER great feud, with Michaels, Jericho, and Batista).

The first question I will tackle is, what's in that potato sack that Kane has been carrying around for the past couple of weeks? I'm going with the obvious (or at least what I perceive as obvious) prediction: His mask. For that matter, the "he" Kane keeps referring to is his former self (bringing back memories of Dustin Runnels proclaiming "He's coming back" and returning a few weeks later as Goldust). After a few more weeks, perhaps at SummerSlam, I foresee Kane opening the bag, revealing the mask, and grimacing sinisterly before putting it back on. It would actually be kinda neat seeing a hybrid of the two Kane characters, with the Big Red Monster wearing the mask, but remaining bald and shirtless.

But, for the love of God, PLEASE put on a new pair of tights. He's been wearing that same uniform since, like, 2002.


You know, it's a bit crazy considering that the mask is such an iconic symbol of Kane's character, yet he's been without his mask for the majority of his career as the Big Red Machine. Sorta like how Saved by the Bell: The New Class was on the air longer than the original Saved by the Bell.

And then there's the matter of CM Punk's Jericho/Mysterio-esque title reign, where he is suddenly and mysteriously booked to look like a chump once he nabs the gold. I'm not going to ostracize this angle quite yet, because there's one way I think it could become a complete success, and the optimist in me thinks that they may be going into this direction.

Basically, you have Punk so insistent that he's not just some fluke champion, and he's so eager to take on all comers and prove his worth to the fans and his competition. Yet every single time he's put in a position to overcome a challenge, somebody interferes, essentially giving him a cheap victory and robbing him of the opportunity to prove everybody wrong. The only flaw I really see is that they keep having the interference come when Punk is on the brink of losing, instead of when things are a bit more evenly matched.

This story could either culminate with Punk getting a legit, clean victory over one of his big challenges (preferably Batista) in a highly climatic moment, or with Punk becoming so frustrated that he completely loses it and turns heel. I vote for the former.
See, aren't you glad I provided that BRIEF commentary?

Read more!

Tuesday, July 22, 2008

Can't say I expected this....

http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/Movies/07/22/bale.questioned.ap/index.html

So in an ironic turn of events, the actor portraying the villainous Joker is pretty much being anointed for sainthood, while the person behind the heroic Batman mask has been arrested for assaulting his mother and sister.

I must admit that I found this news very surprising (provided that it is true). In my opinion, Christian Bale has always come across as an extremely charming, intelligent, genuine, likable person. Although I did get a kick out of the fact that the police opted not to question him because "they didn't want to interfere with the premiere." Way to keep your priorities straight, boys!

By the way, I did catch The Dark Knight earlier this evening, so expect a full review in the next couple of days.

Read more!

Sunday, July 20, 2008

Movies, with a TWIST! Part 2 - Funny Games

So I'm back home after a long (wet) weekend camping in the Adirondacks, providing you with the second part of the Movies, with a TWIST! trilogy. This edition takes a look at Funny Games, a 2007 Indie film remake of a 1997 German film.

This film, which I would probably categorize in the horror genre, is tough to distinguish. I'm not sure I would suggest it, because it definitely is a "cup of tea" type of movie (where it's not for everybody, even more so than most horror flicks). For that matter, more than any of the other moves in this trilogy, I would discourage reading the spoilers if you have any desire whatsoever of seeing it. Because, I promise, you will NOT see this twist coming. Not in a million years. I guess the best thing I can do is tell you that if you enjoyed The Strangers, you'll probably like most of this movie as well.

I don't think it's fair to label Funny Games as "unconventional." To create my own word, I consider this movie "anti-conventional," because it actively attempts to go AGAINST every expectation you might have of a traditional horror movie. And that's all I'm going to say, before telling you that the rest of my review (with spoilers) can be read by clicking the "Read More" link below....

So what do I mean when I say that this movie ignores the typical "horror movie rules"?

The first method, which is a trap I admit that I walked in on, is that the movie doesn't show ANY violence whatsoever. Throughout the beginning of the movie, I noticed that the camera would pan away from every violent act, and I would say to myself, "Well, that's pretty lame." Of course, the twist later on makes it clear that this is the point: Despite what the audience insists about how they root for the protagonist, they really do want to see the victims get tortured. And when they don't get to actually VIEW that violence, they feel like they've been ripped off.

Another anti-convention of Funny Games is that the protagonists never do anything particularly heroic. Except for one moment (and more on that later), the victims never truly fight back. They're completely powerless throughout the entire film. There aren't any moments of tremendous bravery or bloodthirsty revenge (more on that) that the victims -- and audience -- have "earned" by surviving the intruders' dastardly deeds.

The next surprising action was who got killed, or rather who wasn't protected. The first victim was the family dog. Traditionally, animals (especially pets) have been spared. While viewers seemingly have no problem watching human beings get butchered, it's cruel seeing the same thing happen to a man's best friend. So when the dog was bludgeoned by a golf club, I was a bit surprised. Even more shocking, however, was the first human victim: THE COUPLE'S TEN YEAR OLD SON!

And then, of course, there's the twist. Near the conclusion of the movie, the main protagonist -- played by Naomi Watts -- manages to grab hold of the rifle and shoots one of the killers in the chest. The remaining killer begins to panic, yelling "where's the remote?" as he starts tearing apart the living room. Upon finding it, the killer literally REWINDS THE VERY SCENE WE HAD JUST WATCHED and replays it. Except this time, he prevents her from getting hold of the gun, and instead kills her husband.

At this point, the big "FUCK YOU" became clear. All of these anti-conventions have been a game, of sorts. It was as if the director was saying, "You want to see violence? Well too bad! You want the victims to fight back? Sorry, it's not happening!" And that one scene, for better or worse, was the director GIVING us something we were eagerly awaiting, and then taking it away.

After checking out the IMDb.com message board, I (unsurprisingly) discovered that some people found that twist brilliant, while others found it moronic. I personally found it clever to a certain extent, but I will confess that it also made me feel like much of what I had already watched was a waste. I feel like part of the intention was to get people to watch it again in order to catch all of those winks and nods acknowledging that the killers recognize that this is just a movie, and I'm not sure that it did. I didn't end up watching it a second time.

However, there were flaws outside of the movie simply not being your desired cup of tea. The biggest of which was that, in my opinion, the killers were supposed to be portrayed as charming (at least initially). Except I never found them charming. Since the moment we first laid eyes on them, I found to be creepy, awkward, and very unlikeable. Along with that, the movie was incredibly slow, almost unbearably so, on more than a few occasions.

As such, this is a particularly difficult movie to rate. I suppose I would recommend it to anybody who enjoys films that think outside the box. Horror movie fanboys (and gals) will probably either love it or hate it.

Come to think of it, you're probably better off just waiting until The Strangers comes out on DVD.

Read more!

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

Seller beware?

http://money.cnn.com/2008/07/14/smallbusiness/ebay_feedback_changes.fsb/index.htm?postversion=2008071415


My initial thought after reading this article was "well that seems awfully unfair to the sellers." But then I thought about my personal experiences on eBay, and I realized that, while flawed, it's actually a pretty great idea. I should preface this by stating that I used to work at a store that sold items on eBay for other people (think the girlfriend from The 40 Year Old Virgin), so I certainly have empathy for eBay sellers.

That being said, one of the most frustrating things for me, as a buyer, is when the seller essentially holds your feedback rating hostage to ensure that THEY get a positive rating. In my opinion, once the seller receives my payment, my portion of the transaction is completed, which means that they should leave me feedback at that point. If the seller feels like I provided payment in an adequate amount of time, I should get a positive rating. My performance as a buyer shouldn't be contingent on how I decide to rate the seller.

Case in point. A year or so ago I purchased an item off of eBay, and THAT DAY I sent a money order for the specified amount. Weeks went by and I had not heard a word from the seller. Suffice to say that I didn't receive my item either. After three weeks, I believe, I finally filed a dispute with eBay, indicating that I sent payment but haven't received the item yet. I think it was two weeks after THAT when I received a notice in the mail, indicating that there was a package for me in the post office. I went to pick it up, and had to pay an ADDITIONAL fee because the seller didn't pay enough to have it sent to me. To make matters worse, the amount the seller paid to send the item to me was noticeably less than what he had charged me for shipping.

It goes without saying that this seller had not left any feedback for me yet, despite the fact that I was an impeccable buyer (I immediately sent out payment and e-mailed the seller letting him know that). This person was an absolutely despicable seller, and I had no choice but to not leave him any feedback at all, as he certainly didn't deserve a positive rating, and I knew if I left him something negative, I'd unfairly receive a negative rating in return.

But, as I said, the method isn't flawless. As I said, I used to work for an eBay trading post, so I know that there are loads of people who win items but never pay, and it really isn't fair that the seller essentially has no power over that scenario. Along with that, with everybody basically having 100% positive ratings, sellers can't be aware ahead of time when an unreliable buyers. For example, when a curiously high bid is made, the buyer's rating usually indicates whether or not the bid is legitimate.

I think it would be equally beneficial for the buyer and seller if the seller was forced to leave feedback in order to receive a rating, and for the ratings to be "blind" until both sides leave their feedback. This way, the seller can't hold the buyer's rating hostage in order to ensure positive feedback, and neither side can unjustly leave negative feedback for revenge.

Read more!

Monday, July 14, 2008

Movies, with a TWIST! Part 1 - Hancock


So it seems like all of the movies I've seen in the past few weeks have had a pretty big twist which, in most cases, completely changed the tone of the film (for better or for worse). The first of these films is Hancock, starring Will Smith, which I saw on the night of July 4th (hey, rain made fireworks and late night BBQing difficult).

Given the premise of these reviews, I would obviously suggest you don't click the "Read More" link unless you want the big twist revealed.

Hancock is one of those films in which I don't regret the time or money I spent watching it, but I'm also not sure I would overwhelmingly encourage others to see it, and I'm not sure I'd go out of my way for a second viewing myself. This is truly one of those "thumbs in the middle" type movies -- a good way to spend a boring rainy evening, but perhaps not worth planning your whole night around.

Like most people, I enjoyed the first half of Hancock far more than the second. With the onslaught of superhero movies that have been produced in the past few years, it was very different and refreshing seeing a superhero (or Will Smith, for that matter) portrayed as a drunk, selfish, prick. I still laugh when I think of the scene when he first meets Jason Bateman's character, and the spectators bring up all those logical arguments you always wonder about (why not just fly UP with the car, instead of flipping it over and causing all this damage and destruction?) I also love when one woman yelled, "I can smell the alcohol on your breath" and he immediately responds "that's cuz I've been drinking, woman!"

With that in mind, the original premise of the film is rather interesting, innovative, and entertaining. Here you have a superhero who is such an asshole and so unlikable that he literally needs a PR consultant to retool his image. Along with that, the whole "turn yourself into the police and make them WANT you" mentality was clever, yet realistic.

Now, the spoilery stuff:

Whenever the creator of House does an interview, he always states that they don't ever plan on "developing" House's character and making him a nicer guy. This movie made me really come to appreciate that strategy. Don't get me wrong, the whole bad ass with the heart of gold character is possible (like with Sawyer on Lost), but I think the big difference between the first and second halves of the movie is that the first half is fun and unconventional, while the second half becomes a cliche that is determined to have a deeper meaning.

The actual process of Hancock transforming from drunken jerk to the traditional superhero is pretty hilarious (I especially loved the scene where he repeatedly thanked everybody and reminded them that they're doing a great job), but once the morph was complete, the movie became something we've seen countless times before. And perhaps, in this sense, Hancock is inherently flawed. The arguable brilliance of the film is seeing a non-traditional superhero. The enjoyment comes from watching him rehabilitate his image. However, once he succeeds, the movie loses its charm, immediately making it noticeably less brilliant and enjoyable. And unfortunately the solution isn't as simple as "don't have him succeed," because -- in my opinion, anyway -- Jason Bateman's character is truly likable, and seeing him essentially get screwed over would have hurt the movie as well.

So perhaps my suggestion would be for you to enjoy and appreciate the movie for what it is.

And by that, I encourage you not to have high expectations for the story. After the movie ended, one of the people I saw the movie with said, "it occurred to me that the movie had no plot." That is arguably a fair assessment. There is also an awful lot that is never explained. For example, there are countless allusions made to eagles. There's an eagle on Hancock's hat, he wears an eagle necklace, when he's in jail he draws images of eagles on his wall, there seem to be numerous eagle references in his trailer, he passes by a giant eagle statue when he becomes "virtuous," and so on and so forth. Yet beyond the connection of both of them being able to fly and both being noble creatures, the relationship was never explained. And that's a pretty weak connection to begin with (and yes, I am aware of the Zeus/Hera theme). So why was all this time devoted to making these allusions?

Along with that, how incredibly vague was Charlize Theron's explanation of where they came from? I don't remember the last time I received such a long winded explanation that provided no information whatsoever. All we really found out was that "they were created in pairs so that they could live a normal life." Lovely. So who created them, exactly? God? Aliens? Or are they robots? I usually don't need everything spelled out for me, but geez, give me SOMETHING!

I don't want to be overly critical, however, because I did leave the theater satisfied. I thought the twist was great, and very unexpected. It truly was a twist in the literal sense of the word, as it completely turned around the tone and overall story, arguably in a good way. I also liked how they didn't give too much away. Sure, you found out Charlize Theron also had powers, but was she good or bad? That didn't become clear until about three quarters of the way through the movie.

I was also pleased with how the movie ultimately ended. Like I said before, Jason Bateman's character was genuinely likable, so I really appreciated how he did the right, noble thing by rescuing Hancock (despite the relationship the hero shared with his wife) and that, in the end, he ended up with the girl. It would have been disappointing if Hancock and Charlize Theron had an affair, or if we found out that Jason Bateman's character was just using Hancock. I know I had complained about how the film tried to become deeper than it should have been, but I think, in this case, the happy ending was the right one.

Read more!

Thursday, July 10, 2008

An update on the Crocs matter

It has been brought to my attention that I misinterpreted the 11,000 statistic, as that number represents ALL escalator related accidents, not just the ones associated with Crocs. Nevertheless, I did some quick research, and it does appear that in all but TWO of the 77 instances of escalator foot entrapment, the person was wearing Crocs or a similar soft sided clog.

In fact, here's a pretty interesting excerpt from Consumer Reports:

In Japan, where 3.9 million pairs of Crocs were sold last year, the Trade Ministry asked the Colorado-based maker of Crocs to change the design of its shoes after receiving 65 complaints of Crocs and Crocs knockoffs becoming stuck in escalators between June and November of 2007. Most of the cases involved young children.

When asked about the entrapments, a Crocs spokesperson said, "Escalator safety is an issue we take very seriously. Safety experts say several factors can contribute to escalator accidents, including escalator design and maintenance, loose clothing or untied shoelaces, footwear and improper use."


So, it's undeniable that Crocs was aware of this potential hazard. Indeed, the issue was prominent enough that an impressive number of complaints were made and a specific request was made to the company asking that they redesign the shoe's sole. What did a spokesperson say in response? He basically ignored the issue and redirected it to something else (making it exclusively an "escalator" issue).

Still think this is an isolated, freak accident? Check out these stories and articles and you may not be too sure:
http://blogs.consumerreports.org/safety/2008/05/crocs-escalator.html
http://gothamist.com/2008/02/20/more_crocs_esca.php
http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/Consumer/story?id=2530368
http://www.tokyomango.com/tokyo_mango/2008/04/crocs-blamed-fo.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/03/AR2007090301115.html
http://www.styledash.com/2007/09/10/crocs-cause-40-escalator-accidents/
http://www.denverpost.com/foodretail/ci_9416941

And if you want a particularly vile photo of the damage that could be done, feel free to check out this (graphic) newspaper scan:
http://lifeonthespot.com/blog/images/accident2.jpg

After reading all of these articles, I think it's clear that this is not some isolated incident. Hence why I do not think that this lawsuit is frivolous. The woman's complaint -- that the company is well aware of the hazard related to their product, yet have seemingly done nothing to remedy or prevent this issue -- carries weight.

A lot of people like to compare this situation to freak accidents or catastrophes that are simply part of your everyday life (the old "accidents happen" argument). I don't think that's a fair comparison. Consider the following cases instead:

In August 2006, Dell recalled a battery manufactured by Sony because, in RARE instances, it may overheat and could potentially cause a risk of fire. Likewise, I also remember a few years ago that an SUV trunk -- I believe it was a Ford Explorer -- recalled their trunk doors after they had discovered that in some instances, people were injured when the door had opened with too much force.

And these are only two examples that immediately came to mind. The point is, there is a precedent behind the argument that when a product exhibits a prevalent and dangerous flaw, it is the company's responsibility to rectify the situation.

Instead, as one of the articles states, the company is standing by their design.

Read more!

Wednesday, July 9, 2008

A load of Croc?

http://www.parentdish.com/2008/07/07/mother-files-suit-against-crocs/?icid=100214839x1205423704x1200258744

My initial reason for posting this story was lighthearted and humorous (if you can't laugh at a 3 year old having major reconstructive foot surgery, what can you laugh at?) because a mall near my house has a Crocs kiosk that is located, ironically enough, immediately above one of the escalators.

However, upon reading the comments at the bottom of the story, I felt inclined to go on a rant (yay!) Believe me, the fact that there are so many people that decide to go out and sue somebody anytime something doesn't go their way absolutely disgusts me. 99.999999% of the time, I believe that people should be held accountable for what THEY choose to do (just take a look at my numerous Chris Benoit rants), but at the same time, it annoys me when somebody has a legitimate complaint and all these self righteous assholes rant and rave about how accidents happen and that you need to be responsible for your own actions.

The fact of the matter is, there must be SOMETHING defective about this product if there have been 11,000 escalator related accidents and 77 instances of foot entrapment (with half resulting in injuries) in a little over two years. And those are just the reported cases. I mean, the problem was severe enough for Consumer Reports to issue a warning about it. The contention here seems to be that the company was aware of this dangerous defect, and did nothing to warn the general public. I find it bothersome that all of these people have no problem condemning the mother for having her child wear a pair of shoes that SHE must know is unsafe (even though there's no indication that she knew that beforehand), but seem to have no problem with the manufacturer continuing to sell a product that has clearly caused harm.

Should the mother have been watching her daughter more carefully? Yes, probably. But then again, I'd venture to say that that's true in most any scenario. To tell you the truth, all of these personal attacks claiming that this woman is neglectful bother me (one poster writes, "Maybe the mother should have been paying attention to her daughter instead of blabbing on her cell phone with her shopping bags in tow" despite the fact that neither article makes any reference whatsoever to said cell phone or shopping bag). If your child has ever scraped their knee or gotten a bruise or fallen down, you've obviously taken your eyes off of them, even if just for a split second. The fact of the matter is that the company is responsible for ensuring that their product is safe. Or, at the very least, making people aware of any dangers that goes along with it. As far as I can tell, Crocs hasn't done anything to rectify this problem, whether that means changing the design of the sole or recalling a scrutinized product altogether.

In my opinion, this is not some frivolous lawsuit. There is no indication that the child was misbehaving or that the mother was distracted or not paying attention or being neglectful. Yet there IS evidence that the company was fully aware of the dangers of their product (the article even states that they're in the midst of another lawsuit over this very situation). Being that this is NOT an isolated incident, shouldn't the company be responsible for their product at some point?

This reminds me of people who refuse to believe anything they read on Wikipedia. You see, since some of the information on the website is faulty, ALL of the information on the website must be faulty. Well, just because we live in a sue-happy society where everybody wants to blame somebody else for their misfortune doesn't mean that legitimate lawsuits don't exist

Read more!

Tuesday, July 8, 2008

Who is this man?

How about a slightly early hump day fun?

The gentleman below is a pretty famous personality who has been out of the spotlight for the past few years. And no, I'm not referring to Santa Claus. If you can even tell the difference.



So, do you know who this mystery man is? Click the "Read More" link to find out!



That's right, the mystery man above is actually former WWE and WCW Champion Macho Man Randy Savage. Yes, one of the all-time greatest wrestlers in the history of the sport is now a fat, white haired old man.

Who would have guessed that Hulk Hogan would have aged better than him?

Read more!

Saturday, July 5, 2008

Heroes: Recapturing the magic





While perusing Youtube, I came across this absolutely awesome HRG tribute, set rather perfectly to Crossfade's "Cold," and I feel like it really exemplifies the essence and magic behind Heroes. Sure, it's a television series centered around once ordinary humans realizing that they have extraordinary abilities -- and from there deciding to either use their powers for good, use their powers for evil, or to deny that they have powers altogether -- but the characters and the relationships between them is the real heart and soul of the show. Arguably, the best example of this is with HRG and Claire.

I will never forget what one of the producers stated in one of the audio commentaries from the season one DVD collection. To paraphrase, he stated that even though the first season didn't have a romance, per se, it still told a romantic story with HRG and Claire's relationship. It started out loving, yet contained its fair share of deceit. Soon enough, it crumbled due to severe trust issues. However, their overwhelming love for one another allowed their relationship to persevere, and in the end both of them realized that everything they have done has been for the well being of the other, and they ended up closer because of it. Their story truly was "romantic," in the literal sense of the word.

So it's perhaps ironic that the strongest, perhaps best written relationship of season one was the "fake" romance, while the most ridiculed relationships of season two were the poorly executed "real" ones (Hiro and the princess, Claire and West, Peter and the Irish chick, etc).

Of course, hindsight is 20/20 and it's easy to be a Monday morning quarterback (any other cliches I can throw out there?) Nevertheless, I can't help but feel like the writers REALLY dropped the ball on the HRG/Claire relationship during the latter half of season two, after they were written with near flawlessly throughout the first season (and I must also note that the on screen chemistry between Jack Coleman and Hayden Panettiere is absolutely extraordinary). After all they had gone through, it was cringe-worthy seeing Claire begin to distrust her father's motives again. I mean, she was fully aware of the terrible things he had done while he was with The Company, yet she was shocked and appalled when West informed her of what had happened to him. While their conflicts during the first season were complex and interesting, their issues became forced and frustrating during the second.

I have frequently said that "Company Man" is the best episode in the entire Heroes collection, and to the show's credit, they really capitalized on the episode's momentum. For the remainder of the season, I thought the Claire/HRG relationship was written phenomenally. But the season two ender, with HRG rejoining The Company to protect Claire? That was lame and a HUGE step backwards. And considering that, in all likelihood, it'll be revealed that HRG shot Nathan (ya' know, his daughter's birth father), I find the whole story arc flawed already.

In the episode "Five Years Gone" we come to discover that HRG and Claire are somewhat estranged, with HRG living a somewhat underground life helping those with abilities. I think this chould have been an interesting story to explore. After Mohinder shot and presumably killed HRG, I think it would have been interesting for the audience to go a few episodes believing that he had died (like Claire had). During the finale, I would have shown that incredibly awesome scene, in which HRG rises from the dead, but I think I would have had Claire continue believing that her father had died. From there, HRG could live under the radar, secretly helping those with abilities, before inevitably being reunited with his daughter.

But then again, I'm just a Monday morning quarterback. I just have little interest in seeing HRG and Claire go through the same old dance again: After a brief moment of happiness, they realize that they can't trust each other, only to discover that their motives are pure (even if their actions aren't), before ultimately accepting that they can't be together.

Read more!

Friday, July 4, 2008

Yeah, that makes sense

I hope everybody is enjoying their Fourth of July. Go America!


So anyway, for anybody is who is not aware, my sister is expecting her first child this September (actually, the baby's due date is exactly one week before my birthday!) Needless to say, I am very excited. And since my sister doesn't have a sister of her own, my brother and I decided to each order her something from her registry (she sent enough hints....)

On Monday, I ordered her a cradle swing from Babies "R" Us. That night, the website had the item listed on the "already purchased" list. However, on Wednesday I went to my aunt's house, only to see a cradle swing SHE had purchased sitting in her living room. We put two and two together and realized we had both bought the same gift, yet the Babies "R" Us website only indicated that one had been purchased.

Since my gift was getting delivered directly to my sister's house, my aunt said she would return the swing she had bought. When she did so that night, she specifically told the cashier that somebody else had already got this item, and to not put it back onto the registry. Lo-and-behold, when I checked the site later that night, the cradle swing was back on the registry, indicating that it was still available for purchase.

My aunt and I both called the registry the next morning, and the woman (who was, to her credit, quite helpful) explained that when you make an order online (which I had done), the item isn't listed as "purchased" until it actually arrives at its destination (and NOT when it is processed, paid for, and confirmed on the website). The woman further explained that this is because UPS works WITH them, and not FOR them, which is also why people always receive two of everything.

Which brings me to my subject line: What sort of sense does that make? This seems like a relatively easy flaw to remedy, and considering that I would assume that the majority of people make their orders online, it would certainly be worth the effort. Ya' know, instead of making a heavily pregnant woman lug large, bulky gifts back to the store for store credit.

Read more!

Wednesday, July 2, 2008