Sunday, June 27, 2010

I love you Phillip Morris (A Dr. sipmac’s review in the first person!)

***Warning – Contains Spoilers***
I confess that since I read a couple of reviews and the non-controversy originated by the strange situation of a movie with such A-Listers like Jim Carrey and Ewan McGregor cannot find mainstream audiences, I was more than curious to watch the movie and see what’s the fuzz about it, and maybe write a review, too. As a matter of fact I have sort of a project for the blog about four summer “movie reviews”. I have already started with “Kick Ass”, and if I am able to make the four reviews, I will create a special tag for it.
As for the movie, obviously it is not your everyday topic: a man named Steven Russell reliving his life story in which we found (in a horrible way) he’s adopted, later he finds out his biological mother does not want to know anything about him and in one of the crucial moments of the movie, we learn he’s gay and he decides finally to live as such. One can understand the motivations of the character; he tries then to compensate what he had to put up with all these gone years and tries to lead a wealthy lifestyle. The problem is that this ex cop becomes a con artist, and eventually gets caught. Now in prison, he knows the love of his life, Philip Morris.
The love scenes give some kind of impression: that for all that matters; Philip and Steven are so in love that in their minds they could be at a five-star resort at the beach instead of the slammer. A big achievement of this movie, without a doubt. Things are going to get messy from here, but in a comedic way. If you want to watch the film, I think I’ll spare you the rest.
As for the lack of promotion and why this movie is not being distributed, it is said that the gay theme is the reason of this. Homophobia is alive and well, but somehow this is not the complete explanation. Some kisses and rough sex scenes in the era of Redtube and Pornhub? Puh-leeze. The movie is already R-rated. As a love story, it works pretty well, both actors did it great, even if it is somewhat disgusting how Steven Russell spends his live by literally and figuratively screwing people. As Seinfeld said: “Not that there’s anything wrong with that…(being gay)”, but the con man stuff is something else, not easy to digest. That's why I didn't dig "Catch Me if You Can". The characters are sympathetic, but Russell's actions are not. Is as enjoyable as Big Daddy feeding poison and hate to Hit-Girl in "Kick-Ass", if you think closely about it.

Add to this the “Bush did it” stuff, and finally we're getting there. Obama is already in the second year of his term, and the “I blame Bush” game is getting a little old, even if he had a responsibility with the life sentencing of the real-life Steven Russell.
I don’t know how to say it differently, but the film gets damaged for good when it gets in the activist mode in the very last minutes.
But as I said, good movie anyway. And deserves to be watched several times.

Regards,
Dr. sipmac
Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, June 26, 2010

Best Beatles-Video-Lip-Synch-Evah!

I'm still looking for somethin' else. But never mind, today is the best Beatles Video Lip-sinch-You-Tube-Video feature ever! Something else is coming, you just watch out!

For Giancarlo

 

Tuesday, June 22, 2010

Tales from the Wikipedia Trash Can 4 - Political Flops

Not good enough for Wikipedia, but good enough for sipmacrants! Just because in Dr. sipmac's book it is both educational and entertaining. Without further ado:

List of political flops

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

A political flop is a political campaign which fails disastrously in spite of high expectations.

Not all failed political endeavors are characterized as flops. For example: David McReynolds ran for President of the United States in 1980 and 2000 on the ticket of the Socialist Party USA, but came nowhere near winning. However, he would never characterize his campaign as a flop because he did not expect to win.

Contents

* 1 Australian Elections

* 2 Canadian elections
* 3 Colombian elections
* 4 French elections

* 5 Indian elections

* 6 Netherlands elections
* 7 UK elections

* 8 USA elections


Australian Elections

* Academic John Hewson was to lead the Coalition to victory in the "unlosable" election in 1993 against the Labor government on the strength of his Fightback package of microeconomic reform, only to fall victim to an effective scare campaign by Prime Minister Paul Keating

Canadian elections

* Newly-appointed Prime Minister Kim Campbell, who was initially praised for being a fresh face with uniquely feminine sensibilities, led the ruling Progressive Conservatives to a massive defeat in the 1993 election campaign losing 152 of their incumbent seats in the House of Commons and winning only two seats. Campbell lost her own, and had to resign after serving as PM for only seven months. She quickly faded into obscurity.
* Stockwell Day became leader of the Canadian Alliance in the 2000 election campaign -- despite predictions that his charismatic presence could lead the party to an electoral breakthrough, the party gained just six additional seats in that year's election, and Day proved so spectacularly ineffective as leader that thirteen caucus members quit the party a year later. Day himself was turfed by the party after serving less than a year and a half.

Colombian elections


* Green Party primary winner Antanas Mockus surged in the polls so rapidly it was considered he could have win in the first round of Colombian presidential elections of 2010. Due to jaw dropping mismanagement and judgement errors the initially praised fresh and inventive campaign could not grab more than 21 % of the electorate in the first round, and 27% in the second round, losing to conservative Juan Manuel Santos.






French elections


* The unnecessary dissolution of a favourable parliament (Assemblée nationale) in 1997 by President Jacques Chirac should have presaged an easy win for his partisans. They lost, yielding power to the opposition.* In the first turn of 2002 presidential campaign, extreme right wing candidate Jean-Marie Le Pen ended up in second place, ahead of Lionel Jospin, the main left-wing candidiate. The left-wing voters had either voted for left-wing third party candidates or neglected to vote at all. They expected a predictable left wing vs. right wing runoff election. Le Pen's success made the second turn a right wing vs. extreme right wing vote. This secured a second term for Chirac. After the first turn, Jospin declared he would immediately retire from politics.

Indian elections

* The Bharatiya Janata Party peformed unexpectedly well in the Assembly Elections in four states and wanted to exploit this success for the Indian general elections, 2004. Indian Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee wasn't too keen to have early elections, but he succumbed to party pressure and prematurely dissolved the 13th Lok Sabha. BJP planned a huge election campaign called India Shining with help of professional ad agencies. The Indian National Congress, headed by Sonia Gandhi, replied with the Aam Aadmi (Common man) campaign. BJP mocked Sonia's leadership capabilities and questioned her foreign origins (she was born in Italy). The media was certain that BJP would come back to power. But to everybody's shock, BJP suffered a defeat and the Congress, with its allies, formed the Government.

Netherlands elections

* In the 1994 Netherlands general elections outgoing Prime Minister Ruud Lubbers said just a few days before the election day he would not vote for his acclaimed successor and new leader of the Christian party CDA Eelco Brinkman but would vote for the number three on the ballot Ernst Hirsch Ballin, the former Minister for Justice. This resulted in a massive defeat for the CDA party on election day and causing Eelco Brinkman to resign as party leader.

UK elections

* The Unionist government split over tariff reform from 1903 led to landslide defeat at the 1906 election.
* The Liberal Party had performed well in the 1923 general election, but when it supported a Labour government into power then voted it out in the space of 10 months, it lost three quarters of its MPs in the ensuing 1924 election.
* The Labour Party's performance at the 1983 general election, led by Michael Foot. The manifesto was described as "the longest suicide note in history" by Gerald Kaufman and the campaign was centred around a poorly organised speaking tour which owed nothing to the television age.
* Sir James Goldsmith's anti-European Union Referendum Party failed to win a single seat in the 1997 general election, despite heavy publicity and spending as much as the major parties.
* In the 1992 general election the Labour Party, led by Neil Kinnock, was widely expected to defeat the Conservative government, led by John Major. A pre-election rally at Sheffield was widely perceived as celebrating victory prematurely, and the Conservatives won the election.
* The Conservative Party's performance at the 1997 and 2001 general elections. In both General Elections, the Conservatives were routed disastrously. Their showing was both times far worse than that of Michael Foot. Also in the 2005 General Election the Conservative Party won fewer seats than Labour did under Michael Foot though they got more votes.
* In 2005 General Election, UKIP fielded nearly 500 candidates; however, they failed to win a single seat despite having 12 incumbent MEPs (NB:1 had the whip removed and 1 left the party after the election)

USA elections

* In the 1912 election, Republican incumbent William H. Taft received only 8 electoral votes to 88 for Bull Moose Party candidate Theodore Roosevelt and 435 for Woodrow Wilson, the Democratic nominee, the worst ever showing for an incumbent president. Splitting the Republican base with Roosevelt, he garnered only 23% of the popular vote, the lowest support ever for a major party candidate. He was also the only major party candidate in American history to lose either the electoral or popular vote to a third party candidate.
* In the 1932 Election, Republican incumbent Herbert Hoover earned 59 electoral votes and 40% of the popular vote to Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt's 472 and 58%. Having earned 444 electoral votes and 58% of the popular vote in 1928, Hoover's fall was the worst repudiation of a president in modern American history.
* In the 1964 Election, Republican Barry Goldwater got 52 electoral votes to 486 for incumbent Lyndon Johnson and lost by 22 points in the popular vote, the worst popular defeat ever for a Republican presidential nominee in the 20th century.
* In the 1972 Election, Democrat George McGovern received only 17 electoral votes to 520 for incumbent Richard Nixon and lost by 23 points in the popular vote, the worst popular defeat for a Democratic presidential nominee in the 20th Century.
* In the 1980 Republican primaries, John Connally spent millions of dollars hoping to win the nomination and instead ended up with only a single delegate to the convention.
* In the 1984 Election, Democrat Walter Mondale got 13 electoral votes and one state to 525 and 49 states for incumbent Ronald Reagan, the worst ever electoral defeat for a Democratic presidential nominee in the 20th Century.
* In 2004 Election, Howard Dean ran for the Democratic nomination, gaining lots of support and front-page articles in major news magazines prior to the primary elections. The Economist even went so far as to run a Election '04 cover story depicting George W. Bush and Dean under the label "who will America choose." But in the end Dean ended up placing third in the 2004 Iowa Democratic caucuses. His campaign never recovered, going on to suffer an unbroken string of defeats. Negative publicity following his infamous "I Have a Scream" speech following the Iowa caucases (in which he over-energetically recited the names of states he intended to win) did not help matters. In the end, Dean won only the non-binding District of Columbia primary and his home state of Vermont after he had dropped out of the race.

This series will be continued...

Sunday, June 20, 2010

Barack Obama must be held accountable for the Gulf Oil Spill

Before you go to another website, I kindly ask you to consider a few verifiable facts, and I promise you that I will provide the links. Consider this:

The oil spill must have started as early as April 20th this year. Well, it was a known fact already on May 6th, that the U.S. goverment was not accepting foreign help on the dreadful incident. Iran, as implausible as it sounds, offered help, besides others. It is fairly evident that with joining efforts with all the countries willing to help, the task of cleaning would take less time than by the U.S. alone. Firms as the Jan De Nul Group could be of great help if properly requested.

The situation is still not getting better, and to top it, almost at the same time, as Obama is going golfing (he's golfing a lot more than Bush), the BP CEO is going sailing. By now it is clear that both the president and Tony Hayward are as clueless in PR as they can be. The "let them eat cake" is superfluous by now. Whose ass should be kicked, we know that already.
(...) Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal (...)
That was said by none other than presidential hopeful Barack Obama himself on June 3, 2008 (He sure didn't know those words were going to haunt him forever). Instead of looking for the real causes and solutions, Mr. Hope-and-Change is looking how to involve more politics in such an hour. Remember, a good 100.000 barrels are estimated to be thrown into the ocean every day. I don't know much about what BP is doing, I concede (that is, not counting the oil filtration machines the Beyond Petroleum farce is buying from Kevin Costner - no joke!), but this no acceptance of help truly enrages me.

There is still a lot of people talking about the brilliance of Barack Obama. Some would say that passing the Health Care Bill grants him a great place in American history alone. They might be right, but for the wrong reasons. Stiff defenders are already giving up. I don't care how much bulletins are posted on Deepwater Horizon Response, the approach of the U.S. goverment was flawed since the very beggining. I won't speculate, this blog is not the place for conspiracy theories. But sacrificing the environment, people and the economy in the name of a cap-and-trade legislation, thinking the bigger the spill, the more easy is to pass the law, is downright criminal.

BP used the motto "Beyond Petroleum", presenting itself as a green company. It never was that way. BP was only trying to please the environmentalism movement. Environmentalism is loaded more with wishful thinking and good intentions than real solutions. In a nutshell, cap-and-trade legislation would bring the entire global economy down. Let's get realistic. Please don't sell us more fraud and fear, and we will start to consider what to do next.

Barack Obama sold himself as a postpartisan, compentent, cool and rational president. Until the oil spill I was very reluctantly giving the benefit of the doubt, but giving it anyway. After what is happening in the Gulf of Mexico not anymore, I might add. Barack Obama must be held accountable for the Gulf of Mexico oil spill, not for causing it, but for making it intentionally worse.

Paul Maršić has ranted.

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

"Kick Ass" kicks the comic books and superhero movies standards you know where

Warning: No big spoilers here - safe to read

By Dr. sipmac


¿Jan Luc Picard or James Tiberius Kirk? ¿Star Wars or Star Trek? ¿Law and Order or CSI? ¿DC or Marvel? Dr. sipmac's heart still belongs to the DC Universe, and he remembers how when he was a child he used to think of the Marvel superheroes as second-rate Super Friends wannabes. While Superman had a succesful major motion picture, Captain America had a lame movie to offer (a little research tells Dr. sipmac that it had to be one of the two 1979 TV Movies starred by Reb Brown or both). It was sometimes utterly painful to watch Peter Parker being regularly abused by J. Jonah Jameson, even if it was a cartoon. Hey, you can tell anything you want about Clark Kent, but he never took abuse from anybody just the way Parker did. And, ¿have you ever seen the dreadful Marvel cartoons of the WWII era?

But nowadays Dr. sipmac recognizes that Marvel has done a superior job since the begining, and always had the ambition to aim always for something different and edgier than its competitor, even within the boundaries of the Comics Code Authority. And it has handsomely paid off: The X Men movies, the Hulk movies, the Fantastic Four Movies, the Iron Man movies... and on the other side, a lame attempt to revive the Superman franchise and (fortunately) the Dark Knight.
Maybe Dr. sipmac oversimplyfies in his analysis, but you may think he's getting the overall picture right. Marvel connects a lot better with the readers than DC does and sets the trend where competitors parasitically thrive. The trendsetting example this time is, as the title already revealed, "Kick Ass". There is a lot of reviews for this movie, sip is not going to try to top, but he feels the need to share still a few more thoughts.

As in Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius, literature, even in the form of the "despicable" comic books is approaching reality and slowly reshapingly it. In the Golden Age of Comic books it took an extra-terrestrial or a multi-millionaire to fight crime; in the Silver Age the lead was taken by a geek that gained radioactive superpowers, and the modern age artists like to praise the exploits of superheroes with no powers, even no special training. Just like Kick Ass. Well, and that modern age Batman, the awesome and lethal Hit Girl.

For sip, it was hauntingly attractive to write a story about a superhero-without-powers for years. Well, you can say it's too late, it is already been done. But you didn't knew that the first requirement for that implausibly plausible character was his insanity. Yes, for Dr. sipmac it was clear from the beginning that the protagonist had to be a complete nutcase, with his madness barely concealed. Sip imagined an insignificant hard working clerk, a worthless peon tired with his mindless job, that decides to "fight evil" after working hours. He would dress as... a giant bird. He would drive an old clunker across the city until he could find something he could fight for.

And now you may think, sip, it's really too late. You are talking about Big Daddy, the father of Hit-Girl. No, sip is surely talking, er... retelling Don Quixote. Just think about it: take the superpowers or the special skills away from a costumed hero and tell me what you get? Don't be shy... yes, a ridiculous, insane and senseless person. A Don Quixote.

It surely can be found ideology traces in the comic book-movie tandem, but you (maybe) never thought you could find even deeper meaning in this externally harsh and coarse presentation. We need more Don Quixotes in this world.

What are you waiting for? Go and watch the movie!

Wednesday, June 9, 2010

Generation Laughingstock


By Paul Maršić.

Google "generation stupid", and the first choices will be about Generation Y, those ones being born between 1982 and 2002. Yep, they've earned some reputation. The blogosphere and the press are in full assessment mode, and their judgement is harsh. The most recent uproar about them is that according to the National Association of Colleges and Employers (NACE), about 41% of this year's graduates are turning down job offers because "they are not worthy of them". Being so, back to the parents and back to the rocking horse until something better comes.

This spell disaster. With a crumbling global economy, and with a lot of uncertainty in the horizon, this is not likely the sound decision to make. But who cares? Not the millenials, for sure. I've tried to find the original NACE report, but it wasn't easy: it seems the full report is for sale. I've found out about this reading the caustic Daily Gut and the somewhat meek New York Times Magazine report (it has a happy ending for the millenial kids, in spite of the contrary evidence). But both are worth reading. And you can find a lot more about this online. But for the NACE source, I think this will do it for a while.

In the meanwhile, Gen Y is in a hole and keeps digging and digging. The normal thing used to be the newest generation laughing at their elders, not the other way. Not convinced? Judith Warner from the NYT Magazine says:

Not only do they believe these perfect jobs exist, but today’s recent graduates also think they’re good enough to get them. “They see themselves as really well prepared and supremely good candidates for the job market,” says Edwin Koc, director of research for the National Association of Colleges and Employers. “Over 90 percent think they have a perfect résumé. The percentage who think they will have a job in hand three months after graduation is now 57 percent. They’re still supremely confident in themselves.”

For critics, this is irrational exuberance, an example of group psychosis, proof that this generation is headed for a major crash. “It’s not confidence; it’s overconfidence,” Jean Twenge, a professor in the department of psychology at San Diego State University and author of “Generation Me,” told me recently. “And when it reaches that level, it’s problematic.”

And Greg Gutfeld adds:

Meaning, they’re special, so their jobs must be special. I mean, you can’t have a precious one-of-a-kind snowflake working in the mailroom! Snowflakes can’t open packages! Snowflakes can’t make coffee! Snowflakes are there to be appreciated, as snowflakes!

And so the job becomes another spoke in the wheel of self-fulfillment, something to accentuate the belly button ring and Asian lettered tattoo on your pelvis (which reads “stupid white person”).

You could say this is the ultimate consequence of self-love buoyed by a safety net. It’s not the kid who’s doing this, but the parents who indulge them. Kick ‘em out, they’ll find work.
For me, it simply means that a lot of us haven't experienced harshness, difficulties or that deaded word (clears throat) failure. A lot of us simply pretend these conditions of life do not exist. Our parents are still there to put a veil over those unpleasant realities. And I think is not going to get any better for a while. Not convinced? Well, could you explain me why there are so many emos and tell me objectively if they have any reason to complain?

Not very good news, indeed.

Thanks to the mean Diesel Wear advertising execs that once again got away, this time with the "stupid" ad campaign. It portraits the Gen Y quite faithfully, and (not surprinsingly) nobody is complaining about it. I used the ads without permission for this rant. Hope nobody complains about it, either.
Enhanced by Zemanta