November 30, 2015
If this post is fresh, take a look at my photostream here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/clintjcl/
If this post is old, look at the latest photo from this upload batch here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/clintjcl/23400765646
November 28, 2015
If this post is fresh, take a look at my photostream here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/clintjcl/
If this post is old, look at the latest photo from this upload batch here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/clintjcl/23293415741
November 24, 2015
VIDEO: MOVIE: REVIEW: Ghost Rider 2: Spirit of Vengeance (2011)
3.6/5 stars, 7/10 from both of us.
5/5 stars, 8.4/10 was what we gave the first movie:
So this one’s worse.
Native rating: 3.7/5 stars, 4.6/10 (ouch) on IMDB:
So the public agrees.
Netflix’s guess for us was 3.8 which is pretty damn close.
It wasn’t as good as the first one, but it was still entertaining.
It was a very over-the-top with the comedy/Nic Cage acting. I wonder if he was still using Brian Bates’ Way Of The Wyrd (basis for Sabbat’s Dreamweaver concept album, which I wrote a 5900 word post about) as the basis of his acting. Maybe not. These are the Crank / Gamer directors now, and maybe they directed him to be more Nic-Cage-over-the-top.
Outlaw Vern, who I usually agree with, liked this better than the original:
http://outlawvern.com/2012/02/21/ghost-rider-presents-spirit-of-vengeance/
His review includes a big quote from Nic Cage about Brian Bates’s book, as well as some mentions of Vampire’s Kiss. Outlaw Vern is right about the CGI being worse. What used to be a cool transformation is now kind of comical at times.
So yeah… This was worth seeing because we love the superhero genre, but it wasn’t good as the original.
Though apparently, some liked it better!
LINK URL: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1071875/
November 23, 2015
If this post is fresh, take a look at my photostream here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/clintjcl/
If this post is old, look at the latest photo from this upload batch here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/clintjcl/23244817625
November 14, 2015
VIDEO: MOVIE: REVIEW: John Carter (2012)
Clint/Carolyn: 5/5 stars, 9/10. Clint is considering upgrading to 10/10.
Native ratings: 3.8/5 stars (Netflix’s better guess for us=4.3), 6.9/10.
Based on Edgar Rice Burroughs books, this movie entered development in 1931, and was almost the first animated movie in America. But things got held up for (puts pinky to corner of mouth) ***79 YEARS***. It finally left development-hell in 2010, and they’re already working on a sequel.
I’m glad once the studios finally move (a literal lifetime later), that they are rushing to do as many of these as possible.
BECAUSE THIS WAS EXCELLENT!!!!!!
Would have been nice to see in 3-D, but completely unnecessary. It is a great story, and a long movie that properly fleshes out characters and plots. I’m not going to go into too much detail, but simply: Science fiction done right, with an epic story and an epic budget. I’m still trying to figure out if I should really be rating this movie 10/10, because there’s not really any flaw.
(BTW, You may recognize the main couple in this movie as Gambit and Silverfox from X-Men Origins.)
LINK URL: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0401729/
November 5, 2015
If this post is fresh, take a look at my photostream here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/clintjcl/
If this post is old, look at the latest photo from this upload batch here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/clintjcl/22819665571
November 4, 2015
VIDEO: MOVIE: REVIEW: Event 16 (2006)
New Zealand low-budget time travel movie not available on Netflix.
Got a 3.6/10 on IMDB, but Clint gave it 6/10 and Carolyn gave it 7/10.
We both rated it only 3 stars, but then later Clint changed it to 2.8/3 stars after seeing its rating in comparison to other 3/5 star movies and realizing this is a worse movie.
The effects were super-cheesy — like someone just did it all on their computer. And the story was confusing. David Lynch-level confusing by the end, with characters actually being other characters. And since it wasn’t directed well enough, I didn’t even understand which characters were becoming which other characters. It was just hard to follow. And the New Zealand accents sounded really bad.
But the story was still kind of interesting, and we are such huge time travel fans that we sought out and found this movie despite its rarity and low rating.
It was still enjoyable.
Just not really GOOD.
LINK URL: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0831289/#comment
November 2, 2015
Controversial semantic History lesson of the day: The word ‘faggot’. A hurtful word, but most of that is based in cultural, not semantic history. Radha had used it enough to cause genuine disturbance with me, so I researched it a bit.
Historically, it means ‘old lady’. It came to mean “you are as weak as an old lady”. (I wonder if this has any relation to the other definition, “a bundle of sticks”, which are generally weak enough to break)
In the UK, boarding school bullies would forcibly sodomize the weaker boys, and they would be “faggots” for being weak enough to be raped. Faggots for being a weak old lady that allowed ‘her’self to be raped.
Now, who do you think the real gay person is in this scenario? The person fighting to not have a penis go in their ass, or the person fighting to get their penis into another person’s ass? That’s the irony of the situation: If anything, the original ‘homophobic’ use of “faggot” was actually used by gay bullies to mock straight rape victims for being as weak as easily-rapable old ladies. Humans are disgusting.
So it’s really not a homophobic word, it’s just become that way, especially in America.
Ironically, when young american kids call other kids this — kids so young they don’t understand sexuality (not sure if that still exists with the internet today; i didn’t know what an orgasm was until middle school) — they are really just using the “generic pejorative” historical definition, because they don’t understand what gay is (at least, pre-internet. Maybe today every 5 year old knows what sodomy is, I don’t know, I hate children and don’t pay attention to them anymore).
So, y’know, calling, say, the police “a bunch of faggots” isn’t saying they are gay. Anyone evolved to the modern point of enlightenment knows there is nothing wrong with being gay, so how is calling someone gay an insult? More gay police would actually be a very positive thing.
It’s saying they are as weak as old women, and that’s why they have to resort to things like tasering schooldchildren and grandmothers and shooting dogs. Because they are weaker than old ladies. Fucking pig thug faggots. Nothing to do with their sexuality. It’s also bound to offend police because the majority of police are homophobic (find me a study that proves otherwise, because i can and did look one up before writing this). And an offended officer is good. Offended officers get mad, make mistakes on video, and occasionally face actual justice. Level-headed officers know how to get away with it.
So again: Fuck the police. If you support them, fuck you. If you think that little girl should have been thrown to the ground of her class, you are a faggot. And not the gay kind, because I wouldn’t give a shit about that. (If I could, I would turn 90% of the male population gay. More women would become available. Gay rights would be solved the next day because men are the ones in power. Win win. Bring on the gay missiles.)
Claire's blog 