My thoughts on X Men Origins: Wolverine

A plot-hole-ridden, horribly told story is held up purely Jackman's performance and a few moments of brief, unsatisfying action.



Let's get this out of the way first - I was really excited for this movie. And after the shit-fest that was X3, I was expecting something at least better than it was. I mean come on, X3 was really bad - how could anything be worse?

Simply put, I was wrong.

Wolverine was crap. I don't have time to write a full review, so I'll address my concerns with a list:

-First of all, Hugh Jackman was good. As in the other X movies, he portrayed wolverine very well. It must be said that he is in damn good shape for being 40 years old. Ryan Reynolds was a perfect Wade Wilson. (We'll get to Deadpool later.)

-The plot was HORRIBLE. Wolverine's rich history (Civil War, WWI, WWII, Vietnam, his changing identity over the years) is pushed aside to the brief opening sequence. The rest of movie focuses on telling a story that we were already told in X and X2 (and those two movies did a much better job of telling the story, by the way). The plot was ridiculously predictable, and ridden with cliches. The story was horribly told. It's not faithful to the comics, which is fine. However, when the story is this poorly relayed to the audience, that leaves everybody confused, comic lovers and non-readers alike.

-Mutant appearances were handled very badly. Tons of mutants were there, but nobody even gets named. The 5 seconds of screen time that they each got ensured no character development whatsoever. Gambit was the biggest disappointment - despite all the hype, he only got 10 minutes or so of screen time, and didn't do jack -shit. There was NO character development, and his action scenes were ridiculously brief. At the end, he just disappears. Above all, the poor attention given to the mutants makes them seem like weak fanservice.

-The action scenes were okay at best. All of them were stupidly predictable and one-sided, not to mention brief. The CGI was laughably bad. Wolverine's bathroom scene ring a bell? Don't even mention CGI Patrick Stewart.

-Deadpool? Oh boy. I don't think I've ever seen a comic character butchered so badly. He's known for his smart mouth, but in this movie, they sowed his mouth shut! Not to mention he looks stupid as hell (Baraka from Mortal Kombat). Also, there's no way Wolverine should've been able to beat him if he was really as badass as they claimed. Yet, they beat him by cutting his head off? That's it? He couldn't tell Wolverine was coming? Despite Striker (who was controlling him) watching the whole fight?

Continuity errors are rampant in Wolverine. I have several other complaints about the movie - things that just don't make sense or are just plain stupid - some nitpicking, some pretty bad ones:

-Sabretooth and Wolverine were brothers that fought beside each other for over 100 years. Yet when Wolverine encounters Sabretooth in X-Men, Sabretooth doesn't recognize him. Over 100 years of combat and brotherhood is suddenly forgotten in about 15 years? Sure, you could chalk it up to him becoming completely "animalistic", but he doesn't appear to be completely so in X-Men. Besides, sometime within that 15 years, he had to have the mental capacity to join Magneto's team as well. Is it because he suffers from amnesia?

-Why didn't any of the mutants that Wolverine set free eventually recognize him when he returns in X-Men? Cyclops was blindfolded, but the others sure as hell weren't.

-Since this movie tells us that Three Mile Island was a cover up for the final battle between wolverine, sabretooth, and Weapon XI, we can reasonable infer that the movie takes place about 1977-79. Striker's tech (computers) seems pretty damn advanced for the time the movie took place, doesn't it? There's absolutely no way that they could've had all of those LCDs and Plasmas. Also, they're using Humvees, which weren't even a concept until July 1979, let alone introduced into military service in 1985.

-The beginning of the movie takes place in "North-West Territories, Canada, 1845". However, Canada was not established as a nation until 1867, and the North-West Territories weren't even a part of Canada until 1870.

-Deadpool bent his elbows with his swords retracted. How the hell could Deadpool bend his arms with straight, solid chunk of metal inside them?

-In X-Men, it's shown that adamantium was grafted to Wolverine's skeleton. In this movie, it looks like his skeleton was completely replaced with adamantium.

-Wolverine's dog tags look nothing like they did in X-Men.

-Scott's optic blasts are supposed to be purely concusive, but they clearly generate heat in this movie (leave fire behind in one scene).

-The kid who played young James Howlett had blue eyes. Hugh Jackman has brown eyes.

On a final note, what the hell was up with the post-credits scenes? One (wolverine drinking) serves no significance whatsoever, while the other shows that Deadpool is alive, thus setting up a sequel! How the fuck is that fair? What kind of idea was that anyway?

---

Overall, I was deeply disappointed with this movie. Either hand it over to Marvel, or quit making them.

3.5/10

Nintendo Power gives Conduit a 6.5, E3 must be epic

Well folks, here it is. The highly anticipated Wii savior finally falls into the grubby hands of reviewers. The first verdict? A 6.5, from Nintendo Power. Nintendo Power. What was hailed as the Wii's hardcore gaming savior, is simply put aside as mediocre. To be honest, I was looking forward to the game, but with a sort of skepticism I've come to expect from upcoming Wii titles.



NP gives several reasons for the low score, including bad voice acting, short single player campaign, good, but inconsistent graphics, and horribly laggy online. Overall, this doesn't suprise me. Despite High Voltage's consistent bragging, nothing that I've seen of the game gave me the impression that it could stand out in any way, besides having decent graphics. I'll wait for other reviews definitely, as well as play it myself to get a real verdict. Looks like a rental.

One thing to consider, however, is the quality of the review. It is riddled with grammatical errors, as well as factual errors. Errors aside, it is still very poorly written. Read it, and see for yourself. Page 66 seems a little bit too early into the magazine as well. The screenshots used also feature an older version of the HUD (check IGN.com). Above all, it's a little suspicious that such a high-profile game would be reviewed so early (including its online component), and then put on the shelves. The evidence points to it being fake.

http://www.picvalley.net/u/1709/25782576520183922431242544711CxiV7ia8rTjgUmvxapBH.JPG

Regardless of the review's authenticity, it brings up the chilling and very real prospect of the Conduit flopping. Nintendo has got to do well at E3 this year. While they're certainly doing well in the sales department, the lack of good games on the Wii's horizon is ridiculous. Last E3 was a disappointment of epic proportions, topped only by Sony's 2006 showing. Nintendo has got to show off some good, core franchises this year. And it's not like they don't have options:

-Wii Zelda (Wii Motion Plus, anyone?)
-New Mario
-Pikmin 3
-Starfox
-F-Zero
-Kid Iccarus
-Metroid (Dread)
-Kirby

In addition to already revealed games, such as Zelda: Spirit Tracks, Mario and Luigi 3, and Pokemon Heart Gold and Soul Silver. On the above list, bold titles are ones that I expect to actually be shown, simply due to time since a previous installment. Of course, all of the games on that list should be shown for the same reason. Also, options such as a DSi virtual console can be fleshed out.



Realistically, I expect another poor showing. 90% will be spent on sales figures (female gaming is up 35% from last year!!!!), followed by Wii Fit 2, Wii Stretching, Wii Play 2, and other assorted casual shit. In all liklehood, one or two new core franchise titles will be shown briefly at the end. The fact is, Nintendo is on top, and the current strategy they have is working - sales are through the rooof. Regardless, I hope I'm dead wrong. So come on Nintendo, surprise me.

Rumsfeld gave Bush intelligence briefings featuring Bible passages

Huh...

A must-read GQ piece reveals never-before-seen cover sheets from former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld's top-secret intelligence briefings, which feature Bible passages thematically selected to correspond with war events. Despite objections within the Pentagon to the cover sheets, these reports were distributed daily to a limited group, including the president.

Frank Rich: "They are seriously creepy."

Other key tidbits from the piece:

Rumsfeld played a significant role in delaying parts of the administration's response to the Hurricane Katrina disaster areas.

Rumsfeld was among a group within the administration who successfully fought a recommendation to award the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA).

President Bush was hesitant and slow to act on the dismissal of Rumsfeld even when counseled to do so by his close advisers.

http://politicalwire.com/archives/2009/05/17/rumsfelds_bible_briefings.html

Here's the article:
http://men.style.com/gq/features/landing?id=content_9217

And here's the cover sheets with the Bible passages:
http://men.style.com/gq/features/topsecret

My Top 10 Tim and Eric Clips

In celebration of the new season of Tim and Eric, I've put together a list of my 10 favorite clips from that awesome show (great job!) A couple of things - this list is comprised only of clips from Adult Swim.com, so I know some of my favs are left out. Also, some of the more well known clips have been excluded - Spagget, Jim and Derrick, Dr. Steve Brule and Uncle Muscles are notable exceptions. This list is not in any particular order. Now, onto the list!

10. Sit on You

This one needs no explanation.

9. My Two Big Brothers

Holy hell, Michael Cera is great for this role.

8. James Quall Story

Quall is funny as hell, and this tribute is no exception.

7. Actor's Medicine

I love Zach Galifinakis... He's definitely one of the best recurring guests.

6. Dating Match

This is the less common dating match clip. Genius.

5. Holes

This one definitely doesn't nearly get enough appreciation. I wish they would've done more of this.

4. Portrait of an Artist

I cried laughing the first time I saw this.

3. Dunngeon

My favorite Tim and Eric regular.

2. It's not Jackie Chan!

Holy god, the Jackie Chan episode was a masterpiece.

1. Tiny Hats

Incredible. The pinnacle of Tim and Eric. Great job, guys!

0. Kill em with Kindness

I just had to throw this in there... It's a tragedy that they didn't continue with this.

Obama wears shirt in Oval Office! OMG!

OMG! Obama wears a shirt in the Oval Office, breaking Bush's rule of jackets only in the Oval Office. A couple of things:

1) Who gives a damn? Conservatives need to stop wining, I'm sick of all the fake outrage on this issue. "OMG, the Oval Office is supposed to be a place of respect... blah, blah..." It was the previous administration's rule! Obama can do whatever the hell he wants.

2) Shutup about Obama screwing up his oath too. It was Roberts that added the extra word. HE messed it up, not Obama. Damn, If I hear any more whining bullshit about this nonissue on Fox News, my head is going to explode.

1 in 7 U.S. Adults Can't Read

Simply amazing.

About 14 percent of U.S. adults won't be reading this article. Well, okay, most people won't read it, given all the words that are published these days to help us understand and navigate the increasingly complex world.

But about 1 in 7 can't read it. They're illiterate.

Statistics released by the U.S. Education Department this week show that some 32 million U.S. adults lack basic prose literacy skill. That means they can't read a newspaper or the instruction on a bottle of pills.

The figures are for 2003, the latest year available. State and county results are available here.

"The crisis of adult literacy is getting worse, and investment in education and support programs is critical," said David C. Harvey, president and CEO of ProLiteracy, in response to the finding.

This is about jobs and the economy, Harvey said.

"More than 1 million people lost their jobs in 2008 and the new unemployment figures are the highest in 16 years," Harvey said. "A large number of the unemployed are low-skilled individuals who struggle with everyday reading, writing and math tasks. The administration wants to create new jobs with the stimulus packages, but to take advantage of those new positions, these adults need basic literacy skills."

A separate study released last month named Minneapolis and Seattle as the most literate cities.

ProLiteracy, which promotes reading programs for the disadvantaged and encourages more government funding, estimates that illiteracy costs American businesses more than $60 billion each year in lost productivity and health and safety issues. Lack of funding at the federal, state and local levels prevents about 90 percent of the illiterate from getting help, the organization claims.

ProLiteracy also estimates:

• 63 percent of prison inmates can't read
• 774 million people worldwide are illiterate
• Two-thirds of the world's illiterate are women

If parents can't read, there's a good chance children will be poor readers, the organization notes.

I don't really know what to think.

Moral Issues: Homosexuality and Gay Marriage

As sort of an intro to my upcoming Moral Issues series, this article will briefly cover the morality of Homosexuality and Gay Marriage.

Firstly, homosexuality. Is it morally wrong? No. It doesn't affect anybody except the homosexual couple themselves. No one is hurt, no rights are compromised. Logically, there is no reason to be against homosexuality. Almost all opposition to homosexuality is religious in nature - which still doesn't warrant hatred or discrimination towards gays, in addition to denying them equal rights. Here are some commonly voiced concerns (besides "that's gross"):

It's not natural. Therefore, it's not moral.

This is an extremely common argument brought up to "prove" that homosexuality is wrong. Using this ridiculous argument, such things as rape could be justified, as it happens in nature all the time. Hell, using this argument, even homosexuality can be justified, as it is seen in nature as well. Take for instance the African Ape, the Bonobo. They have sex all the time, and with anything, male or female. Up to 75% of Bonobo sex is nonreproductive. I guess homosexuality is only natural, huh?

Above all, trying to gauge an action's morality based on its naturalness is ridiculous, and often used with inconsistency. Nature is neither inherently moral nor immoral - it's amoral.

Reproduction is only meant to occur between a man and a woman, not two men! Our bodies just weren't made that way. As a result, homosexuality is wrong, and actually a danger to the human race.

Another common objection to homosexuality, which is really just another form of the "it's just not natural" argument. Sensationalist bullshit as well: come back when the human race is in danger of extinction due to rampant homosexuality.

Gays spread STDs like crazy! AIDs would erupt!

It seems as if they didn't even take the time to reason this one out. Heterosexuals also spread disease as well, and aren't any less likely to cause a massive outbreak than gays.

Now, we come to gay marriage. For such a controversial issue, it only has one rational solution - allow gays and lesbians equal marriage rights. Again, there is no logical reason to oppose this stance. Only good would come from allowing gays equal rights under the law. The only negative that would come from it is the disappointment of some people that they did not get their way. And yes, you guessed it - most opposition is religious. Here are some common fears:

It would infringe on my rights as a heterosexual.

How? What rights would be violated by the evil gays? You would retain all of your rights. The only difference is that gays would be happy too.

Our church does not want to be forced to perform gay marriages against our will.

Again, no one will be forced to do anything against their will. Churches that do not want to marry gay couples will not have to, and churches that want to can.

Legalizing gay marriage would lead to the spread of STDs!

See above (homosexuality portion). Also, wouldn't allowing gays to enter into monogamous (through marriage) relationships lead to a decline in STDs?

It would lead down a slippery slope to bestiality!

Again, they didn't think this out did they? It's a different topic entirely. There are legitimate reasons to prohibit bestiality (consent, for example), but for homosexuality, there are not.

It's not the traditional family way! The traditional family unit would be destroyed!

Ridiculous. Just what is a traditional family? There has never been a "traditional family" throughout history, and there never will be. All that is needed are loving parents and a child - something that gay parents are just as capable of providing. There's no evidence whatsoever pointing to the emotional scarring of children of gay parents. They are perfectly healthy.

It would redefine marriage! Marriage is only supposed to be between a man and woman.

A very commonly voiced concern over gay marriage, which really doesn't boil down to anything at all. Yet agian, somewhat reminiscent of the natural=moral argument. John Stewart actually did a good job of refuting Mike Huckabee when he brought up on the Daily Show. If we went back to traditional (i.e. Biblical) times and used that definition of marriage, then practices such as polygamy and arranged marriages would be perfectly acceptable. The "definition" of marriage has definitely evolved over the years, and there's no reason that two homosexuals who love each other should be excluded.

Recently, I have also seen a trend in most bigots - prefacing their argument with something like "I know my argument is going to get dismissed as a bigoted/religious in nature, but...

In conclusion, homosexuality is not immoral, but amoral. Gays should be given equal marriage rights as well. The fact that they are not is blatant discrimination of the highest degree. Personally, I also think it'd be much easier if all marriages were recognized as "civil unions" by the government, and marriage left to the churches - less headache for everyone.

Look for future entries in my Moral Issues series.