AVP v. Perfect Dark, No Contest

AVP is by far the worst movie I have ever made the mistake of spending money on. I rented the DVD on the first day it came out in Japan and changed the region on my Toshiba's DVD player. Never have I made so great a movie effort for such a small reward. Even standing in line for hours for Episodes I and II was a bigger pay off (and that is saying something). Alien and Predator were two great movies (and the sequels were entertaining too- Game Over, man, Game Over!). But when you put them together, nada. It took about 40 minutes for anything remotely interesting to happen and even that just felt like gratuitous violence.

What makes a great horror movie is characters you grow to care about, good monsters, and dire situations. When you like the characters it creates a dynamic tension, you are rooting for the underdogs in a game where the losers are likely to get eaten (or made into hosts, ew). Good monsters keep you interested and usually keep you guessing. What are their motives? Where did they come from? How will the filmmakers get us to suspend our disbelief? And dire situations, well, that one is just self explanatory.

I didn't like anyone in AVP. Lex was the only even remotely likeable character, and even she was no Ellen Ripley. The Italian guy was lukewarm, Bishop was way too old, the construction guys were grinning idiots, and the scientists were almost like parodies of themselves. It is possible that the movie could have been saved by stunning dialog, but that sure didn't happen. They were trying to create a feeling of warmth and interest between Lex and the Italian guy, but I have seen drunk college freshman having more meaningful and interesting conversations. I was truly saddened by this cheapening of my favorite monsters. It was worse that Alien resurrection, which was truly a heartbreaking thing to see.

Now compare this to the recent Vin Diesel flick, Perfect Dark. Let's be honest, this was a cinematic masterpiece on the same level of Harold and Kumar. But it did have the three elements that make that special horror magic.

The characters were interesting and human. Fry was a real person with weaknesses dramatically illustrated throughout the movie. We could like her because she wasn't a hero, but she grew to be one. Her dilemma is everyman's. Riddeck, besides Vin Diesel being extremely fine, he was cool. A badass criminal with glowing eyes and a bad reputation. Seeing his human side gradually emerge made us like him. He felt real, even if it was in a comic-book sense of the word. We liked Jack even if he was annoying at times, and we could understand the hero worship he felt for Riddick. And let's not forget Claudia Black, she may play comic-book style characters, but she is still cool.

So we like the people. We spent the movie rooting for them to make it out with their combination of guts and smarts. We didn't sit there and hope for them to die in some way that would redeem the movie (AVP). They all continued to change throughout the movie, and that made them continue being interesting. And they worked well together, we could suspend disbelief pretty easily.

The monsters, well, were pretty marginal. They were computer generated Aliens that didn't have much personality. But since most of the movie took place in darkness and their primary aspect was to be the "fear in the dark" we can forgive them. Plus they were pretty cool when they moved and felt satisfyingly sinister. The situation, crashed on a desolate planet with only one way off, is a good one. It may be frequently done but at least this time it has some jazz to it. It was a suitable landscape for the plot, and we salute the film makers for their efforts. (The sequel though is not quite as good.)

John Cho and Kal Penn are Hot

I don't think this was ever being debated. I guess it takes an expat to see how obsessed America is with apologizing to minorities. Why doesn't Hollywood have more minorities in starring roles? I wouldn't know. But they don't have many expats in them either so there must be a bias. I bet Haliburton has something to do with it.

I actually really liked Harold and Kumar go to White Castle. I had a few issue, like *all* the white people in the movie being really weird stereotypes. The disfigured sex-maniac Jesus freaks, the Macho minority-abusing cops (hey idiots, why don't the anarchists jump on the gun control bandwagon like they do in the anti-police one?? duuuhhh), the stoner geek and his high society mother, and the "subliminally racist" college professor were all fairly offensive to normal (white) people. And what was up with Harold's girl? No explanation of Amsterdam, no dialog-let alone intelligent commentary, and can you get a more stereotypical name?? Come on guys, get over yourselves and make movies not pseudo political slush.

However, John Cho is a fine, fine young man. Korean guys, from my limited time in Korea, definitely beat out the Japanese on the hotness scale. And Kal Penn would have been hot, but his character reminded me too much of the college frat boys at UVA. Harold was the soft-spoken-professional^nice guy. That type is much hotter, although Harold was a bit to OCD in my humble opinion. But why weren't any of the other KSA kids at least cute? They were at UVA, although the goofy ones were more gangsta and less compugeek.

The smoking up scenes were funny. I really liked the interplay between the leads in these. Even up tight Harold got playful and funny, and nothing beats the ganja cheetah. The two guys had a good onscreen relationship. You didn't have to suspend disbelief in their case unlike in some of the others (freakshow). My favorite scene was when they were singing along to the "extreme mix" in the stolen car, both knew it was goofy but they were on the road and feeling no pain.

The movie ended really well too. Harold and Kumar both grow up a little and finally get some of what they really want in life. I think Harold got the better end of the deal though. Telling off idiots from work must make your whole week shine a little brighter. But at least Kumar realized what he really wanted to do and started on a path that will probably put him in a better relationship with his family.

I would give this movie four out of five stars. It is not a cinematic masterpiece, but it doesn't pretend to be. It's not an epic story, but it pulls off a pretty good epic journey. And it gives a nod to Doogie Houser, who has probably been eating discount tuna since his first show went off the air. What's not to like?

Israel and Iran (and weapons, oh my!)

I got a nasty look from someone in London when I was introduced as American. I thought that was just because she was a Euro, I don't have a good opinion of them based on the ones I have met here in Japan. This girl was a friend of my teacher's daughter. I mentioned the look I got to my teacher, and she mentioned that the girl was Palestinian. Thus she hates America. I am slightly confused because my teacher also said she was Italian. One or the other, or both, she definitely gave me a nasty look and had a "Troops Home" poster in her bedroom. I think about her when I read articles about Israel.

Via Drudge I ran across this interesting article on Israel's policy toward Iran. The headline seems a little bit laughable to me. Israel does not have the resources, seemingly anyway, to mount a unilateral attack on anyone. They are already fighting off the Palestinian rebels and God alone knows who else. Thinking about it, you kind of have to feel bad for them regardless of your views. These guys are fighting rebels who are financed by Syria, Iran, and probably Saudi Arabia. I guess everyone hates the Jews. I thought that was passe. Of course, I thought that about socialism too but it seems that lots of people cling to played out ideologies.

But I did think of some interesting things while reading this article. Considering the Iraq war and its surrounding events a few things are important to consider. US allies such as Britain and Poland probably did not want to get drawn into the conflict (come on, who would? war stinks). But because they were allies they did what they had to do. Since the US is allied with Israel, if Israel decided to launch a unilateral attack- would we be obligated to follow? Does Israel think we would be obligated to follow? Does our obligation (or lack thereof) make a difference in their foreign policy?

I found this specific line to be interesting.

He [Sharon] said that Iran should be prevented from acquiring such arms, because "One should avoid development of nuclear weapons by irresponsible countries."

Ignoring the bad grammar of the quote (and the confusion that could arise from it), Sharon makes a good point. People criticize Americans for believing that other countries should not have nuclear weapons. Why should you criticize, they ask, when you are the world's largest nuclear power? Well, Sharon has an answer: it is disturbing when nations that finance terrorism and squash the liberties of their own subjects wish to procure weapons that could allow them to subjugate other countries. I don't think you can really argue that Iran is a more responsible country than the US. Sorry, but when you can burn your head of state in effigy and not worry about the repercussions, you live in a pretty responsible state.

Israel has a pretty legitimate fear of Iran. They are a tiny Jewish country in a hostile region of large, rich, Jew-hating countries. They are a tiny island of democratic self-governance in a vast despotic Ocean of sand (and oil). You have to admit, as an underdog they do pretty well. Well, I guess you wouldn't admit it if you were a European/Palestinian living in a very expensive 2 story condo in downtown London. Then, you can criticize anyone. And give them nasty looks. Because you have such a mature and well thought-out position and you deign to share it with your object of scorn. I wonder if she hates the Jews too. I will never understand the whole idea of anti-semitism.

Kitten Cannon

This is funny even if you like cats. My record is 1743 feet. The angles in the fourties seem to give you the best distance.

Only In America- Cat Hunting

I love my country more and more. Every time I read an article like this I just have to laugh. The British finally banned fox hunting this year, yet here we are debating another form of violence against small animals. However, instead of it being a case of the upper classes riding around in fancy cloths this will probably involve the lowly peons of the middle class wearing ripped jeans and smoking Camel Lights.

As a former student of ecology and population dynamics I do find this to be an interesting case. As a student of human nature and morality I find this a doubly interesting case. In America, most of our non-urban areas have all kinds of wildlife pests who's extermination is regulated by law. Many of these animals are cute, but none are domesticated animals like housecats and dogs. We have no problems telling people that they can kill foxes, coyotes, or gophers that destroy their livestock and their land. (Think about our Western states both in the past and at present.) But when the pest becomes something that we associate with our civilized life we hesitate.

It is hard for us to think of hunting for sport an animal that we look to for personal comfort. Unless you hate cats-then you don't have a problem. Wild animals aren't anthropomorphized like our domesticated ones. We have never used cats strictly as food. We keep them as pets, we name them, and honor them (even in death-hello Pet Semetary). For all these reasons we have trouble seeing them as something to be shot (and probably skinned and tanned). For most people there is something unsettling about this town's resolution.

However, as I said, I used to be a student of population dynamics and I appreciate the position of those who favor the resolution. Non-native species are often debilitating to natural populations. Cats and song birds are a perfect example, even the small mammals are not unimportant in an ecosystem. Each animal fills a niche, each niche plays a role in your ecosystem, when you start emptying those niches one by one, you can come very quickly by a problem.

So what do we do in this case? Some people say that the loss of habitat is the biggest contributor to the loss of songbirds. However, the study cited says that feral cats kill from 47 million to 139 million song birds every year. (We'll ignore the gross disparity again, but I promise we'll get to it someday.) What's to be done? If they pass the resolution how will pet cats be differentiated from feral cats? Someone's kid is going to be upset if Fluffy takes a round to the head because she doesn't like her collar. I hate to admit it, but this will be a very interesting case to follow.

Deadly Flu and the WHO

In this recent article from the AP we the people are informed that a lab in Ohio sent a deadly strain of the flu virus out to labs in the US and all over the world. The 1957 version apparently killed between 1 million and 4 million people. (Let's ignore the fact that a variant of 3 million people is ridiculous and almost criminal in its inaccuracy.)Apparently this version of the flu has not been included in vaccinations since 1968, so most of us carry no immunity to it. This makes it extremely worrisome. How do things like this happen? According to the writer, bioterrorism has been ruled out. So that leaves an in house error as the only explanation. This was a huge mistake for a major biotech company to make. Aren't they supposed to be trained not to make mistakes like this? Maybe they passed off a list of samples to someone and had them arbitrarily choose what sample to send out. It frightens me to see that the fate of the world might some day be in the hands of a lowly intern with a spreadsheet.