The Jurassic Park III Teaser, WTF

Is this a teaser for a huge summer blockbuster or or some cheap knock off arcade game on Tubo Grafix 16?  Are they kidding.  Why did they even bother shooting it?  I have yet to touch upon my experience with JPIII which will be for a later time, but this is what they get to excite people with.  Lightning, a walk through the jungle, and a roar that would make an ADR artist seizure.  I get that its supposed to tease people but it is 42 seconds of nothing.  If I remember correctly this was release in December or January before the movie came out, why even wait for that long, there were no special effects, nothing used from the film, they could have done this 1 year before, 2 years before.  I literally think the screen was black for 38 of the 42 seconds of the trailer. At least show a foot, a wing, a new raptor turning its head around for 1 split second, something that connects it to the movie.  It creates no memory.  It is a vacuum of consciousness. 

I remember when they said they were doing The Lost World teaser for the super bowl in 97.  I was so amped to see that, and you know what they actually did something with it.  It was the year after the Independence Day one appeared during the Super Bowl and kind of boosted that whole trend.  I should have known when I saw this online back in 2000 that nothing good could ever come to it.  Maybe once I rip it apart I can get some closure. 

Jurassic Park Fire Island

I love me some recut trailers. 

Laura Dern was 25 when she did Jurassic Park

That's the equivalent of Scarlett Johannson in Iron Man 2.  That's not to say that Laura didn't rock the shit out of her salmon shirt and blue tank top and that I didn't spend many of nights thinking of her.  But think of how heavily Scarlett was marketed as a sex symbol in that action movie.  They did nothing of the sort back then with this, not to mention that I thought she was in her late 30's at the time.  Hey I was 10, wait that mean's she is only 15 years older than me. 

I think i may be on  a JP bender for awhile. 

Jurassic Park and Chaos Theory: Why the Tricerotop scenes are the most important scenes in the movie and probably my life...

"Thank you jesus"

One of the main themes discussed ad nauseum by Ian Malcolm (aka Goldblum) in Jurassic Park (the movie with dinosaurs and the most awkward phrasings every recorded in film history) was the notion of chaos theory, that any happening can have any sort of outcome in being relation to a single causal event.  It seems like fate, but could also be the opposite of fate since it may not have anything to do with you but with something completely unrelated causing something to happen to you.  It's like thinking about your great great great great grand father.  You are only alive because he did up your that great... mother, but also the odds that you were created almost exist for the very purpose that you were created.  Some people like to explain it as a butterfly flapping its wings in Japan will cause a storm in New York, yeah right like that could happen.  I like the feather to Lt. Dan’s plan, both is happening at the same time.

The most important scene in the movie and what typifies this notion is the scene where Grant discovers that a Triceratops (that dinosaur is all animatronics) is sick.  What is the discussion that Ellie has with Malcom in the jeep on their return home from failed dinosaur showings?  It is about water trickling down her arm, and when they do it a different time it follows a different path based on small microscopic imperfections of the skin, that one tiny plinko bar of the skin made the plinko chip go in one direction.  I only hope that the discussion was put there for this reason.  Malcolm even says “no one could have predicted Dr. Grant jumping out of the car, and leaving me by myself, talking to myself, and that is chaos theory”, or something to that effect. 

If the following events don’t happen they don’t make it off the island, dinosaur gets sick, Grant notices something out his window, decides to investigate, while Malcolm is distracting Ellie the whole time.  What happens right after that one?  Ellie is fascinated with what is going on so she decides to stay but the rest drive towards the visitor center via the Tyrannosaur paddock in their electric cars.  She gets to go in the gas jeep with Harding from the book. The Trex attacks the 2 electric cars, Gennaro and Malcolm get demolished, Grant takes care of the kids, and tries to get them back safely.  Meanwhile with Ellie back at the visitor’s center they encounter Nedry’s problem, but decide to go out and try to save whoever is left.  If Ellie would have been remained with her original group, would she have been able to find Malcolm to save his life, where would she be in this situation was different, how close was he to dying?  He did get bashed by what would be the equivalent of a semi hitting him at 30 mph.  If Ellie wasn’t there who would have been available to turn on the power and avoid the raptor?  The Australian dude, and Sam L Jackson get killed, would the old man been able to do it on his own, and survive the raptor infestation up the neck of the worst kind.  She also creates this bonding experience for Grant and the kids by being separated.  Not to mention the “spark” that causes Timmy to almost die.  This experience of bringing a child to life, Grant's life obstacle, changed him for the better (until the third shit fest).   That dinosaur wasn't the reason they came there, it was the reason they got out of there, they needed to get separated to survive.

But not only does it allow all these events to happen but it allows it in a certain time frame.  If they don’t stop for the Triceratops, it throws everything off kilter.  They wouldn’t have been in front of the T-Rex paddock, maybe the Dilophsaurus one, do you survive those things better?  What if she tries to save the Gennaro dude in the bathroom?  She gets killed.   By the way when Malcolm was laid up in there jeep, where were Ellie and Muldoon running from, what were they investigating? Were they doing it?  As we know from the 3^rd one she wasn’t happy with Grant.

 That dinosaur causes this to happen and for everything to work out perfectly.  Maybe that is chaos theory.  That something is going to happen it is just a matter of how, there is always an outcome but by what trail will we reach it. This dinosaur that was born tens of millions of years in the past happen, to have a mosquito land on it, happen to have it survive that ordeal and land on a tree and get covered in sap.  But a seed had to land there where the tree was, to develop a certain species that created sap.  Then on top of that have the .00001% chance or less of getting the right conditions to be fossilized then have the .0000001% chance your fossil gets found by a civilization that will understand it, then have a species evolve enough to understand what you are, then have it evolve enough to develop complex thought capable to produce technology quickly and create a god big enough to play one.  To do that, then to hatch, then to pick a thing to eat and get sick over it, yeah what are the chances of that.  It all happened in order to save these peoples lives.  And what if they have a kid because of this series of events of what happened to them.  That kids entire being can be thanked by a dinosaur. Yes of course they couldn't predict Nedry, but Nedry couldn't predict nature’s chaos fucktion and that sick dino.  Because that caused them to break up, well the storm too.  The sound of thunder could have also have been the sound of thunder if you know what I mean.  Just think if the chaos of that storm coming wouldn't have happen, did a butterfly flap it's wings in Nanking to create that tropical storm that set its course to hit this tiny island that would make Nedry rush everything.  Chaos is fucking everywhere causing fate left and right.  How do we fit into all of this?

Something was meant for that triceratops to get sick and you wonder none of the following events would have happened.  Is it about Grant finding God, could it be?  That genetic engineer, that is his god essentially.  That exact Triceratops to be cloned and place right there to get sick on.  The ultimate case for chaos theory and it is chaos theory personified that saved their lives.   Or I guess we don’t know how much time they spend with the Triceratops, maybe they could have made it back to the visitors center and everyone lives.  Fuck you Grant and chaos theory.  So maybe Grant is the reason everything goes to shit, everyone could have been better off if he never happened.  Grant being born is the reason for Gerraro's death and everyone else, there you go. 

I like how everyone was pissed when they didn't see the T-Rex or Dilophosaurus during the tour, dude you got to see a brachiosaur and duck billed thing in the beginning, and a baby raptor being born what are you complaining about.  

By the way I hear off an on rumors about a Jurassic park IV(check out this story Worst Previews) .  What they should do is do it for the 20^th anniversary (2013) and do a 20 part mini-series of the book straight, every single event in there, 20 hours total so they can tell it completely, a season of TV, honor Crichton, erase the horrible memories of Jurassic Park III and San Diego in 2.  Use all the original actors too.  Cash money.

So all in all, basically the chances of anything happening are like 1 godzillion to 1 but guess what they fucking happened. 

PS. Who else wanted to tap Laura Dearn, the color salmon would never be the same again and how did they clone the plants?  Was that ever explained?

Sanists vs Insanists

Has everyone seen Shutter Island?  There seems to be a fierce debate over whether or not Leo's character was sane or insane.  The fiercest part is coming from the insanists.  Their main claim is how the book was written, and all the coincidences of the names.  I have to ask why does this all matter.  Why can't a film be ambiguous to these people, why can't both theories have great points to their credit?  Why does a movie have to be one way or another, isn't that the point of movies for the most part, each person sees the story they want to see?  True, there are some films that go full fledged dark water where there is no discernible story or thought put into certain direction (see Eraserhead) they let everything up to the viewer and it becomes a big hangover mess, but when done with a plan ambiguous themes and endings can make a film exponentially better.  You just can't be around fascists. 

I could see how both endings could work, but I'm leaning more towards that he was sane the whole time.  You have the mysterious notes, meeting the girl in the cave, his access to all over the island which leads to the fact of why would they go through all of this trouble for one patient.  They are going to put on a huge performance thereby neglecting a good majority of other patients during this time possibly sending them into deeper psychosis.  I don't think so.  Not too mention it is too easy for a movie to just be that story where the guy is really insane the whole time, do you want him to wake up from a dream too?  The insanists look to the case of the book, I didn't know you could watch a book.  I look at the director, for anyone who has seen King of Comedy know that this guy is pretty good at ambiguity as well.

But what if it is neither?  What if it is both.  What if it is a story of him over a longer period of time than he thinks and he really is going insane slowly.  He is insane but he is correct insane, kind of like that whole broken clock thing. 

What if his partner is fake and never existed?

Who knew Leo would be in two of the most debated movies of the year. 

Why do people care if a film was nominated for Best Picture Oscar?

If one were to go to the internet, does anyone realize that Michael Caine has been in just about every great movie of the 2000's.  Here is a short list, The Quiet American, Quills, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, The Prestige, Inception, Children of Men.  I guess it doesn't hurt to be friends with Christopher Nolan as well.  Anyway, that is not the point of this post, I decided to write this up as a follow up to my academy awards picks for certain years.  Along with debating about what movies should have won, there is even a bigger argument if a great movie doesn't get nominated.  As I mentioned, what is so wrong with movies like American Psycho, Requiem for a Dream and Dancer in the Dark just being remembered as great movies by millions of fans and listed as influences in so many others.  What rectification do you get for the Oscar?  If Tarantino doesn't win does that make his career any less.  You could say it's like winning the super bowl.  If the super bowl was voted on by dozens of old people who are influence by just about every avenue you could think of, and fill out a ballot, its the BCS of the BCS.  You know what you get if you win an oscar, you get a little extra BO (yeah), a statue, and a place in the list of previous oscar winners that the Academy feels in needs to show every fucking year during the telecast.

People need to stop putting the Oscars as an end all be all of that year in movies.  They are bunk, they are bought, they are campaigned for.  If you gathered a couple hundred people to decide on a best movie of that year, you would have as much of a case that you were right vs what the academy selected.  The oscars only advantage is that it "worked hard" to be started in the 1930's, vs if you did something now you would be competing with a few thousand other people compiling top 10 lists of the year.  So way to go Academy you are old. 

But some people are pretty upset when a movie doesn't get nominated.  Like it some how makes their thought on a film seem substandard and not vindicated.  Children of Men was hands down in my mind the best film of 2006.  It is more testament to how great a movie is that doesn't get the publicity of the Oscars, doesn't get the recognition but still gets mentioned and recommended among the film community as a movie you must see.   You also have to think if your favorite movie that year did get nominated what happens? If you watch a movie simply because it was nominated you have that in your mindset that this has to be a great movie.  What do you do in those situations, try to find everything wrong with the movie, every flaw, every mischaracterization.  You don't enjoy it, and you don't appreciate it.  The first thing people say after a they see a movie that was nominated, is I don't get why that was nominated.

Damnit.

Boner Season alert...the Oscars are right around the corner

The golden globes were last night.  I didn't get to watch any of it, but saw some clips.  I heard a lot of people were pissed at Ricky Gervais.  What?  For telling the truth, okay.  Do movie stars realize what ridiculous kinds of lives they lead?  And you are going to get mad because someone said something to your face?  Sorry they aren't your arse (see what I did there) sniffing agent yes man.  Don't be a phony, have a sense of humor and things will be okay.  From what I heard no one made fun of Patrick Stewart and with good reason.

Are you an Elvis or Beatles man?

"Are you not entertained!!?"

It is always popular among social and film circles to debate to no end a best picture winner or even nominee.  Who knew picking one movie as the best among a couple hundred every year would make people upset.  One of the most frequent years brought up is 1994.  That year Forrest Gump, Pulp Fiction and Shawhshank Redemption were all up and viable picks for best picture.  The others were Quiz Show, and Four Weddings but those are rarely considered as alternates. Shawshank was pretty much overlooked the whole year by audiences and since then has aged extremely well.  A lot of people now think that it should have won easily, the only problem is a lot of these people didn't see it until it was on TV 20 times a week 5 years later.  So a movie they saw a few years later they expect this panel of old people that probably get so busy each day, to see this movie in a couple months and analyze thoughtfully while over here Robyn Wright is getting topless, and Paramount is going to send me to the gulf coast on a shrimping cruise.   They thought why didn't this win, why didn't the academy see this?  It should have won! Yet, they didn't even realize it until the future.  There are a lot of things that you love doing in the now that you regret 5 years later. That is what the Oscars are good for a spaz fest living in the now.  I give the academy a pass on that one.  Then it is between Forrest Gump and Pulp Fiction. I was a young boy when these came out so I don't really remember the landscape as well and I haven't gotten into movies from that era, should another movie have been nominated as well??  But visit any forum and you will see backlash not since all of Greece truced up and dragged it's hairy ball sack over Troy.  "Pulp fiction is so much better F gump" "Stupid is as this movie in comparison to Pulp", etc.  People seem to have a big problem with Forrest Gump, I never understood why.  How is it not powerful, how is it not funny and touching, yeah it is a little sappy at times but that's what it was trying to do.  I think it is every emotion perfectly rolled into one.  Of course I'm biased since Forrest Gump is one of my favorite films ever but I also love Pulp Fiction. It is one of the great questions in PF and represents both so perfectly:  are you Elvis or Beatles man?  Forrest Gump is more popular but Elvis is arguably more influential, more cult.  One is Generation XY, the other baby boomers, one is you had a tough week, Saturday comes, just kick back and enjoy a thoughtful story while you wait for Monday to come back around (see also Rudy, and yes even Shawshank Redemption) the other is get your friends over turn it on, grab the drinks, and head out trying to the end the night with a syringe sticking in someone's chest. 

Without going too far off on 1994, another highly debated year is 2000 in which Gladiator won.  I set up 1994 as a contrast to this because as we know 1994 was a pretty amazing year and I can see the reasoning for debate, but as far as 2000 goes what other movie could have won?  The other best picture nominees were Chocolat, Traffic, Erin Brokovich, Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon. Are any of those considered better movies even today?  Have any of them aged better than Gladiator.  TNT seems to love Gladiator, I rarely if ever see any of the other movies on TV.  Is that a good indicator?  Does anyone on earth own Chocolat?  Some others from that year that could have been a contender, Cast Away, Unbreakable, Finding Forrester, Pollack, Quills (never saw, but kind of want to), You can Count on Me, Requiem for a Dream, Almost Famous, Dancer in the Dark, Shadow of the Vampire, The Wind Will Carry Us, American Psycho, High Fidelity, Wonder Boys, any others?  Cast Away - it is an experience to watch this definitely, but can't watch it more than a few times, felt too experimental at times.  Crouching, better the second time, great box office for a foreign film, the mandarin was cool to listen to though I think it pissed off a lot of people in China.  The first time I saw it, it was dubbed which I think made dislike it originally. Probably the best contender that had the best chance out of all of them but I think it was just too weird at the time, and could have seen that dubbed version I did.   High Fidelity and Wonder Boys, everyone forgot these by the time December rolled around pretty much and the story telling is too weak in a lot of scenes, focused on the depressions of pussy protagonists.  I think Almost Famous should have been nominated and probably would have if it grossed another 40 million and had more naked Kate Hudson.  The Wind Will Carry Us..uh...maybe something to with Iran...which is actually kind of sad since it is a pretty good movie, but again to weird, a lot of down time, but a great movie, and with The Artist winning this year nothing surprises me anymore, goes back to be a living in the now spaz.  Once the gimmick of hey it's so quirky because it's silent wears off tell me where we are at.  Think of Chicago and the Musical gimmick they brought back.  Who the hell thought a movie musical was a good idea?  Well I guess I'm wrong considering they're making billions of dollars. I guess I take that back, I just hated that they did those stupid scenes on the stage.  I'd rather have it be like a musical like Lion King, seemless.  It's not like during Hakuna Matata they were singing it in some lounge.  Finding Forrester, were these deleted scenes from Good Will Hunting?  Had a good night at the bars the night I saw this, that's all I really remember about it and the story about the BMW logo. 

Traffic, watered down Requiem for a Dream, I've seen it 3 times and owned it at one point, but don't remember a lot of it, seemed like a lot of cliches about drugs, I thought it was kind of cool they hid the coke int he dolls, Catherine Zeta Jones took care of shit in it.  Shadow of the Vampire, fell asleep during it.  Pollack, as I remember Ed Harris didn't even see Pollack.  Red Planet, could have been a great minimalist sci-fi noir, did a decent job though, but kind of felt dull after the earlier release of Mission to Mars.  Requiem for a Dream, one of my favorites but there is no way the academy would take this big of risk, little did they know who they were dealing with in Darren Aranofsky, not to mention I think the film fit nicely as the darling of the festival circuit, is there anything wrong with that?   Same reasoning for American Psycho and Dancer in the Dark, let it live long in the minds of movie fans but it would never win an oscar and that is fine by me.  Looking at these it really stands out how much control studios have and how there was a such a limit on oscar bait even 10 years ago.  At least today there are dozens of strong independents coming out with the advent of streaming and netflix.  Out of all the pictures from 2000 doesn't Gladiator represent everything about a great film as the top of technical, dramatic, and fun categories.  How many times do the Oscars even try that now a days? 

The point is and I guess the main caveat that comes from the Oscars is that the academy has only a couple months to survey the film landscape for the entire year in order to determine which one was best.  A movie they put at the top in May could be toppled after the awards bait season in December, who knows if they even watch every one.  What happens to a person who sees Requiem for a Dream first then tries to watch Chocolat?  After viewing it a couple times and collecting whatever swag from studios they get boom they make a decision.  But what happens, that movie lives on after that ceremony.   You get to view it more times, the movie evolves, you evolve and it can greatly change.  The only thing to realize is it doesn't mean anything.  If you don't watch the oscars who cares who won one 20 years ago, that is how you'll be remembered movie #67 in the run down of every movie that won it.  All I know is I'd rather be an Alien or Warrior than a Kramer.

Not to mention it is all opinion, but either answer is right. I'd probably have to go with a Beatles man though. 

Can I review Eastbound and Down?

I think I can, since I got into the show basically because of Tropic Thunder, Pineapple Express, Foot Fist Way, Hot Rod, East Bound in that order, and Foot Fist is Napoleon dynamite with balls and one of the best movies of the 00's.

I’m going to say it now the first 3 episodes kind of sucked, but the last 3 I blew it twice after 40 minute orgasms.  I don't know what it was, too slow character development, relying too much on swearing, just wasn't impressed with the first 3 and sadly I almost gave up on the series.  Maybe I was going in with too much hype, but I've done that before with TV shows and they exceeded.  The next 3 though definitely got me back, they were huge.  Do other people feel the same way?  I think that Stevie guy really came on strong during this part. There was the great scheme that Kenny pulled where he got his herpe friend to try and hook up with the principle, showed Kenny as the evil guy, but unlike earlier that he somewhat cunning.  You also get the divergence of the characters that help setup the progression of the story, the principle becomes kind of an ass, Kenny becomes somewhat compassionate, he gets an enemy instead of being his own, and he helps people grow around him (his brother mainly). 

Here is what you have in the second half of the season:  Sound of Silence on a Jet ski, Ashley's son gabriel (watch for the twitch on Robinson's face when he says it, and that vein is awesome), premature ejaculation, the everyday man opening of episode 5 (shit my pants), fuck the west, It's my class, soundgarden spoons, loads of macaroni and cheeseys, that's not a homosexual reference, dick slapping is my game, you have a fucked up sense of humor son, among others.  They should just make one episode of the first disc ones taking the best stuff from it and it would easily give the same story of the what is going on, maybe one 45 minute episode as the opener.  Does Danny Mcbride complete the "Triumvirate" of Will Ferrell Adam McKay better than John C. Reilly.  Adam and Will kind of took Danny under their wing, has their product become better since then?  I think it takes more chances. 

I love the women that Jody Hill and Danny Mcbride usually cast in their stuff.  Not only did they cast women like Collette Wolfe (Observe and Report, Foot Fist) who are the epitome of super luscious girl next door type but their team is great at casting small town, everyday females that you have to admit to your friends they are trash but you know you would bang and would want to bang if you were 10 deep at Jim Mitchell's.

I hated the first 6 episodes of Curb too but mainly because I watched them all in a row in a 13 hour car ride from Colorado to Wisconsin. I think I would have sex with Gina Gershon if presented with the opportunity in any circumstance.  How about that lady that was the art teacher? 

How does she do that slow blink?  Drives me crazy.

Pete Postlethwaite

Rest in peace.  It always makes me uneasy talking about an actor when they pass.  We talk about like we know them but our only memories come from him acting as a character.  Is that enough to base a writing about?  Is that what all actors want?  He certainly was one of the best actors of the time.  I'm sure when a lot of people heard the news, they didn't recognize the name but immediately the characters, voice, and acting.  My first and therefore favorite movie I saw him in was the Lost World as Roland Tembo.  Sure it probably wasn't his most memorable, but if that is how society chooses to remember actors then every role he played becomes iconic.  So as an ode to him, I'll leave you with "Let's get this movable feast underway"

21 was the worst movie of 2008

Obviously I'm being facetious as I have not seen every movie of 2008, but it is pretty horrible. I won't go into detail about the obviously wrongs with this movie such as how awesome the book "Bringing Down the House" is and how they did a completely white wash of the entire cast, and removed everything that could make it an actual movie with shots of the Vegas skyline to turn it into one big commercial for Planet Hollywood for slow high schoolers who will now want to go there when they turn (high five) 21 and "tear up the strip"!  What's this, is this a line of dialogue, no need for that, we'll just show a pile of money constantly that will make things hardcore.  Fun fact, they couldn't use the title Bringing Down the House because of that very excellent movie starring Queen Latifah and Steve Martin, way to go guys.  I could finalize this review by saying this is a movie featuring college and Las Vegas (not to mention a sex and torture scene) that is PG-13, so you know where the film is going and that fact alone would qualify it as horrible.  This film does answer the timeless question of how many studio plants does it take to succeed.   

The movie opens with this kid whining an bitching about how he wants to go to Harvard medical school.  You know he really wants to go there because he said it has been his dream his whole life, okay I'm convinced enough.  This is where he finds out Harvard Medical school is a tad expensive and he might not be able to go because of that one reason, meaning he needs to be rich or get a scholarship.  Apparently this is the first guy who has ever had to pay for college with loans in the world, and instead he will need to come up with the whole sum of of money for several years of education in a short amount of time.  Oh no, he only works at a men's fine clothing store, he won't be able to make over $300,000 doing this.  By the way thank god they showed him doing basic addition and multiplication in his job or else I wouldn't know he was one of the best people in the world at math. I'm surprised they didn't have to show him how they book the hotel through expedia. And what's this they have to explain to him how blackjack (21) is played, in the movie, to the character, for an entire 5 minute scene.  Finally, now we can follow the story. 

Wait a minute, you're saying the movie didn't open up with this character learning about what obstacle he has to overcome?  They open up with him in a Vegas talking about how they are up a lot, wearing cool disguises and basically describing the entire movie in the first 2 minutes?  You mean they used the original idea of showing a scene from the middle of the movie in the beginning.  Wow now we know he will go from this straight laced kid, to this seedy gambling underground, how will that happen?  I guess we have to watch and find out but I'm sure it won't have anything to do with the gambling that this film is based upon.

By the way great job editor Elliot Graham, I couldn't tell that Lawrence held back his punch at the final second of when he was torturing that kid.  Probably doesn't have to do with anything. 

This movie insults intelligence at every chance it gets.  These are kids going to MIT yet they are doing the most basic form of card counting.  The system that any moron with a hour on a Sunday could learn and do at a casino.  I wouldn't say do well since this form of card counting probably increases your chances of winning by 1-2% which is significant but enough for this band of losers to rip off casinos for hundreds of thousands of dollars probably not and not even close to what the actual MIT students used.  The characters are shown spending hours, nights, weeks working at it.  Some of them can't even keep up with it even though their characters are supposed to be the best of the best from MIT that this professor has had picked.   Why don't they think an audience would get it?  Whoa they crossed their arms behind their back, that is such an elusive signal, and let's do that every time and not adapt to ever evolving security threats.  But hey maybe I'm wrong the movie did gross about 81 million domestically which puts it at maybe a few more tickets sold than Social Network when accounting for inflation.  So maybe this whole making movies for dumb people is catching on.

Not going to lie, it's been awhile since I've seen this and I didn't feel like watching it again so just a few other things that pee'd in my cereal.  There is this part where they have thousands in chips but the casinos are changing them soon, and they don't want to send any red flags about what they were up to so they give them to the strippers at the strip club in smaller amounts as tips.  Strippers have never been known to rip anyone off, not to mention it wouldn't be odd for a line of 50 strippers turning in chips with them standing right beside them cheering.  The $300,000 in the ceiling bit is frequently brought up but I at least can understand not taking it to a bank due to the whole money trail thing.  But the great thing is there are these inventions called safes.  Apparently they allow you to lock your money up with something called a combination that only you can open with it.  I'm not sure but you could probably conceal those too. The real story takes place in the 90's but the movie is set in present time so there are these weird shifts where they are talking about technology like it is exists but we are way beyond it.  Their big way to deflect security is to wear wigs, that is pretty much it, they are the same 4-5 kids within a couple tables and they partner up a lot.  Great disguises guys.  No such thing as facial recognition that was developed, or the fact that the dealer that is working 12 hour shifts would start to recognize people since that's pretty much their jobs. Not going to even delve into those spaz's and their robot contest. 

I don't know, maybe I shouldn't be too hard on the film.  Like I said it wasn't made for people who were born before 1992.  When you bring in the talented genius that is Robert Luketic, aka the Kubrick of the 21st century, you just have to expect to shut your brain off, forget everything you know about interesting stories, and look forward to be dazzled by dozens of cliches. Which this is also a film by, hard to believe.  Is telling your actors to just half ass it the new technique?

If you want to see a bunch of late 20 year old's with the minds of a tween running around vegas for 2 hours with a script written by someone who has seen a lot of movies about Las Vegas by all means rent this shitty excuse for binary code.  If you want to see a real movie based on a book by Ben Mezrich, that actually bases it in the reality with which the story is based, go see Social Network.  Could you imagine if this team had gotten their hands on that one?  Uh, let's spend an hour of the story teaching this Zuckerberg kid how to log into his email account at Harvard where he discovers there is this thing called the internet.  You stole facebook from us, gosh darn you meanie. Is there any way we can base this in Miami, we get more money from the tourism department if we do?  Memo to all filmmakers, putting a bunch of emo hipsters in Vegas does not a cool movie make. 

PS  What happened to Kevin Spacey?  I think the dude actually went to KPax.  I realize that he produced The Social Network and he seems to be improving in that category and job title.  But can you really compare anything he or anyone else has done to his work between 1994-1999. Just about off the top of my head, American Beauty, Seven, Usual Suspects, Outbreak, but this is kind of an interview,  A bugs Life, The Negotiator, Midngith in the Garden, LA Confidential, A Time to “yes they deserive to die I hope they burn in hell” Kill, The Ref, and can’t forget IRON Will.  I know he has done better outside those, but I pegged those as two great bookends with a lot of good in between.  American Movie boom of course and The Ref.  The Ref launched a lot of people.  But what was the difference between Social Network and 21, he wasn’t in this, that made it infinitely times better which shouldn't be the case.  That first oscar broke his cherry the second one cracked his rectum. 

Never Let Me Go

Does Never Let Me Go take place in the future?  I kind of want to see that based on that but I think I would be disappointed if it wasn't.  I get that impression from the trailers that they are robots of some sort.