Harmonious? Maybe Not.

I just found a blog that lists the questions asked to screen people for romantic matches at eHarmony.com. Interesting.

It asks a lot of questions about religion. The only question about sex is if sexual compatibility is important, and then it doesn't ask what trips your trigger.

For example, they don't ask this question:

Movie Reviews: Zombieland and Law Abiding Citizen

Remember when I used to go see movies and then review them? Yeah, it's been a while.

Sunday was the hubby's birthday so I took him out for a double feature and a beer. As you might guess from the title of this post, we saw Zombieland and Law Abiding Citizen.

Law Abiding Citizen was first. It is about a man whose wife and daughter are murdered, and the prosecutor in the case makes a deal to get one man to testify against the other to send him to death row. The other pleads guilty to a reduced charge and is out in five years. The man spends ten years plotting revenge, and then starts torturing and killing everyone involved in the case. There are some very disturbing scenes.

You could look at this a lot of different ways. Eventually, I saw him as worse than those who killed his wife and daughter. It appeared to be a very elaborate suicide-by-cop scenario, although most people who do that don't actually kill people. Certainly not judges and attorneys who are doing what they can with what they have. It also makes you appreciate the wisdom of the founders of the justice system, who determined that having emotional family members decide on punishment was a bad idea, and the basis of the difference between having a criminal justice system and a criminal revenge system.

I give this one a good-but-not-great, go see it if you think it sounds interesting and you are not going to get squeamish at some extreme violence.

Then there was Zombieland. As mentioned previously, I think zombies are hilarious. Woody Harrelson may have been born for this role. He plays a tough guy among a small handful of survivors after the zombie virus has wiped out the United States. Others include a nerdy loner and two young girls. There was one other survivor who I will not mention, for those who have not seen the movie. It gets away with a lot of moments that have you saying, "At what point did THAT seem like a good idea?" simply because the results are hilarious. As far as funny zombie movies go, I am still working out the order for my top four. The others are Shaun of the Dead, Return of the Living Dead, and Dawn of the Dead (the one with Ving Rhames). I think Shaun of the Dead still comes in at #1, Zombieland and Dawn of the Dead are duking it out for second and third.

Definitely go see Zombieland, laugh out loud and all that.

(Now Playing: Saint-Saens Piano Concerto #2 G minor)

Leave Meghan Alone! Leave Her Alone!

Meghan McCain, daughter of John McCain, has outraged her online followers by posting a photo of herself that reveals she has breasts.

Those who complain that Meghan McCain's photo looks slutty and reflects poorly on the young Republican movement should take into account that she is not only a beautiful young woman, she is also intelligent, articulate, and can present her views in a thoughtful manner without getting emotional and spewing vile lies and attacks. She comes up with rational arguments based in fact, not something extracted from her backside. While I don't usually agree with her, I can respect her opinion. She is the last person Republicans should attack. Who are you going to replace her with Orly Taitz who was just fined for filing frivilous lawsuits trying to prove that Obama was born in Kenya??

So Meghan, you go girl. There are a whole lot of us liberals who desperately need intelligent discourse with those on the other side of the debate. You should never have to apologize for being proud of your beautiful curvy body.

For those not familiar with the object of my woman crush:



(Now Playing: Holst's The Planets - Jupiter)

Cool Video for Biology Nerds (and other folks too)

You Cheater!

According to an ABC survey 54% of men and 72% of women think participating in online sex chat is cheating. Another survey I found said it was 80% of women. Seriously? I definitely think both parties to the cheating need to be in the same room. The same survey said 42% of women consider viewing porn to be cheating. Considering that is usually done in private, I really don't see how you can be unfaithful alone.

Keeping in mind that 'Google' is not synonymous with 'research' (thank you, Dan Brown) I went looking for the answers. Other things that some consider cheating are things like reading Playboy magazine (To any woman who feels threatened by an 8 x 10 glossy, the problem is yours, not his. It is called insecurity.), dancing (41%), lap dances (79%), flirting (35%), and confiding in another woman (36%). I'm not even sure which of those is the most trivial, but it might be the last one. Apparently the reasoning is that he should confide in his wife/girlfriend, not another woman. (Ladies, he is probably just trying to figure out what the heck you are thinking, and being unable to read your mind he is asking the opinion of one of your own species. If he asks you, you will probably tell him that if he doesn't know why you are mad at him you aren't going to tell him.)

So, I decided to go with the test where you determine whether or not it is cheating depending on how you would feel if your partner did it. So I imagined the hubby in each of these situations, and these are the results I came up with:

Cybersex: My biggest concern would be a failure in my virus protection.

Porn: If it means I don't have to watch bad movies just because there are ladies wearing bikinis, I'm all for it. Some porn movies probably have better plots.

Playboy: Guys look at naked ladies. That's what they do.

Dancing: I wouldn't be offended or betrayed, I'd feel surprised.

Lap dance: Have at it, hoss. I know that stripper isn't going home with you. (Honestly though, I've heard of cases where a guy ends up giving a stripper their kid's college fund because they are convinced she really loves him. Anyone who thinks that needs a check up from the neck up.)

Flirting: Really? He does that right in front of me. I do that right in front of him.

Confiding in another woman: He does that every Tuesday. No, I don't know what they talk about, but I'm sure it is none of my business. You think there aren't things I wouldn't tell him?

Interestingly, I didn't find anything about what men consider to be cheating as it applies to their partners. But I'm pretty sure it is far more realistic than fretting over their reading material. So guys, click on the comments link and tell me, other than actual genital contact, what your girlfriend would have to do to be consided unfaithful.

I guess I have a pretty liberal definition of what is cheating, I think there has to be an emotional connection before it is cheating. I wouldn't even consider anonymous sex to be cheating, as long as it is safe. Being honest about it is preferable.

(Now Playing: Scars by Rush)

What An Amateur!

I recently came across an interesting site for amateur authors to publish stories, it is called Nice Stories. A lot of the authors are unpublished for a reason, but there are some gems there. One of the better ones is Thomas J. Comer, and his story Voice of the Revolution is one of the best I've found on there so far. He also has a rather gruesome vampire story. The site is worth a look, there is quite a variety.

I've been thinking of doing some writing again, and maybe starting a second blog for that purpose. It's been a long time since I was paid for what I wrote, but I doubt that I've completely lost my touch. Of course, since the articles I was paid for writing were on the history of sex no one would ever find me in a search engine. I'd be lost in the other 7,862,043 matches on Google. I would also be unable to blog during my break at work because the computer in the break room interprets anything with words like "sex" to be pornographic. Believe me, it isn't pornographic stuff. I'm on an email distribution list for authors and professors who specialize in the history of sexuality, and we have had discussions there that were downright boring.

If I do another blog it would be more like getting some exercise. I've noticed that just doing a blog and some emailing I'm not as careful as I should be about how well I write.

I'll give it some thought, I majored in history my first time in college and was initiated into Phi Alpha Theta, so I might as well put it to use by showing how dull sex can be.

On another note, I've recently discovered that good music didn't die in the 90's, it just went back to England. I've got some catching up to do.

(Now Playing: Common People by Pulp)

Book Review: Intervention by Robin Cook

I read this one because I've read every other book he has written. The overall quality of the more recent ones isn't as good as some of the early ones, but still good enough to keep me reading.

He used to write books with new characters each time, but the last ones have been the same two recurring characters. Problem with that, the female character is damn irritating. Good thing about this one is that she barely shows up in it. Bad thing, there is another equally annoying character to take her place.

Anyway, about the book. Cook has a tendency recently to take on a topic and turn it into a plot, and this one has two. One is about alternative medicine, which I found very interesting. He pointed out the dangers, but also why people still flock to it. The other topic is the a conflict between a Catholic official and a biblical archeologist. That is more interesting, and it brings up the question of those who want to believe what is true vs those who want what they believe to be the truth. And, the story is constructed to point out that academics are not always in the first category. The point of this part of the story is the discovery of scrolls and an ossuary that may contain the bones of the Virgin Mary, with the conflict with Catholic teaching being the belief that Mary was assumed bodily into Heaven.

Cook doesn't come down taking sides with either, and is even a little sympathetic to the alternative medicine crowd. Definitely moreso than his previous four or five books.

For Cook fans I would say read this one, even if you have been wavering in your anticipation for new books from him. It's the best of the last five.

Book Review: The Lost Symbol by Dan Brown

Yes, it's true. I pre-ordered this book on Amazon back in April, making me one of the people who put it on the best-seller list before it was even released. And on the day it was released I checked the tracking on the package several times to make sure it was coming that day, and I left work early when I saw that it was on the delivery truck to make sure I was there to sign for it.

I'm one of those. But it isn't a bad one of those to be.

Of course, anyone who has been remotely aware lately knows that this is a continuation of the character Robert Langdon, and that it centers on Washington DC, the founding of the nation's capital, and freemasonry.

I read DaVinci back in 2004, right after I finished Angels and Demons. Five years is a long time to wait for a book, but the payoff is there. There had to have been a lot of research done for this book, and it is a huge puzzle where all the pieces are there and all the pieces fit. It kept my mind active from beginning to end, but afterward I wondered if people who just want to be passively entertained could enjoy it as well. I think so, if that is the kind of thing you are into.

Brown keeps up his tradition of writing something that is probably going to piss off people who are of certain religious beliefs, although I don't think that is his intention. But it is hard to separate religion and philosophy, and you can't have a Robert Langdon novel without philosophy. You have to be able to challenge what you believe rather than believe that which you wish to be true, and be eager to look at things through new eyes. I would go so far as to say that if you come away from one of Dan Brown's books thinking that everything he wrote is absolutely right, you missed the point.

If you are going to read this, I would make a suggestion that you not do it while sitting in front of a computer. I didn't get far on the first day because I kept stopping to look up works of art. Instead, keep a pad and paper to write down the page where you found something you want to check or read more about. About halfway through the book I started using Post-It flags to mark things that I found interesting. Seriously, it's the kind of book that makes you want to write in the margins. Although I finished reading the book, I am nowhere near done with it. In fact, I am going to wait a couple of months and read it again, more slowly.

Dan Brown's books are good training wheels for learning to identify what is fact, what is imagination, and what is speculation. There are a lot of folks who have trouble distinguishing between those things (insert Glenn Beck joke here), and they would be doing themselves a favor to start figuring it out.

The big question is how does it compare to DaVinci, and I would have to put it at as good as DaVinci. I know that the anticipation was for something that would top his previous books, but that's a tough act to follow.

Anyone who read the previous Robert Langdon books and enjoyed them should read this one as well. He is still the best in the genre he popularized.

(Now Playing: Where Does It Go by Planet P Project)

Movies I Watched This Weekend

No, not stuff in theaters. I am hoping to see District 9 sometime this week, they have it starting 20 minutes after I get off work at the Belmar theater which is perfect. I just have to see how I feel after my first full day of work in over a month.

But I did watch one that was recently released on DVD, Push. Thankfully, I missed it in the theater. It doesn't even pretend that it is anything other than the loose stringing together of about ten other television shows and movies (The Matrix, Heroes, X-Men, Firestarter, Scanners, etc. with the recent Asian movie craze tossed in). I should have written them down as I noticed them. Or played a drinking game. It tried to be all things to all people, romance, action, sci fi, which kind of reminded me of Senate majority leader Harry Reid. He tries to make everyone happy, the result is Republicans think he is the spawn of Satan and Democrats think he is a weenie. It never works out, take a lesson from Ricky Nelson.

The other movie was Zero Hour!, from 1957. About 20 years later it was remade as the comedy Airplane!. It wasn't a comedy, it was a serious movie about a plane whose entire crew is disabled by a case of food poisoning, and a passenger named Ted Stryker who has suffered psychological issues since an ill-fated mission during the war must fly and land the plane. But what makes it funny is that a lot of the script of Airplane! is taken right out of Zero Hour!. You find yourself laughing at inappropriate places, such as after the line, "Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit smoking," or "How about some coffee, Johnny?" This one is a must see for fans of Airplane!.

I also saw a good portion of Flipper, the one with Elijah Woods. I'm not sure why I saw as much as I did, because I don't have the same affection for dolphins that most people do. They have been known to get amorous with people. You save up all your money and take a vacation so you can have a spiritual experience swimming with a smart fish and before you know it you're Flipper's bitch.

If you want to see something with Elijah Woods I would recommend Everything is Illuminated instead.

(Now Playing: Too Sick to Pray by A3 or Alabama 3, depending on which side of the pond you are on.)

Sexiest. Vampire. Ever.

While I was ill and spending most of my day laying on the couch I found myself going through the BBC America on demand programs, and found one that looked moderately amusing. I am now completely hooked.

The show is called Being Human and is about a vampire, werewolf, and ghost. It is a six-episode series, and only three have aired in the US so far. I've watched all of them twice, and went on YouTube to watch the pilot.

I always like vampire books and shows as long as the story is good, but this one is different. It isn't all serious, now and then they toss in that sarcastic sense of humor that only the British have perfected.

The new episodes air on Saturdays, and since I can't get it out of my head Saturday always seems distant.

High recommendations on this television show. I'm getting this on DVD as soon as it is available.

(Now Playing: Showbiz by Muse)

An update

The leg is finally healing up to where I can almost walk normally, and the doc took me off the IV antibiotics and put me on oral antibiotics. I'm going back to work Monday but it will only be half-days for a while.

And I just want to say that my hubby has more than lived up to his end of the "in sickness" part of the wedding vows.

Away for a while

I don't plan to be posting for a while. I've been in the hospital for five days with a severe leg infection and right now I'm home on IV antibiotics.

It's really painful to walk or to sit with my leg not being elevated, which means computer use will pretty much be limited to work. I'm also not checking my email, so anyone who knows me and wants to get ahold of me should call me on my cell phone.

A brief post before I leave for the surgical center

This morning I got an email asking me to sign a petition that would be forwarded to the White House. It claimed that last week the Senate passed legislation giving Social Security to illegal aliens. Of course, I know that's not true because I actually pay attention to what the Senate does, checking the website, watching C-SPAN, etc. I was able to prove it to be false by going to Snopes.

But what really amazed me is how far it went.

That petition had 858 names on it.

It went through 858 people before someone (me) bothered to take something that made no logical sense and run it through a bullshit detector. In the words of Julius Caesar, "Men in general are quick to believe that which they wish to be true."

Movie Review: Public Enemies

Before starting this review I want to give a shout out to the guy sitting behind us. It was really nice of you to take your mother to a movie, but I'm sure she already considers you to be a clever boy even if you don't comment throughout the movie about how you know more about the history than the scriptwriter. You reminded me of that idiot on Cheers who would make things up to conceal his lack of any actual knowledge. Next time you go to a movie stop at the concession stand and treat yourself to a tall glass of shut-the-fuck-up. Maybe if you weren't such an asshole someone other than your mother would be seen in public with you.

Now on to Public Enemies. The movie seemed a little choppy to me, there were times when it went from one scene to the next and I felt like I missed something. I am guessing this had something to do with the movie being two-and-a-half hours long. I suspect there were a lot of scenes cut, and one day there will be a DVD released that will include all those scenes, somewhat like The Abyss. When that happens a good movie will get much better.

Johnny Depp did a good job as John Dillinger, but it wasn't his best performance. Same for Christian Bale. The hubby thought they really caught the feel of the early 1930's, I thought it was good but not great. Pretty much all aspects of the movie were good but not great.

(Now Playing: Love and Marriage by Frank Sinatra)

Out of Many, Two

As I mentioned, for over a month my television didn't work. It's back again thanks to a power outage (no, I don't know exactly how it fixed the TV) but in the meantime I did a lot of reading. Rather than review a lot of books, I figured I'd only do the ones worth mentioning. That leaves two.

The first is Thomas Paine and the Promise of America by Harvey J. Kaye. I started reading this one a long time ago, but by the time I was at the half-way point I purposely slowed down. It reads very easily and is one of the most informative books about my favorite founding father, and probably the most liberal. It goes beyond the impact of his pamphlet Common Sense and delves deep into his lesser known writings. One of the fascinating aspects of the book is that less than half-way through the book he gets to Paine's death. The rest of it is on his influence on American history all the way up to present day. His definition of small government was in government not interfering in the way people live their life, especially in the realm of religion, but not in allowing corporations to amass unchecked power. He championed government helping people (he was the first to suggest a program to help the old and infirm, what today we call Social Security, as well as assistance for the poor) and government opposing tyranny that comes from corporate power and inherited wealth. In going beyond Age of Reason and Common Sense the author takes the reader into the compassionate mind of Paine. For those interested in reading Paine's own words, one of the best online sources is The Thomas Paine National Historical Association. I've spent entire days there.

The other book that I read that is worth telling you about is The Color of Law by Mark Gimenez. I read a positive review of this one some time ago on Crooks and Liars and have been meaning to read it ever since. I'm glad I finally got around to it. It is about a wealthy lawyer being assigned by a judge to defend a heroin addicted prostitute accused of killing the son of a senator. It is totally unrealistic, but the transformation from materialistic lawyer with a social climbing wife into a modern-day Atticus Finch just made my heart feel good.

The rest of the books, and there were a lot of them, were just time fillers and not really worth mentioning, neither to recommend nor warn against. But if you like lawyer novels or early American history these are two winners.

(Now Playing: Digging in the Dirt by Peter Gabriel)

Je parle un puh de francais

Is there anything more international than an Italian-American learning to speak French from a Scottish teacher?

I've been learning to speak French through both Rosetta Stone and a website called Coffee Break French, which offers free audio lessons. Rosetta Stone doesn't recommend using non-immersion methods while using their program, and while I understand the reasoning the audio lessons have helped me understand why some things are the way they are. Coffee Break French is part of a larger learning site, Radio Lingua Network, with free lessons for a lot of languages, some more comprehensive and some just an introduction.

I've found some interesting things about learning another language. It really makes you think about your own language and consider why you say something in a certain way, and how many different ways there are to say the same thing. I also find it interesting that I have heard so many times that English is one of the hardest European languages to learn.

But there are a lot of things to be considered in French that we don't worry about in English. For one thing, everything has a gender and you have to know it. A car is feminine, so you would say une voiture. But a truck is masculine, so you would say un camion. You can know what something is called, but if you don't know if it is male or female you don't know whether to say un or une, la or le, ma or mon. Also, a lot of words are pronounced one way if you are male and another if you are female. The word 'ready' is pret, but if you are male you don't pronounce the T.

Then there is the issue of formality. In English, if you are in a formal situation you refer to the person as ma'am, or sir. I'm pretty sure that is the only difference. In French, you is tu or toi if informal, vous if formal. And some questions are worded differently or pronounced differently depending on the formality. Between masculine/feminine/formal/informal, there is a lot of learning to say very little. It also makes you wonder about that French line in Lady Marmalade that said in the formal form, it seems like the type of question you wouldn't ask someone if you weren't being fairly informal with them. Kind of like in The Tudors, where it sounds strange to hear someone say, "Thank you for banging me, Your Majesty."

I suppose in the long run English might be harder to learn just because the vocabulary is more extensive than most languages, at least that's what I've heard. If that's true, it would certainly be harder to translate into English. And the differences between different versions of English would be a little tricky, if you get sick in England you are 'in hospital' but in the US are are 'in the hospital'.

But now for my plug for Radio Lingua Network. They have free lessons for every language, but if you want printed material to go with the lessons or review lessons or video lessons you can choose different membership levels, which are very inexpensive. They have one-minute languages in 17 different languages, ten mp3 files that teach you just a few things a day to learn just the basics. I actually used some of the Norweigian in a chat room last week. There are two in-depth language programs, French and Spanish (this is Spain-Spanish, not Latin-American, there is a difference). In between the two are Italian and German lessons, 100 lessons that are about five minutes long with the recommendation that you do one lesson per day so that you learn quite a bit in a little over three months. So if you are just wanting to test the water and aren't sure of how committed you are to learning a language, Radio Lingua is a good way to dip your toe in for free. And if you are committed, it is a good way to see if the program is for you. I'm not required to post this, I just want to give them a plug because I am very impressed with this little company. The lessons are fun and it's great to be able to review my lessons while I'm walking around in the grocery store.

(Now Playing: The Sidewinder Sleeps Tonight by REM)

Movie Review: Surveillance

I saw a pre-theatrical rental of this movie, it is scheduled for release on June 26. IMDB has a couple of trailers up for it.

The surprise ending was predictable and therefore not really a surprise at all. Above all, it is supremely annoying. I hated nearly every character, the kid wasn't too bad but she was the only one. Imagine spending an hour and a half with people you really hate who are sadistic, moronic, and immature. It's kind of like that.

I'd rather watch The Jerky Boys than see this movie again. Or any of the Die Hard movies. Or James Bond. Or that Rodgers and Hammerstein musical where Shirley Jones declares that if you love someone enough it feels like a kiss when he hits you.

I try really hard not to say a movie is bad, I know that there are movies that a lot of people like that just aren't my taste. I don't even like Gone With the Wind but I couldn't call it a bad movie. However, this is going to be one of my rare exceptions. This movie is bad.

(Now Playing: Toccata by Emerson Lake and Palmer)

P.S.: I just checked the Tomatotometer and the reviews on Amazon. We seem to have a difference of opinion. Amazon's average rating is 1 star out of 5. The Tomatotometer gives it 73% favorable reviews from the critics. Which leads me to comment that if you are going to smoke that much dope before watching a movie, you should watch Pink Floyd's The Wall.

Just To Have Something To Post

I haven't seen a movie this week, and with the TV being out for the last month I have been reading a lot of novels but little to write home about.

So in the meantime, enjoy these mugshots:

Proof that the US has the best healthcare system in the world

Just say no to handling hair bleach while high

Imagine this one with sad clown makeup

The advantages of having a cellmate who does tattoos

So what? Daddy's gonna get his lawyer and then you'll be sorry

Arrested for stealing from the nurse's locker room?

(Now Playing: Limelight by Rush)

Movie Review: Up

There's not a lot you can say about animated movies. The only things you can talk about are the story and the voices. There was a time when you could talk about art, but today's animation not so much.

So I'll just say I thought it was fun. Judging from the LPM (laughs per minute) from the hubby, he liked it more than I did. The weird guy who looked like Kirk Douglas kind of creeped me out.

In the weird news of the day: Texas cop uses a taser on a 72 year old great grandmother when she refuses to sign a speeding ticket. Claims he was justified because she used bad words.

(Now Playing: Colorado by Stephen Stills)

I Predict The Darwin Awards Will Soon Be Hiring

Not to be one-upped by Congress legalizing firearms in national parks, Tennessee state lawmakers passed a law to make it legal to have guns in a bar.

Imagine the confusion when someone yells out, "Hey, barkeep! What do I have to do to get a couple of shots here?" When the police arrived, the bartender, who had just been called 'barkeep' one time too many, could simply claim that he was giving the customer what he asked for.

This is a good thing, if you are looking at it from the standpoint of someone who thinks the herd needs to be culled a bit. Or maybe if you think that when a heat-packing mass-murderer turns up in a room full of drunks that they are likely to do anything other than soil themselves. Seems I saw a special recently where students with guns (that they didn't know weren't holding live ammo) were sent into a lecture hall where someone came in and opened fire. If I remember correctly, there were six of them and the only one that got the gun out of the holster shot an innocent bystander. And they were cold sober.

Of course, the law specifies that you can only carry a gun into a bar if you don't drink. That makes sense. I can't count the number of times I've said to myself, "What to do tonight, I really don't want to drink. Maybe I should go to the bar." 'Cause whenever drinking is the last thing I want to do, I head straight to the nearest bar.

In other alcohol-related news, Westminster police investigated reports of a couple having sex in the median at 88th and Sheridan. He says she has a cyst, and he was checking it for her. What a lucky gal.

(Now Playing: Uranus, The Magician by Holst and the London Symphony Orchestra)

Movie Review: Terminator Salvation

From the moment I head Christian Bale was going to be playing John Connor I didn't have high hopes for this movie, but I had to see it because I am a fan of the prior movies and the television series. After seeing it, I am convinced that they should have done whatever it took to get Nick Stahl back.

I don't have anything against Christian Bale, most of the movies I've seen him in were outstanding. I just think Terminator is one of those that does better with performers that are not well known. I didn't think he would turn in a bad performance, I just didn't think he was right for the part. Because of that I kept running self-checks so see if I didn't like him because of that pre-conceived notion, or if it really was as disappointing as it seemed. I've asked myself the same thing several times since I saw the movie yesterday, and I'm convinced it really was as bad as I think it was.

The most annoying part was that he kept using his Batman voice. Or that he displayed less emotion than your average Terminator. Or that there was so much focus on being a war movie that the humanity of John Connor finally meeting his father fell by the side. Maybe part of it was the script, which had time travel problems that they didn't even try to work out.

That's enough about what was wrong, there were two bright spots. One was Sam Worthington, who played Marcus Wright, and Anton Yelchin, who played Kyle Reese. You may recognize Yelchin from his role as Chekov in the new Star Trek movie. Without them the movie would have been a total loss.

So even though I think it was the weakest of the four movies, as well as the loudest, if you are a fan of the series you still have to go see it.

(Now Playing: Grudges by Reign of Frogs) <-- No, really. It was just the luck of the shuffle on WMP.

The Riverdale Proposal

It's official, Archie Andrews will be proposing marriage and it was recently revealed that he has chosen Veronica over Betty.

Personally, I'm not sure how I would have wanted this to come out. Betty is my personal favorite, she is smart, she can cook, she can fix your car, and she is a genuinely happy person. I also think she would be a little minx in bed, whereas Veronica would be concerned the whole time that you were messing up her hair.

So with Betty being my favorite of the two by far, why am I waffling on who I think Archie should propose to? Because it would be better for Archie to propose to Betty, but better for Betty for him to propose to Veronica. Let's face it, Archie doesn't deserve Betty. He's always taking advantage of Betty's talents and good nature to keep her busy while he dates Veronica.

Here's how I think it will turn out:

Archie proposes to Veronica, and Veronica says yes. Mr. Lodge tells them that if Veronica married Archie they will be on their own and will not receive dollar one from him. Veronica decides she doesn't like Archie that much, after all, what kind of job can he be expected to find considering Betty has been doing him homework for him all these years? Veronica breaks off the engagement, prompting Archie to turn to Betty as he is too self-absorbed to understand how insulting he is being in asking Betty to play second-fiddle. Betty, who finally sees Archie for the womanizing-opportunist he really is, tells him to go pound sand. At last, Betty realizes she can do better than Archie.

So Betty gets what she deserves (a guy who appreciates her and treats her right), Veronica gets what she deserves (Reggie Mantle), and Archie gets what he deserves (no girlfriend). He'll probably end up with a mail order bride, and we will learn that it is true that most guys with mail order brides shouldn't be married in the first place.

(Now Playing: Operator by Jim Croce)

Movie Review: Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian

This, like it's predecessor, is a movie to see if you just want to laugh and have fun.

I waited to get the DVD from the library on the first movie because I generally don't spend money on movies with Ben Stiller or Owen Wilson, and NATM had both. But sometimes excluding movies based on cast can be a mistake. Not only was Owen Wilson great in both movies, I can't imagine anyone else playing Jedediah.

The second is just as fun as the first. It's advantage over the first was having Hank Azaria (in three different roles), it's disadvantage was that it didn't have as much Robin Williams.

If you didn't see the first one, rent it before you go see the second. The movie does assume you know what happened in the first one.

(Off to check The Tomatometer...)

Oh, lord. 44%, once again lower than it deserved. One reviewer criticized the movie for being unrealistic. You think??? But the review that stood out in the realm of the asinine was Anton Bitel's. He complained that it wasn't educational enough. Hello?!?! It has Ben Stiller and Owen Wilson in it! And you were expecting a documentary? Here's a quote: it "has few actual insights to offer into the complexities of the past." No shit?! Maybe that's why (Deity of your choice) made The History Channel! (And for the record, I did learn something. Although I am a subscriber to Smithsonian Magazine, I was not aware that The Smithsonian is actually a collection of 19 museums.)

Anyway, ignore the reviewers and go see it. Just don't bother taking notes.

(Now Playing: Colorado by The Flying Burrito Brothers)

At What Point Did This Seem Like A Good Idea?

If the definition of insanity is doing something over and over and expecting different results, what can you say about these guys?

How many people from the media need to be waterboarded so that they can see for themselves whether it is torture before it is settled? There was Mike Guy of Playboy.com who paid $800 for the experience, Christopher Hitchens for Vanity Fair who titled his article "Believe me, it's torture" and claims to still have nightmares from the experience, Kaj Larsen for a Current TV video, and most recently Conservative talk-radio host Eric "Mancow" Muller who didn't take the word of the others, my guess is because Current TV and Playboy are considered liberal and Christopher Hitchens is a Godless-atheist-heathen. How could having some water poured on your face be any different than taking a shower or going swimming?

He found out how much worse it could be. Mancow figured he could hold out for 30-60 seconds, he made it six seconds. He reluctantly admitted that it was torture. Take into account that he went into it knowing he would be safe, that EMT's were present just in case, that it would only happen once, he could go home when it was over, and he had a toy cow that he could drop at any point to make it stop. He had it pretty easy compared to the detainees.

In a way, I have to hand it to him for having more cojones than Sean Hannity, who said he would be waterboarded for charity if people would put up money for every second he could hold out. When people got out their checkbooks, Hannity clammed up.

I suppose that if some pretty smart people could be convinced that it's okay to experiment with torture, you can't blame a handful of journalists. The Discovery Channel's Mythbusters thought it would be interesting to put Chinese Water Torture to the test. Was anyone surprised when it was confirmed? First bad idea was trying something where the third word of the description is "torture." Second bad idea was waiting until after they did it to talk to someone who knows something about it, who did not hesitate to tell them they shouldn't do that. Another show, I don't recall the name but I think it was on the History Channel, tried it as well and everyone reached the conclusion that it is torture and it could potentially drive a person insane.

So the moral of the story is: If it has a history of being used as a means of torture for centuries, you probably should just accept that it is torture and not play around with it. If it is a tactic that was used by the Spanish Inquisition it wasn't because they wanted to go easy on someone that day. Just say no to subjecting yourself to torture.

(Now Playing: Genius of Love by The Tom Tom Club)

Movie Review: Angels and Demons

I'm finally caught up on movies I want to see. Night at the Museum just came out yesterday, but I don't like to see movies on Fridays. There are too many people on Fridays and parking spaces are better on other days, maybe I'll see it on Tuesday. Yes, I know it's not likely to be an intellectual challenge but the first one was a lot of fun.

There was a weird little thing they did with Angels && Demons. The book was the first one in the Robert Langdon series, but since they filmed DaVinci first they made a few references to make it seem like the events in DaVinci had already happened. Strangely, I was one of the few people who read Angels before reading DaVinci, most people read them backwards.

I like the whole religion v. science aspect of the movie. While reading the book I learned more about the process of selecting a new pope than I did growing up Catholic, and the movie covers the same material. The irony that while fighting against enemy-science the church had to call in an academic was not lost. And, the point was made that religion and science don't have to be enemies.

Book-wise, I liked Angels better but as far as the movies go I liked DaVinci better. I didn't think they filled in enough of the detail that the book gave us, despite the movie being 2 hours 20 minutes. Long movie, yes, but to it's credit it didn't seem like long. It moved fast, but to really do the book justice I think it would have needed to be closer to 3 hours. (Unfortunately, the slow-moving three-hour-long Benjamin Button may have put me off three hour movies for a long time. I kept getting bored and shutting it off and going back the next day.) So similarly to DaVinci, you'll probably enjoy the movie more if you read the book first.

When I got home I wanted to look up one of the cardinals to see where I had seen him before, and I was surprised to see that the Camerlengo was played by Ewan McGregor. I had no idea. I'm not sure if that says more about the direction, the acting, or my ability to recognize faces.

I can't speak to the historical accuracy of some of the things in the movie as my area of study in history only occasionally brushed up against the history of the Catholic church, and was nowhere near art history.

I just checked The Tomatometer, and once again I think the percentage is undeservedly low. 37%? Come on, fellas. The silliest review of all criticized the movie for being unrealistic, then complained that Tom Hanks's character was not being enough like Indiana Jones. Because an academic having the agility and strength of a triathlete is realistic? At any rate, I like characters who are apologetically intelligent and don't need anything else to prop them up. The more reviews I read the more I like the scene in Lady in the Water when the critic gets eaten by a monster.

So the summary is I liked the movie, and I think it was a fun, fast-paced thriller. I would recommend it, but it definitely improves if you have read the book first. Your position in the pro-science/pro-religion/pro-can't-we-all-just-get-along debate may have an influence on your enjoyment of the movie, it certainly did for Bill Donohue of the Catholic League who thinks that everyone is defaming the Catholic church and hasn't forgiven Dan Brown for The Davinci Code. (For more on Bill Donohue, watch the Fantastic Easter Special episode of South Park.)

(Now Playing: Actually, I turned off the music and started up the South Park episode mentioned above.)