Thank god none of us ever said "this ain't no country for old men"

No Country For Old Men.
Coen Brothers.

The film's plot is such: Guy finds money. Killer tracks guy. Crazy ass shit ensues.

I consider the Coen brothers to be my favorite filmmakers (I hate making those superlatives but the Coen brothers come close.) Their films always feel original, and solid, and are beautifully shot. I don't think they can make a bad film, maybe mediocre (I hear ladykillers is just OK, same for intolerable cruelty), but always worth watching. As simple as it sounds, I just always have the feeling they're actually trying... The movies you see trailers for and groan, those are the movies where it had nothing to do with the goal of putting something interesting on screen, no one was trying.

No country for old men is no exception. It's an entertaining, dark, slow burn of a film that's probably even better viewing multiple times to let it sink in. In the theatre it took a little bit of time for the film to get its legs, and I wasn't feeling it all that well, and then the plot and the characters kind of sneak up on you. Suddenly, you realize the tension that's spread throughout the screen and the theatre. Every ones tensed up, wondering what happens next. Essentially the classic definition of a good movie.

As a fan of big panoramas or almost landscape shots, this movie gives you some great ones of west texas (cough cough new mexico/nevada), and is a joy to look at.

This mini-review isn't much of one, but I'll end by telling you to go see the movie, and unless violence really turns you off from movies, it'll be worth it.

What's your googleprint?

What is a googleprint, is it a term I subconsciously stole? is it a term that requires tweaking as a friend has suggested? or is it the most important word you read today!

Probably not, but for me, your googleprint is your impact on the Internet, what people will find when they search your name or your email.

A friend and I were discussing what bosses/hiring peoples could find when they googled you, as they are certainly going to do. For me, you probably can't even find this blog, if you have the right email, you might find a post I left on a forum years ago. But if they could find this blog, what picture am I presenting?

I post intermittently, I sometimes discuss controversial topics, I don't think I cuss really that often. So, I pose that because my discussions are not full of vitriol and pure hatred, it wouldn't be much of a problem. But maybe it would be, more than ever companies have to think about the personal lives of their employees and any gaffe can shoot across the Internet in a wide arc of publicity, and be tied just as much to the company, as the employee.

The moral conundrum: this is my life outside of work, but every mistake every issue can be publicly visible. I don't think a company should be able to tell me what I can say, what I can eat, what I can do, but I can still see the practical nature of them wanting to do so.

The end result, as always, will have to be a balance. In the age of the Internet, you'll never really be able to differentiate separate realms of public and personal, unless you abstain from the Internet completely (even then, someone else can post about you too). We have to accept this, and our employers have to accept that while they can set guidelines, if they impose too much, they'll ruffle far too many feathers.

So for most of us, we'll have to give a crap, and recognize when we post, when we discuss star wars, when we search for crotch hitting and a guy crying about Ms. Spears, we're sending a message, however inadvertent, about the type of person we are. To that I say, try not to be a dumb-ass, try to discuss things passionately but rationally and relaxed, and be able to defend all of what you do (even though you shouldn't have to).

GUNS.... guns....GUNS!!!

Shoot 'Em Up.

I guess I'm the target demo for this movie, namely, 10-50 year old males who like to see things get blown up, and guntacularness (look it up). I also read two of my Eric Approved (C) reviewers who said it was so over the top that it was enjoyable. With these two facts going for it, I expected to love the movie, and thus I went. Even, if when the rest of the world thinks of America, they probably think of us going to see these gunporn movies carrying our Baconators and a gallon of soda (.... i had no such food!), I would be damned if I missed seeing essentially a violent cartoon brought to real life.

And what of it you say...well there was violence, guns, insanity, and Paul Giamatti a step removed from twisting his fingers through a long thin mustache. Even with all that though...it failed to deliver on its promise....or the promise I developed for it in my head.

Clive Owen has the cool-under-fire-stoic-badass-with-a-heart-of-gold thing cornered, and he does some crazy things, many of which you can see in the trailer. But all the action, and all the reasons behind it are strung together lazily. I know its an action movie, but to be good it still has to be taut and engaging, and have a purpose, however simple it might be.

Shoot 'Em Up fails on these accounts for most of the movie, though peppered throughout are some scenes where your jaw drops and you just chuckle at yourself in awe of what they attempted.

The other issue is being part of a jaded video game generation. I can't help but look at most things, and if they fail for me, recognize where they could have been better. Combine this with games, where I've seen and played through some amazing action scenes, the filmmaker really has to try hard to be able to measure up. It may sound ludicrous, but watching the movie was like playing a video game, and as such, it as higher standards for how bat-shit insane it has to be before I can begin to enjoy it on that level.


So guys and action loving gals, look for it on DVD, find a friend who has a large TV, and watch it, but don't expect too much.

Just for me

As this is essentially an internet diary.... that no one even secretly reads. I shall post a song recommendation that maybe a random internet'er can stumble upon.


With arms outstretched - Rilo Kiley

also some jack johnson and bill withers.

It's a small small world.... full of even smaller ones.

I guess it's something that has existed before the internet, but the internet makes it easy to notice and comment on. I'm referring to the small worlds we all find ourselves belonging to, little communities, where we're not sure how big they are, but they feel important.

It may be hard to describe, and harder to understand, unless you've been through it. But I always find it interesting when a small group has kind of become myopic and reciprocal, and everybody loves everything, and it's all a gravy train... and BAM someone or some idea comes in and shakes it all up. Then everyone in the group remembers that it is a tiny group, it's influence isn't so vast, and there are other perspectives out there.

On a larger scale (zing), I would point us towards snakes on a plane, where the buzz felt huge and cool.... if you were someone who's online constantly and visited certain circles. It peaked into mainstream with some coverage, but in the end, the movie didn't do that well (maybe dvd, who knows) and we can see how our world isn't so big.

On the internet, it could be a blog that you really enjoy reading, and you subconsciously start to remove your critical faculty of it, because you love it so much. Then someone comes in and makes some points and you go... hey... they're right or at least somewhat so. I think even the most skeptical are victim to this, and that might even be the wrong word. I shy away from poo pooing a group of people enjoying their thoughts and discussions as much as I shy away from fanboyism.

So in the end, if you're confident enough in you're thinking, it won't be a bad thing, the shakeup will just add to your experiences for the next time.

Image taken from flickr, copyright respective owner

Jesus is camping, and it's raining outside.

I finally watched Jesus Camp, and while it's not what I was expecting, I still ended up enjoying the film and the way the directors went about putting it together.

I confess I know little of Evangelical Christians, and being raised Catholic, but not practicing right now, Catholicism was really the only form of Christiantiy I experienced. So it's interesting to go inside and see some of what Evangelical Christianity is like. Obviously the film wasn't a treatise on Evangelicals, and everyone practices they're faith differently, but some of the basic concepts I gleaned from the film, do give insight.

I'd suggest watching the film, and with any documentary, to give it a balanced critical eye. But if you think similarly to me, parts of the film where you can see all these emotions flowing through each child's head, might get you angry or at least frustrated and sad.

I say this because I believe in choice, I want kids to be allowed to be kids, to try and understand the world on their own terms as much as possible. The film centers around a few kids who attend an Evangelical Christian camp, and also follows them to various events. It kind of gives you glimpses into their mindset with interviews and fly on the wall footage.

Back to choice. So...most kids look up to their parents, and look to them for cues, for guidance, and when you see a little girl seemingly strain to be the best Christian she can, you feel like its not because she particuarly decided its the right option for her. You feel like she really wants to do her parents proud, and if Christian preaching is what that takes so be it. Growing up with these beliefs always around, its natural she takes to them.

A set of parent's in the film said they dont think they're forcing, that the kids choose the path of god. But in reality, when you hear it from the day you're born, that sin = hell, and that you are part of a "chosen generation" to lead America back to Christian values, it's a hard thing to turn down or even evaluate.

This is my problem with religions, that they can help but just as often lead to inarguable positions. I'm sure the parent's could continue and say it's God's choice, he's influencing the child. And the force of God is untenable, you can't disprove or prove it, and if someone believes in it, there's no way around it.

To me religion should be part of an exporation into how we're connected to our world, and our neighbors, not loud chest pounding about being right. Beliefs inevitably lead to conflict, and when you raise a generation of kids to believe to their core that they're chosen, that people need saving, that God is using them as tools for his will, it is a scary and dangerous propostion. And it depends on how much kids accept it, and how well they're taught to critically think about the world they live in.

Founding Tragedy!

You may or may not be aware of the new $1 coins being issued, but with the evidence I present before you; I think it's safe to say that James Madison had some sort of carriage accident during his presidency. I like to think maybe he lost his son during this tragedy, to add more weight to the story. And with the loss of his son, and the scarring, he used his rage to develop beyond the Articles of Confederation, and be integral to crafting the Constitution and our current form of government.

While no evidence exists for any of these facts, I say to you that history is always changing!

La Choca Nostra

He's a low level thug in a crime syndicate. He's kept on as a favor to a cousin, and he's not too bright. His brain damage means you either trick his child-like mind and get past, or knock him out only to regret it afterward.

His name is Marco O' Malley, and he's waiting in the alley for you.