Mailbag: Episode IV: A New Mailbag

Hello, friends. It's time, once again, for me to share with you my inane thoughts and feelings on your sometimes inane and sometimes not inquiries. Once again, if you have questions you'd like addressed, please leave them in the comments, on facebook, in an email, whatever. I'll get to them.

AM: Bigger turnoff on a first date: A) You see your date pick her nose and eat it, or B) It comes out in conversation that she is a rabid Wolverines fan? Has a scout.com or rivals subscription to follow recruiting and refers to "Ohio" rabid. (note the food was taking forever to get there if that at all excuses the booger eatin')

In case you were wondering what the facial manifestations of hunger pangs look like.. also, does he have the same haircut as Marcus Junius Brutus the younger?

First, both of these are gross.. so let's determine the circumstances that make each of these more or less gross. If she's from Ohio and didn't attend (sc)UM (or have a close family connection to the school) it's definitely the "M*chigcan fan" option.* Unacceptable treachery there. Liking scUM and being from Ohio may be the single most undesirable character trait I can think of.. unless you actually attended scUM of course. So let's assume that she is not from Ohio and or is from Ohio and did attend scUM. If she's from Michigan and roots for M*chigan.. I can live with that. She clearly possesses traits like loyalty and pride which are crucial in a potential romantic partner. We probably won't get along at all during football season, but if this first date was from mid January-July we'll more than likely to be fine.. provided I can logic her out of that "Ohio" nonsense. I've converted vegetarians before.. so that shouldn't be too much of a problem, particularly when one considers how stupid the "Ohio" thing is. And really, in light of what happened in the NCAA tournament, even the human garbage disposal known as Brady Hoke should be embarrassed about the "Ohio" thing at this point. But what am I saying? Expecting anything other than binge eating out of him is like waiting for the tooth fairy. I can accept and in fact appreciate genuine fandom, provided it's born of actual legitimate and non-treasonous impulses. But let's take a second to talk about this snot eating.. what kind of snot/booger/discharge is it? Giant or tiny? Slimy? Is she trying to hide it or does she just up and bust it out like she's never left the house before? If she's doing it in a manner in which she thinks I can't see it.. not a deal-breaker. Pretty gross, to be certain, and I'd have to observe the rest of her behavior to ensure she doesn't have some sort of greater issue going on.. but I'll take that over most M*chigan fans. (Excepting only M*chigan fans that actually went to scUM or are from Michigan or have a personal/family connection with the school) If, however, it's a big/slimy bastard and/or she makes no effort to hide it.. that is more disgusting than all passionate M*chigan fans EXCEPT for blatantly treasonous ones.. i.e., those that are from Ohio, have no personal connection to scUM and just root for M*chigan to be contrarian. I would take a blatant nose picker over a traitor to the motherland. Although lets be honest about something, I would in no way bang either one of them. Under no circumstances.

So, in summation: passionate scUM fan from Michigan or a scUM alum > M*chigan fan from elsewhere around the country who picked scUM for a legitimate reason (i.e., brother/parents went to UM) > subtle nose picker/eater > passionate scUM fan NOT from Ohio > Gross nose picker/eater > Benedict Arnold (at least he was an accomplished General who was arguably wronged and disrespected..) > passionate scUM fan from Ohio with no connection to the school. Uncertain if passionate scUM fan NOT from Ohio with no discernible connection to scUM would have any possibility of a romantic coupling. Gross nose picker/eater and passionate scUM fan from Ohio with no connection to school certainly have no possibility.

*and I don't want to hear the "but my family likes M*chigan" excuse.. that just means your parents had undesirable traits that you yourself DECIDED to carry on. We are human beings blessed with the gift of sentience.. the sins of the father are not those of ourselves. If they were, we'd still be burning witches at the stake and what not. Some brave generation took a stand. Be that generation, Ohioans.

ND: At what minimum age could five children working together successfully kick a grown man's ass?

To make this question answer-able, let's assume healthy, average sized participants. I'm going to take 25 as the age for the full-grown man, as that should be considered in everyone's physical prime. The average height and weight of a 25 year old American man (according to various websites I found that of are varying dubious quality) is around 5'10 and 180 lbs. At age 14, the average US boy is 5'4", 110 lbs. At 13: 5'1, 96 lbs. At 12: 4'10, 84 lbs. 11: 4'9, 77 lbs. 10: 4'6", 70 lbs. I don't feel there's any point in going farther down than that. Let's assume no badassery of any kind, karate training, weapons, etc., just totally average kids and an average adult. I think it's safe to assume that 10 and 11 year olds are simply too small to inflict enough damage to successfully kick the ass of a grown man. By age 12, we're looking at 85 lbs and just shy of 5'.. we're getting closer, but I'd still say too small. You'd have to assume that one or two of the kids would get smashed before they could execute the bum rush maneuver that would be the fastest and easiest route to victory. By age 13, your average American boy is 5'1 and close to 100 lbs.. that's basically the size of tiny grown women. I say at this age and size, kicking the asses for the adult male is going to involve significant expenditure of energy to the point where the dude is going to be exhausted, especially if the kids work together to evade him. Wolves take down large prey in this manner.. working it to exhaustion and then pouncing. Plus, at 96 lbs, a bum rush tactic would most likely be successful, as they have enough size to possibly inflict damage and we're talking about nearly 500 total lbs of opponent. So my final answer is: no doubt about it at age 13.. I'd like to see the 12 year olds vs the adult. Depending on how clever the 12 year olds are, they may just pull it off.

GH: I think there should be an annual Oscar category for "best trailer", in light of that, what are your 3 best/favorite movie trailers of all time?

You know I LOVE movie trailers. Making strong movie trailers is an art in and of itself.. and a good trailer can propel a movie to greatness or utterly sink the flick. A good trailer should give you a solid idea of what the movie's all about without spoiling too much of the plot and/or the really cool scenes. It should have a flow and a certain narrative of its own.. be compelling to watch independently of what the final film itself may turn out to be. In addition, a solid song never hurt anything. So with that being said, let's check out my top 3 movie trailers of all time:

"300", 2007. This trailer is probably better than the movie itself.. not that there's anything in particular wrong with the movie, it is what it is, but this trailer boils down everything awesome aboutit to one little 150 second burst of badassery. Plus... Nine Inch Nails ftw.

"Terminator Salvation", 2009. The connection isn't just NIN, even though this usage of NIN is probably better than even 300's use. This trailer is no-doubt better than the movie, and is undeniably badass. Granted, I like "Terminator Salvation", it is significantly better than its reputation suggests, but this trailer suggests greatness, which TS did not approach. Oh well, still a lot of fun to watch.

"The Social Network", 2010. Oddly enough, Trent Reznor is involved in the score to this flick but not the music for the trailer.. a little reversal there. Yes, this trailer is great.. and it succinctly sums up why this is a movie you'd actually want to watch and why.. as opposed to the idea of "a facebook movie".. which sounds kind of crappy. Perfect music, perfect tone, perfect pacing.. great trailer.

Honorable mentions: Alien (1979), Inception (2010), The Dark Knight (2008)

The award for top trailer of 2012 goes to Prometheus' 2nd trailer: ... SOOOOOOO badass.

AG: What's the Grammy for best Fotown song: Robbie rocks the -- , Randy Rock, or Eddie Frias -- his Pants on the Floor?

This is a SERIOUSLY inside Fotown question, but I love it. Robbie still owes me a shot of Jager that I'm no longer physically capable of doing do to the events of "Robbie rocks the [rooster]" (set to N'Sync's "Pop") night. All of these songs are classics, with "Eddie Frias _____ his pants on the floor" (set to David Banner's "Like a pimp") in fact being due to a case of mistaken identity, and "Randy Rock" (set to Ludacris' "Stick Em Up") actually being enjoyed by a certain staff member. "Robbie rocks the [rooster]" led to friend infighting and man tears, so not that one. My final answer is "Randy Rock".. simply because it's so damn catchy. Even Mary S. couldn't resist. The Grammy for best Fotown song goes to "Randy Rock".


LB: I've been watching the mini series, "The Kennedys" and it got me thinking. If you could have been born into any American "Royal Family" (Kennedy, Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, etc.), which would you choose and why?

Good question. First, it wouldn't be the Kennedys. While I'm not a superstitious type myself there's no denying that the Kennedy clan does seem to be beset by some odd and downright unlucky occurences. Some would say due to the sins of the father and so on, but I'm not sure I buy that. First, Joe Kennedy Jr. dies in a freak experimental test flight in WW2 (he also had a sister who underwent an involuntary lobotomy). Second, JFK gets assassinated in an event so crazy that many consider it to be unsolved (JFK also had a stillborn daughter and a son who died in infancy). Third, RFK, taking up his brother's mantle, is assassinated by an insane Jordanian nationalist. Ted Kennedy then drove his car off a bridge, resulting in the drowning death of his passenger at Chappaquiddick. Michael died in a ski accident, David Kennedy ODed on cocaine, JFK Jr. died in a freak plane crash? No thank you. Plus the complete lack of annonymity. Being rich isn't cool unless you can enjoy it. No one wants to be bothered.

Being rich is a qualifier, which is why the Vanderbilts are also out. They gave away all of their fortune and are no longer an American institution.

My finalists are the Rockefellers and the Waltons, of Wal Mart fame. The Waltons are worth an estimated $93 billion dollars. On the other hand, the Rockefellers have their hands in innumerable business and political interests, most prominently JP Morgan Chase. I think I'm going to pick the Rockefellers... just b/c Wal Mart kind of sucks.

If Jeff Bezos would like to take me under his wing though, count me in.

2012: The Year in Film: "The Cabin in the Woods" Review

This is Joss Whedon's coming out party in the movies. First, this flick, that has been delayed several times, which Whedon co-wrote with protege Drew Goddard (who got his start writing on Buffy and has been involved in many nerd-tastic JJ Abrams projects since..), who also directs. Of course, Whedon also wrote and directed "The Avengers" which comes out in a couple of weeks. Good for him. Now I know I don't do much horror around here.. it's just not my genre. I find horror to be contrived, cliched, predictable and often unnecessarily gruesome simply for gore's sake. I have a rule, and that's that generally I don't watch things that I can completely figure out from a one minute trailer. That covers horror, romantic comedies, the type of action movies that Jason Statham stars in and shitty Adam Sandler-style comedies. In addition, I'm not frightened by the supernatural and/or things that are impossible. A lot of movie horror consists of atmospheric creepiness (tense music and things popping out at you) and preposterous, unbelievable situations. But horror can be great when done well and avoiding tropes.. "The Exorcist", "Silence of the Lambs" and "Alien" all come to mind, but many would argue that the latter to are more thriller and sci-fi than straight horror. But anyway, Whedon's involvement immediately piqued my interest, and then I started seeing that the flick was getting rave reviews (currently at 92% on RT), so I decided to check out this flick that's been getting so much buzz in the fanboy community.

First, this movie turns the horror genre on its head. It uses its premise to directly attack/mock typical horror movie tropes and situations, and really is quite funny, quite often. Despite how the trailer may appear, this is far from your typical slasher flick. There are layers and twists that make this much more than even a knowing horror attempt. It is at once quite meta and self aware, and at the same time making a legitimate attempt at constructing a story despite its acknowledgment of the problems of the genre. I am going to avoid spoilers in this review, because I avoided them myself prior to seeing it and really think it added to my enjoyment.



Using the traditional tropes of horror films (the jock, the slut, the brainy one, the stoner/goofball, the "good girl") allows for effective horror on one level while simultaneously making a mockery of the genre on another AND creating a cohesive narrative at the same time. The chutzpah of these guys, I'll tell you. The cast is strong, despite being limited by the constructs of the narrative.. particularly Kristen Connolly (Dana, the "good girl"). Of interesting note is that this flick sat for 3 years due to MGM's bankruptcy, so Chris "Thor" Hemsworth appears here in a supporting role. There are many extremely funny parts, which is to be expected with Whedon, but I laughed hard several times, and was legitimately frightened several times.. so good for this movie. This movie tries to do a lot of things and be a lot of things and doesn't necessarily knock each of these efforts out of the park.. but I applaud the hell out of them for even swinging. (too much baseball?) This sort of filmmaking is to be applauded.

I apologize for being quite vague with this review.. but I really don't want to spoil what's going on.. it will take a lot of the fun out of it. But it works as a horror movie, as a send-up of horror movies, as a simply fun movie, and as an overarching narrative of its own. My complaints are, simply, that at time it's a little TOO knowing and tries a bit TOO hard, and that I kind of sort of hated the ending.. rather strongly. In addition, and maybe this isn't entirely fair to hold against the flick.. but when you're making a smart, knowing movie, the dumb plot holes seem especially glaring. There are several that make no sense. Despite these criticisms, all in all, this a fun time at the movies. I had a blast.

7.5/10. If the ending was different, I'd be giving it an 8.5. It's good, a lot of fun, and well worth a watch. Check it out, you won't regret it.. as long as you know this isn't your typical horror flick.

2012: The Year in Film: "Lockout" Review

It's been a while since you've read my drivel, but there are several posts currently under construction, I'll have you know. I've been busy being a quasi-adult and reading lots of Batman. Noh8. First, an aside on movie etiquette: some dude brought in a probably 4-6 year old child to see this movie. Questionable parenting aside (it's rated PG-13..), if your child is incapable of behaving properly in a movie, WHY ARE YOU BRINGING HIM INTO A MOVIE?!? I feel dude's pain, believe me.. dad/uncle/male companion was probably 26 and wanted to check out a fun action movie, probably enjoy his Friday.. but c'mon, man. You don't live in a vacuum. When your child is babbling on at full volume throughout the movie you're having an adverse impact on everyone else and their enjoyment of the flick. I know that it's 2012 and no one gives a shit about anyone else and what's going on with them anymore, but let's try to display a bare minimum of consideration and human decency, shall we? I really think that movie theaters and restaurants could be vastly improved by having kid-free theaters/sections.

Several initial thoughts on "Lockout" before we actually start talking about "Lockout".. first, Guy Pearce is awesome. He has been consistently working for going on 20 years now, but somehow has never made the leap to full-on movie star. After L.A. Confidential and Memento, you'd have thought that he'd have moved on to a Christian Bale type career. Maybe he didn't want it, maybe he made some bad calls, who knows, but he's only 45, and between "Lockout" and this summer's "Prometheus", he may finally be poised to make the leap. In addition, I miss '90's-style action. From 1985-1997 or so there were no shortage of legitimately awesome action flicks that depended on the charisma of their stars and harrowing situations to make fun, extremely watchable flicks. A combination of the Matrix and super hero movies did two things to action: first, emphasized FX and camera tricks, and second: caused action flicks starring a normal human protagonist to have to up the ante, and everyone became an invincible master gymnast and killing machine. John McClane is not a super hero or kung-fu master. He's a plucky, tough-ass dude. He's not jumping into a room and beating up 17 people a la Neo. So let's jump into "Lockout".. it's somewhat hard to review a flick like this, because one must consider the ambition and intention of the filmmakers involved. No one involved with, or seeing "Lockout" has any illusions about what they are doing. They aren't trying to win an Oscar, they are trying to create a fun action flick.. so keep that in mind.

So the year is 2079 and a major international corporation has funded the construction of an orbital maximum security prison to house the world's most dangerous and deadly prison, MS1. It is, of course, impregnable, impossible to escape from and also completely safe. The President's daughter (Maggie Grace) is part of a humanitarian agency seeking to investigate the conditions on MS1 and travels to the prison on a factfinding mission. CIA agent Snow (Pearce) after a mission gone bad, finds himself of the wrong side of the law. When things go wrong on MS1, Snow finds himself being asked to undertake the suicide mission of rescuing the President's daughter. There are various secrets related to Snow's failed mission and things are not all they seem on MS1 as well.

So basically, the plot is "Die Hard" meets "Escape from NY", in outer space. Our hero finds himself outgunned and outmatched, with minimal chance of escape and a smaller chance of survival. These sort of bare bones, action movies for action's sake are pretty much entirely dependent on their star and cast. What separates Die Hard and the Rock from various Jean Claude Van Damme, John Cena and Steven Segal straight to DVD numbers (besides a solid story) is the charisma of the talent involved. Top-notch actors can turn the absurd into the enjoyable. Lucky for us, Guy Pearce and Maggie Grace give it their all. Pearce is one of the most underrated actors working today, and has shown remarkable range in his career.. but here he pulls out his inner badass. He brings a certain callous devil-may-care attitude and quip-filled badassery, in the best tradition of John McClane and Wolverine, Snow is an antisocial, stand-offish, smug asshole who also happens to be very, very, very good at what he does.



Luc Besson, the man responsible for "Leon", "The 5th Element", "Taken" and a myriad of other action movies over the last 20 years, produced, and you can tell. This is a slick, well-done flick that looks great and is a lot of fun if full of plot holes. Maggie Grace, who I didn't think was particularly strong in either "LOST" or "Taken", shines here and provides an effective foil, companion and moral compass for our reluctant hero. Longtime "That Guy" Vincent Regan (I recognized him as the Captain from "300") is strong as one of the inmate leaders, and newcomer Joseph Gilgun is downright disturbing as his psycho brother. The stakes are sufficiently high, everything makes just enough sense, and above all, Pearce is a joy to watch. This flick is about 100 minutes long but it feels like 40 minutes tops. A damn good time at the movies. Don't go in expecting "Schindler's List", but if you want to see some people get their asses kicked and laugh at ridiculous deadpan one-liners, check it out. It's a bit too derivative (it really is Die Hard meets Escape from NY in space..) and reliant on tropes to be great, and if the cast hadn't sold it it might not be good at all, but as is, a strong, extremely watchable action flick. I had a good time.

7/10.