Mark the Calendar: December 18 (RE: Ian Watkins' Sentencing), Raising Awareness on Depraved Sexual Abuse of Minors

Come December 18th, I will take part in/initiate a hashtag whereby I praise the very necessary indictment of the monstrous, sickening, depraved piece of shit known as Ian Watkins, formerly of Lostprophets fame. The children he has hurt, damaged, irrevocably violated will never be the same, and his sentencing is not enough. He took full, disgusting advantage of the fame & power he had amassed, and thankfully, people locked him away so that at least for up to 32 years, he cannot violate another soul.

We're talking about, at the time of his most disturbing crimes against humanity, infants less than a year old. He did things I don't want to describe on here, as this would get some attention.
Awareness of the monster that this Ian Watkins truly is is key to the bigger picture, the greater awareness that people like him are to be found elsewhere, doing things that would drive people mad with rage, disgust, and despair. Not only that, but there are two women who willingly became accomplices who are nearly as depraved as he, for they, (quite apparently) with glee, presented their VERY young children to him to be...god.

If you can stomach what you`d read about this scum of humanity and his most disturbed accomplices did, then you can read about the court remarks/findings here: http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/…/Ju…/r-v-watkins-and-others.pdf

December 18th couldn't come any sooner. He was sentenced that day last year, and for the honour of the children he, and others like him have violated, awareness shall be spread via Twitter. It's a useful platform to make sure people are aware of crimes like these happening around the world today.

To say "Fuck you" to Ian Watkins is truly not enough, and does nothing to alleviate the destruction he has wrought. I can only imagine how his former band-mates felt when they heard of what a monster he turned out to be. I can only imagine how his victims through the last ten or so years feel, having been destroyed by him. One can only hope that the pain that those two infants will feel when they are older and become privy to the truth, that it doesn't overwhelm either of them.

Maleficent review (2014, Fantasy/Thriller/Family, Robert Stromberg)

The original classic Sleeping Beauty had a more compact, and because of it, easily digestible feel. Dark, foreboding, enchanting, and frankly quite neat, the 65 year old original had long-since earned its status as one of the greatest Disney classics.

Then a couple people with no original ideas of their own looked at that classic, thought it should be revitalized and maybe even twisted around because why the hell not, and ended up making this movie. Is it horrendous? No, not really. But it's just so inconsequential that that is my main problem with this film.

I have to get it out of the way right at the get-go: one of the very few saving graces for this film is in Angelina Jolie's performance. Throughout her entire run on-screen, she pretty much steals the show. And while she nails the deceptively malevolent vibe of the character down to a 'T' (you'll understand why I said 'deceptively' soon), just about everything else about this movie nearly brings her performance down to the level of ambitious, yet failed fan-fiction schlock that rips off just about every work of fantasy in history.

The special effects, as expected by the man who worked on James Cameron's Avatar, are solidly done. But anything that isn't directly involved in the narrative, such as the many spells employed by our title character herself, doesn't even matter in the first place. The effort that went into designing those effects could have been put to better use, but instead they serve to dazzle the audience like Fiddler's Green from George Romero's Land of the Dead used fireworks to distract zombies. In fact, you pretty much have to be a zombie to even appreciate this film at all, because as mentioned, there's a lot of fluff, very pretty fluff at that, but that's still useless and pretty fluff. Likewise, the cinematography is good as well, at least in appearance, but that's pretty much all I can say about it.

Like most movies over the past decade or more, this film somehow lacks a memorable soundtrack. Compare this travesty to the more heartfelt (and arguably just as dark) original which utilized some of its soundtrack to spotlight the plotline (in other words, sing-song, just like what you get in so many other Disney films throughout its history). This lack of a soundtrack that even adds anything of substance serves as another nail in the coffin as to just how soulless this film is.

Aside from Jolie, who, as mentioned, steals the show pretty much all the time she appears on screen, nobody really does anything of note. Some characters, and thus the performances of those portraying them, even got outright neutered in this live-action re-imagining of Disney's classic. The three fairies Flora, Fauna and Merryweather all became unfunny Three Stooges spoofs, whereas in the original they were vastly essential to the plot. In this film they are stupid, obnoxious, and ditzy, ending up being negligent regarding Aurora's very well-being. In the original, they raised her with love and care, protecting them at all times, most certainly living up to the trust that her father gave to them in the first place.

The prince, who originally was the ace, the means of breaking the curse that the title character set on Aurora, ends up being absolutely irrelevant in this film. He's an outright red herring, serving as a means for the filmmakers to smack you, the audience, over the head with the ludicrously lame twist. In the original, he was the one who broke Aurora out of her death-like sleep; here, he kisses her, and nothing happens because for the sake of the movie, he and Aurora never really had any lasting contact let alone any chance to form such feelings. Well, Aurora seemed to feel something after their first and only true encounter, but that might have just been her loneliness dissipating for a bit. So who is the one who'd deliver true love's kiss? Well, none other than Maleficent. See where this is all going?

Sharlto Copley, previously seen in sleeper hits such as District 9 and the decent follow-up Elysium, doesn't really fit into this film. He's a solid actor and all, but he's above his role and he inadvertently hurts his own performance just being there. Plus it felt like a cruel cop-out to suddenly thrust the antagonist role onto him, considering his position in the story, just for the rather silly twist.

There's a battle scene that plays out when Maleficent has grown into, well, Angelina Jolie, whom takes it upon herself to protect the Moors from a king that never seemed to care about the place until this point of the film. It's actually quite brief, so you won't get anything of the caliber seen in the second & third Lord of the Rings film entries. Tree & rock monsters enter the fray, including a serpent of sorts, and Maleficent herself shows superhuman strength with the flapping of her wings alone. The king is knocked on the ground, Maleficent tells him off, and that's that. Later he's seen dying, or something, so he seeks vengeance in the form of a volunteer, and that's where Maleficent's downfall (which is downplayed in this film, as per the twist I mentioned previously) is set in motion.

Some later scenes look very Avatar-esque. One of them has Aurora, assumed to be sixteen-years old, basking in the fantastical glory of the Moors, interacting with the various creatures within as if she were their goddess. They take to her so quickly it seems because she's so happy and whatever, whereas Maleficent is kind of the opposite. Now, all of this would have meant something had the film been faithful to the original storyline, but it ends up falling flat. Maleficent lost her will to do good in the world, at least in the original, whereas here she just seems to have a long-lasting hissy fit. The one thing this film has on the original tale is that the tragedy that sets her downfall in motion is actually quite tragic, based entirely on betrayal rather than being excluded from a gathering of sorts like in the original fable. Had it been a faithful, albeit still updated take on the old tale, there would have actually been an interplay at hand, people would have had a reason to care about these spectacles showcasing Aurora's synergy with the wonders of the Moors, and Maleficent wouldn't end up so...tame. All considering the reason she is sent on a downward spiral in the first place:

She loses her wings to Stefan, Copley's character in the film.

Now that development, something that had the film not tapered off toward the end, would have endeared it, seemed like a great way to not only show why Maleficent would lose her good ways, but to also make the audience feel a bit of sympathy for her. How was she to know that Stefan would choose to steal her wings, even if he had good intentions in doing so? Some filmgoers might not even recognize the reasons for his sacrifice, as it is something you need to pay attention to to understand, but it's very much there. However, when the final battle is raging, Aurora finds Mal's wings locked up and, alive & moving on their own. It makes little sense but bare with me here: she then proceeds to smash the wing's prison, and they fly themselves to Maleficent while she battles Stefan's knights and attach themselves to where they originally were. The "what-the-fuck"-ery on display here is so huge because it ruins a lot of what could have made this flick more likeable.

One particular reason it ruins the film for me, and has seemingly so for others, is because of the question, "why didn't her wings do this before, such as while Stefan was riding them to the kingdom, with little to restrain them from flying back to Maleficent?" And another question arises after you've watched her conjure all manner of spells throughout the duration of the movie; "If Maleficent has all of these cool powers, then why oh why can't she grow a new pair of wings, or fly in some magical way?" In fact, in one scene where Stefan's knights are trying to barge their way into the Moors, well after Maleficent has closed it off in anticipation, Maleficent holds the group of knights back with, amongst other spells, the ability to make them fly into the air. Well, they don't of their volition, but if she could do that then what the fuck stopped her from granting herself something like flight, without wings?

But somehow the film is (supposed to be) better than it should be because the narrator knows the truth about Maleficent, because she is Aurora. If this revelation prior to the last slide of the film was supposed to shock people, then I'm not one of them. Given that the narrator seems to play no role in the film for more than half of its run, and only served to provide conniving expository dialogue whenever she was heard, the reveal that we were listening to Aurora all along suffers from what most of this film does: it falls flat.

C-

The Good:

+ Angelina Jolie was made for this role.

+ Some nice, if mostly unoriginal fantasy spectacles to be seen.

+ Arbitrary battle scene for those who like arbitrary battle scenes.

The Bad:

- No one else can match Angelina Jolie.

- Many important and interesting plot points & characters were neutered for whatever reason (such as the huge importance the three faeries played in the original).

- That twist...

- Arbitrary battle scene, not for those who dislike arbitrary battle scenes or for those who feel they don't need to be in every damn movie, especially those of fantasy.

- Prince Phillip doesn't need to be here, given the twist, and the utter lack of character development How a 60-plus animated film got this right is beyond me.

- The Kingdom disposes of all known knitting wheels and sets fire to them. Somehow, after about sixteen years, they're still there, waiting for Aurora to touch them.

- Nothing special about the casting choices.

- You might actually feel bad for Stefan dying. I mean, he was driven a bit crazy by the hyperbolic reaction to his well-intended betrayal that Maleficent was exhibiting. Let's see: severing the wings of the one you considered a good friend to guarantee her safety even though you never end up admitting this to her, versus Maleficent cursing your only daughter to prick her finger on a knitting wheel to fall into a death-like sleep forever. Yeah I would side with Stefan on this one.

-  Maleficent does not turn into a dragon.

- Very unoriginal and steals a lot from many other fantasy stories & films. Avatar & The Lord of the Rings come to mind.

Word of Mouth #16: El-P + Killer Mike - RTJ2

Download the entire album for FREE by signing up for their official newsletter.

The storytelling antics of El-P complemented by the clever wordplay of Killer Mike returns for a free sequel. 

So it is free, and you have probably yet to download it. Yeah, it's quite a trade-off to sign up for their newsletter, but this album is free so enjoy it freely.

No more failed wordplay; listen to it!

Word of Mouth #15: Keep - Hypnosis For Sleep

This is a self-release, dated July 22, 2014.

More shoegazing! It's also a perfect (in my opinion, anyway) blending of shoegazing with ambient. Just listen to the opener to get what I'm saying.

At $1 a track, you can't go wrong. Releases like these are why BandCamp is a great venue for quality tunes. I'm digging the vocals here especially; they're both mellow and melodic, helping to generate a vibe I've thus far felt in only few genres of music. 

Support these guys if you like what they have to share. And take a look at their official motif while you're at it!

The Sudden Necessity for Bill O'Reilly's Immediate Retirement

While many of his critics would argue that he's lost the plot ages ago, I think if there's any event that would cement him as a bonafide crazy would be his recent call on the government to hire 25,000 mercenaries to kill Islamic terrorists. Of course, that would start with ISIS.

It's not enough that audiences of news media, especially Fox (although that's par the course for those chickenhawks), are constantly being constantly brow-beaten with the notion that an all-out war on ISIS is necessary. However, these outlets ignore the majority opinion that the people don't want war on the battlefield again. The 'war' on terror commenced in 2003 will go down in the history books as one of the biggest flukes carried out by the U.S. Military. Now the loudmouths in the media want another battle.

Of course, none of them will ever set foot on a battlefield themselves.

That includes Bill O'Reilly, a long-time chickenhawk who has never served in the military, never served even a term in the Senate or Congress, and hasn't even mustered a short-term political career. He's a talking head spewing bullshit on a news network, and that's all he will be until he retires. In spite of his covering "four wars with a pen", to quote the old man himself, he has never actually set foot on a battlefield in his life and thus is not intimately aware of the pain of war.

Papa Bear is a stubborn man, and, as is evident in the following, quite senile and probably demented at that. Because he feels that the building coalition against ISIS isn't efficient or bloodthirsty enough for his tastes, let alone in defiance of international ethics, his solution is simple: get the Federal government to hire a militia of 25,000 well-paid, well-armed mercenaries. You know, it's only to do the bidding of the army, the same one that the U.S. President is unwilling to send more people to die for a cause in spite that, so far at least, it has had no effect on anyone inside of the United States. Here is a video wherein he puts forth this "solution":



O'Reilly seems absolutely unaware of the myriad of problems posed by the very idea he's pimping on his show. The human rights violations that would occur, the inconsistency of actual service, lack of actual oversight, "English speakers" being unable to understand those who could be their allies, the fact that this conflict could last for years before seeing any resolve, and many other problems. If you want to just tackle the financial problem with this dastardly idea, here it is: if you pay each mercenary $100,000 a year, and you hire up to the capacity O'Reilly called for, that would amount to $2.5 billion a year. That doesn't take into account logistics, training, medical, armament, off-site intelligence & planning, and others.

Hell, he doesn't even consider that mercenaries are definitely "in it for the money", who disregard the how and the why they do what they do to make their paychecks. This isn't a fucking movie or videogame, Bill, it's real life. And if you want money to be the deciding factor in whether things get done, then you're going into insane territory.

Such people as Paul Eaton, a retired U.S. Army major general, Jamie Barnett, a former U.S. Navy rear admiral,Dennis Laich, a 35-year military veteran & retired U.S. Army major general, and even O'Reilly's (usual) butt-buddy Charles Krauthammer called him out on it. Here is what Krauthammer said to O'Reilly in response to the outlandish idea:

With that idea, you have gone from 'out of the box' to 'off the wall.' You want to create a French Foreign Legion, but we are not the French Empire policing West Africa in the 19th century. Do you really want to be responsible for a band of desperados? On one hand you'll have ISIS people who believe in something, and on the other hand you'll have people who are there just for the money. Who do you think wins?

He hasn't stopped there, though. Since then he has said "only dumb people like Stephen Colbert oppose anti-terror mercenary army idea." And here is the tip of the day in which he stupidly promotes his mercenary idea, acting like he never received criticism from military veterans and experts:



Oh, get off it, old man. You've not only gone off the wall, you've gone flying off the edge of the top of the grand canyon. Your idea is problematic in so many ways they number in, at the very least, the double digits. You have no military training nor expertise whatsoever; you've never experienced the terrors of war for yourself, you've never served, and you never will given that you're a senile old man, and you clearly hold little regard for the men & women who do serve. To you it's about beating your chest, flashing your penis out of insecurity, and saying "I have the biggest, best dick in the world!" No one is fooled except for the drooling idiots who voted on your non-scientific poll, that is unless there is something shady with the results (given Fox's history of blatantly reversing poll results that appear on air to paint an opposing picture, it's likely).

You've put your foot in your mouth, you want your country to violate international law, and you want people to die. You want your country to pay billions, at the very least in wages, to fulfill your sick fantasy, in spite of your arguing over & over on your show that the U.S. cannot afford anything. You're a hawk with towering cowardice, your idea is entirely unethical, and given that you should be informing people with objective information rather than yelling talking points, you should be fired. This is the straw that broke the camel's back, and it's high time that you're sacked -- before you get another person killed for petty or immoral reasons.

Word of Mouth #14: Deafheaven - From the Kettle Onto the Coil

This is a self-release, dated August 25, 2014.

It's Deafheaven time, again. I came across this one yesterday whilst browsing through various tags on bandcamp. Always one to add another album or two each payday (with mayhaps another should I be so inclined), I checked this release out.

Well, I'm not exactly a black metal fan and I knew getting into Deafheaven that the aforementioned genre was a facet of their overall sound. However, and it is not a demerit against the band or anything, but they've kicked up the black metal a notch. Suffice to say, this is probably the heaviest song you'll have heard from them yet. They've always been known for the signature shrieking vocals for sure, but for this track they've thrown in growls as well. At the offset the song is absolutely teeming with blastbeats complemented by fast but melodic riffing. Then it tapers off the usual Deafheaven way, to elicit emotion and get you thinking about what you're listening to. You don't know what the fuck George Clarke (the vocalist & lyricist) is saying but god damn it, you know he is putting all of his heart & soul into it.

Anyway, with the slight change in format specifically for these posts (will only apply for material I can embed here), I think this post at least should look clearer. And to get back on topic, check out the album and buy it. It's only a dollar. You were probably going to buy a disgusting Twinkie with that dollar anyway, so what do you have to lose? Well, unlimited play of another piece of Deafheaven, that's what.

Word of Mouth #13: Dustin Thomas - Mountain High

Dustin Thomas - Mountain High on BandCamp

I've been scratching my head off and on wondering why I didn't produce the 13th outing sooner, but here it is. 

It certainly isn't a new album, but it's not a dinosaur, either. This album was released on September 30th, 2013, in dedication to the myriad of problems arising from the Fukushima disaster. It's also very much a folk album in spirit; honest, heartfelt lyrics touching on the plights of man, to get people to think and maybe, just maybe, consider giving aid and even guidance. Throw in some touch of soul and deliver it on the easy-going strumming of an acoustic guitar, and you've got little to get in your way.

But enough about that, go listen already. Like many albums on BandCamp, the price to buy a digital copy of the album is not set. What's stopping you?

Man of Steel review (2013, Action/Thriller/Fantasy, Zack Snyder)

 

A long-needed, by some measures, reboot on a hero that has outlasted time itself. The seminal, archetypal comic-book superhero has been graced, and disgraced, by film many times before this outing. Superman has seen his ups & downs on film, with the 1970's original holding up all these years while the disastrous third & fourth entries, not to mention the criminally boring "Returns" take in '06, have held him back for the crowds. 

We've got Clark Kent/Superman meeting up with Lois Lane, presumably before he's even landed a job at her newspaper, to deal with an incoming party of fellow Kryptonians. They're suggestively hostile from the get-go and Superman is forced to put himself front & center, as he usually is, to try and keep humanity safe. However, General Zod & friends mean to restore their homeworld (also Clark's) by any means necessary, even if it means that billions die. Clark, like the Transformers of Michael Bay's on-screen creation, chooses humanity over his own and battles them to save the world. The implications really do seem high on paper, but they aren't when you are made to watch over two hours of film. 

So, storyline aside, how does this film hold up?

Well, it's not the best, nor the worst, screen adaptation of the world's most famous superhero. It's really quite a mediocre film, in spite of the good intentions that were obviously put into its conception. Production values are the highest the franchise has ever seen, and the action sequences raise the bar for comic book films quite frankly. But, and this is a weakness I've always felt plagued the man in blue in all mediums, the story is lacking. The characters, the plot, and the narrative don't hold up to the technical aspects, as well as when the film is having so much fun. 

Since we're talking about a character of enormous, pretty much godlike abilities, his roster often sees him pitted against often similar foes. Thus, it must follow that the action should mesmerize viewers. What few action sequences there actually are in this overlong, two and a half hour jumble of lens flares and conspicuous high-definition trickery, are quite impressive to behold. With entire buildings being smashed like sandcastles, automobiles and even locomotives being flung like playthings, gravel and dirt being pulverized by the sheer brute force of the Kryptonians; it's hard not to have a "gay" old time when these sequences bless the screen.

Everything else, though, holds it back.

Just about anybody who is anybody knows about Superman, and really all that matters about him. He's THE superhero, he swears not to kill his foes (especially humankind), he manages to fool everybody with the most obvious disguise ever conceived, he's practically a god with his exaggerated strength & durability and all that, he bears a weakness to a rock, and Christopher Reeve is practically synonymous with the character. So growing him in this film not only ends up falling flat, but is kind of unnecessary given its approach. It's also kind of odd that at the get-go, he reveals his abilities to many people (albeit ones in grave danger) and seemingly no one recognizes him. But I digress, because no other character even warranted the same amount of depth, or attempt at such anyway.

Another problem I have with the film are the flashback sequences. They are the sole reason the film is overlong, and gets quite tedious. Each one fails to add substance to the plot, or add character to Superman and others whom we were theoretically supposed to care about. They really could have been omitted entirely, and nothing of value would have been lost. Who were they trying to kid with these? Like I mentioned in the previous paragraph, pretty much everybody knows about Superman, so why fixate so much on his past and the growth in his mastery over his natural Kryptonian abilities?  After all, the mixed bag that was Smallville provided all that these flashbacks portray just fine. Anyway, if you watch the film, you can safely skip them and you won't be confused by the milquetoast plot.

Like the plot, the soundtrack, which in a great film would elevate the experience, accomplishes nothing out of the ordinary. It's your typical series of forced "Boom, BOOM, BOOOOOM!!!" notes to suggest, almost beg, you to feel something according to the wishes of the designers. It didn't work with me. How the hell a nearly forty year-old film accomplishes a more memorable soundtrack, whereas this film, in spite of its sheer production value ended up with a run-of-the-mill Hans Zimmer-esque one, is beyond me.

The acting doesn't quite bode well, either. Henry Cavill is the lead, and as a result of his performance here with very few high notes (his emotional reaction after a pivotal death scene in the film is one of them), he is expendable. Amy Adams is Lois Lane, and in spite of her cheery screen presence, the romance plot between the two doesn't build logically. Kevin Costner played Superman's adoptive father a bit too stoically for my tastes, but Diane Lane does fine as a hard-as-nails & protective adoptive mother. The folks who play the Kryptonians are alright, but only two of them really have an actual identity of sorts, and then there's Chris Meloni who was a surprisingly decent Colonel Hardy who even stood up to direct confrontation with one of them -- twice!

One last thing to point out is the excess of run-time. The film lasts, before the credits roll, for roughly two hours and ten minutes, and it is overlong. This feeling sets in fairly quickly, truth be told, considering that most of the "plot" consists of flashbacks and another re-tread of Superman's origins. It's rather jarring when the film seemingly shifts gears to introduce an actual crisis about halfway through its duration, because it's almost as if this was an admission from the filmmakers that this film would set audiences asleep with all of its filler had they not bothered with the Kryptonians at all. So at least it's definitely not a Superman Returns.

It's still a film mostly filled with fluff, with very few (but effective) thrills. There's way too many unnecessary elements at play to recommend it, as I would personally urge viewers to skip to the halfway point of the film. You, as a viewer, lose nothing in doing so because the writing is so poor that you miss nothing important. We all know about what happened to Krypton; we all know that Clark ended up with a farming family who helped mentor & shelter him from the world; we all know that he falls in love with Lois Lane; and most of all, we know that he's fucking Superman! You don't have to waste roughly half of the film explaining all of this, especially when it amounts to nothing but rehashing. I guess that's how it boils down. Next up: Batman v Superman, maintaining the rather uncharismatic Cavill and introducing the tonedeaf acting hijinks of Ben Affleck as the caped crusader.

C-

The Good:
+ High production value ensures some pretty sights
+ Nerdgasm inducing fight sequences

The Bad:
- Henry Cavill is boring in the role of Superman
- Way too long, and wastes too much time on unnecessary origin stories
- The flashbacks. God damn it.
- Superman kills somebody, when he had so many other options to consider instead. He's supposed to be highly-intelligent as well, Zack Snyder!
- The fight sequences end, and are succeeded each time with the boring plot.
- Borderline non-existent plot, as indicated above. 
- Nothing memorable about the soundtrack.

The Amazing Spider-Man review (2012, Action/Thriller/Fantasy, Marc Webb, Columbia Pictures)

 

Sam Raimi's reign of terror ended with the flop that was Spider-Man 3, and I'm all the more grateful for it. 'Twas an overrated series of films, with the flaws of the entire series culminating in one grand display in the final, abhorrent installment. I was hoping that in the future, someone would give the web-head a more deserving film treatment than the Evil Dead director gave us (not to slag off on that series of films at all). For the most part, I felt that The Amazing Spider-Man accomplished that.

Andrew Garfield's Peter Parker/Spider-Man is down-to-earth, likeable, understandable, and has a mischievous streak with a bit of hidden genius thrown in. He compares, in my mind anyway, quite favorably to the insufferable Tobey Maguire portrayal of the hero. Garfield approached his role in a human way, and wasn't so hyper-fixated on his love interest (Emma Stone's adorable & likeable Gwen Stacy) like the borderline stalker that was Raimi's Peter Parker. It's a plus that no one plotline takes almost complete precedence over the others, aside from the main plot where Peter inadvertently drives an ambitious scientist with a chip on his shoulder to become the Lizard, and that he has to stop said villain from turning New York into his twisted new science experiment on a grand scale. 

There are also a few funny scenes in this film, also driving home the down-to-earth approach. In one, Peter Parker one-ups Flash Thompson as the latter continues his minor role as the bullying jock in school, with a triumphant conclusion to the scene. In another, as he's spending time with Gwen Stacy on the high school bleachers, a football flies in his direction. He grabs the football effortlessly (because, you know, he's Spider-Man) and casually tosses the football away, which ends up denting the field post for all to witness. Little scenes like this remind you that you're watching an adaptation of a comic book, the likes of which are not always dark and brooding and, ugh, realistic affairs.

Tangents aside, The Amazing Spider-Man does miss a few notes, or seemingly lose sight of previously established ideas. His spider-sense ability is just short of non-existent throughout the film's duration; he's strong with his arms but isn't the most agile superhero I've seen (Raimi's Spider-Man, while insufferable, seemed a bit more powerful in this regard); the quantity of action is strikingly lacking. In some ways it is a more faithful adaptation of the comics than the Raimi films, but in others it is not. Yet at the same time, it appears to follow some of the same threads as said films. If I just confused you, then we're in the same boat.

The lead-up to Spider-Man's inception in the film differs only slightly from that of the previous installments, and the film gets dragged down a bit by this. One should consider that the first Spider-Man film was no less than ten years before this film, and that most audiences have not forgotten that film's plotline, so this is definitely an unnecessary re-hash. Or it could be that it takes up too much of the film's duration and starves it of its own potential for outstanding action sequences. The brief plot, whenever it props up, regarding his parents' disappearance is a new angle that is not unwelcome, but it gets tossed in the backburner by some point in the film for a more engaging storyline for casual audiences.

One could conclude that because the film is a little more than half of a retread of a film that hardly warranted a remake in the first place (only some adjustments were necessary, such as the overtly melodramatic tone, the excessive 'romantic' plotline, and the daft handling of the Green Goblin villain & his costume). The film needed more of its own identity; more to set it apart from the considerably still-young originals. In spite of this, The Amazing Spider-Man held up just fine.

B-

 The Good:

+ A very moving chemistry between the two leads.

+ Andrew Garfield nails the role

+ Our hero isn't obsessed with his love interest to the point of being a creep.

+ A few funny scenes

+ Slightly more dedicated to its source material

The Bad:

- Retreads so much of what we saw in the 2002 original.

- Disappointing villain

- It makes little sense that the entire city hasn't spread the word on Spider-Man's identity by the end of the plot, considering he revealed himself & his abilities multiple times to many people.

- Rather low-quality CGI.

- Squanders its run-time for the retreaded origin story, thus depriving the viewer of what could have been fantastic action sequences.

-/+ Its sequel...what the hell?

(Rather Unnecessary) Bandcamp Profile Promotion

No, I'm not an artist on the site, but I am a fan. My collection is nothing of note at the time of writing, but it's better than nothing at all. What a coincidence, though; I bought Nothing's "Guilty of Everything" and thus it is part of the collection.

https://bandcamp.com/garrettwill

The Obtuse Approach to Jon Stewart's Comedy

It's deliberate, I tell you.

No one who watches Jon Stewart's brilliant The Daily Show with a halfway open mind equates said program with hard, genuine journalism. It's a fucking comedy program meant to satirize and outright humiliate what should be sources of hard, genuine journalism. Fox News, CNN, and even at times NBC/MSNBC are the usual suspects, kind of in that order for most recurring. Jon said it himself practically ten years ago why he has the usual sources for mockery and satire: they're absurd.

Yet people will tell you, stupidly enough, that he's "not just a comedian." The closest you could come to agreeing with them is to accept that yes, Jon Stewart has a position, and it is a liberal one, but the comedy he puts out speaks for itself because that's what his audience (which includes myself, although I don't tend to watch television and am not personally subscribed to any networks his program airs on) expects. If you want to know what his actual positions are, then stop being a fucking pussy and put him on your show. Oh and don't pull a Tucker Carlson with the smartass remarks and strawmen, a la Crossfire circa 2004. Be a man and probe for the answers like any respectful person in the media would, because media figures of that descriptor are few & far between these days.

But I haven't gotten to the real deal about this post. The following guy is what I want to delve into:

 

The above mug, for the uninitiated, is the rather droll "professional media critic" who has celebrated the anniversary to his rather lukewarm hop over to the Fox News legion on June 20, 2013. If you're a "media critic" working for the mainstream media, then by principle, you cannot be taken with nary a grain of salt in terms of credibility. Even worse yet that he's toiling for the plutocratic horde at Fox News, but that's not the focus here.

Howard has gone after, you guessed it, Jon Stewart on at least one occasion, even sharing some ire for the equally brilliant Stephen Colbert. Just like many of Stewart & Colbert's critics, they're obtuse about the credibility of their respective programs. But this is all deliberate, you see? Both programs, particularly The Daily Show, mock the wasteland that is the beltway media for the status quo circlejerks that they are, and Kurtz, who knows who he is working for, slams Stewart & Colbert for it. Recently, Kurtz pretty much begged for the attention that Stewart's program would afford his by asking, or more accurately begging to be a guest on the program:

You'd like that wouldn't you, you hack? Too bad you're too small fry for Stewart's program to waste time on, because you contribute almost nothing to any conversation. Be glad that you even have a job on that joke of a "news" network, you joke. And yes, he is "just a comedian", at least in regard to anything from his program that you and your overlords loathe so much. So here you are carrying out the usual labours hoisted upon the dogs at Fox News, attacking a fucking comedy program time and time again, never accomplishing anything in your favour. You didn't have a valid criticism of Stewart's segment that you've shown, so you figured it'd be best to leave such for the odd incident where you'd be featured as a guest sitting next to Jon Stewart on The Daily Show, possibly getting Tucker Carlson'd into the shadows of irrelevance you so sorely need at this point. Keep the dreams a comin', Howie, 'cause it probably ain't gone happen any time soon.

The Division on the Pipeline Projects

When even our Federal Government engages in divisive language to belittle the opposition to these projects, red flags go off -- big time.

As I live in Calgary, I am exposed to a lot of pro-oil & gas press that, taken in such quantities, can lead one to believe that the pipeline projects as they are today are entirely in the best interests of the country. While the Keystone XL pipeline has, allegedly anyway, passed safety and environmental regulations & concerns (and why wouldn't it? Shipment via train isn't exactly a contender for risk-free), the Northern Gateway pipeline has yet to overcome such hurdles. Keystone XL faced an odd delay from the Obama administration earlier this year, but the Northern Gateway has barely even handed in its papers for grading.

Now, one glaring omission from many voices in the media, and indeed from the companies at the helm of these projects (Keystone XL & Northern Gateway), is that of the actual benefits to stand from these developments. Indeed, while they promise significant economic benefits to the country, and to Western Canada in particular, they have yet to specify any actual figures or proper theoretical models as to how these benefits would roll out. Just who, and how, will these projects benefit? None of the pro-pipeline people can satisfy a proper answer.

But that can be discussed later. What's more important is the public opinion, and given its importance in the green-lighting (or not) of these projects, it needs to be stressed in detail. 

Whereas the Keystone XL has overcome the regulatory criterion necessary to even greenlight the thing (but still produce a deliberately delayed mandate from the White House), the Northern Gateway pipeline has to assure everyone who isn't the Harper cabinet just how safe the project is, before and after the very likely event of a disaster. People need reassurances. People need to know what they're shouting "Yay!" to. People need to be told proper, not misleading fucking information!

Hilariously, regarding the Northern Gateway pipeline, Enbridge, the company responsible for the project, has done just that. They've committed one of the gravest sins possible in the shaky field of public support; they have misled the people who, granted by the B.C Government, have the final say on whether the pipeline gets built or not. Public perception is vital here, and Enbridge has done poorly in their quest to muster the necessary support to get the ball rolling. Enbridge put out this video back in '12 (the linked video below is NOT from EnbridgeMedia themselves, by the by):

They shot themselves in the foot with this animation, because anyone with access to the internet (that includes YOU, reader) can see that the Douglas Channel does NOT resemble the wide-open, cozy ride that Enbridge wants you to believe it to be. Below is a screenshot that I took at the same time of writing this piece, with highlights of visibly risky areas in the actual shipping route(s) (keep in mind that alternate routes would have to be taken under certain circumstances given that ice does buildup in the channel):

The squares represent what would be forking routes for the oil tankers to take (and need you be reminded that these ships, while not quite HMS Titanic in size, are quite large?). It's certain that there will be, if hasn't been already, a predetermined route through one of each square at each fork of the channel, but what of emergency measures? This channel does get inundated with ice at the worst of times, and if they can't navigate one stretch because of it, then they'll have to take the other. Just look at the Southern fork and tell me that it won't end up like watching these cumbersome hulls attempting a pro-level slalom with broken skis?

With the exception of highlighting the port (Kitimat, in this case) on the bottom, the circles represent clusters of small islands that can further prove difficult in the shipment of bitumen. While I certainly am not omniscient enough to indicate all manner of rocks inconveniently and often just barely combing under the surface of the water at points, there are bound to be such obstacles as well. Of course, that's what sonar detection units were made for. And then there's the incidences of windstorms, and collateral from mudslides to look out for! And then there's bound to be even more than what I've listed above. Holy cynical Jesus is there ever the bevy of potential dangers in this whole project, right?

Does Enbridge think people are this stupid? Did they hope and pray that the people whom they're trying to sway to their favour are, or were at the time the advertisement went its rounds, too lazy to find out the truth for themselves? All it took for me to get the above image, that which roundly contradicts the story Enbridge tried to weave with their pitifully misleading route tour animation, was to use Google. Specifically, after clicking the grid icon next to the bell you see at the upper-right, I selected the immediately available Maps option and zoomed into fucking Kitimat. So little effort, and so little respect for the idiots at Enbridge responsible for this animation (both in designing it and giving it the go-ahead). People should be fired, methinks.

Now, that is a two-year old mistake for sure, but Enbridge has yet, to my knowledge anyway, make up for this gaffe with genuine apologies or, better yet, admittance of where they were wrong. Today, Enbridge engenders a majority disapproval from the local communities. The latter is obviously obviously ignored by the media at-large and indeed, outright insulted by our own fucking Federal Government. The press, and as mentioned the fucking Tories want you to believe that those who oppose a project spearheaded by a company that has been called out for its misinformation tactics are "radical" and, in towing the Cold-War era propaganda ethos, "receive funding from foreign special interest groups" to obstruct "real economic benefits for the country."

That kind of fear-mongering via name-calling not unlike the usual banter heard on elementary school playgrounds was trotted by then-idiot of 2012 Jim Oliver (then Natural Resources Minister), and echoed by our third-time re-elected Prime Minister, or more fittingly, Emperor Stephen Harper in his oh-so stoic and condescending tone. I know you're probably gasping for air but bear with me here; actually concerned citizens who have every right and every reason so far to be blocking this project are, to this day, being diminished as obstructionist, anti-Canadian assholes by the press and the government.

I think it speaks volumes about a company, and its pipeline project by proxy, when they feel the need to put out misinformation that portrays a fantasy world wherein Enbridge won't have to double-down in order to ensure the project is as long-term and safe as possible. If anything, the lack of reassuring confidence and accurate information on their part is a telltale sign that they don't believe in their own project and their ability to muster a 'yes' vote. 

One of the often-touted arguments in favour of this pipeline is the promise of significant economic gains. An oft-heard soundbite tells everyone that this pipeline will generate jobs. There's certainly no doubt that jobs will be created, since the pipeline won't build itself and it will have to be monitored and maintained over time. However, Common Grounds magazine conducted an interview in '12 with an economist about it, and he raises some thoughtful insight about it: http://commonground.ca/2012/03/gateway-pipeline/

Now what about money for the country, the provinces, and the companies involved? The Vancouver Sun states, "The pipeline is estimated to be worth $300 billion in additional gross domestic product over 30 years. Governments are expected to net an estimated $80 billion in tax and royalty revenues over those three decades: $36 billion for Ottawa, $32 billion for Alberta and $6.7 billion for B.C. Saskatchewan would net an estimated $4 billion." (Source)

Those aren't scientifically-derived numbers, they're simply estimations. That's well and good, but while I did state earlier in this piece that they have yet to provide actual figures or theoretical models as to how we'll make money and how much the country and the involved provinces will rake in from the pipeline, my point still stands. Are these estimates really the best the complicit press can drudge up? Where's the basis for those numbers? And really, when you look at the numbers they came up with, B.C, where the most intensive operations will take place and who stands to see a nigh-inevitable disaster occur on their turf, will make a measly $6.7 billion that is just a fraction of Alberta's $32 billion?

As per the usual, and logically-sound environmental concerns, some 300 scientists have come up with this response to the Northern Gateway Joint Review Panel report back in December 2013:

By our analysis, the Canadian electorate received a ruling that is not balanced or defensible due to five major flaws. The Panel's review:

1. Failed to adequately articulate the rationale for its findings,
2. Considered only a narrow set of risks but a broad array of benefits, thereby omitting adequate consideration of key issues,
3. Relied on information from the proponent, without external evaluation,
4. Contradicted scientific evidence contained in official government documents, and
5. Treated uncertain risks as unimportant risks, and assumed these would be negated by the proponent's yet-to-be-developed mitigation measures.

 (Source)

Will it all be worth it when a disaster almost certainly does occur, and British Columbians have to pay the tab, and British Columbians have to roll up their sleeves to clean up the mess that Enbridge will almost certainly skimp on on their part? Is Enbridge still surprised that the people have not come to their side because of the lack of compelling arguments and reasons that this pipeline should go through sooner than later?

I don't really know, but based on what I do know, most of which Enbridge has not, and will not tell anyone, the project as it stands is not what should come to pass. It's shady, there's too many risks involved, it is scientifically unsound, the economic benefits are more crude & vague with little backing to them, many of the more prominent and vocal proponents have been more hostile and belligerent than necessary, and most of all, Enbridge has provided mostly misleading information regarding its safety and how the benefits will outweigh the losses.

Word of Mouth #12: Bane - Don't Wait Up

Bane - Final Backward Glance (Music Video) on YouTube

This album was released on May 13th, 2014, through Equal Vision Records.

A former member of Converge has helped to make Bane into the hardcore act it is today. Sadly, though, this is reported to be their final album before calling it quits as a band. Will they try solo avenues? Or will there be new ensemble acts to come in the future? Whatever the case may be, the hardcore scene will lose an important band when they throw in the towel. This is their last hurrah, so to speak, and it's a good note to leave on if this news is true.

Farewell, Bane, thanks for your contributions to hardcore. You will be missed.

Word of Mouth #11: Trophy Scars - Holy Vacants

Trophy Scars - Gutted stream on PureVolume

I love, fucking love Trophy Scars, and that's why I'm glad to be doing this.

This album will be released on May 6th through Monotreme records. 

I was formally introduced to these guys with their "Hospital Music..." album back in '10, which is a fantastic listen if you like post-hardcore mixed with jazz & blues, and you don't mind (or better yet, you like) tempo changes. I haven't nabbed any subsequent album from them since then, but I was immediately grabbed by the news of this release. I've listened to the linked song a few times now and that's what's going to get me ordering the beast, because it's just that good. What say you?

Thanks again for great music, Trophy Scars!

Word of Mouth #10: The Menzingers - Rented World

The Menzingers - "In Remission" on YouTube

This release arrives April 22, 2014, courtesy of Epitaph records.

Finally, folk punk gets a shoutout from me.

The Menzingers have been going at it since 2006, which is by no means a long stint but it needn't be in order to drive home a point in the punk genre. These guys couple a somewhat contemporary punk sound with rather intelligent lyrics that don't veer off into skater punk territory. "Rented World" will be up for grabs as of April 22nd, so be sure to check out the song linked above and even show your appreciation by buying the album when it drops!

Thanks, Menzingers.

All I Wanted

Got that resume on hand
That enthusiasm momma always told me to have
Opened up and vulnerable, he said to me:
"No, son boy, you're not qualified."
When all I wanted
Was to be what I wanted to be

Got that pen & paper on hand
Gonna write me an essay as a prelude to a free summer
Determined and nervous, he said to me:
"No, son boy, you don't get a pass."
When all I wanted
Was to be what I wanted to be

Got that I.D card on hand
Another day of work and a chance to go places
Crafty and ambitious, he said to me:
"No, son boy, you're not fit for the role."
When all I wanted
Was to be what I wanted to be

Got that passport on hand
Gonna fly to the ends of the Earth to start fresh
Dreaming and scared shitless, he said to me:
"No, son boy, you just won't cut it here."
When all I wanted
Was to be what I wanted to be

'Pith' Concept Poem

I'm clamping these crimson fists together

I've wrought much agony tonight

The pain, the wanting, the de facto nature;

The individual grasped, the identity in sight

The burning need of independent thought

Inhibited, bridled only by the living of her

This will make for a dream of dreams

A maniacal quality unheard of by most

Unsought of by most, if not all

Unsound, if even ethically stark in its quality

Matricidal intent is ubiquitously forsaken

But my desire is, in exchange, all for the taking

It was but wracking to muse;

The lover and the giver in me strongly refused

But nature prevailed and though my sanity's since sailed

A world's weight was instantly loosed from my shoulders

At the snuff of a light, the passing of one's pain

That whom birthed a sheltered life then razed by my hand

The soothsayers, the playwrights, the poets

They all shyly wrote, all timidly spoke, all penned this stage;

A child snuffing the mother and, oh in its bitterness

The child thus reborn, at the bloody loss of the mother

I broke the chain, and carved my path that beckoned to me;

I've set myself irrevocably, veritably free

Shorty #1: 25-Year Old Bicycle Scrub

I haven't ridden a bicycle in, as per recollection, 20 whole years. When I did back then, I recall having had little to no equilibrium, and thus an ability to balance myself on anything less than four wheels. I never really possessed the desire to try it again for a long time. And then I went to Sport Chek today for shoes, walking by the bike racks.

Bolling Bows Down Like a Bitch

To a COMEDIAN!

Last week, Jon Stewart, as per usual on his brilliant program (which of course has its bevy of critics and idiotic haters), skewered Fox News for its incessant attacks on the poor through use of hyperbole and outright fabrication. Eric Bolling was the guy who dared to try to attempt a retort, of sorts anyway, to Stewart's brand of comedy. In doing so, he just opened up a can of worms and ended up giving even more fodder to The Daily Show for one of their best segments in a long time. Just watch it below (this one is filtered & mirrored so as to avoid copyright infringement claims):

Given that Stewart eviscerated that hapless crowd at Fox News twice in a row on this one subject, with neither Bolling nor anyone else at that idiot show able to properly counter Stewart's delivery, one can only expect that one of them would feign surrender.

I really don't have to get into the meat of the discussion, since Stewart does that duty just fine. Also because whilst you cannot rely on Fox News to give you the full story, let alone the proper context on the subject of food stamps and the fraudulent abuse of food stamps, somehow you can rely on a comedian to give you comparatively a lot more of both. In the process, Stewart literally mops the floor and takes out the trash on every single line that Fox News tries to pound into its genuinely mentally-challenged audience's heads on this issue. The very existence of the disingenuous responses from Fox, particularly from one of their more obnoxious commentators in Eric Bolling (who is obviously the prime subject of this derisive post) would render most sane onlookers speechless, whilst it would send the comedians amongst us in to laughing fits.

As per the title, the one guy who surrender to Stewart, albeit so disgracefully and so dishonestly, would be Bolling himself. It all really makes you wonder how they manage to come back every day to carry on with surreal-quality bullshit like this. Watch him bowl not only his cajones, but his credibility, as usual, right into the fucking gutter below:

Way to go, Eric, you bowed down like the little lap dog bitch you are to a god damned COMEDIAN. Well, a ridiculously funny comedian at that. Given how pathetically inept you lot are at holding up against his rather effortless smackdowns of your garbage-heap of a 'news' network, you were out of your element just trying to taunt the guy. Next time why don't you cower under that desk of yours and spare us your phoney displays of bravado because you're only hurting yourself doing so. Or how about you continue doing so so that the collective can eventually tune out the anachronism that is your entire 'news' network from their lives.

Idiot.

Word of Mouth #9: Nothing - "Guilty of Everything"

 

"Guilty of Everything" stream on NPR

This release (out March 4th) is courtesy of Relapse records.

Now, a lot of people are probably on the fence about shoegaze - hell, many people probably have not the faintest clue what shoegaze even is. Well, for those amongst us who are privy to what it is, and how it stands out enough to be called a genre of rock, let's just consider why it may polarize listeners.

It's the heavily distorted, yet melancholic wailing guitars that permeate almost the entire aural experience. In effect, much of the material that can be considered shoegaze resembles what the ambient genre would be like if it were rock-based instead of electronica based. Instead of engineering and mixing tables, sampling and electronic-based instruments, you'd use guitars, drums, bass, and often vocal tracks. Cerebral yet primal.

What the hell does all that have to do with Nothing's upcoming release, Guilty of Everything? Well, this is a remarkable shoegaze release. As I stream the album, with its droning yet consistent quality (such is the magic of shoegaze, which allows for more atmospheric, drawn-out experiences compared to the chaotic stops & turns of hardcore and metalcore), I find myself enamored with all of the sounds contained within. There's nothing like listening to an album that draws you in and doesn't let go until it is all over, and you want to listen again. That's this album in a nutshell. 

The album is streaming, entirely free, on NPR.org's streaming service. The link is to be found above. If you've not yet given it a click, then please do so. It'll dazzle you like it is dazzling me (not sure what track I currently am on, given that I chose to stream the entire album, which is a 38+ minute endeavor). Oh, and it releases on March 4th via Relapse records, just so you can consider clunking your hard-earned money into rewarding these guys for their artistry.