six pack reviews 2016 first political debate

donald-trump-hillary-clinton

First it’s funny that Hillary had a RED suit and Donald had a BLUE tie.
Conspiracy theory #1: I think they planned this… because it would be really awkward if they both wore blue or both wore red.

Hillary’s biggest misstep: Attacking Donald for talking about problems that the black community faces instead of praising the things that are good, which she then went on to do. That just seemed dumb to me. The whole idea is to solve problems, which was the question. You could say he identified the wrong problems, but you can’t just ignore problems and instead give compliments. I think she did it to try and get votes lol (that’s what they all do, except Donald… unfortunately).

Donalds biggest misstep: Doubling down on Hillary creating the vacuum that started ISIS. He actually quadrupled down on it (that means he brought it up twice, mathematicians and gamblers will know what’s up). The problem for him is she had a pretty good rebuttal: that Iraq wanted them out, as was agreed during the Bush Administration, so they did.

Donalds strongest play: Doubling down on being against going into Iraq before we went.  I can’t believe I’m going to bat for him in this case but I’ve seen the fact checking on this. He was very skeptical of the invasion, that is a simple broad fact. His two pre-war quotes on it are a skeptical ‘I guess so…’ in  Sept. 2002 and “I think the Iraqi situation is a problem. And I think the economy is a much bigger problem as far as the president is concerned” in 2003, both before the invasion, that’s important.

both these statements, in this case, represent a thoughtful person. take them in context of history especially. Both pre-war, both under bombardment from various viewpoints. The quote directly under fire that people are citing to say he was for it (I guess so..) was BEFORE any vote in congress was taken, and it’s clear he was still figuring it out for himself.  In Culture, Politics, Journalism, this is called NUANCE.  this bring me to a side-point…

Flip-flopping: There are two kinds of flip flopping, though in politics you get criticized for both no matter what. One is if you listen to the opposition with open heart and mind and then change your position. The other is if you change your talking points based on who you are talking to. Unfortunately, this is another point for Trump, as Hillary won’t release her Wallstreet speech transcripts which she was paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to perform.

Ironically, Trump accused Hillary of the correct kind of flip flopping, as if it was a negative, in regard to some recent proposed trade agreements.  The problem, for her, was that he was the one proposing the ideas the led her to flip flop in the first place.

But Back to Trump and the Iraq war.  In 2004, in a new interview with Esquire, he was all out against it. This is one year after initial invasion.  But he still led the charge, as opposition, under those circumstances.

Each side interprets skeptical as either for or against dependent on the narrative they are pushing. For me, skeptical means thoughtful, and thoughtful is better than for or against.

Imagine the inverse.  What if someone was actually saying NEVER EVER right after 9/11.  Donald Trump, in that particular case for whatever reason, was very thoughtful.  Classic Nuance vs. Strawman.

Hillary’s strongest play:  Unfortunately her stongest play was her rebuttal to Donald’s weakest play, which I’ve already covered.  She had a few good jabs but he had decent rebuttals.  Ultimately it’s down, as per this debate, to taxing the rich 35% or taxing them 15%.  That’s a big one I might tackle that in another drunk essay.

Final thoughts: Donald had more eye contact and was the one who framed the arguments, he would often say ‘now i think we agree on this…’  He said it about seven times.  Hillary said it zero times.  and she never said, ‘Nuh uh! We don’t agree on that’  So in that sense, Donald won, as he was the Alpha person. He also had to work more in the realm of unpredictable improv where as Hillary was more allowed to stick to her prepared talking points, or unable to venture outside them.  (If this point sounds controversial let me just say Donald goes improv often and it almost NEVER goes good.)

Conclusion: Donald won but they didn’t talk much about immigration and I think that will be a harder one for him to handle.  That’s probably why I’m not voting for him, for example.

If I could give advice to Hillary: Lay off Russia, you are fear mongering in the exact same sense as Donald is with regards to the Middle East, plus America already did the red scare, cold war thing, so knock it off.  Or.. should we hate them equally, Russian and the Middle East?  Should we hate the Middle East more? It’s stupid.  Focus on specifics with how lowering taxes for the middle class will create jobs.  You weren’t grilled in that way and I wish you were.  Does welfare create more jobs? It creates more government jobs I guess.  prove me wrong (or right).  Also, if possible beat Donald on the alpha stuff going forward, eye contact etc.

Advice to Donald: If she won’t release her speech transcripts to Wallstreet (it should be one word: Wallstreet, not Wall Street, i’m changing it now), and meanwhile we had a government Wallstreet bailout in 2009 that effectively rendered us not a capitalist country, while simultaneously incentivizing banks to keep doing what they do because they got off scott free.  meanwhile we are probablly already in another bubble… These are the reasons I’m not voting for Hillary, that’s literally all it takes.  Didn’t say I’m voting for Trump tho, that’s all I’m saying.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

interstellar plot hole

interstellar

SPOILERS!
Also, this isn’t a review. this is a potential discussion of a plot hole that ruins the movie.
if it wasn’t for this one plot hole, this movie would be amazing. it’s not a debatable time travel plot hole
or a nit picky relativity plot hole. i mean it’s a real plot hole. something that the story hinges on that makes no sense.
namely, the order of the planets they visit.

basically it’s that the astronauts do some b-grade teen horror movie dumb stuff.
i will not stand for that, especially in a hard sci fi movie. suspension of disbelief is the greatest benefit i can give any movie and i will gladly but i was robbed of it because of what planet they decide to visit first.
they actually convene and discuss, and then make an idiotic decision after discussion.
this adds insult to injury. because of the pretenses of them huddling up and making a supposed smart decision. it ruined the movie for me.

it’s when they pop out of the wormhole. their mission is to visit three planets, rescue three scientists and collect all their data, then pick one.
so it’s important which one they pick first but ideally all planets will be visited, they discuss it.
one of the planets is close to a black hole so it will take them roughly two years to visit due to time distortion, if all goes well. the other two planets, there is no time distortion. WHY do they go to the planet that will take the longest, first? that means the other two
scientists you are capable of saving will have to wait at least two extra years. In their discussion, they mention that the planets are ‘months’ apart, and
this is for some reason a deterrent, while the planet they claim is most convenient will actually delay them two years, if all goes well. and they know this.
why do they go to that planet first!? it’s so stupid.

it’s like taking a shit before your roommate when all your roommate has to do is take a piss. you let your roommate piss first, then you take a shit.
i’ve tried to justify this plot hole somehow because that would save the movie and make it great. but i haven’t been able to. under any circumstance,
the best decision is to save the time distorted planet near the wormhole for last.

if anyone has thoughts feel free to share.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 3 Comments

nightcrawler

skinny jake

nightcrawler was refreshing because it centers on a man
ignorant to the very idea of morals or values. i been really
sick of movies like Lego Movie with ‘likeable’ characters.
i’m so filled with shame that i saw lego movie in
theatres and liked it, never again! why is this even a thing? the reason is because there is not a diverse selection.
even most adult blockbusters are now tailored in part to kids,
thanks avengers. Joss Whedon sucks btw. kids should be playing
outside anyway, or watching flash gordon vhs on repeat. Blues Clues rules,
i’ll give you that. But kids have brains that barely work why are we
tailoring shit to them at all? We should just trick them.
so thanks for this movie hollywood, and thanks for Lou Bloom.
some peeps are calling him a sociopath but that term seems to get thrown
at all sorts of stuff these days. this guy is very specific.
he defies even the classification of anti-hero.
in his own words he says something like, ‘what if it’s not that
i don’t understand people, it’s just that i don’t like them?’
there is an epic huge backstory hinted at for Lou Bloom, our main
character. He has been put through the ringer of the
hypocrisy and bureaucracy of the american minimum wage workplace
and dealt with many a deuschy boss, studied their
moves perfectly. this is all BACKSTORY just hinted at! the movie starts with him sneaking around,
tresspassing, to theive metal. what got him to that point?
it’s an awesome intriguing start to an unfathomably interesting
character put to film. Lou Bloom is American Bullshit personified, condensed
into a diamond. A diamond with a
heavy death toll behind it. not exactly human, not at all.
you telling me we can personify a social construct and watch it wriggle for
deeper understanding of the concept? nice moves, hollywood.
just don’t call it satire and don’t call lou bloom a sociopath.

This movie would be almost as
interesting with all the dialogue cut out. that’s how
spot on the significance of action on screen playing out
is. for example, the first time Lou Bloom realizes he
can tamper with a crime scene to make his footage more
interesting. The dialogue is not integral so it serves as more
of an accent flavor, it’s perfect.
speaking of cherry on top, this movie isn’t about rich people! yay!
it’s the first movie that’s not about rich people that i’ve
seen since The Commitments in 1991. I was 5.

this isn’t a dark comedy, thank goodness. dark comedies
can suck my nuts. it’s a crime movie. it’s the best
crime movie since.. i dunno. Let me list some
movies that his movie is better than, to illustrate.
this movie is better than:
Drive
Gone Girl, a movie whose dick i was all upon just last week.
American Psycho, maybe just a tie on this one?

just to name a few. those are some good movies that this movie is
better than. it’s another rare reminder that movies are dope and will always
ace tv in a head to head at full potential.

so i wanted to save this for the end, not lead with it.
but this movie is at the very least, the best movie so
far this decade except for Inception. i know i’m prone
to hyperbole so what?

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

gone girl

gonegirl

david fincher is the greatest director of all time. he’s a mix of ozu and hitchcock, but better than both. his fault is he might not have enough time to make enough movies. he makes tarantino and paul anderson look like a joke. no filmmaker has ever been a true genius, except for fincher. anyone who says he’s style over substance can suck my nuts, seriously. we’re dealing with like the worst period of movies ever. and people are eating it up. yaaaay guardians of the galaxy, that movie can suck my nuts. lego movie yaaaay. suck. my. nuts. these movies are fucking terrible. gone girl is a companion piece to fight club, femenine where the former is masculine, equally as cutting. cutting is a word my nemisis travers would use so let me just say ‘dope’. gone girls theme is ‘give a woman enough free time and she will plot your downfall’ written by a woman btw. super stoked on dope ass entertainment that is interested in gender politics rather than scared of them. so is fincher, the greatest filmmaker ever.

except for one thing: what the heck is up with ben’s bis? his bis are so swol in this feature. way too swol, messed with my suspension of disbelief. turns out he’s filming batman as i write this or something so that’s why. the human body moves to a different jig than the movie industry, apparently.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

tnmt

michealangeloturtle

not that much happens in the new teenage mutant ninja turtles movie.  which is actually a good thing.  the blue one and the red one argue a little bit. i think the blue one is the leader.  the purple one is smart.  and the orange one is all up on Megan Fox which is pretty sweet.  megan fox finally aged to the point that she can be a girl next door type, which fuels a whole different male fantasy than before.  like Cameron Diaz in The Mask vs. Cameron Diaz in all her other movies.  It seems to be a pretty fleeting thing, the face meltingly hot stage, or perhaps i’m just being fickle.  point is both those actresses are still bangin but now i feel like i can deliver a basket of fruit to their front door and i wouldn’t feel like they were doing me a favor by sampling an unripened banana in slow motion.  megan fox was acting against nothing because the turtles hadn’t been created in a computer yet at that point, so her acting is kind of awesome.  it’s like a confused, possibly a little dumb, stair, and a dash of puppy dog head tilt every time the orange one, who doesn’t exist yet, says something to her.  it’s money.  she’s good, so much better than my new nemesis Andy Serkis.  That guy sucks.  Anyone can do what he does, do yoga for a week til you can shade you crotch with your skull at 3 in the afternoon and you can walk like a monkey andy serkis style.  the mans a joke.  megan fox is very serious by comparison.

this movie introduced me to a new concept.  you know how sometimes you can hear a song and it will suck but you like the other song that plays right before it.  you are too lazy to skip or whatever so you accidentally listen to the undesirable song more than you would like… you end up liking it, yeah? you hear things you didn’t know where there, you understand it more.  the action in turtles is like that.  it fucking sucks, but i’d dig it if i was forced to watch it a bunch.  the purple one does some cool stuff sometimes.   my only complaint is my complaint about everything involving computers these days: the lost art of proper physics.  when they get the physics right it will instantly feel more alive even if the tech isn’t as good.  Jurassic Park is to this day the most effective CGI movie, from 1993.  it’s because the filmmakers, including my boy Speilberg, were scared of the tech back then and used it smart and sparingly, and they paid extra attention to lighting and physics, and it paid off.  Turtles doesn’t do that, it would be better if they did.  I’ve said this before but all you need is seriously a new job description in the credits: “physics guy”.  I use ‘guy’ in the gender neutral sense there cause i’m politically correct as fuck.

this movie made a bunch of money, which is cool.  made like, a billion dollars.  good for them and fuck lesser works.

in conclusion: yeah this movie sucked my nuts a bit but i appreciate the various ways that is disrespects sentimental hipster nerds because i scoff at their plight, i cannot throw enough of the pigskin these days.  Andy Serkis blows.

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Jake Gyllenhal or something.

enemy_ver4_xlg

my biggest fan requested that I review Enemy. Which I was like, let’s not make this a habit but ok. it’s a riddle of a movie, not all movies are like that thank goodness but some are, they are all very prematurely self congratulatory in a really misguided way. as everyone knows, the best riddles are unsolvable, because fuck riddles. but this riddle was childs play. worst riddle i’ve ever been told, something to do with spiders or something, here goes:

Enemy is about a race of spider people that come down and enter our dreams and slowly replace us all, bodysnatchers style.
but they fuck up and one guy slips through the cracks and gets duplicated.
So then the duplicates meet for the first time and really don’t like it so close like that so they try to find a more indirect way to bone each other, which is to bone each others girlfriends.
one of them ends up dying so you think balance is restored but there’s still spider people to worry about.
there is some weird stuff in the movie that goes with a history repeats itself vibe, and the vibe seems to be this act of adultery on the part of the
husband. a cycle stretched along a vector, in this case representing time or the speed of light or whatever, becomes a sine wave i think, just look at the lights on bike spokes at night. so it’s not like teleportation or a ‘reset’ button is involved, pretty sure. so it means maybe there’s ‘hope,’ in the obama sense of the word. but the end gives no obama hope because you still gotta worry about the spider people. which, maybe the spider people have take over before? in which case there IS a reset button. damn.

ok so i think the riddle of the movie is: is this guy, represented in this spidermind world as two people who will each make a key choice in a mutually exclusive decision: to cheat or not to cheat, gonna cheat on his pregnant wife again or what? so actually the most interesting character would probably be the wife, but it’s interesting she doesn’t really have a choice, she ‘chooses’ to seduce the impostor, the supposed goodguy, but then he goes bad in the end and she turns into a spider. No obama hope. i don’t mind it but i mind and reckon tons of stuff all the time so no big deal.

if it is as my superior the youtube says, all about the subconsious, i have some minor bones to pick about subconsious shit in general. my annoyance is that it’s so symbolic, but then they pick complicated symbols in this case that hold symbols within them, like a bag of symbols, and they didn’t take the time to account for all the symbols so there are some rougue symbols out there. this would be almost like a plot hole? for example: bad jake dies but leaves behind a doorkey. the doorkey singlehandedly sparks something inside of good jake to become bad jake again, something like depraved curiousity. this key was waiting for the now dead bad jake at his place of employ for a period of no greater than 6 months until it was procured by good jake in a duplicitous act. inidentally or not, 6 months is also how how pregnant his spider wife is. the key directly represents access to some kind of kubrickian sex party, which in itself is symbol. we get a glimpse of the kubrickian sex party in the beginning, which features a hooker stepping on a spider. So that’s a symbol within a symbol within a symbol. the squashed spider, held within the symbol of the key twice removed, has nothing to do with the key, the relationship between the two at that point is muddled and unstable. are they opposites? the key leads to the downfall of the spider. it does actually kind of imply a narrative. hmm that is actually pretty genius. but the wife, the most interesting character based on how all these symbols are set up, is not in control, seems like she’s just a pawn to the wims of the symbols higher up on the food chain. she basically represents an if then statement but at least her if then statement seems to include dumping his ass.

anyway the answer to the riddle is: yes

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

sar budapest hotel

alien3

Ok i just watched Grand Budapest Hotel from my local box, redbox. this movie was very refreshing, which you might think is a contradiction because wes andersons movies are all inbred and homogenized at this point, which is true…. but his inbred homogenized shit is still refreshing because i guess not enough people have ripped him off yet, possibly because his ideas aren’t that good. his shit ain’t matrix caliber, let’s put it that way. despite this, i will still look forward to mr. anderson’s new shit (pun intented hehe).

his last one sucked my nuts because it’s emotional crutch rested on terrible child actors. and i think the one before that sucked too, the train one. BUT, this one is the shit. it’s just so pleasurable to watch, it’s a little trite but who gives a fuck. one thing i will say is that it’s the actors and the writing that made this movie good. NOT the directing. the directing is stupid. BUT, let me contradict myself, anderson’s call to have the actors speak in their natural accent and disregard that aspect of their character within history was… the total shit, money. so dope. good stuff. hmm, ok one thing i found interesting is that this is one of the few movies i’ve seen downplay nazis as badguys, not even nessicarily humanize them, just downplay them… and there is a timeline to this and it does ‘pay off’ in a respect: the nazis eventually start dressing in black, and that’s when they are ‘real bad guys’, they have an ‘ark’ if you will (pun intended). so that whole aspect of the movie was wierd, i don’t know what to think. i mean on one end of the spectrum you have the tried and true nazis as classical badguys a la Raiders of the Lost Ark. which is still borderline disrespectful to history if you think about it, um don’t get me wrong. that’s my favorite movie, maybe that’s why speilberg made shindler’s list, though, to balance the scales. and then with this movie… it’s just feels weird to have cartoony nazis through the whole thing and then have them get mean for real and dress in black in the last 5 minutes and do their thing that we all know nazis do.

wes anderson’s movies have tended to lend themselves to the long standing critique: “style over substance”. First, ‘style over substance’ is the stupidest shit i’ve ever heard. not only is it a contradiciton in itself, but it’s just a really really stupid thing to say, it will instantly prove your stupid if you say it, ever. They’re the same thing, or at least bound intrinsically i. e. you can’t change one without changing the other. basically, the’re the same thing. i’ll give you one example, not a wes anderson one… ALIEN 3. directed by my boy David Fincher, who has faced the ‘style over substance’ thing before, this was his first movie after getting started with music videos and he was so good from the start that people were fucking with him saying ‘style over substance’… when actually it’s like, no, are you fucking stupid, this is the dawn of our generations greatest professional director. Substance? your talking about substance? note: he’s not our greatest director flat, just professional. the director flat would go to someone who is a lazy genius with more of an auteur vision than just being classically the best. that person is Tarantino.

anyway that was a big separate thing, but this movie does have substance. the substance is actually great. let me put it this way, if your movie implies a mythology, then you are safe on the substance part. Budapest Hotel totally does that. It’s really really good. what can I say. not as good as Titanic or Braveheart, but still pretty damn good.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments