Soul-Devouring Worry
¤ Never seeing a really good action movie again, and not for lack of trying.

Life's Too Short For:
¤ Withholding cookies.

Curse of the Day:
¤ May your kitten find her intellectual equal in a cardboard tube.

Phrase of the Moment:
¤ Phrase: "The"
¤ Usage: "Let's go shop for The groceries."
¤ Synonyms: N/A
¤ Deviations: None.
¤ Origin: Unknown.
¤ Notes: This one is all in the usage. While there's nothing unusual about saying "the noun," what makes it funny is that we use it constantly, inappropriately, and with great emphasis.  "I hate that new commercial for The McDonald's." for instance.  It's a sort of mock emphasis and formality and official-ness that spices up uneventful things.

Sadly, it's also a very verbal thing that doesn't translate very well into text, as this description proves. -- October 13, 2003

¤ News from Canada, where the beef industry is dying due to some Mad Cow disease outbreaks that have made their beef impossible to sell for export. The ranchers are trying to get some media attention for their plight, and they got it, but not quite how they anticipated.

MONTREAL -- The scene is brief but brutal. With television cameras rolling, a cattleman raises a rifle to his shoulder and shoots a cow point-blank between the eyes, sending the animal crumpling to the ground.

The killing was meant to draw attention to the plight of cattle producers hurt by mad-cow disease. Instead, the stunt appears to have backfired.

The Canadian Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and television stations that aired the footage yesterday said they were deluged by callers who said the farmer's action was barbaric.

"People are revolted. They realize the animal is helpless," said Pierre Barnotti, executive director of the Montreal branch of the SPCA. "If [the farmers] thought this would mark them points, boy, did they bomb."

And what percentage of that deluge of callers have eaten a hamburger or steak within the past week, do you think? And you shouldn't need me to tell you that a sudden shot between the eyes is far more quick and humane than how slaughterhouses kill them.

¤ To quote Pulp Fiction, as Malaya and I so often do, this is some fucked up, repugnant shit.

A 6-year-old Florida boy who was partially paralyzed by a hit-and-run driver last year had four of his fingers chewed off by his family's dog because he couldn't feel what the animal was doing.

Dontavius Bryant, of Tampa, Fla., was hit by a driver last year and left with no feeling on his left side, which is why he didn't feel the dog chewing off his fingers to his second knuckle while he slept.

Hillsborough County animal control officials destroyed the puppy, a mixed breed of chow and pit bull named Chaka.

The child's fingers were found in the dog's stomach, police said.

Remind me again why people still buy pit bulls? Or why they are even legal to own?  I suppose you can emphasize with the dog; it was young and stupid and hungry and fingers are meat, and when the owner of them didn't move after a few licks and nips, the dog must have figured it they were fair game.  But hey, you get a pit bull for anything other than guarding your junk yard, you're sort of asking for it, at least based on media coverage of the general savagery of the breed.

¤ This one depresses me, even as it confirms the worst fears and expectations of pretty much everyone who isn't actually a member of the Bush Administration. A report on the state of the world says that the Iraq war has been a big boost to al-Qaeda.

...war in Iraq has probably inflamed radical passions among Muslims and thus increased al-Qaeda's recruiting power and morale and, at least marginally, its operating capability," it said.

"The immediate effect of the war may have been to isolate further al Qaeda from any potential state supporters while also swelling its ranks and galvanizing its will."

The report, widely considered an authoritative text on the military capabilities of states and militant groups worldwide, could prove fodder for critics of the U.S.-British invasion and of the reconstruction effort that has followed in Iraq.

Of course this is exactly what everyone who opposed the Iraq war said, going in.  It had nothing to do with al-Qaeda and nothing to do with 9/11.  In fact it was turning our attention from Afghanistan and al-Qaeda, which was sure to let the actual terrorists regroup, and attacking one of the more secular Arab states, which was sure to radicalize the Iraqis.  This is one of those times when it sucks to be correct.  Wouldn't it be nice if Bush's little neocon fairy tale had come true?  I mean sure, everyone hates Bush, but putting that aside, what if the Iraqis really had welcomed the US troops and their rapid and peaceful transition towards democracy had served as an inspiration for the citizens of all the oter  other theocratic tyrannies in the Middle East, and in 10 years the whole region was democratic and free and their economies were flourishing while the Mullahs who enslave and victimize them in with religion, much as the church did throughout Europe in the Dark Ages, were out of power and universally-despised?

Oh well, it didn't work out so well in Iraq, but it's sure to in Iran, or Syria, or wherever else Bush decides to invade before the 2004 presidential election when he needs a foreign adventure to distract the American public from his disastrous domestic policy.  Right?

See, I would like to travel the world with Malaya someday, and it would be a lot easier to do so if we didn't have to disguise our country of origin at all times due to the worldwide terrorism and hostility towards Americans that Dubya and his pack of merry fools are so busily stirring up.

¤ I'm going to be cursing in a minute, here.

SAN BERNARDINO, Calif. - Looking to each other for political support, President Bush embraced Arnold Schwarzenegger as "a fine and strong leader" Thursday and the governor-elect returned the compliment by saying California has no greater ally in Washington.

The political lovefest, on a stage with a huge American flag as backdrop, followed a half-hour of private talks in Bush's hotel suite and then in his limousine as they rode together to a speech where Schwarzenegger introduced the president

Waiting off stage before they spoke, Bush and Schwarzenegger were overheard joking about how neither knew how to pronounce the southern California city of Rancho Cucamonga. Laughing, they both tried to say the city's name. Bush kept up the lighthearted remarks on stage, saying that he and Schwarzenegger had a lot in common.

This from the president who refused to lift a finger while his cronies in Enron were raping us Californians for billions through their energy market scams despite direct appeals from our former, honesty-elected governor?  Plus Californias pay by far the most out nationally, compared to how much we get back from federal pork, so even if Dubya does ship out something useful, he'll essentially be bribing us with our own money!

Fuck you Dubya, and fuck you Arnie. *clears throat*

They wanted $50 for it at a candle/decoration store, which was far more than I was willing to pay, especially since it just had a light and some bad music.  Some of the sexier snow globes have little motors that keep the water circulating and the snow blizzarding all the time, and that I might buy, if the bats were forever in a frenzy of flapping.

It sounds cheesy, and from the picture on the box we saw at the Hallmark store we thought it would be cheesy, but the other store had one out, and with a shake I was smitten.  Not enough to lay out $50 for it, but I do want one.

Since wanting is weakness and weakness is bad, I'm sure I'll get over it.

We did make a couple of actual purchases though.  I got a necklace at a novelty store, and Malaya got one of those Italian Charm Bracelets.  My necklace was one I'd seen and considered a couple of weeks ago, and with a second look I was sold.  The store had dozens of styles of necklaces and bracelets, ranging from simulated dog collars to spiky silver things to skulls on chains, etc.  Mine has dark gray metal tubes alternating with shiny black balls, and it cost $12.  Obviously it's not exactly platinum and diamonds, but I like how it looks and I'll actually wear it from time to time. I almost never wear any jewelry since I don't care how I look enough to bother with it, and the ridiculous prices they charge for yellow metal chains with chips of glass-like stuff set in them offend me.

Malaya's charm bracelet is cute; and quite a scam.  Well, it's not entirely a scam, since the wearer gets exactly what they want; they just pay far more for it than it costs to create.  The way the charm bracelets work is that you pay some nominal cost for the starter bracelet, which is a series of flat, rectangular metal pieces.  Malaya's has 17 of them to fit neatly around her wrist.  All of the starter links are just plain silver stuff, and it's cheap; hers was $6 or something like that.

The thing is that there are approximately 50,000,000 different charms, with dozens more being created every second, and they sell for ridiculous sums, given the size of them and the lack of expensive materials. They're usually $17+, and ones with some actual gold were in the $50 range (online is cheaper). Which isn't so much, until you consider that you need 15-20 of them for a fully stocked bracelet (depending on your wrist size), and then you're looking to lay out $400 or more for metal bracelet that you could get for about $10 at any crafts fair or street booth.

Of course the one at a street fair wouldn't have the charms you wanted on it; it would just be metal with some sort of design.  My current bracelet of choice has silver tubes with blue balls between them and it cost me $4, as I recall, at the Filipino Festiva I attended with Malaya the first time I came up here to visit her.

I imagine the individual charms cost about $1 to make, if that, since most of them are just metal, or at best sterling silver.  The stores then sell them for $20 or $30 or $45, depending on the design, and fans of the bracelets have a lot of bracelets, or 50 charms so they can change them out depending on their mood, etc.

The benefit, if you can ignore/afford the price, is that you get a shiny bracelet with exactly the design you want, and can modify and add to it indefinitely.  Something you can't do with a normal jewelry purchase, at least not unless you are a jeweler.

I don't actually dislike the concept all that much, it's just that I'd never wear a shiny gold or silver bracelet.  If they had them in black metal I might consider that, since there are occasional black charms, or even silver ones would go nicely on the black background.  But since they don't, and I can't afford it anyway, I shall wipe this episode from my mind.

After our shopping and a snack at a Chinese take out place, we went to the movies.  Texas Chainsaw Massacre was opening, and since Malaya has been wanting to see it, and since the trailer was pretty good, off we went on opening day. I didn't expect it would be scary, since I can't remember being scared by a movie (or book, or TV) since I was about 12.  It's not that I think it would be unmanly or anything, it's just that I don't get scared by entertainment.  Excited and thrilled on occasion, but never frightened.

What I hope for from a horror film is to see some really cool stuff.  It can be gory or imaginative or gruesome or suspenseful, but I want it to be arresting, both visually and emotionally.  That sensation seems to be coming less and less often in movies of late, at least for me. This summer, I've seen The Italian Job, Pirates of the Caribbean, Matrix 2, Freddy vs. Jason, Underworld, Terminator 3, Kill Bill, and a few others I'm sure I'm forgetting now, and aside from a few large scale explosions in T3, and some of the long tropical paradise ocean shots in Pirates, I can't remember any really "holy shit, would you look at that!" scenes in quite a while.

There weren't any in Texas Chainsaw Massacre either, but I did appreciate a few of the gory moments, and some of the set design and action sequences were pretty good.  It did a decent job of avoiding some of the stupidest horror movie clichés (no women ever ran from a killer only to trip over their own feet and twist an ankle at the first opportunity) and had a few surprises and twists.

I was disappointed in the plot; it did far less build up and suspense than the trailer leads you to believe, and very few of the killings are stylish or shocking.  Mostly they're predictable and seemingly-inevitable. There's no "oh, my ankle, it's twisted!" stupidity, and none of the characters do anything unbelievably stupid, along the "There's a serial killer around, so it's shower time!" cliché, but they aren't real bright either.

The actual killer was pretty unimpressive, IMHO.  Just another huge guy in bulky clothing with a sharp object.  Basically Jason with a different mask, and a monster collecting fingers and making masks from human faces is just not shocking anymore, not after Buffalo Bill did it so touchingly and creepily in Silence of the Lambs.  What I liked best were the sets and the creepy hick town characters, all of whom were as weird or weirder than the actual murdering chainsaw guy himself, in their own perverse ways.  The old house on the hill was great, the sun-dappled forest was nice, the creepy cellar was good, the rotting old house full of pigs was cool, the painstakingly-applied scary decorations were nice (and I wanted a lot of them for my Halloween tree) and so on.  I suppose I'm saying that the whole atmosphere was the best part, even if they did end up having a chase scene in a big factory, just like every other action movie made in the last 100 years, and even though the night was able to descend almost instantly and torrential rains came and went in minutes, depending on the needs of the plot.

So it wasn't really bad, but I have to admit to being bored at times, and admit that neither Malaya or I were eever the slightest bit scared.  I won't say it sucked, but I can't really recommend it, nor can I argue with reviews like this one.

With its psycho ''Leatherface'' Hawkins (Andrew Bryniarski), the new version departs from the original but remains indistinguishable from ''Urban Legends: Final Cut'' or ''Jeeper Creepers 2,'' browsing the same retail outlet that every other slasher flick has for 15 years. A sky tinted the color doom? Check. A filthy, dilapidated manor full of unwashed freaks and pet pigs? Check. Severed baby-doll heads strategically placed by the industrial sewing machine? Check. Editing that cuts faster than the killers? Check.

So it's not good, but it's got some creepy stuff, good sets, and serviceable acting.  It's never original, but I wouldn't go as far as Ebert did, since he just loathed and was depressed by it, and gave it zero stars, and made comments like this one:

The new version of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" is a contemptible film: Vile, ugly and brutal. There is not a shred of a reason to see it. Those who defend it will have to dance through mental hoops of their own devising, defining its meanness and despair as "style" or "vision" or "a commentary on our world." It is not a commentary on anything, except the marriage of slick technology with the materials of a geek show.

There is a controversy involving Quentin Tarantino's "Kill Bill: Volume 1," which some people feel is "too violent." I gave it four stars, found it kind of brilliant, felt it was an exhilarating exercise in nonstop action direction. The material was redeemed, justified, illustrated and explained by the style. It was a meditation on the martial arts genre, done with intelligence and wit. "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" is a meditation on the geek-show movie. Tarantino's film is made with grace and joy. This movie is made with venom and cynicism. I doubt that anybody involved in it will be surprised or disappointed if audience members vomit or flee.

No one in the audience I saw it with vomited, though a couple of people walked out about 2/3 of the way through it, for unknown reasons.  The most memorable audience reaction was a loud woman behind us, who cheered whenever the psycho with the chainsaw raced into view and began slashing at the air with his power tool. She also laughed like a hyena whenever anything gruesome happened, a reaction I shared with her.  I can appreciate a really nasty thing, like someone's leg being sawed off, then after they are carried down into a cellar and hung up on a hook having their ragged stump cauterized with a handful of rock salt and some butcher paper, for instance.  If you can't, then this movie really isn't for you.

I didn't get any larger message, but then I didn't think it was trying to comment on anything. It was a slick movie with some slightly-interesting characters in a horrible situation with a bunch of weird freaks and one killer.  The director set the tops spinning, and let us watch them bump into each other and fall down. More would be nice, but who goes in to a remake of an old slasher movie expecting anything new? It's a horror movie, not a research paper.

The overall Rotten Tomatoes score is not good, with just 35% of reviewers liking it, but that's about par for the course for a horror movie. Most critics aren't going to like it, and you probably know if you will or not, based on your past movie experiences. 

It also sounds like the original was far better, as is the case for 99% of remakes. I've never seen the classic original, but I'd bet it's one of those, "Great, if you can get past the cheesy amateurishness of all movies made before about 1985, in comparison to the slick modern films we see today..."

If I ever see it I'll let you know.

<-- Previous  --  Next -->
Archives Index Page