Phrase of the Moment:
¤ Phrase: "Your little hopes and dreams."
¤ Usage: "Poor fellow, his little hopes and dreams have all be smashed."
¤ Origin: Quipped by a whore, or pre-op transgender man, or a sociopath, or some other lowlife who was engaged in a vicious verbal battle with another lowlife guest on the Jerry Springer show
¤ Notes: While the Jerry Springer show is generally pretty lacking in opportunities for intellectual improvement, you do tend to hear some funny jokes, of the personal insult type.  This was one of the best.  One loser was arguing with another loser, and when one said something about how she'd loved her husband, whom the other lowlife had stolen away, lowlife #1 replied, "Bitch, I don't care about your little hopes and dreams!"

You'll find it applicable to almost every situation in life.  It's the "little" that really makes it work, since that just so perfectly and cruelly diminishes whatever claim to importance the other person might previously have had. -- February 20, 2004

unday night and I want to finish this and get to some D2 since I've got a bunch of new top level Runeword items to play with, since I duped up a bunch of runes and good items to socket them in and it'll be fun to try out hell with the top equipment.  But I don't want to spend too long on that since I want to get to writing since I'm closer than ever to being past the goddamned introductory chapters and into the fun ones in the middle of the story.  Which is why I'm banging right through this and skipping all of the weekend activities recap, and why I haven't finished the February mailbag yet and aren't going to take the time to do so right now. I've also received several good emails over the last couple of days, but I'm not going to get to any replies to those just yet either.

Instead, here's some random stuff and then a news item and then a dual review covering Dawn of the Dead and Spooky Hollow.

¤ Random odd human body observations and questions that I don't expect or really even want answers to.

¤ You always hear those stories about some girl auctioning off her virginity, but you probably figure that it never really happens. Well, it's happened.  To a British lesbian, no less.

Rosie Reid, 18, from London, slept with a 44-year-old BT engineer in a hotel room in Euston after he paid her £8,400, the News of the World reports.

But she told the newspaper: "It was horrible... I felt nervous and scared."

Ms Reid, from Dulwich, had sex with the divorced father-of-two after he gave her a banker's draft, according to the News of the World.

She told the newspaper: "I felt obliged... to please him as he had just paid all this money."

But she added: "It didn't feel like it was happening to me. I felt like I was watching it happen to someone else.

"I was just so relieved when it was over... I was desperate to get back to Jess as I felt so uncomfortable."

The next morning she said she joined her partner and they "just cried and cried".

And this is different than the average woman's post virginity-loss in what way, exactly?

It tells us that she didn't like it, but you could hardly expect that she would. But how did he feel about it?  Like he got his money's worth? Couldn't he get a lot fresher poontang for an investment of damn near $15,000 if he spent his money in other ways?  Hell, there's younger and riper girls than this one on the Jerry Springer show every day, and most of them are busy having sex for six-packs and value meals and such.

As usual, I have all sorts of impertinent questions:

• Who paid for the hotel room?
• Did he have her examined in advance to prove she was actually a virgin?
• Was foreplay included?
• Did he get to undress her and kiss her and see her nude and such, or was he just supposed to put on a condom and stick it through a hole in a sheet, Mormon style?
• Did he get to cuddle her afterwards? 
• Did he offer her a bonus for seconds?
• Since her girlfriend was staying in the same hotel for moral support, did he offer an extra 500 quid for a threesome?
• Is she now curious about more heterosexual activities?
• Will she and her girlfriend now start doing strap on stuff, since the merchandise is broken in?
• Will he go on to participate in other virginity auctions?
• Will she be auctioning off any other virgin orifices on her body?

It's also funny that her parents are very well off, making over £60,000 a year, yet they won't help her at all with her school loans, even though they said things about how they feared she was selling her soul.  Something makes me think they aren't on real good terms with their daughter, and that perhaps her lesbianism has something to do with it.

If you want more info about her, you can certainly find it online. I tried searching on her name and hobby ("Rosie Reid" virginity auction) , and got roughly a million pages of returns, which I tired of researching very quickly.

As for the whole thing itself, I could really care.  I don't see any reason prostitution should be illegal, so why should this?  She's of age and it's her own free will.  If she wanted to sleep with him for free, it would be fine. How can it be legal for a person to provide a service for free, but not to sell it?  And since he won a fair auction, paid his end of the deal, and she delivered her end of the contract, it all sounds pretty okay to me.

It would have been funny if she hadn't put out after all, or said she was too afraid, or forced him to stop before he reached orgasm, or got drunk in the hotel bar the night before and put out for some brush salesman from Dunwich?  Could he then sue her for breach of contract?  Failure to provide undamaged goods?

I'd imagine that quite a few women are jealous of this, and somewhat angry they didn't think to pull it off themselves. (Though since the vast majority seem to lose their cherries in some unfortunate half-date rape scenario at about age 15, it's not like too many women past the age of consent have this sort of product to put up to public auction.)  But they didn't, and she did, so what's the big deal? If she were underage or being forced into it by a pimp or her heroin dealer or whatever, that would be different.

And if you think it's because prostitution is illegal (as it is in most of the US and much of the world) why aren't other such services?  Why isn't massage illegal? It's using your body to give pleasure to another person. Why aren't oh, pedicures and manicures? And if it's just about the "private parts" why don't the police regulate mammograms and proctologic and gynecologic processes? True, they aren't exactly equivalent. They're medical procedures, and they don't involve the giving of pleasure (at least not usually), but it's very similar.

And yes, obviously the illegality, or at least the alleged immorality, of prostitution is based on the fact that it's "sex" which many people still feel is dirty and bad and immoral, largely based on their religious beliefs. Of course those same people generally believe that sexual relations are a woman's duty, even in a loveless, abusive relationship, while at the same time thinking that nude boobies shouldn't be shown anywhere ever for any reason, much less that sex between two consensual adults, one of whom is paying for the privilege, should ever be allowed. I've never paid for it and I can't imagine that I ever will, but I find the whole thing fascinating.  I also think it should be legalized and regulated. It should only be allowed in official locations, like how restaurants need to have a liquor license, and they would be state inspectors (talk about rife for corruption), annual requirements to be met, safety checks to meet, mandatory safe sex regulations, etc.  It would be safe for the girls, safer for the men, not lead to disease and easy serial killer victim access, etc.

And if we could just get rid of the puritanical Christians and their adherence to primitive belief systems, all would be well. Of course I think that about most things, so maybe I'm not the best judge in this instance.

Sleepy Hollow first.  Nutshell review: great look, fun action, little plot, no mystery or suspense, absurd events, silly conclusion. 2/4 stars.

This review will contain some spoilers, though since the movie is hardly at all about the plot or the conclusion, nothing I tell you here should have much impact on your viewing enjoyment, or lack thereof.

I enjoyed much of it, despite being disappointed that the interesting opening set up was immediately abandoned and that the overall plot was very formulaic.  I'd give it a slightly positive rating based entirely on the great scenery, sets, costumes, atmospheric mood, and occasional cool special effects and beheadings, but it can't get a better review since the movie was just too Tim Burton-esque.  All style and flash and look and very little substance or plot or story.

Sleepy Hollow was directed by Tim Burton and starred Johnny Depp. It was released in 1999 and made just over $100m, and was pretty well received by the critics. (It's at 72% positive on RT, with 72% positive on RT, with 74/103 reviews.)  I didn't see it then, nor did Malaya, and neither of us had really given it a thought since.  I'd never seen it advertised on TV or in DVD form, until I happened to see it on the shelf at Fry's, Saturday, and since it was just $9.99 and I hadn't seen it, I picked it up.  Malaya said she hadn't seen it either and since she was interesting and willing to pay half, home it came to join our DVD collection.  We were both pretty eager to see it, once we had it, and we watched it Saturday night over salad and pasta.

Malaya enjoyed it more than I did, though I couldn't say exactly why.  I think my lack of enjoyment was mostly due to my being unable to let go of my critical thinking and plot expectations.  Basically, I wanted it to be something that it wasn't, and I wasn't able to enjoy it for what it was.  I suppose that's more of a failing on my part than on the film's part, but it is it what it is. So perhaps she was more able to overlook those things than I was? I'd ask her, but she's like, two feet away, and working on other stuff, and actual facts and interviews would just slow me down in my usual fast-paced string of off the cuff remarks and general inaccuracies.

As for Sleepy Hollow, it was basically a lot of scenes of a guy on a horse riding down terrified victims with his huge black cloak flowing behind his huge black horse as he charged down leaf-littered, tree-lined lanes with a sword overhead.  All atmosphere and sets and setting and costumes, with very little reason for the viewer to care if the next victim got their head lopped off or not.  There was sort of a plot and sort of a conclusion and it all made sense, sort of, but I was pretty disappointed by how things transpired.

The whole initial point was the NYC police inspector Ichabod Crane (Depp) was a modern man of science and logic and deduction, in 1799, and that he wanted to bring forensics and analysis to police work. Sort of a CSI:1800, a premise that you'll note has since been stolen and put to work in about half a dozen TV series.  He kept annoying a judge with his criticisms of the medieval "justice" system, and the judge, who somehow knew of several recent beheadings in Sleepy Hollow, upstate New York, gave Ichabod the choice of heading up there to investigate, or staying in NYC in a jail cell (more like a jail pit, as they were depicted).  So off Ichabod went, on a very long and very scenic coach ride and then a walk to an inn; a trip that set the tone for the rest of the movie.  I.E. it had no reason to exist, but was photographed so beautifully that you could almost forget how pointless it all was.

Once in Sleepy Hollow he establishes his identity, talks to the town elders, tries to investigate things scientifically, and firmly states his belief that there is no headless horsemen, that he's not the dead mercenary the townspeople think he is, and that there's a perfectly logical explanation for the killings and the fact that all of the bodies were found but none of the heads were left with the dead.  He does some primitive investigation, using funny glasses and medical instruments, and is amusingly squeamish about blood and ignorant of female anatomy.  But his investigations add no info to the case, nothing he does is of any real use, and as we soon find out, the headless horseman really is a headless horseman, and really is the mercenary the townsfolk think he is, and really has returned from hell, and really is impossible to defeat in combat and immune to injury.

At this point I was annoyed and disappointed.  I had hoped there would be something more to it than magic and witchcraft; that Ichabod's reliance on science and logic would make a difference, and that there would be a non-magical explanation for things.  I was mistaken.

So once all has become magic, mediocre special effects, one-sided battles, and inevitable killings, the only remaining story is to try to figure out who is responsible for the killings and why they're taking place.  I.E. who dug up the mercenary and took his head and thus gained control of him (I didn't know it was so easy to command the dead.) and why are they sending him to kill most of the townsfolk.  All is revealed, and it all ties together with the random bits of odd info we had from various flashbacks, and it all makes sense in the end. At least if you accept that headless mercenaries can return from hell on jet black steeds, and that they're invulnerable once they do, and so on.

In fact, I guess I should raise my grade slightly.  I'll give it a 2.5/4, since it was consistent, and it did make sense in the end.  I just disliked the magic required for it, especially after the movie opened up as though it was going to be a triumph of reality over superstition, and then quickly became just another demon/ghost story.

I'd recommend it if you're a non-critical viewer able to suspense your disbelief who likes magic and graphic/amusing beheadings and a good ghost/witch story that you won't have much need to think during.

Dawn of the Dead.  As I posted a few times last week, this one was off our radar, until the reviews started coming in, and they were shockingly positive.  It's still at 77%, better than Sleepy Hollow, and has an astonishing 74/97 positive reviews on RottenTomatoes.com.  Seeing those, and the pretty good trailer, Malaya became interested, and I was interested already, so we reinforced each other, and come Sunday morning we talked about it in bed, and decided to go see it that night.

Nutshell review: great look, clever screenwriting, good action, good plot, amateurish acting, funny gore, very dark world view and conclusion. 3/4 stars.  I can't give it higher than that since it was just too absurd and style over substance in places, but it's definitely one of the best horror/action movies I've ever seen.  Which is saying either a lot or a little depending on how you look at it. A lot: since I've seen a fair amount of them.  A little: since most of them suck harder than the vacuum aisle at Target.

I'll give a few minor spoilers in this review, but not too many, and not the ultimate fate of the non-zombies, since you have to watch straight through the credits to find it out.

DotD is more of an action movie than a horror movie, and it's got a lot of really fun, clever stuff, great action, and what I found most refreshing, it's intelligent. Oh it's not that smart, I mean it's about the living dead killing practically every human on earth, but it's internally logical.  The characters aren't constantly doing idiotic horror movie type things; they don't split up and wander into dark places all the time, they don't back into monsters, and they don't let their personal issues rule them and get them killed by trying to horde one last bullet or bite of canned ravioli.

It's not one of those movies where you're constantly screaming at the screen, "Don't go in there, you idiot!" Oh you'll want to yell at the screen about various things, and most of the audience was, but it's in a good way. When someone has just died and you know they're about to sit back up and start biting, and yet the characters are sitting around calmly, even kissing the dead person good bye.  Or when they head out into the darkness, trying to rescue someone you're sure is already dead, when you're sure there are zombies in the shadows.

It's very dark, both about human nature and life itself.  Most of the leads are killed, most horribly and in ways you don't generally expect, and there is actual human tragedy and emotion.  Even though there are a lot of characters to watch in a short time, and it's not the sort of movie that's filled with painful introspection and heart to heart conversations, you get a feel for the personality of all of the human leads (12 or 15 of them) and how they'll react in a given situation.  And you care when they live, or more often when they die.

There is a great deal of humor in the movie also, from the asshole behavior of some of the survivors to the ways they kill the zombies to the way the zombies die, and there's definitely amusement to be found in the bleakness of this strange apocalypse.  The whole theater laughed out loud in numerous occasions, and everyone seemed to have a pretty good time with the film.

If I were rating it just on a horror or action movie scale, it would probably get a 3.5/4.  It's certainly no Aliens or Silence of the Lambs, but it's got some elements of both (many of the zombie battles are very reminiscent of scenes in Aliens, with the swift, numerous, horrible attackers and the desperately retreating, gun-firing humans) and it was a lot better than I expected it to be.  I'd watch it again just to enjoy the funny stuff and the action and the creativity of the survivors (I've not mentioned hardly anything they did that was smart, since most of it's unexpected and I'm trying to be spoiler free.) and it affected me personally.

After the movie I was looking around in every direction, imagining that suddenly the people were crazed zombies, or that one was about to come lurching out from between parked cars in the dark parking garage, and wondering what I'd do if I had to blow away people I knew or loved who were suddenly out to consume my flesh.

I might write about it at some point in the future, if I think to.  Because I'd like to discuss some of the realities of infection and transmission of the zombie virus, physical realities of the new world they're living in, zombie rudimentary intelligence, and so on.  But since that would all be spoilery at this point, I'm putting it off for a while, or possibly forever.  Life is short and cruel.

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