Hidden Harrison Ford: The Blog!

God always takes the wrong people.

In which I try to convice Tom to not see the Happening and see the Hulk instead.

“Excluding moments of chilling effectiveness, this could fairly be called his worst film. Even his saving grace of keen directorial acumen visibly loses cohesion on screen.”

- Garth Franklin, Dark Horizons

“A numbing polemical morality tale in dreary doomsday thriller clothing, this dull downer for all its mass panic attack high alert mode, may be more effective in unintentionally boring people to death.”

- Prairie Miller, NewsBlaze

“CThe movie demonstrates a smart movie geek’s obsession with the rhythms and gory details of horror storytelling, undermined by a pompous insistence on spiritual lessons of the tritest kind.”
- Lisa Schwarzbaum, Entertainment Weekly

“Go back to Iraq M.Night”
- Racist jackass on the Rotten Tomatoes message boards

“ur are all idiots, shymalan is a great director.. just because u like stupid and bad filmed sequence action movies doesnt give u the right to criticise him… u all suck, i love his movies.. yes. the alien aat the end of signs was pretty dumb.. but thats all”
-M. Night fan on YouTube

“You just don’t understand his genius. Don’t worry, it’s okay to be a simpleton. There’s many other people like you worldwide *pats*”
-Another M. Night fan

“I saw this last night. I’d rather cut off my dick with a dull blade than ever see more than a minute straight of this movie again.”
-Not an M. Night fan

“his movie is great. Just found out about a site were you can se the hole movie, its really good, check it out;)”
-Ernest Hemingway

I mean, come on Tom. It’s got a 25% at Rotten Tomatoes. There are a couple positive reviews, but they may be plants. You’ll get that joke if you see The Happening.

Besides, early word on The Incredible Hulk is that it’s pretty damn good. I know Matt’s on board.

Right, Matt?

Matt?

Transformers 2 gets an awfully awesome title

It’s easy to get worked up over a stupid ideas in movies. Sometimes you have to consider the source. Did the latest Indiana Jones need more green screen work than Sin City? Did Die Hard 4 have to be PG-13 and bland?

But it works both ways. Last year’s Transformers was the summer’s biggest surprise. Yeah, fighting robots is always cool, but the movie managed to be enjoyable even when property wasn’t being damaged. So when I learned that the sequel (which began principal photography earlier this week in Bethlehem, PA) was going to be called  Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen, I considered the source and giggled over it. It sounds like something Megatron would say. It fits the movie’s retarded roots. CHUD disagrees:

We live in an age of awful movie titles. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is sullying movie marquees everywhere right now. Terminator Salvation: The Future Begins will blight the ads in your local paper next summer. And these are just the nerd movie titles - ‘regular’ movies continue to have generic, boring, unmemorable titles taken from songs or little bits of phraseology. And of course there’s the big daddy of all bad movie titles coming down the pike: The Quantum of Solace.

Now Transformers is hopping on that ba(n)dwagon; Paramount has confirmed the sequel is called Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen. That’s just jaw-droppingly shitty. It makes you yearn for the days when movies just had a number instead of a subtitle. I mean, people get paid LOTS OF MONEY to sit around and come up with movie titles, and they ended up with Revenge of the Fallen? That’s so blisteringly generic I don’t know what else to say - they couldn’t fit ‘Autobot’ or ‘Decepticon’ in there? I guess putting in Galvatron might be too big a spoiler.

The good news is that it’s not too late to change the title to something more fitting, like Transformers 2: Boom! or Transformers 2: Epileptics Beware.

Not sure about everyone else, but Transformers 2: Boom! made me lose my shit.

"Autobots, transform and roll out! Then, we'll crash ourselves into some skyscrapers!"

Austrailian native Brad Jayakody was stopped from boarding a flight at Heathrow Airport in London earlier this week. The reason? He was wearing a shirt of the Transformers’ Optimus Prime holding a laser gun. If he refused to change it before boarding the plane, he would face arrest.

Says Jayakody: “It’s a cartoon robot - what threat is it to security or offensive to anyone at all? What was I going to do, use the shirt to pretend I have a gun?” A BAA spokesman said, “if a T-shirt had a rude word or a bomb on it, for example, a passenger may be asked to remove it,”

Keep in mind, this is the country that practically banned the word “ninja” and headbutts in movies. I’m not joking.

Post-9/11 airport security in general is a joke. What kind of stoic authority is some fat fuck with a badge supposed to provide? I guess that’s their way of beefing up security.

Tom: I don’t suppose I can get you to read the book.

Me: No, because I don’t have to read Mein Kamph to realize Hitler was an asshole.

Ron Paul

The 2008 Presidential Election has been a damned interesting one. You got a white guy, a black guy, and a woman. It’s like the setup to one of hundreds racist, misogynistic jokes. What is also interesting is the amount of attention and financial support Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) has gained. Unlike most Libertarians, he’s rallied a lot of support. But like most Libertarians, he’s full of ideological bullshit.

The genesis of this post is due to a friend I have who supports this man. Okay, it’s fucking Tom. He asks me what it is about the man that I disagree with, one of the worst arguments you can make. Why should I carefully memorize a candidate’s platform when I have long since decided I wholly disagree with it? It’s like trying to have an intellectual discussion with a 5 year-old about how Santa Claus works: it’s an empty, nonexistent discussion. I say this for two reasons: most ideological promises made during a presidential campaign just don’t happen (historically speaking), and the guy just doesn’t have the support substantial enough to be taken seriously as a contender (though he could shave votes off either side as he seems to attract Republicans and Democrats).

Much of Paul’s support stems from his opposition of the War in Iraq, along with people fed up with a two-party system, which I don’t get. Can having two parties hurt the progression of our country? Sure. Are there politicians on both sides who make choices because they owe a favor instead of using that choice to aid the majority of the population. But why vote for Paul as a result of that? It’s like renting Miss Congeniality 2: Armed and Dangerous at the video store because you’ve seen everything else.

I just don’t see how his supporters that are so fed up with the Bush administration think the answer is to vote for another Republican. And don’t give me any of that Libertarian nonsense either. He’s a Republican and he shares many views with Bush himself.

So why don’t I support him? Well I did some research, which reminded me why I dismissed him nearly a year ago and why I’m happy I have ADD when a Ron Paul supporter tells me why I should vote for him.

• He’s against federal welfare. Look, people abuse the fuck out of welfare. Those who are capable of employment still receive their government checks. But to abolish welfare entirely (especially in this “needs of the few outweigh the goods of the many” country we’re beginning to live in. More on that later.) is absurd, anti-democratic, and utterly unconstitutional. The Constitution states that the we must “establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty.”
• He wants to abolish gun control laws. He says that gun control is an act of tyranny, saying that citizens without guns are easier to control. You have to be kidding me. I’m sure it has nothing to do with the testimonials of inner-city violence or mothers that have to bury their own children. We have a right to bear arms, but responsibly. Why not get rid of any drunk driving laws? People will be responsible, right? Like other forms of regulation, gun control is needed. Ron Paul disagrees. I said he’s from Texas, right?
• He is against the legal recognition of gay couples… I think. Paul’s position on gay rights is spotty at best, sometimes he promotes legal recognition, but other times he is against it. The bill H.R.7955, introduced by Paul to “strengthen the American family,” prohibits “the expenditure of Federal funds to any organization which presents male or female homosexuality as an acceptable alternative life style or which suggest that it can be an acceptable life style.” We really don’t know how Paul would serve the GLBT community as president, but his right wing background and strong religious beliefs isn’t making a believer out of me.
• Oh, and he may also be a racist. Another sketchy one, but still one that I don’t have a difficult time believing. In the 90’s, he reportedly wrote several newsletters making several racist comments, such as saying the L.A. riots ended because blacks went “to pick up their welfare checks.” It also says black youths are trained to hate whites. Yummy. While Paul denies these claims, it is still worth noting.
• He opposes a separation in church and state. Hey look, something else that’s unconstitutional. He can bring up the “In God we trust” dogshit all he wants, but he can’t ignore what the First Amendment says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
• He supports privatizing health care. While once again having to answer Tom’s query of “why don’t you like Ron Paul,” (we were both hungover… my favorite time to defend my political beliefs) I brought up the possibility of the U.S. approving a socialized, less commercial health care system (and if you give me the “that’s un-American” angle, enjoy paying for your kids to go to private schools* and sending your snail mail via FedEx), an idea explored in Michael Moore’s documentary, Sicko. He scoffed at the idea, citing Canada and saying it will never work. What’s weird is I remember him agreeing with Moore’s claims after watching his documentary. I guess Michael Moore was so 2007.
  
  *Oh, and speaking of education, he wants to privatize that, too.
• He supports a free market. When Paul’s supporters say that he supports freedom, chances are they’re citing this, they just don’t realize it. I guess the YouTube video that convinced them didn’t bring this up. Basically what this means is that corporations deserve basic human rights. It’s deregulation of these corporate juggernauts, essentially expanding what the Bush administration did: same wealthy dick that wants to be sucked off, just a different Republican mouth. Life would change drastically. I gotta give the guy credit: he’s convincing that deregulation means freedom. Again, Bush pulled the same shit.

I think that’s enough. There’s plenty of other stuff to bring up (leave the UN, get rid of NATO, he wants us to do business with the evil, genocidal fucks of Sudan, he is against privacy protection, etc.), but this post is getting too long. Overall, it’s too much ideology with too little thought, making it no surprise why he has so many young supporters.

Fellow Tumblr bloggers that follow me are few, but you should really reblog this. This includes you, Tom. Your blog has essentially become a Ron Paul propaganda page, and it’s annoying. Where’s the irreverent videos, the entertaining observances, and the introspective thoughts? Be brave, be unbiased, and put this on your page. If you’re that confident in Ron Paul’s platform, it shouldn’t hurt a thing.