Dear God help me. I know better than to post something like this.... but I couldn't help but share it. I DIDN'T write this. It was written by Nannie Helen Burroughs, a century ago. I am simply sharing it. I think that this is something all people of all genders and races should take into consideration, but I didn't want to alter her words. So... here goes nothing.
12 Things The Negro Must Do For Himself by Nannie Helen Burroughs
From Blackmeninamerica.com
(Circa Early 1900's)
1. The Negro Must Learn To Put First Things First. The First Things Are: Education; Development of Character Traits; A Trade and Home Ownership.
*The Negro puts too much of his earning in clothes, in food, in show and in having what he calls "a good time." The Dr. Kelly Miller said, "The Negro buys what he WANTS and begs for what he Needs." Too true!
2. The Negro Must Stop Expecting God and White Folk To Do For Him What He Can Do For Himself.
*It is the "Divine Plan" that the strong shall help the weak, but even God does not do for man what man can do for himself. The Negro will have to do exactly what Jesus told the man (in John 5:8) to do--Carry his own load--"Take up your bed and walk."
3. The Negro Must Keep Himself, His Children And His Home Clean And Make The Surroundings In Which He Lives Comfortable and Attractive.
*He must learn to "run his community up"--not down. We can segregate by law, we integrate only by living. Civilization is not a matter of race, it is a matter of standards. Believe it or not--some day, some race is going to outdo the Anglo-Saxon, completely. It can be the Negro race, if the Negro gets sense enough. Civilization goes up and down that way.
4. The Negro Must Learn To Dress More Appropriately For Work And For Leisure.
*Knowing what to wear--how to wear it--when to wear it and where to wear it, are earmarks of common sense, culture and also an index to character.
5. The Negro Must Make His Religion An Everyday Practice And Not Just A Sunday-Go-To-Meeting Emotional Affair.
6. The Negro Must Highly Resolve To Wipe Out Mass Ignorance.
*The leaders of the race must teach and inspire the masses to become eager and determined to improve mentally, morally and spiritually, and to meet the basic requirements of good citizenship.
*We should initiate an intensive literacy campaign in America, as well as in Africa. Ignorance--satisfied ignorance--is a millstone abut the neck of the race. It is democracy's greatest burden.
*Social integration is a relationship attained as a result of the cultivation of kindred social ideals, interests and standards.
* It is a blending process that requires time, understanding and kindred purposes to achieve. Likes alone and not laws can do it.
7. The Negro Must Stop Charging His Failures Up To His "Color" And To White People's Attitude.
*The truth of the matter is that good service and conduct will make senseless race prejudice fade like mist before the rising sun.
*God never intended that a man's color shall be anything other than a badge of distinction. It is high time that all races were learning that fact. The Negro must first QUALIFY for whatever position he wants. Purpose, initiative, ingenuity and industry are the keys that all men use to get what they want. The Negro will have to do the same. He must make himself a workman who is too skilled not to be wanted, and too DEPENDABLE not to be on the job, according to promise or plan. He will never become a vital factor in industry until he learns to put into his work the vitalizing force of initiative, skill and dependability. He has gone "RIGHTS" mad and "DUTY" dumb.
8. The Negro Must Overcome His Bad Job Habits.
*He must make a brand new reputation for himself in the world of labor. His bad job habits are absenteeism, funerals to attend, or a little business to look after. The Negro runs an off and on business. He also has a bad reputation for conduct on the job--such as petty quarrelling with other help, incessant loud talking about nothing; loafing, carelessness, due to lack of job pride; insolence, gum chewing and--too often--liquor drinking. Just plain bad job habits!
9. He Must Improve His Conduct In Public Places.
*Taken as a whole, he is entirely too loud and too ill-mannered.
* There is much talk about wiping out racial segregation and also much talk about achieving integration.
*Segregation is a physical arrangement by which people are separated in various services.
*It is definitely up to the Negro to wipe out the apparent justification or excuse for segregation.
*The only effective way to do it is to clean up and keep clean. By practice, cleanliness will become a habit and habit becomes character.
10. The Negro Must Learn How To Operate Business For People--Not For Negro People, Only.
* To do business, he will have to remove all typical "earmarks," business principles; measure up to accepted standards and meet stimulating competition, graciously--in fact, he must learn to welcome competition.
11. The Average So-Called Educated Negro Will Have To Come Down Out Of The Air. He Is Too Inflated Over Nothing. He Needs An Experience Similar To The One That Ezekiel Had--(Ezekiel 3:14-19). And He Must Do What Ezekiel Did
*Otherwise, through indifference, as to the plight of the masses, the Negro, who thinks that he has escaped, will lose his own soul. It will do all leaders good to read Hebrew 13:3, and the first Thirty-seven Chapters of Ezekiel.
*A race transformation itself through its own leaders and its sensible "common people." A race rises on its own wings, or is held down by its own weight. True leaders are never "things apart from the people." They are the masses. They simply got to the front ahead of them. Their only business at the front is to inspire to masses by hard work and noble example and challenge them to "Come on!" Dante stated a fact when he said, "Show the people the light and they will find the way!"
*There must arise within the Negro race a leadership that is not out hunting bargains for itself. A noble example is found in the men and women of the Negro race, who, in the early days, laid down their lives for the people. Their invaluable contributions have not been appraised by the "latter-day leaders." In many cases, their names would never be recorded, among the unsung heroes of the world, but for the fact that white friends have written them there.
"Lord, God of Hosts, Be with us yet."
*The Negro of today does not realize that, but, for these exhibits A's, that certainly show the innate possibilities of members of their own race, white people would not have been moved to make such princely investments in lives and money, as they have made, for the establishment of schools and for the on-going of the race.
12. The Negro Must Stop Forgetting His Friends. "Remember."
* Read Deuteronomy 24:18. Deuteronomy rings the big bell of gratitude. Why? Because an ingrate is an abomination in the sight of God. God is constantly telling us that "I the Lord thy God delivered you"--through human instrumentalities.
*The American Negro has had and still has friends--in the North and in the South. These friends not only pray, speak, write, influence others, but make unbelievable, unpublished sacrifices and contributions for the advancement of the race--for their brothers in bonds.
*The noblest thing that the Negro can do is to so live and labor that these benefactors will not have given in vain. The Negro must make his heart warm with gratitude, his lips sweet with thanks and his heart and mind resolute with purpose to justify the sacrifices and stand on his feet and go forward--"God is no respector of persons. In every nation, he that feareth him and worketh righteousness is" sure to win out. Get to work! That's the answer to everything that hurts us. We talk too much about nothing instead of redeeming the time by working.
R-E-M-E-M-B-E-R
*In spite of race prejudice, America is brim full of opportunities. Go after them!
Friday, July 4, 2008
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Gas is Cheap... so quit your bitching
That got your attention. ^_^
So... read this. Please. All the way through. Educate yourself. Cuz if you're on my myspace friends list, and I hear you bitch about gas a week after I post this, I will kick you in the balls. Or other applicable genitalia.
Gasoline Is CheapFour dollars a gallon is outrageous! We should be paying much more.
By Robert Bryce
Posted Thursday, May 15, 2008, at 3:24 PM ET
http://www.slate.com/id/2191491/
The next time you have to take out a loan just to fill up your tank, remember this: Four-dollar-per-gallon gasoline is cheap.
There's no doubt that high fuel prices are hurting low-income consumers, and high energy costs are placing a tax on the economy that is slowing investment while sending billions of dollars overseas. It's unsurprising that presidential candidates and members of Congress issue new proposals practically every day to lower gas prices: Stop filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve! Suspend the federal gas tax! Open ANWR to oil drilling!
These proposals are delusions, and Americans are living in a fantasy land when it comes to energy and energy prices. Over the past few years, consumers have been inundated with news stories about the soaring price of gasoline. Invariably, these stories include comments from a motorist who is outraged at the evils of a) Saudi Arabia, b) OPEC, c) Big Oil, d) all of the above.
But by almost any measure, gasoline is still cheap. In fact, it has probably been far too cheap for far too long. The recent price increases are only beginning to reflect its real value.
When measured on an inflation-adjusted basis, the current price of gasoline is only slightly higher than it was in 1922. According to the Energy Information Administration, in 1922, gasoline cost the current-day equivalent of $3.11. Today, according to the EIA, gasoline is selling for about $3.77 per gallon, only about 20 percent more than 86 years ago.
Given the ever-increasing global demand for oil products—during the first quarter of this year, China's oil consumption jumped by 16.5 percent—and the increasing costs associated with finding, producing, and refining crude oil, it makes sense that today's motorists are paying more for their motor fuel than their grandparents and great-grandparents did.
Gasoline is also a fairly minor expense when you consider the overall cost of car ownership. In 1975, gasoline made up 33.4 percent of the total cost of owning and operating a car. By 2006, according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, gasoline costs had declined to just 17.1 percent of the total cost of car ownership. Of course, fuel costs have risen by about $1 per gallon since 2006, but even with those increases, fuel continues to be a relatively small part of the cost of car ownership. By contrast, the fixed costs of ownership—insurance, licensing, taxes, and financing—have increased nearly fivefold since 1975. Maintenance costs have also quintupled over the same time period. Given those increases and the relatively low price of fuel, it's not surprising that Americans are opting for big vehicles with powerful engines. Considering the overall cost of owning a vehicle, fuel expenses just aren't a very big deal.
History shows that significant declines in U.S. oil consumption occur only after prolonged periods of high prices. Over the last two decades, U.S. consumers have been spoiled by low fuel prices. And those lower prices led to a buying binge that put millions of giant SUVs, pickups, and other gas guzzlers on our roads. Today's higher prices are forcing consumers to adapt. The EIA now expects U.S. gasoline consumption to decline this year—the first drop in demand in 17 years. In April, sales of small cars in the United States were up by 17 percent over the same period a year earlier while sales of SUVs, trucks, and large cars all fell by about 30 percent.
On the environmental front, people concerned about greenhouse-gas emissions should be cheering today's oil prices. Expensive motor fuel is the only thing that will lead consumers to use less oil and make the switch to hybrid vehicles, smaller cars, and public transit. Higher oil prices are convincing automakers to change their fleets. Earlier this week, Nissan Motor Company announced that it will begin selling an electric car in the United States and Japan by 2010. Carlos Ghosn, the chief executive of Nissan, made it clear that fuel prices were a factor in the company's decision to build electric cars, telling the New York Times that "the shifts coming from the markets are more powerful than what regulators are doing."
American gasoline is also dirt-cheap compared with gas in other countries. British motorists are currently paying about $8.38 per gallon for gasoline. In Norway, a major oil exporter, drivers are paying $8.73. In 2007, out of the 32 industrialized countries surveyed by the International Energy Agency, only one (Mexico) had cheaper gasoline than the United States. Last year, drivers in Turkey were paying three times as much for their gasoline as Americans were. The IEA data also show that in India—where the per capita gross domestic product is about $2,700 (about 6 percent of the per capita GDP in the United States)—drivers have been paying more for their diesel fuel and gasoline than their American counterparts.
(Gasoline is also cheap compared with other essential fuels. A Starbucks venti latte costs the equivalent of $23 per gallon, while Budweiser beer runs $11 per gallon.)
The simple truth is that Americans are going to have to get used to more expensive gasoline. And while they may continue grumbling at the pump, they need to accept the fact that even at $3.50 or $4 per gallon, the fuel they are buying is still a bargain.
So... read this. Please. All the way through. Educate yourself. Cuz if you're on my myspace friends list, and I hear you bitch about gas a week after I post this, I will kick you in the balls. Or other applicable genitalia.
Gasoline Is CheapFour dollars a gallon is outrageous! We should be paying much more.
By Robert Bryce
Posted Thursday, May 15, 2008, at 3:24 PM ET
http://www.slate.com/id/2191491/
The next time you have to take out a loan just to fill up your tank, remember this: Four-dollar-per-gallon gasoline is cheap.
There's no doubt that high fuel prices are hurting low-income consumers, and high energy costs are placing a tax on the economy that is slowing investment while sending billions of dollars overseas. It's unsurprising that presidential candidates and members of Congress issue new proposals practically every day to lower gas prices: Stop filling the Strategic Petroleum Reserve! Suspend the federal gas tax! Open ANWR to oil drilling!
These proposals are delusions, and Americans are living in a fantasy land when it comes to energy and energy prices. Over the past few years, consumers have been inundated with news stories about the soaring price of gasoline. Invariably, these stories include comments from a motorist who is outraged at the evils of a) Saudi Arabia, b) OPEC, c) Big Oil, d) all of the above.
But by almost any measure, gasoline is still cheap. In fact, it has probably been far too cheap for far too long. The recent price increases are only beginning to reflect its real value.
When measured on an inflation-adjusted basis, the current price of gasoline is only slightly higher than it was in 1922. According to the Energy Information Administration, in 1922, gasoline cost the current-day equivalent of $3.11. Today, according to the EIA, gasoline is selling for about $3.77 per gallon, only about 20 percent more than 86 years ago.
Given the ever-increasing global demand for oil products—during the first quarter of this year, China's oil consumption jumped by 16.5 percent—and the increasing costs associated with finding, producing, and refining crude oil, it makes sense that today's motorists are paying more for their motor fuel than their grandparents and great-grandparents did.
Gasoline is also a fairly minor expense when you consider the overall cost of car ownership. In 1975, gasoline made up 33.4 percent of the total cost of owning and operating a car. By 2006, according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, gasoline costs had declined to just 17.1 percent of the total cost of car ownership. Of course, fuel costs have risen by about $1 per gallon since 2006, but even with those increases, fuel continues to be a relatively small part of the cost of car ownership. By contrast, the fixed costs of ownership—insurance, licensing, taxes, and financing—have increased nearly fivefold since 1975. Maintenance costs have also quintupled over the same time period. Given those increases and the relatively low price of fuel, it's not surprising that Americans are opting for big vehicles with powerful engines. Considering the overall cost of owning a vehicle, fuel expenses just aren't a very big deal.
History shows that significant declines in U.S. oil consumption occur only after prolonged periods of high prices. Over the last two decades, U.S. consumers have been spoiled by low fuel prices. And those lower prices led to a buying binge that put millions of giant SUVs, pickups, and other gas guzzlers on our roads. Today's higher prices are forcing consumers to adapt. The EIA now expects U.S. gasoline consumption to decline this year—the first drop in demand in 17 years. In April, sales of small cars in the United States were up by 17 percent over the same period a year earlier while sales of SUVs, trucks, and large cars all fell by about 30 percent.
On the environmental front, people concerned about greenhouse-gas emissions should be cheering today's oil prices. Expensive motor fuel is the only thing that will lead consumers to use less oil and make the switch to hybrid vehicles, smaller cars, and public transit. Higher oil prices are convincing automakers to change their fleets. Earlier this week, Nissan Motor Company announced that it will begin selling an electric car in the United States and Japan by 2010. Carlos Ghosn, the chief executive of Nissan, made it clear that fuel prices were a factor in the company's decision to build electric cars, telling the New York Times that "the shifts coming from the markets are more powerful than what regulators are doing."
American gasoline is also dirt-cheap compared with gas in other countries. British motorists are currently paying about $8.38 per gallon for gasoline. In Norway, a major oil exporter, drivers are paying $8.73. In 2007, out of the 32 industrialized countries surveyed by the International Energy Agency, only one (Mexico) had cheaper gasoline than the United States. Last year, drivers in Turkey were paying three times as much for their gasoline as Americans were. The IEA data also show that in India—where the per capita gross domestic product is about $2,700 (about 6 percent of the per capita GDP in the United States)—drivers have been paying more for their diesel fuel and gasoline than their American counterparts.
(Gasoline is also cheap compared with other essential fuels. A Starbucks venti latte costs the equivalent of $23 per gallon, while Budweiser beer runs $11 per gallon.)
The simple truth is that Americans are going to have to get used to more expensive gasoline. And while they may continue grumbling at the pump, they need to accept the fact that even at $3.50 or $4 per gallon, the fuel they are buying is still a bargain.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Discrimination or Democracy?
So, this recent attack against democracy in California really has me thinking about the issue of homosexual marriage. For the record, I don't think the government should have anything to do with marriage at all. I think the government's finger should be in as few cookie jars as possible, and that's one of them. It should be handled by religious or civil organizations. Not congresses or courts or governers. As for the issue itself, I don't care if Joe and Jim get married. That's between Joe, Jim, the sheets, and the attorney. I could care less, as it doesn't affect me. What has me outraged, is the blatant attack against democracy that occured when 5 Justices felt that their opinion was more important than over 60% of Californias. The citizens of that state passed a law by popular vote to ban gay marriage, yet the state's Supreme Court overturned it. Which has stirred this topic in my mind once more. Once I started thinking... you should know by now that it triggers a blog.
Why is gay marriage so important to homosexual couples? Don't they run around and tout their 'I don't care if you judge me attitude?' I'm simply trying to understand it all. Why do they fight so hard for nationwide validation of their relationship? Most states already have all the protections for a homosexual couple that a straight couple does, so why the uphill battle about this? I don't need church or state recognition to validate my relationship with someone. All that matters is that myself, my partner, either male or female, and God Almighty recognize our relationship. Especially when you can have every benefit of marriage.
They do their diversity parades, and talk about how different they are, and how we should embrace their differences, then turn around and sue the government because they want to be just like the straights and get married. If they want to be so different, why would they beg for the exact same thing as everyone else? If they like to stand out and buck the system so much, why fight to be a part of the system? It's the same thing I've never understood about the parades too. Are you that insecure about yourself that you have to join hundreds of other people to parade down streets? I'm a fan of females myself, so should we have a straight pride parade? Where all the girls come out dressed as french maids and school girls, and the guys come around dressed in their manly man outfits? Why do we have gay pride parades and not straight pride parades? Do they need them for the sake of moral? Are they all so insecure in their sexuality, that they have to put it out there for everyone to see? Why do they feel the need to cross dress as nuns and desecrate a Catholic church? So you can veal validated about your sexual preference? If you're born that way, why are you insecure? Why can't you just let it be part of you, and part of your life, and leave it at that? I don't flaunt my straightness by slapping 'Chicks Are Hott' bumper stickers on my car, or wearing shirts that say 'I love jugs' or anything like that.
As for the judgement itself, if a ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, are polygamist, incestuous, pedophilic relationships unconstitutional? Where do we draw the line? If anything, relationships between members of the opposite sex involving family members, more than one spouse, or a vast age difference would be more natural than a homosexual relationship, due to those relationships still being able to produce offspring. So, if it's okay to be gay and marry, who is to decide that a 34 year old man can't marry a 15 year old girl if they both want to? Or that a man can't marry his daughter if he wishes? Or that a man can't have 6 wives if they all agree to it? How are those any more unnatural? You can give me the 'Oh, that's sick!' line, but that's still only your opinion. If GLAAD has a case, shouldn't NAMBLA as well? You may think I'm dropping the 'can god make a rock so big he can't pick it up' line, or even compare this to my argument against abortion when I compare it to rape, but that would simply be you dodging a logical argument.
I'm not here to tell you what's right or wrong on this issue. I've made my view on the issue known, and I've stated that my main problem is with the court's actions. But think about what I've said. It could start making sense....
Why is gay marriage so important to homosexual couples? Don't they run around and tout their 'I don't care if you judge me attitude?' I'm simply trying to understand it all. Why do they fight so hard for nationwide validation of their relationship? Most states already have all the protections for a homosexual couple that a straight couple does, so why the uphill battle about this? I don't need church or state recognition to validate my relationship with someone. All that matters is that myself, my partner, either male or female, and God Almighty recognize our relationship. Especially when you can have every benefit of marriage.
They do their diversity parades, and talk about how different they are, and how we should embrace their differences, then turn around and sue the government because they want to be just like the straights and get married. If they want to be so different, why would they beg for the exact same thing as everyone else? If they like to stand out and buck the system so much, why fight to be a part of the system? It's the same thing I've never understood about the parades too. Are you that insecure about yourself that you have to join hundreds of other people to parade down streets? I'm a fan of females myself, so should we have a straight pride parade? Where all the girls come out dressed as french maids and school girls, and the guys come around dressed in their manly man outfits? Why do we have gay pride parades and not straight pride parades? Do they need them for the sake of moral? Are they all so insecure in their sexuality, that they have to put it out there for everyone to see? Why do they feel the need to cross dress as nuns and desecrate a Catholic church? So you can veal validated about your sexual preference? If you're born that way, why are you insecure? Why can't you just let it be part of you, and part of your life, and leave it at that? I don't flaunt my straightness by slapping 'Chicks Are Hott' bumper stickers on my car, or wearing shirts that say 'I love jugs' or anything like that.
As for the judgement itself, if a ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, are polygamist, incestuous, pedophilic relationships unconstitutional? Where do we draw the line? If anything, relationships between members of the opposite sex involving family members, more than one spouse, or a vast age difference would be more natural than a homosexual relationship, due to those relationships still being able to produce offspring. So, if it's okay to be gay and marry, who is to decide that a 34 year old man can't marry a 15 year old girl if they both want to? Or that a man can't marry his daughter if he wishes? Or that a man can't have 6 wives if they all agree to it? How are those any more unnatural? You can give me the 'Oh, that's sick!' line, but that's still only your opinion. If GLAAD has a case, shouldn't NAMBLA as well? You may think I'm dropping the 'can god make a rock so big he can't pick it up' line, or even compare this to my argument against abortion when I compare it to rape, but that would simply be you dodging a logical argument.
I'm not here to tell you what's right or wrong on this issue. I've made my view on the issue known, and I've stated that my main problem is with the court's actions. But think about what I've said. It could start making sense....
Thursday, May 15, 2008
The Review of: Speed Racer
Speeding into theatres last weekend in a disappointing opening, was Speed Racer. The minds behind the Matrix movies adapted the story to the big screen. I would say they adapted it to a live action movie, but that would be stretching it a bit. I don't know that anyone in this movie actually moved, or if they just moved the CG around them. Either way, I caught an afternoon Matinee on Saturday at a local theatre, and here's what I thought.
So, we'll start with the bad, so we can go out on a good note. My main problem with the movie was it's length. It dragged at times. When the action was rolling, I was in the zone and ready to go, but the other parts of the movie lagged a bit, and I felt myself getting bored more than once. Noticeably towards the end, where Speed has a flashback that basically recaps the entire movie. I had no problem with the movie being done with so much CG, because that's the only way they could have done this movie 'right.' The seizure-enducing colors and lights didn't really bother me either. But the length really bothered me.
I also got confused a few times, as to where the story was heading. Particularly when he's turns down the sponsorship offer, what I thought was a what if sequence, ended up being flashes of something actually happen. It was a crucial part of the story, being the bottom of the pendulum swing of the story, but they didn't really give that part of the story the time it needed. Maybe they should have disposed with some of the boring talk, and shown that race more, instead of showing it while some guy told him what would happen. After that scene was over, I found myself scratching my head like, 'Oh, wait, that was actually happening?' It was minor, but it kinda took me out of the story for a moment.
I've compared this movie to two others, to give people a good idea. I compare it to Iron Man as a 2008 summer movie, and I compare it to Transformers as an 'old school cartoon' adaption. Unfortunately, both of those movies were better than Speed Racer. I'll give the Wachowski's credit, Speed Racer was certainly better than the 2 Matrix sequels, but sadly that's not saying much. I just didn't feel Speed Racer was as exciting or action packed as Transformers or Iron Man. I didn't find myself bored at all during either of those movies, but there were definite lulls in Speed Racer. Hopefully they're easily skipped n the DVD version.
Now, to be more upbeat. Much in the same way I praised Iron Man, the casting for this movie was spot on 110%. I think every actor fit the part very well, but I was notably fond of John Goodman and Matthew Fox in their roles as Pops and Racer X respectively. I believed every character wasn't an actor, but the actual character. I was pessimistic about Matthew Fox, and the actor that played Speed... but I loved them both in the roles. The ninja scene was pretty cool, and all of the races were amazingly spectacular. I thought of someone trying to adapt something like Mario Kart or the old Wacky Races cartoon to a movie, and I see neither of those working as well as Speed Racer did. I really felt the Wachowski's captured the feel of the cartoon when it came to the races and the action. The 'Car'ate was amazing, and had me captivated throughout it. It was quite satisfying to watch those cars spin, flip, and explode their way across the screen. The scenes were epic and beautiful, and fit the feel of the movie very well. If anything, consider this movie as a gorgeous work of CG art, if not an entertaining flick.
Even the story was good. I liked that they gave the story some depth, but kept it to the point that it's still an accessible movie. Clear cut good guys and bad guys, and it wasn't all "fast and furious' style, where the hero has to win the race so he can prove that he has bigger cajones than his opponent. I imagine that if I was about 10 years younger, I would be utterly obsessed with Speed Racer after seeing this movie, at least until the next Iron Man commercial I saw.
Surprisingly I didn't hate the little kid or the monkey either. They both fit in well, giving some comic relief, and they're part of the story that shouldn't have been left out. Granted, I found myself rolling my eyes a couple times, including them running around after eating a bunch of candy, but nonetheless it didn't take away from the flick for me.
Overall, I recommend grabbing this at a matinee, or at least buying the DVD. You're doing yourself a disservice if you don't end up seeing this movie at some point. It's a worthwhile flick, that I imagine will be fun to watch from time to time, when I'm in the mood for something a little whacky. I went in expecting nothing, and came out surprised. It was quite a bit better than I thought it would be, and find myself almost excited to watch it with a more intense eye once the DVD comes out.
Final Score- 8.5/10
Better Than- Fast & Furious, Fast & Furious 2, Matrix Reloaded/Revolutions
Not Quite- Transformers, Iron Man, F&F: Tokyo Drift
So, we'll start with the bad, so we can go out on a good note. My main problem with the movie was it's length. It dragged at times. When the action was rolling, I was in the zone and ready to go, but the other parts of the movie lagged a bit, and I felt myself getting bored more than once. Noticeably towards the end, where Speed has a flashback that basically recaps the entire movie. I had no problem with the movie being done with so much CG, because that's the only way they could have done this movie 'right.' The seizure-enducing colors and lights didn't really bother me either. But the length really bothered me.
I also got confused a few times, as to where the story was heading. Particularly when he's turns down the sponsorship offer, what I thought was a what if sequence, ended up being flashes of something actually happen. It was a crucial part of the story, being the bottom of the pendulum swing of the story, but they didn't really give that part of the story the time it needed. Maybe they should have disposed with some of the boring talk, and shown that race more, instead of showing it while some guy told him what would happen. After that scene was over, I found myself scratching my head like, 'Oh, wait, that was actually happening?' It was minor, but it kinda took me out of the story for a moment.
I've compared this movie to two others, to give people a good idea. I compare it to Iron Man as a 2008 summer movie, and I compare it to Transformers as an 'old school cartoon' adaption. Unfortunately, both of those movies were better than Speed Racer. I'll give the Wachowski's credit, Speed Racer was certainly better than the 2 Matrix sequels, but sadly that's not saying much. I just didn't feel Speed Racer was as exciting or action packed as Transformers or Iron Man. I didn't find myself bored at all during either of those movies, but there were definite lulls in Speed Racer. Hopefully they're easily skipped n the DVD version.
Now, to be more upbeat. Much in the same way I praised Iron Man, the casting for this movie was spot on 110%. I think every actor fit the part very well, but I was notably fond of John Goodman and Matthew Fox in their roles as Pops and Racer X respectively. I believed every character wasn't an actor, but the actual character. I was pessimistic about Matthew Fox, and the actor that played Speed... but I loved them both in the roles. The ninja scene was pretty cool, and all of the races were amazingly spectacular. I thought of someone trying to adapt something like Mario Kart or the old Wacky Races cartoon to a movie, and I see neither of those working as well as Speed Racer did. I really felt the Wachowski's captured the feel of the cartoon when it came to the races and the action. The 'Car'ate was amazing, and had me captivated throughout it. It was quite satisfying to watch those cars spin, flip, and explode their way across the screen. The scenes were epic and beautiful, and fit the feel of the movie very well. If anything, consider this movie as a gorgeous work of CG art, if not an entertaining flick.
Even the story was good. I liked that they gave the story some depth, but kept it to the point that it's still an accessible movie. Clear cut good guys and bad guys, and it wasn't all "fast and furious' style, where the hero has to win the race so he can prove that he has bigger cajones than his opponent. I imagine that if I was about 10 years younger, I would be utterly obsessed with Speed Racer after seeing this movie, at least until the next Iron Man commercial I saw.
Surprisingly I didn't hate the little kid or the monkey either. They both fit in well, giving some comic relief, and they're part of the story that shouldn't have been left out. Granted, I found myself rolling my eyes a couple times, including them running around after eating a bunch of candy, but nonetheless it didn't take away from the flick for me.
Overall, I recommend grabbing this at a matinee, or at least buying the DVD. You're doing yourself a disservice if you don't end up seeing this movie at some point. It's a worthwhile flick, that I imagine will be fun to watch from time to time, when I'm in the mood for something a little whacky. I went in expecting nothing, and came out surprised. It was quite a bit better than I thought it would be, and find myself almost excited to watch it with a more intense eye once the DVD comes out.
Final Score- 8.5/10
Better Than- Fast & Furious, Fast & Furious 2, Matrix Reloaded/Revolutions
Not Quite- Transformers, Iron Man, F&F: Tokyo Drift
Friday, May 9, 2008
The Review of: Iron Man
So, some of you may have heard of a movie that came out last weekend, put out by a pretty small studio. It did mildly decent at the box office, and you might have even seen it in theatres. Of course, I'm talking about Iron Man, the first movie produced by Marvel Studios. And of course, if you haven't seen this, you now have a homework assignment after you're finished with this article.
Now, this movie made some fat stacks at the box office, stuck it's big metal book right through the box office, and officially opened up the movie season, setting the bar for the summer pretty high. Granted, there was no competition to speak of in the theaters, but still.
So, basically this big time weapons developer gets kidnapped, builds a suit of armor, and kicks some terrorist tail. I don't feel like spoiling anything for the few of you that have yet to watch it, but you need to see it, and soon. Also, when you go, stay after the credits for an added bonus. It's completely worth it.
So, automatically people judge this movie against other comic movies. In that spirit, I'll do the same. This is tied for the best superhero movie I've seen. I don't want to judge this against 300, or V, or Sin City, because they're different types of movies. The only other superhero movie that measures up for me was Batman Begins. Why you may ask? Honestly, I break it down like this- Iron Man couldn't have survived without the CGI 'crutch.' I think Batman Begins comes across more realistic to me simply because it was less CGI. That's not a slight to Iron Man, because there's no way they could make a movie like that without the CGI aspect, but that's the point for me. That being said, I enjoyed BB as a solo movie more, but I could honestly see myself rewatching Iron Man more if Marvel keeps intertwining their movies together the way they have been. Batman Begins is a better solo movie, but Iron Man comes out better as a 'universe' movie, if that makes sense.
But back to Iron Man. This is hands down, one of the best origin stories to date. I think it did it better than Spiderman, X-men, Daredevil, Ghost Rider, Superman, any of them. I was not bored at any point during this movie, and Robert Downey Jr. owned that screen every time the camera panned to him. I liked that it was so fast paced, and it started up with action. I like being thrown into a movie head first. That starting action gets my heart pumpin, and gets me psyched for the rest of the movie. They didn't really crap around much, and they just gave it to us straight forward. Robert Downey was brilliant and clever as Stark as well as Iron Man. I'm really glad that Jarvis was only the computer, and not an Alfred-like butler as he is in the 616 universe. It was a believable story of failure and betrayal, and that really helps the comic story connect with the people. I loved the fact that they didn't weigh the movie down with mushy romance, that it was simply an after touch. I'm also pretty happy that Stark wasn't in the suit the whole movie too, so we had alot more of the human interaction, which I liked. It truly was an amazing telling of an origin story.
If I had to pick out something bad in the movie? They spent half the movie showing Stark getting control of, and building his armor. Obadiah jumped right into the suit and beat down SHIELD with it.That was a bit unbelievable, but he also had an entire team working on it which I guess could explain it. So even that isn't bad. I kinda wanna say I didn't like Obadiah's little sonic device either, but it didn't necessarily damage the movie. Overall I thought Obadiah was a believable villian, and the best origin villain to date in a movie to date. He may not have been the most exciting in Stark's rogue's gallery, but there isn't another villain that would have worked better in an origin story.
Of course, the blatant references to SHIELD and The Mandarin really got me rolling too. I loved that they blended both in, without rubbing it in your face. The scene where the SHIELD guys blow that door open... love it. I love the little nods to the fan boys as well. Of course, the scene after the credits takes the cake. That 45 second clip made me SO frakkin happy. I was so stoked when I saw that scene... and I talk about it to all sorts of people. I loved it after the credits too, because it fit so well.
In the end, the summer has a high bar to reach, and I give kudos to Marvel for stepping up and launching into the summer like that, and kudos the Favreau and Downey for rockin the movie that hard.
Final Score- 10
Tied With- Batman Begins
Better Than- Spiderman, X-Men, Fantastic Four, Ghost Rider, Daredevil, Superman
Now, this movie made some fat stacks at the box office, stuck it's big metal book right through the box office, and officially opened up the movie season, setting the bar for the summer pretty high. Granted, there was no competition to speak of in the theaters, but still.
So, basically this big time weapons developer gets kidnapped, builds a suit of armor, and kicks some terrorist tail. I don't feel like spoiling anything for the few of you that have yet to watch it, but you need to see it, and soon. Also, when you go, stay after the credits for an added bonus. It's completely worth it.
So, automatically people judge this movie against other comic movies. In that spirit, I'll do the same. This is tied for the best superhero movie I've seen. I don't want to judge this against 300, or V, or Sin City, because they're different types of movies. The only other superhero movie that measures up for me was Batman Begins. Why you may ask? Honestly, I break it down like this- Iron Man couldn't have survived without the CGI 'crutch.' I think Batman Begins comes across more realistic to me simply because it was less CGI. That's not a slight to Iron Man, because there's no way they could make a movie like that without the CGI aspect, but that's the point for me. That being said, I enjoyed BB as a solo movie more, but I could honestly see myself rewatching Iron Man more if Marvel keeps intertwining their movies together the way they have been. Batman Begins is a better solo movie, but Iron Man comes out better as a 'universe' movie, if that makes sense.
But back to Iron Man. This is hands down, one of the best origin stories to date. I think it did it better than Spiderman, X-men, Daredevil, Ghost Rider, Superman, any of them. I was not bored at any point during this movie, and Robert Downey Jr. owned that screen every time the camera panned to him. I liked that it was so fast paced, and it started up with action. I like being thrown into a movie head first. That starting action gets my heart pumpin, and gets me psyched for the rest of the movie. They didn't really crap around much, and they just gave it to us straight forward. Robert Downey was brilliant and clever as Stark as well as Iron Man. I'm really glad that Jarvis was only the computer, and not an Alfred-like butler as he is in the 616 universe. It was a believable story of failure and betrayal, and that really helps the comic story connect with the people. I loved the fact that they didn't weigh the movie down with mushy romance, that it was simply an after touch. I'm also pretty happy that Stark wasn't in the suit the whole movie too, so we had alot more of the human interaction, which I liked. It truly was an amazing telling of an origin story.
If I had to pick out something bad in the movie? They spent half the movie showing Stark getting control of, and building his armor. Obadiah jumped right into the suit and beat down SHIELD with it.That was a bit unbelievable, but he also had an entire team working on it which I guess could explain it. So even that isn't bad. I kinda wanna say I didn't like Obadiah's little sonic device either, but it didn't necessarily damage the movie. Overall I thought Obadiah was a believable villian, and the best origin villain to date in a movie to date. He may not have been the most exciting in Stark's rogue's gallery, but there isn't another villain that would have worked better in an origin story.
Of course, the blatant references to SHIELD and The Mandarin really got me rolling too. I loved that they blended both in, without rubbing it in your face. The scene where the SHIELD guys blow that door open... love it. I love the little nods to the fan boys as well. Of course, the scene after the credits takes the cake. That 45 second clip made me SO frakkin happy. I was so stoked when I saw that scene... and I talk about it to all sorts of people. I loved it after the credits too, because it fit so well.
In the end, the summer has a high bar to reach, and I give kudos to Marvel for stepping up and launching into the summer like that, and kudos the Favreau and Downey for rockin the movie that hard.
Final Score- 10
Tied With- Batman Begins
Better Than- Spiderman, X-Men, Fantastic Four, Ghost Rider, Daredevil, Superman
Animal Rights? What About Human Rights?
So, animal rights have been thrust into the spotlight once more with this issue of the horse that broke it's leg at the derby this past weekend. With that, PETA has stepped in to toot their horn once more, and the debate rages on once more. I, however, have a problem with animal rights activists.
Of course, I love animals. I'm not for animal abuse, as many interweb-nazis might like to proclaim after reading this. Animals deserve fair and decent treatment, as much as people do. But therein lies the problem. The problem is animal rights activists caring more about animals than they do people.
PETA gets angry about death and mistreatment of animals, when there is still abortion and animal abuse on a large scale. That is the problem I have. Should we not worry about our own kind first? Granted, it's wrong to kill furry little creatures for the sake of manufacturing coats. If you live in the wilderness and you survive on only natural means, then fine. For food? That's another issue. We all need to eat, and not eating meat is detrimental to the human body. But that being said, should we not crusade for life all together, not simply animal rights? Should PETA supporters not protest abortion as vehemently as they protest animals being killed for profit? Should abortion supporters be allowed to throw buckets of human blood ..ionists? How are killing defenseless animals for the sake of selling their furs and worse than killing a child simply because it's inconvenient and unwanted?
The majority of avid PETA members and supporters are left wingers too, which is also the ideological wing that would probably permit abortion long past birth. I imagine most lefties would be okay with killing an inconvenient child up until they're having sex for themselves, or at least old enough for their schools to give them birth control without their parents' consent. These days that's what? 12 years old? 11 maybe?
At the Taste Of Chaos tour this year, I actually joined a PETA mailing list. Granted I was hammered, but after the guy told me I could still eat steaks after signing it, I did. I reiterate, I love fury little critters, and don't like to see any suffer. To me, someone who abuses or neglects their dog or cat is as bad as my parents, who abused and neglected their child. However, I don't see how people can go on crusades to protect and save animals when there are still all these children being abused or aborted every day. I know that, in the same way they care more about terrorists than Americans, they tend to not care about their own kind. However, it still baffles me that people could be like that.
All I'm saying is, maybe we oughta care more about human rights before we go on crusades for animals, eh? There are harsher penalties for animal abuse these days than there are for killing another human. I mean, they shout about how we need to leave Iraq to deal with problems at home... so let's ditch the animals for a bit to deal with problems with humans, eh?
Of course, I love animals. I'm not for animal abuse, as many interweb-nazis might like to proclaim after reading this. Animals deserve fair and decent treatment, as much as people do. But therein lies the problem. The problem is animal rights activists caring more about animals than they do people.
PETA gets angry about death and mistreatment of animals, when there is still abortion and animal abuse on a large scale. That is the problem I have. Should we not worry about our own kind first? Granted, it's wrong to kill furry little creatures for the sake of manufacturing coats. If you live in the wilderness and you survive on only natural means, then fine. For food? That's another issue. We all need to eat, and not eating meat is detrimental to the human body. But that being said, should we not crusade for life all together, not simply animal rights? Should PETA supporters not protest abortion as vehemently as they protest animals being killed for profit? Should abortion supporters be allowed to throw buckets of human blood ..ionists? How are killing defenseless animals for the sake of selling their furs and worse than killing a child simply because it's inconvenient and unwanted?
The majority of avid PETA members and supporters are left wingers too, which is also the ideological wing that would probably permit abortion long past birth. I imagine most lefties would be okay with killing an inconvenient child up until they're having sex for themselves, or at least old enough for their schools to give them birth control without their parents' consent. These days that's what? 12 years old? 11 maybe?
At the Taste Of Chaos tour this year, I actually joined a PETA mailing list. Granted I was hammered, but after the guy told me I could still eat steaks after signing it, I did. I reiterate, I love fury little critters, and don't like to see any suffer. To me, someone who abuses or neglects their dog or cat is as bad as my parents, who abused and neglected their child. However, I don't see how people can go on crusades to protect and save animals when there are still all these children being abused or aborted every day. I know that, in the same way they care more about terrorists than Americans, they tend to not care about their own kind. However, it still baffles me that people could be like that.
All I'm saying is, maybe we oughta care more about human rights before we go on crusades for animals, eh? There are harsher penalties for animal abuse these days than there are for killing another human. I mean, they shout about how we need to leave Iraq to deal with problems at home... so let's ditch the animals for a bit to deal with problems with humans, eh?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
