Quit Your Bitching Critics, Speed Racer Was Sweet

Despite the pretty serious haterade that our fine nation’s critics have been drinking, I saddled up and caught Speed Racer on Saturday. Maybe it’s my partialness to trippy visuals, but I thought it was pretty damn sweet. Much in the way that In Bruges and Death at a Funeral revealed to me that I have a soft spot for midget humor; Speed Racer reminded me just how funny monkey shenanigans can be. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again, it’s been a long time since Dustin checked in.

The monkey business wasn’t even the funniest part. At one point a ninja pops in and fights everyone for about 10 minutes and then Christina Ricci, who’s been standing there the whole time steps up and says “Was there just a Ninja in here?” May not sound hilarious on paper, but trust me, it was. As for the plot, I was certainly involved enough to always want to see the next race and would have been pleasantly surprised if there had been some absurd tie leading to a heads up death match at the end, which there’s not. The Wachowskis have proven yet again that despite being freaky S & M possibly sex changed dudes, that they are some of the most innovative artists out there in the film business, pushing the boundaries of the medium to new heights. The cast is awesome. We got my boy Emile Hirsch, who’s gone from Girl Next Door to leading the pack of young actors toward a bright tomorrow, John Goodman, Christina Ricci, a hilarious monkey and rounding out the cast of seasoned actors is Rain, the best the Koreans have to offer. Apparently Speed only made 18.6 million opening weekend and cost about 300 mil, so Fox is in the hole in a big way on this one. Unlike Uwe Boll, who should be stopped forever from making films, the Wachowskis deserve our support.  If Time.com’s Most Influential People of The Year vote is any measure the Koreans might be hitting up Speed Racer like theres no tomorrow, but just in case they don’t, go hit up Speed Racer if you’re looking for some fun escapism this weekend. Go Speed Go.

- Rich

Iron Man: This Post Was Written By My Super Smart Robot

Iron man is all the rage this weekend, and while I liked it, all I heard leaving the theater were glowing reviews. If you haven’t seen it, I recommend doing so, but only so you can see how dead on the following observations / complaints about it are. I’m not usually a hater, but for all the praise I’ve heard, there is a serious need for a rebuttal. First, some overall background.

Tony Stark is an unparalleled genius, the heir to a weapons manufacturing company and a womanizer with no equal. Throughout the movie he becomes Iron Man, basically a souped up, more custom fitted version of those walking mech suits at the end of the 3rd matrix. But don’t worry, those old matrix suits do make an appearance as the “final boss”, if you will.

The movie has a TON of flash, and Robert Downey Jr. is really good in the title role. But, the more and more I think about it, this movie alternatively didn’t make much sense or was completely formulaic.

In the first scene of Iron Man, Stark is yukking it up with some soldiers, drinking a scotch, and talking about how many Maxim cover models he’s bedded, when the convoy of humvees he is riding in gets attacked. As he watches soldiers around him one by one leave the humvee, and one by one get mercilessly gunned down, he decides…to also leave the humvee! Interesting strategic choice. Considering they were in the middle of the desert, there was only one way to escape - keep driving the bulletproof humvee and hope you get away. He gets out and starts running! After he reaches his goal of hiding behind a rock 20 feet away, a missile lands and messes up his shit anyway. He wakes up in a cave full of evil terrorists. Here, he meets a nice doctor who keeps him alive while helping him build his first Iron Man suit (Think of a cross between the Pillsbury Doughboy and C3P0 after being dismantled). The doctor also changes his personality by talking about his dead family. I would have to say the scene with the doctor “creating a decoy” is one of the top 10 jokes of a scene I have ever witnessed. It’s one thing to shoot your gun in the air to draw attention…but he starts shooting right at the entrance to the “iron man suit lab”. Why wouldn’t that send even more guys right there? Then, there is the part where he is running behind 3 enemies in a narrow tunnel. The doctor is still shooting his gun into the air, yelling. Why he doesn’t actually shoot the terrorists, who killed his family and imprisoned him, is beyond me. He eventually dies, and his death is supposed to lead to some sort of personal transformation of Stark, who humanely and maturely no longer thinks about banging really hot chicks. So, he retreats to his lab, where 2 ultra-smart, completely voice controlled robots that can pretty much do anything are his main lab buddies. The combination of Stark interacting with the robots over and over, and their ability to do anything possible with any voice command quickly got boring. It was like someone said “how quickly and easily can we get him to make this suit, so he can start flying around in it ASAP.” Throughout the movie, this ultra-smart, ubiquitous computer helps Stark every step of the way. This is true until the end sequence, when he has to fight Iron Monger, as listed in the credits, or The Dude, as everyone in the theater was thinking.

The ending sequence was really what scaled back any kind of excitement/respect I had for this movie. After this, I quickly slapped the “standard super hero movie” label on this guy, and never looked back. I guess we can start at the beginning of it, where Stane (villain’s real name) is standing around in his lab. Oh no, a knock at the door. I don’t know which was less realistic - Stane hopping into an enormous mech suit in 10 seconds that Iron Man needs his two genius robots to help him put on, or Gwen Paltrow’s brisk jog to safety while a fireball chases her down. This was the 2nd time that she “escaped” due to the weakest of scenarios. In the first, Pepper (Gwen’s character) is at Stark’s office computer when Stane walks in. She already knows hes the bad guy, so discreetly finishes her download of the incriminating files, then suavely puts the screen saver up just as Stane walks over. After she leaves, Stane removes the screen saver to see “download complete.” “NO!”, he exclaims in a kind of sigh / whine / tantrum combo. What will he do now? Oh wait…SHE IS 10 FEET OUTSIDE YOUR OFFICE, WALKING IN HIGH HEELS. Stane has a plan though. Instead of wasting time shutting up that pesky Pepper, who quickly alerts the entire military, he breaks into Stark’s house and waits for him. Here, we see for the 2nd time the “super ear weapon”, which after being used next to a person’s ear will make the veins in their face pop out, and will paralyze them for 15 minutes. Unless you are the terrorist he first uses it on, then it kills you. So, he paralyzes Stark, takes out his crucial power source for the suit, and leaves. Yes, he leaves the hero sitting on his couch, unmoving. This kind of negligence towards the powerful hero hasn’t been seen since the Bond days, unless you count the spoofing of it in Austin Powers. So…Stane can kill him while wearing huge mech suits, but can’t kill him while he’s sitting motionless on his couch?

As for the final fight itself, obviously much can be explained away with the easy cover of “technology”. Like when Stark gets thrown into a bus, then a missile is launched from 15 feet away into the same bus. I’ll believe that the suit prevented his body from reaching temperatures that would turn him into a puddle of goop, just like I’ll believe that in the first suit scene, not a single one of those bullets finds their way through one of the enormous eye holes in his mask. Oh wait, what am I thinking. Obviously the Arab terrorists aren’t smart enough to think of shooting at his potential weak points. Wild screams and panicked, inaccurate gunfire is all they can come up with. Speaking of those terrorists, the head guy reveals his master plan to Stane just before dying - to make 8 Iron Man suits and take over all of Asia!! Of course, how did I not see it before.

The Fast-Casual Mexican Food Throwdown: Qdoba vs. Chipotle

In America, we have a long and storied tradition of great corporate rivalries, especially in the food and drink sector. Generally, the best part about these battles is watching them unfold from the comfort of your couch. Those of us who enjoy watching scantily clad women jump around as chimpanzees kick unsuspecting people in the nuts have benefited greatly from the Miller vs. Budweiser duel, which has generated more ridiculous (not in the good way, which is spelled ridikalus) commercials than any rivalry. For the slightly higher-brow among us there has been the McDonalds vs. Burger King war. Burger King’s weapon of choice: The King, whose goofy smile and shenanigans have kept me entertained for many a 30 sec clip (for those interested, “The King” was the brainchild of the much lauded ad agency Crispin Porter + Bogusky). McDonald’s weapon: Close ups of their fries, which grace most commercials even if just ever so briefly. But that brief moment is all it takes, because those fries are ADDICTIVE, my guess being that they are seasoned with 7 parts salt, 2 parts crack rock, and a pinch of meth (these are ballpark estimates). And of course, what’s more American than back to back Coke and Pepsi commercials during the Superbowl? There is a new battle, though, one that isn’t being fought on the tube, but on the streets. Yes, I’m referring to the fast-casual Mexican food battle royale that is Qdoba vs. Chipotle.

All the aforementioned battles were duked out by corporations pumping tens of millions of dollars into broadcast advertising every year, in an attempt to sway enough opinions to beat the other guy. The brilliance of this battle royale is that it is fought not by ad agencies but by foot soldiers, delirious Don Quixotes who would ride to the end of the Earth to fight for the honor of their beloved Chiptole…or Qdoba. Don’t know what I’m talking about? Ask any friend who dines frequently at one of the two establishments which one is better, and wait; their eyes will start glowing and then a diatribe of hate for their rival will rain down on you. But which one IS better? Surely there has to be a victor in all this. I will spell it all out for you, so you can make an informed decision, and if you’re lucky, I may even tell you who, if any, (didn’t see that one coming?) I pick as the champion of the Fast - Casual Mexican food showdown.

Here are the relevant factors, laid out in escalating importance. One thing that some fast-casual diners consider is convenience. Both places have been consistent and fast in my experience, and the number of locations seems to be regionally variable, but both chains are expanding. The bottom line is they’re fast food, fast is in the fucking description. Another less important factor is the atmosphere / décor, as a lot of diners will end up taking their food home. Chipotle’s roll with metal tables and a darker, modern, industrial look. Qdoba’s are all decked out in yellow, with light wood tables. I have to give Qdoba the edge for a more inviting atmosphere to slip into a burrito induced food-coma.

Now for some categories that matter. First, the menu. Both feature a pretty similar menu, but then again, all Mexican food is the same (meat / beans + cheese + tortilla = taco / burrito / enchiladas / tostada / taquito…the list goes on). Both made their names building burritos where you start with cilantro-lime rice, chose black or pinto beans, chose your meat, salsas, and cheese or sour cream. It’s literally the same. They even both officially call their rice “cilantro-lime rice”. Chipotle’s other options include tacos, a salad, or a Burrito Bowl (tortilla-less burrito). Qdoba gets fancy by adding the tortilla soup, nachos, quesadillas, breakfast, and the all - too -important queso sauce to the list, on top of calling their tortilla-less burritos a far cooler name (Naked Burrito!). As queso sauce is the spice of life, I have to give it to Qdoba again, especially as Chipotle could similarly expand their menu without adding any ingredients. They have tortilla chips and cheese already, so why can’t I order nachos? I don’t know, I’m not a doctor, but it doesn’t add up to me. The last category is one that is near and dear to my heart, and it is quality of ingredients. These ‘fast-casual restaurants’ claim to offer the convenience of fast food and the quality of a sit down establishment. Well, they’re definitely half-right at least. Both places use ‘fresh’ ingredients, in that almost everything is prepared on site, not at a central location and shipped out to individual chains. That doesn’t mean it’s actually fresh however. I give you Qdoba’s guac as exhibit A. That stuff tastes like packaged guac, so who cares if it’s fresh, it has the consistency of doo-doo butter. Chipotle fares much better in the guac department, but still can’t bang with the good stuff Mama Densen makes every time I go home. I do like watching the meat get grilled and sliced at Qdoba, it’s a visual guarantee on their part, but Chipotle has a little edge in my opinion. Maybe it’s because they keep it simpler, or maybe they’re truly more committed to quality, but either way they snag the all-important win. So what’s the deal, which place will I crown?

I wish I could say “neither” was my choice because my palate wouldn’t allow me to eat at either place. But alas, it is not so. In fact, with both chains boasting a location within a five minute walk of my apartment, I happen to eat a LOT of fast casual Mexican. Right now I actually have a pretty bad case of the shakes, which means it’s time to get my fix… of Qdoba’s queso-crack sauce (they took a page out of McDonald’s book, and added crack as a seasoning). Both places are decent at minimum, but for me, Qdoba is markedly better. Here’s what I am going to get there right now:

Chicken Queso Burrito

• light on the rice
• black beans
• grilled peppers
• onions (extra $)
• pico de gallo
• corn salsa
• habanero salsa
• shredded cheese

Cheers,

- Densen

Fold That Shit: Why Poker Movies Need to Stop

Since Chris Moneymaker won the World Series of Poker Main Event in 2003, we’ve been living in what is commonly termed, “The Poker Boom.” It seemed a game that was ready to explode, and the amateurs win in 2003 only expedited that fact. Poker has risen from a place of relative obscurity into a game that now occupies a significant chunk of airtime on various TV networks. In response to the heightened interest in the game, as well as the success and popularity of the poker movie Rounders, movie studios have made a grave error in greenlighting a variety of poker movies.

In the recent years there have been many poker movies: Lucky You, The Grand, All In, the TV mini-series “Tilt”, the upcoming Deal, etc. It is a sad point of fact that each and every one of these productions sucks balls. They all make the same mistake, in that they treat poker like a sport. Poker is a game, one with a steep and expensive learning curve, yet many producers think that they can make an inspirational uplifting poker movie in the vein of great sports movies like Rudy and Rocky. The big dream is to win a large tournament, thereby accomplishing whatever financial goal and gaining some bullshit emotional closure. These movies fail to entertain; they have no hope of it.

Poker does well on television because it is watched by poker players. It is almost akin to watching a game show in that you can critique the on-screen players moves, and think about how you would have acted in a similar situation. People watching the game on TV are hoping to glean a little edge for future use, and though they may have players they like or dislike more than others, in no way does the average viewer care about the poker player’s personal life.

These movies just aren’t interesting because they present players living the high life and making lots of money very quickly, yet expect audiences to feel bad for them. No body felt bad for Michael Douglas in Wall Street, he’s just a very successful asshole. His life is better than mine, so why does he deserve the pity? That is precisely why these poker movies will fail, since they attempt to take the game at that angle, when that is the opposite way to go about it.

Rounders got it right. Really it did. As a poker player and a movie buff, I’d say that it’s damn near perfect in it’s portrayal of the game. Rounders is really a neo-noir crime movie under the guise of a poker movie. All of the main characters are flawed as hell. It’s fantastic. It shows poker for what it really is for a pro, a way to earn a very good living while wallowing amongst the scumbags. A pro always goes where a profit is easiest, and most often the people with the most money they can afford to lose are dangerous. Sure, in Atlantic City or Vegas there are rich people with money to lose, but that brings in the sharks, an unnecessary risk for some players. So these players live in the underground games, grinding out a living. It isn’t always glamorous, but it’s a job - an unstable one. Rounders shows us flawed, human characters, and so it is easy to feel for them. And until studios realize this, poker movies will continue to be failures both artistically and financially.

- Meller

Your Favorite Headline on a…. Wait for It…. T-Shirt?

Have you ever looked at a CNN headline and said to yourself, “wow, that is so witty, I really need to have that on a shirt”? Well, if that one person in the entire country is you, you should be a very happy camper today. Last night, with very little fanfare, CNN rolled out a new feature rightfully called “CNN Shirt Beta” (as in Beta be gone soon cause it’s the worst idea I have ever heard).

Anyway, here’s how it works. It appears that each day CNN will decide which headlines from its “latest news” column on the front page are T-shirt worthy. What makes a headline worthy of being placed on a T-shirt is beyond me. Head on over to CNN’s website and check it out. To the right of some of the headlines is a little “watch video” icon. To the right of that is a link that looks like a T shirt. Give it a click and voila, check out your brand new T-shirt complete with, “Prank promotes sex, booze after prom”. Honestly, how could you resist a shirt with such an important message on it!? Pick your color and size, and $19.99 later you too can be a walking CNN billboard.

Ok, CNN, for the love of god, you are supposed to be a reputable news source. Many people have already lost faith, are you trying to lose the rest of your readers with this ridiculous marketing ploy? Who wants to walk around with a shirt that says, “Suicide bomber says goodbye to daughter” (real example from today’s site)? Shame on you CNN; I award you no points and may god have mercy on your soul.

-Ritt

Flight of the Conchords & Giving Up The Ghost Get The Trifecta Bump

Welcome to another Trifecta musical update. It’s time to break out the booty wax, its Wednesday night.

The new Conchords album hit the street this week and I’ve listened to it quite a few times since I downloaded it from itunes at 11:01 pm central time Monday night. Despite being a “new” album, there are no new songs to be heard here, instead there are nice studio versions of the songs we die hard Conchords fans have come to know and love. About half of the songs on the album won’t sound too different at all from their HBO show counterparts, but the other half sound significantly better with Inner City Pressure, Robots, Most Beautiful Girl in the Room and Bowie leading the pack. And let me tell you, Motha’uckas brings the funk like never before. This is without a doubt the definitive Flight of the Conchords audio collection to date, and I’ll enjoy it immensely, but I’m about ready for some new material from my favorite New Zealand two man novelty band. You can listen to the album in its entirety here. Apparently there’s a new season of the HBO show coming in January 2009, not too far away.

You may or may not have heard of my new favorite old soul singer / song writer but I’m here to let you know that his newest album, Giving up the Ghost, certainly deserves your attention. On October 2^nd 2007 I attended a Phil Lesh & Friends show expecting to see Warren Haynes or Jimmy Herring on the right of Phil but was instead surprised to see a very young, but clearly talented musician sitting in with the older crew. About 30 minutes into the show I had made up my mind that this was Phil Lesh’s teenage son, and decided to voice my opinion but was quickly corrected by the hippy to my left who informed us that this was the one and only Jackie Greene. He has toured with the likes of B.B. King, Huey Lewis, Susan Tedeschi, Buddy Guy, and is now a permanent touring member of Phil Lesh and Friends, and get this, he’s only 27 years old. The concert left Jackie’s song Gone Wanderin’ embedded in my head on repeat so I bought his album The Dig Years, a collection of his best from 2001 to 2005. While the Dig Years is a little too country for me to give the ubiquitous Trifecta stamp to, his newest studio effort should be greatly enjoyed by all The Trifecta faithful. Jackie certainly has a sound all his own, singing with grit and grunge that I would expect from a man twice his age. Giving up the Ghost infuses jazz, blues, rock and country into an album that sounds familiar yet fresh at the same time. For all you out there who respond to the question “What kind of music do you listen to?” with the stock answer of “Everything but country,” Jackie Greene might make you think twice before you pull out that crap again. You can listen to some tracks on Jackie’s website here. Enjoy the tunes.

- Rich

I Hope No One Thought 88 Minutes was Gonna be Good… But Atleast Uwe Boll Didn’t Direct It

I hope no one thought 88 Minutes was gonna be good. Unlike previously horribly shitty movies whoever made this 88 minute film made the mistake of screening it for critics. On Metacritic, a summation of every respected critic all over the country, you’ll see a 12 next to the name 88 Minutes followed by the quote “Extreme dislike or disgust.” This weekend will truly be a test to see how much of a baller Al Pacino is. How many people out there would like to see the worst movie Al Pacino has ever made? He is Al Pacino; we’ll find out on Sunday night. With the internet bringing reviews of movies to Yahoo and Google home pages, highlighting monumentally bad ones, Sony might have missed out on the wily move of not allowing any critics to see it. You may or may not be aware of this move that studios make every now and again. If they know that the movie they’re putting out will be completely panned by critics, they simply don’t screen it for them. Some movies you might remember seeing trailers for but not actually seeing that have utilized this tactic in the past are Ultraviolet, Date Movie, Larry the Cable Guy: Health Inspector, and the infamous Uwe Boll’s Bloodrayne. My guess is Sony might have made more chedder had they added 88 minutes to that proud list of fine films, and lord knows they need it with the Wii kicking ass and taking names. This guy Uwe Boll actually has quite a funny little story going on right now.

Uwe Boll is the director of a bunch of infamously bad films that include such gems as BloodRayne, In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale, House of the Dead, Alone in the Dark, and last but not least BloodRayne II: Deliverance. A few months back there was an online petition that stated:

“We, the undersigned, respectfully ask that Uwe Boll give proper weight to the wishes of the video game community, the horror community, and the film going community in general and stop directing, producing, or taking any part in the creation of feature films. His distasteful handling of the subject matter and lack of acknowledgement of his failures simply cannot be abided any longer.

Mr. Boll has repeatedly shown a complete lack of comprehension regarding the videogames he has dragged, kicking and screaming, to the silver screen and his ham-fisted approach to horror has soiled future possibilities for anyone else who may attempt to bring videogames to film.

“Sincerely the Undersigned”

This petition has over two hundred thousand signatures and has been growing daily. Taking this as a serious personal attack good old Boll posted this video of himself on the internet.

And then this equally ridiculous one…

And then this completely over the top unbelievably ridiculous one, talking about taking a shit at Starbucks…

To date the Long Live Uwe Boll petition has 4,402 signatures. That’s 0.022 % of the people who signed the original petition. Uwe has said that with 1 million signatures he will quite the film business forever, so, similarly to the upcoming presidential election, I urge you all to do your part and vote!

- Rich

The Most HD Channels

You’ve all seen them. The outrageous claims. The random AD character sightings (”I’ve used one word to describe myself” and “You stole his eyebrows? They make me look dressier” will be the chosen quotes to describe them.) It all boils down to one common theme: “we have the most HD channels.” But who’s telling the truth? The blond guy, a modern day commercial luminary at a fake news desk? Wayne Jarvis and Stan Sitwell? Or a chick with bug eyes and a 60 second timer in the bottom corner of the screen?

What I’m about to tell you is very important. HD only matters for sports games, nature shows, and movies. I’ll be generous and say thats 25 HD channels that are useful. Just think about the rest of the hundreds of channels on your TV and what they show during the day, and how useless it would be in HD. Thats the most ridiculous part of this escalating ad war. Someone says they have 100 HD channels, then someone else says they have twice that amount as that guy, then this chick says she has 60 seconds to warn me about one of the other two. Where is that chick from anyway, dish network or something? If you think I don’t change the channel for a full minute whenever I see that commercial come on, you’re kidding yourself.

While the battle of who can claim to have the most HD channels rages on, I would be remiss if I didn’t mention another commercial regarding HD TV. In my opinion its one of the most counterintuitive commercials I’ve ever seen. The commercial says this: “If you buy an HD Television, you won’t get HD programming unless you have an HD cable box.” Considering you are currently logged on to the internet and reading this blog, you most likely already know this. Considering that someone ran that ad, I’m sure there are people who had no clue. In fact, the cable company that ran the ad isn’t even important. The question is why. Here is the message you just gave potential HD TV buyers: “That huge flat screen that you already barely can afford is just the beginning of your expenses when switching to HD TV! You will also have to switch cable boxes, which will certainly involve calling the cable company AND waiting for a technician to come out (I wouldn’t even wish that on Jeremy Shockey) while also paying more per month for cable service.” How is this not guaranteed to sell less HD TVs? If you already know, the commercial is insulting to your intelligence. And if you didn’t, now you know. Why not wait until someone has bought the TV, plugged it in, wondered why they weren’t getting HD channels, and called up the company hoping they can fix it? They could even charge five times as much for an HD cable upgrade and it would still look dirt cheap next to the price of the TV itself. When people hear things they already know, they tune out. Here are two things I already know: 1. You need an HD cable box to get HD channels. 2. Everyone thinks they have the most HD channels. So much for that commercial.

At the current rate, DirecTV will strike a huge blow to the industry in a year or two, locking up Nick Gas HD to be its 350th HD channel. A few short years later the FIOS network will be available in enough homes, internet video will be good enough, and the years of the worst customer service since the days of the infamous Muffin Man will all combine to make the cable companies the new radio stations - enjoyed by some, but only when that person can’t currently enjoy one of their many other much better options.

But, as tempting as it is to look to the future of the quickly improving TV industry, we still have a key issue at hand. WHO HAS THE MOST HD CHANNELS?!!?? Instead of both Comcast and DirecTV continuing to run ads during every single commercial break, I will instead solve this problem right now. Someone with DirecTV, hit that guide button and see how many HD channels you get. Someone with Comcast do it too. If you have some other shit, like Time Warner or Cablevision, get on it. I will list the results while taking full credit for all work done. And remember, the next time you turn on ESPN2HD for a champions league game, only to see the game in regular definition, even though you KNOW its being broadcast in HD in England, just remind yourself that somewhere, someone is enjoying some H&GTV HD that Comcast just had to have to stay competitive.

- Warsh

The Best Movies You’ve Never Seen Part IV: Sunshine

The most recent entry into TBMYNS is somewhat of an enigma to me. This movie is a recent release with a major director and cast, yet it seems that nobody saw it. And wow, that’s a mistake. It seems that together director Danny Boyle and writer Alex Garland are slowly working through the genres, doing one picture in each of drama (The Beach), horror (28 Days Later) and finally sci-fi with the stellar (pun intended) Sunshine.

Sunshine is a movie with a simple premise, stated in the opening voiceover of the movie. “Our sun is dying. Mankind faces extinction. Seven years ago the Icarus project sent a mission to restart the sun but that mission was lost before it reached the star. Sixteen months ago, I, Robert Capa, and a crew of seven left earth frozen in a solar winter. Our payload, a stellar bomb with a mass equivalent to Manhattan Island. Our purpose, to create a star within a star. Eight astronauts strapped to the back of a bomb. My bomb. Welcome to the Icarus Two.” And it only gets better from there.

Sunshine is a movie that grabs hold and doesn’t let go. What begins as a tense interpersonal drama evolves into something much more frightening as the film progresses. The events on board the ship are so engrossing that it is easy to forget the fate of the world hangs in the balance of their mission, no easy task. I went into Sunshine with very little conception of what I was seeing, and I was supremely impressed by the twists and turns that the story takes. Sunshine is definitely a sci-fi film, but it crosses into other genres so effortlessly that it is astounding.

Part of what makes Sunshine so great is the cast. Leading the way is none other than the scarecrow himself, Cillian Murphy. Murphy plays Robert Capa, the physicist and man in charge of the biggest bomb ever created. This is ultimately his movie, but there are strong supporting performances by Chris Evans, Rose Byrne, Cliff Curtis and Troy Garity. Evans plays as a foil to Murphy, and the two begin as enemies stuck together on board the same ship. Byrne serves as the love interest, while Curtis is engrossing as the ship’s psychiatrist who is obsessed with looking into the sun from the ship’s observation deck. Garrity plays the second in command, and he is deeply flawed and human, often acting out of selfish impulses rather than for the good of the mission.

All in all, Sunshine is a movie that should not be missed. This tension filled thrill ride has no lulls and its unflinching look at the flawed personalities of the crew will draw in even the staunchest opponents of sci-fi. Unless you are a movie buff living in NY or LA, you missed this movie in theaters, so go out and rent it now.

- Meller

As LOL Dies Out, The Ha-Scale Rises From the Ashes: A Look at The Latest Evolution of How People Communicate Laughter via Instant Messenger

Ever since the inception of instant messaging there has been a set of acronyms, an IM – short hand if you will, that makes the lives of all the instant messengers out there in cyberspace a tad more efficient, albeit confusing at times to the uninitiated. I never subscribed to this IM language despite being a proud member of the children of technology. I always typed out verbosely that I had to go somewhere instead of leaving the industry standard g2g. For years I was confused when a chatting session concluded with the other party typing ttyl (talk to you later for those of you as out of the loop as me). Of all these acronyms, the most used for many years was LOL, to let the other chatter know that their joke or quip had made the user laugh out loud. LOL was so ubiquitous at a point that hipster instant messaging aficionados would use it outside of the instant messaging bubble in verbal communications, which I found to be absolutely unacceptable.

I can remember vividly the first time I heard LOL cross over into casual speech… because I vomited a little bit in my mouth. Walking down South Street in Philadelphia heading to my favorite poster shop, Beyond the Wall, at the tender age of 14, I watched as a dog sidled up to a sleeping homeless man and mark said homeless guy as his personal territory. The very pierced, very tattooed owner of the dog began to chuckle before stopping herself, turning to her also very pierced, very tattooed lesbian partner and stating quite blandly “LOL.” My mind wandered, as it usually does, to a bedroom where these two women were scissoring as their legion of exotic pets pissed all over a bunch of homeless folks who they had lured into their home with the promise of free food and orgies. The women’s faces were expressionless, no laughter existed in this room, but as they neared the end of their sick fantasy they turned their attention away from the homeless men pet pissing extravaganza only to lock eyes for a moment before letting out a simultaneous LOL. The scene was simply too horrifying for my young mind to handle and I began to feel a swelling in my stomach that I knew all too well. I immediately closed my mouth and swallowed to avoid the embarrassment of vomiting all over South Street, although I’m sure I wouldn’t have been the first or last. But I digress…

After informally surveying hundreds of people over the past 5 months and chatting it up attempting to elicit a jovial response, I have discovered, much to my delight, that LOL is no longer the majority’s choice for communicating laughter online. The children of technology have elected a far superior method that lets the jokester know just how well his or her quip was received. I have fittingly entitled this system The Ha Scale. The standard observational humor comment is usually rewarded with one “ha”, while funnier jokes receive more, with three being most people’s threshold. Of course if someone completely looses their shit you might see something like “hahahahahhahahahhhhhaaa” come up on your screen. This response always cracks me up as I picture the person sitting in their desk chair laughing out loud and finding the need to pound away at those H and A keys like there is no tomorrow. The true sign of hardcore laughter is the inability to complete a simple task. Once this H-A pounding is going on you can really get a good idea of how hard your chatting partner is laughing by seeing how many times they failed at attempting to type alternating keys on the keyboard.

Interestingly enough I’ve found that some people will throw a “he” onto the end of their comment to signify that they were being sarcastic, or even roll with the “he” instead of “ha” as their laughing scale. These “he” people are sly cats, usually female and are significantly more likely to cheat on you than the standard “ha” person. Personally, I’m just gonna stick with my wordy responses. If you really get me to laugh I’ll let you know with a “that’s pretty damn funny” type comment, otherwise you’ll have to deal with chatting with me without getting constant reminders of how funny you are. If you want to hear me laugh, give me a call. If you can think of a time when someone typed something so funny that you typed four or more “ha”s in a row, or you have some alternate method for laughing online, post it up with a comment.

- Rich