Monday, September 28, 2015

"Scream" Movie Marathon

After last weekend's very long 10-movie marathon, the fiancée and I needed a bit of a break from the boob tube, so we took this weekend to really enjoy ourselves. We had a romantic dinner night, watched a "supermoon" get totally eclipsed as we downed a bottle of wine, went for a night swim in a lit pool, worked on our Halloween costumes and even went for a walk at one point. However, we still managed to sneak in another mini movie marathon between all those goings-on. This time, it was a franchise that only has four films to date and -- thankfully! -- no plans yet for a fifth one: Scream.

Scream (1996) - Run Time: 111 mins. - Released: 12/20/96 - My Rating: 9/10 - This movie is bloody brilliant in that it doesn't take itself too seriously and pokes fun at a lot of other horror films throughout the course of its nearly two-hour run time. It was originally intended to be the anti-horror movie at a time when horror movies had become a bit watered down with premises revolving around leprechauns, clowns, aliens and dolls, just to name a few. It didn't really set out to be a horror movie, let alone a franchise, as it did to just generally make the statement that the genre had become a joke. But something weird happened after it got released, as the film blew up and unexpectedly made so much money that Miramax Studios and Dimension Films put Wes Craven back on their speed dials begging him for a second, a third, a fourth, etc., installment. Figuring it'd give him a shot to expose some more horror movie clichés, Craven and screenwriter Kevin Williamson agreed to sign on for an impromptu trilogy. And so, the legend began! For those who aren't initiated with this cult film, the story follows a high school girl named Sidney Prescott (played by Party of Five's Neve Campbell) and her friends, all of whom are being stalked and killed by Ghostface, the same masked knife-wielding psychopath that killed Sidney's mother the previous year. Though the killer's costume can be found at any local five and dime and is nothing special and/or revolutionary, the fact that he uses a voice changer is, as is the twist at the end of the movie which switches up the slasher film formula from the stale one we'd grown used to in the past. Now, there are two people doing the killing, instead of one (although we don't find this out until the movie's final scene)! However, game-changing ending aside, this movie works for so many other reasons. First and foremost, the self-deprecating humor. For instance, near the start of the movie, when Ghostface first calls Sidney and asks her if she likes scary movies, she responds by saying, "What's the point? They're all the same. Some stupid killer stalking some big-breasted girl who can't act who is always running up the stairs when she should be running out the front door. It's insulting." Two seconds later, guess which way Sidney's running while Ghostface chases her? That's right, up the stairs! Then, there's Randy (played by Jamie Kennedy, whom some might know from Ghost Whisperer or The Cleveland Show, but whom surely no one would know from Malibu's Most Wanted since nobody actually watched that film), the film geek with a secret crush on Sid, who guides us through the movie by saying stuff like, "There are certain RULES that one must abide by in order to successfully survive a horror movie," and then listing them to everyone's amusement. Aside from those two, there's Courteney Cox (fresh off Friends' second season), David Arquette (a.k.a. the soon-to-be WCW World Heavyweight Champion), Drew Barrymore (in the 13-minute opening scene), Rose McGowan (who was dating shock rocker Marilyn Manson at the time), Liev Schreiber (probably best known for his real-life work as Naomi Watts' husband), Skeet Ulrich (who's gone on to do some stuff since then, but was a relative unknown back when this movie premiered) and, in my opinion, the star of the movie, Matthew Lillard, previously of Hackers and SLC Punk! fame, with all his funny mannerisms and just overall general weirdness. If you're an astute watcher of horror films, you'll catch dozens of references to Halloween, Carrie, Psycho, A Nightmare on Elm Street, The Exorcist and more throughout this film, not the least subtle of which are the movie's director Wes Craven wearing a Freddy Krueger sweatshirt while playing Fred the Janitor or Linda Blair appearing as an obnoxious reporter. Oh, and as if the mocky-type humor and formula-changing ending weren't already enough to make this movie Wes Craven's biggest statement since he first appeared on the scene with The Last House on the Left, he even got "The Fonz" himself to make a cameo as Principal Arthur Himbry. That's right, Henry freaking Winkler's in this horror movie, which instantly makes it the coolest one ever, no?!

Scream 2 (1997) - Run Time: 120 mins. - Released: 12/12/97 - My Rating: 7.5/10 - This movie starts with a copycat killer offing Phil (Omar Epps) and Maureen (Jada Pinkett Smith) as the couple attends the premiere of the movie Stab, which is essentially a book ("The Woodsboro Murders") turned into a movie (Stab) within the movie (Scream 2), the fictional book of which was of course published by reporter Gale Weathers (Courteney Cox) after she survived the first go-around of this franchise. So essentially, Stab is the film universe's Scream, and as joked about in the real Scream, inevitably starred Tori Spelling as Sidney, although Deputy Dewey saw her as "a young Meg Ryan," himself. (The fake movie also stars Heather Graham, David Schwimmer and Luke Wilson, among others ... I'll leave you to guess which actor plays what role in that movie within the movie.) But anyway, please tell me I didn't just lose you with all this inter-dimensional film talk because that's really not what this film aims to do. On the contrary, this film tries to make the story as easy to understand as possible, this time not only bringing back Randy Meeks (Jamie Kennedy) to tell us the rules of a sequel, but also employing his fellow film geeks Mickey (Timothy Olyphant), Cici (Sarah Michelle Gellar) and a film class student played by Dawson's Creek's Joshua Jackson to break them down even further. In this updated film, Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) is now living in a college dorm room with her roommate Hallie (Elise Neal), dating a preppy guy named Derek (Jerry O'Connell) and still keeps in touch with Randy, who's attending the same school, and Deputy Dewey (David Arquette), whenever he comes to visit. Although Sidney is attempting to live a normal life, post-trauma, Gale's book-turned-movie is making that nearly impossible, as every cuckoo bird in town keeps calling Sid pretending to be Ghostface. She doesn't really pay them any mind until she hears the news story about Phil and Maureen, then suddenly it becomes all too real again. Almost as if to make the suspects innumerable, this time around, Sid's roomie is pledging a sorority house, and Sid's boyfriend is already in a fraternity, so we have all these new faces around town and around Sid, which include a very young Portia de Rossi. Also, Cotton Weary's been let out of prison since we last saw him, since Maureen Prescott's real killers were caught at the end of the first film, so Liev Schreiber's character is out and about again, possibly seeking revenge but possibly not. Lastly, there's also Gale Weathers' new cameraman Joel, who jokes about being the token black guy in the film and about how "brothers don't last long in situations like this," then goes away and comes back often, making him seem either very nervous or very suspicious ... I'll let you decide. Then, in a new twist near the end of the flick, we find out that Billy Loomis' mother is still alive, and she's obviously one of the killers, as she's come to get her revenge on Sidney for killing poor little (not-so-)innocent Billy. However, as to who her partner in crime is during this second installment, I'll leave some spoiler untouched for you, so as to not totally ruin the film for anybody accidentally stumbling upon this information. This movie picks up where the last one left off, in that it continues referencing horror movies (even House II: The Second Story gets a mention in this one!), packs in a ton of cameos (even some that ain't seen, such as Selma Blair playing the voice of Cici's friend over the phone, and some who're dead in this Scream film universe, i.e. Matthew Lillard, who played a guy at a party, and even Wes Craven himself played a doctor in this one, while David Arquette's father Lewis Arquette played Chief Hartley), and constantly pokes fun at stale horror movie clichés ("Hang up the phone and star-69 his @$$!" / "Why is she naked? What has that got to do with the plot -- her being butt-@$$ naked?" / "Typically, serial killers are white male." "That's why it's perfect! It's sort of against the rules, but not really. Mrs. Voorhees was a terrific serial killer, and there's always room for Candyman's daughter. She's sweet, she's deadly, she's bad for your teeth." / "The blade conveniently missed every major vein and artery." / "Stupid people go back! Smart people run! We're smart people, so we should just get the f**k outta here!" etc.). All in all, it was a pretty darn good sequel, but it just lacked a bit of the originality that made the first one that much better. In other words, we already knew we'd be getting two killers, and we kind of expected all the self-mockery and wacky cameos again, so it wasn't as great, but still a relatively good film experience.

Scream 3 (2000) - Run Time: 116 mins. - Released: 02/04/00 - My Rating: 6/10 - This movie is where the franchise really jumped the shark! Now, the whole premise is based around the Hollywood set for Stab 3, which is apparently the same set Sidney's mother Maureen Prescott had disappeared to for a couple of years, circa 19-/20-years of age, when she pursued an acting career in Hollywood, only to get used up and passed around the scene while known as "Rina Reynolds." Therefore, because we've got the real ones AND their film crew versions, we've now got two Sid's, two Gale's, two Dewey's, etc., as well as some fake sets of old sets from previous Scream films. Also, as if to keep us on our toes, this is the first film that features only one killer (although dead Randy warns us via a very convenient pre-taped video confessional that in a trilogy, "all rules are off!," so I guess this is explained away that way), and the one killer has an even higher-tech voice-altering device that actually allows you to program anybody's real voice in there to imitate that person, adding a whole new (*cough* unbelievable *cough*) layer to this film. And lastly, the lone killer in this film is claiming credit for being the one to really kill Maureen Prescott. What does that mean -- was there a third un-apprehended killer that got away? Nope, apparently, it means our new killer was the one that recruited Billy and Stu to do his dirty work for him, as he hunted down the mother that abandoned him when she left her fictional life as "Rina" behind to return to Woodsboro. That's also why new Ghostface is so mad at Sidney, because the mom that bailed on him and couldn't care less what became of him, ended up being so maternal with her. But, you know what? As Sid clearly tells her newfound brother in the movie's climactic scene at a Hollywood mansion, the same mansion in which "Rina Reynolds" had been passed around years ago during one of fictional film producer John Milton's legendary house parties that got out of control, "God, why don't you stop your whining and get on with it. I've heard all this $#!+ before!" As you can see, the humor's still the same, as the worn-out clichés are still called out as cleverly as before (this time tackling a bunch of Hollywood clichés, just for good measure), with far-reaching cameos ranging from Patrick Warburton (Seinfeld, Rules of Engagement) to Jenny McCarthy (Singled Out!, Two and a Half Men, every 30-something male's childhood fantasies) to Carrie Fisher (the original Star Wars trilogy) to Jay & Silent Bob (Clerks, Mallrats, Chasing Amy, Dogma, Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back). Heck, even the plot makes sense, which after three films, is usually not the case with most horror franchises, and that's the only reason I'm even letting this film get away with a rating of six. Aside from the positive stuff, let me state some of the obvious negatives: the cast was way too excessive in numbers, the fakeness (read: Hollywood sets and gimmicks) in what was supposed to be a "true" story seemed more of a distraction than a helpful storytelling tool, and a lot of the other stuff just seemed too unbelievably "out there" (namely that ultra-advanced voicebox, the fact that Sidney is now working as "Laura" for a Women's Crisis Center from a home that's very detached from the rest of the world, an isolation which nobody that's been through what she's been through would ever be able to sleep through comfortably, and that super cheesy happy ending where Dewey proposes to Gale, and then Sid, them, and the police officer we now assume is dating Sid, sit down to watch a movie together, all the while purposely leaving her front door open in the middle of nowhere, almost as if to prove something -- really?! Like THAT would EVER happen!). I understand this was supposed to be the last film in the trilogy and Wes wanted to give us some peace of mind as we left it behind. It appears like he was trying to give us some sense of hope for these characters having a normal future, but c'mon now, NOBODY leaves their doors open in this new millennium, let alone somebody who's been through as much crap as Sid, so yeah, there were better ways of handling that ending. But all in all, this third film was a valiant effort at ending a franchise in the right direction, and I'm still glad I watched it, despite it not being the best of films.

Scream 4 (2011) - Run Time: 111 mins. - Released: 04/15/11 - My Rating: 3/10 - The third film, which we all thought was somewhat bad, was a freakin' masterpiece compared to this crock! The only reason this film even exists is because Hollywood saw a chance to make money, in that my generation had moved on from this franchise and a whole new audience was now hoping to get to experience it in theaters. Well, in 2011, they finally got their wish... unfortunately. In this latest production, Sidney goes back to Woodsboro to promote her new book titled Out of Darkness, chronicling the things she has suffered in the past three films. It is an attempt to reconstruct herself after living her life as a victim for so long. The source of inspiration behind the book was the death of her father, Neil Prescott, who died after the events of Scream 3 from a heart attack. Unfortunately for Sidney, the murders of two teenage girls happen the night before she arrives and things just get worse from there. Sidney is also there to reunite with the now married Gale and Dewey Riley, her estranged cousin Jill Roberts, and her aunt Kate, who is her dead mother's sister. But anyway, let's just fast-forward through this film by telling you everything you need to know. It stars Julia Roberts' niece Emma Roberts as cousin Jill, Heroes' Hayden Panettiere as her friend Kirby Reed, Macaulay's brother Rory Culkin as horror movie buff Charlie Walker, and many others who just aren't important to the plot. This being 2011 now, cell phone, text messaging and live streaming technologies are overly incorporated into this film to appease the modern generation, and serve as a major distraction to those of my generation who've decided to watch this film. "Horror movies are not supposed to be trapped by our modern annoyances!" is something I'm sure Randy would've told y'all had he still been with us for this film. The plot is quite predictable, too, as the story goes EXACTLY how you'd expect: Sid's cousin Jill is ticked at having to always live in Sidney's shadow, so she and Charlie, the most horror film-obsessed friend she knows, hatch up this scheme to finally kill Sidney, Gale, Dewey and whomever else they need to, in order to make Jill look like "the hero," the escaped Ghostface victim who saves the day. Only, as everybody watching this celluloid crapfest already knows, she ain't going to get away with it. Of course, Sidney and Gale survive their respective attacks, and again face-off with Jill at the hospital, where Sidney delivers the only good line in this whole film: "You forgot the first rule of remakes, Jill. Don't f**k with the original!" If only Wes Craven had taken his own advice, the Scream franchise would've been spared this red-headed stepchild of a film. It was lame from beginning to end, as it overtly tried to appeal to younger audiences only! (In fact, the only cameos I can even remember from this film are that of True Blood's Anna Paquin and Veronica Mars' Kristen Bell, who open up the movie as two people watching Stab 7, and Barbershop's Anthony Anderson and The OC's Adam Brody, who play deputies assigned to stand guard outside the house where Sidney's staying. How's that for appealing to younger audiences?) So yeah, if you can, avoid this film, as it's the lame duck in the otherwise-bountiful pond that is the Scream franchise.

"We are, we are, we are, we're just children ... finding our way around indecision ... we are, we are, we are rather helpless ... changes forever, whisper to a scream!"

- The Icicle Works

Friday, September 25, 2015

First Aid Fail

For work, I had to get recertified in CPR and First Aid today, and during that training, immediately after lunch, they showed us this video clip from one of my favorite shows. It was so funny that I figured I'd share it with y'all. Enjoy!


 

Thursday, September 24, 2015

Horror Movie Countdown

In order to properly get in the Halloween spirit, I plan on watching each of these horror movie classics during this year's spooky season. If you'll notice, these are all horror movie originals, so there'll be no sequels on this particular one-horror-movie-per-day viewing journey. Sorry, Jason Voorhees, please don't kill me!

In case you can't make those out, the list is as follows:

Oct. 1: The Strangers (2008)
Oct. 2: When A Stranger Calls (1979)
Oct. 3: House of 1,000 Corpses (2003)
Oct. 4: It (1990)
Oct. 5: Leprechaun (1993)
Oct. 6: Child’s Play (1988)
Oct. 7: The Evil Dead (1981)
Oct. 8: The Amityville Horror (1979)
Oct. 9: Children of the Corn (1984)
Oct. 10: Dracula (1931)
Oct. 11: Frankenstein (1931)
Oct. 12: Alien (1979)
Oct. 13: The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
Oct. 14: Poltergeist (1982)
Oct. 15: Fright Night (1985)
Oct. 16: Black Christmas (1974)
Oct. 17: Saw (2004)
Oct. 18: Pet Sematary (1989)
Oct. 19: The Shining (1980)
Oct. 20: The Omen (1976)
Oct. 21: Carrie (1976)
Oct. 22: Night of the Living Dead (1968)
Oct. 23: Rosemary’s Baby (1968)
Oct. 24: Hellraiser (1987)
Oct. 25: Friday the 13th (1980)
Oct. 26: Scream (1996)
Oct. 27: A Nightmare on Elm Street (1984)
Oct. 28: Psycho (1960)
Oct. 29: The Exorcist (1973)
Oct. 30: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974)
Oct. 31: Halloween (1978)

Monday, September 21, 2015

"Halloween" Movie Marathon

With the Halloween holiday looming, my fiancée and I decided to host a movie marathon this weekend, wherein we watched every single movie from the Halloween franchise. In case you're wondering which ones were good and which ones were not, here's my take on every last one of them:

Halloween (1978) - Run Time: 91 mins. - Released: 10/25/78 - My Rating: 9/10 - As is the case with most movie franchises, the original is still easily the best one to date. It introduces the world to serial killer Michael Myers when the six year old stabs his 17-year-old older sister Judith Myers to death on Halloween night 1963 at their home in Haddonfield, Illinois. After this happens, he's shipped off to Smith's Grove Sanitarium for 15 years, while his younger sister Angel Myers has her name changed to "Laurie Strode," gets adopted by a foster family (unbeknownst to her), and grows up just down the street from the old Myers home. When Michael comes trying to finish off his bloodline, he finds Angel, now known permanently as Laurie, babysitting Tommy Doyle, and a showdown that ends up encapsulating more than just the two of them ensues.

Halloween II (1981) - Run Time: 92 mins. - Released: 10/30/81 - My Rating: 8/10 - This movie picks up where the original left off, which is with Dr. Sam Loomis shooting Michael Myers in the chest six times with a revolver, forcing the big lug to fall backward out a second-floor window onto the grassy pavement below, and saving Laurie Strode in the process. However, when we pan back out to the yard, Michael's body's no longer there, and so the news instantly reports that an escaped mental patient who is armed and dangerous is on the loose in Haddonfield. As for Laurie, she ends up getting treated for the wounds she received during the first film at nearby Haddonfield Memorial Hospital, which of course becomes the scene of this movie's final showdown, where Laurie shoots Michael in the face twice, blinding him and allowing her to escape, while Dr. Sam Loomis sets ablaze the room he and Michael are in. A pretty good sequel, its major contributions to the franchise was its explanations of whom exactly Laurie Strode was, why Michael Myers was interested in killing her, and the fact that it let us know that Michael's parents were killed on the way to visiting him one night at the asylum, although it doesn't really delve further into that, so we're left to assume this happened by way of a car accident.

Halloween III: Season of the Witch (1982) - Run Time: 98 mins. - Released: 10/22/82 - My Rating: 6.5/10 - Technically, you can leave this movie out of your Michael Myers movie marathon since it has nothing to do with him, but you'd be missing out on a pretty good Halloween film if you did that. People don't like this movie in droves simply because Michael's not in it and it departs from the slasher genre of horror movies. However, John Carpenter never intended for Michael's shelf life to extend passed 1978. His original goal was to tell a different "spooky" Halloween tale around the Pagan holiday every year, but since the first tale he told did so well, it first took another 92 minutes to tie up the loose ends of part one since enquiring minds wanted to know, and then it didn't allow him to ever move past Michael Myers' story onto the next one, with the lone exception of this film, which people widely panned out of sheer frustration from having lost one of their favorite horror movie villains. In other words, the franchise took on a life of its own after this film. In case you're thinking about renting this one, though, I'll very quickly summarize it for you. It deals with a Halloween mask company called the Silver Shamrock Company, which has an ad campaign on television with a super catchy jingle, and appears on the surface to be nothing more than a Halloween costuming corporation with a factory in a town called Santa Mira, California. However, once our main characters Dr. Daniel Challis and Ellie Grimbridge, the daughter of the movie's opening scene victim, go investigating what happened to Harry Grimbridge on the night of October 23, 1982, they find out that there's much more than meets the eye with this "evil" organization. Turns out, the guy running the Silver Shamrock Company practices witchcraft and has created a way to make all the children in the world his sacrificial lambs on October 31st in order to celebrate Halloween "correctly," the way it hasn't been celebrated in over 3,000 years. His plot is to use the catchy jingle to kill the children as they wear his company's masks (something it will achieve by having the jingle activate a mind-melder in the form of the company's logo on the back of the masks), and his company employs clones to eliminate anybody trying to expose his company's wicked scheme. That's the good part. The corny part? To make all this happen, it uses a stolen portion of Stonehenge for the magical powers it possesses. I hope Conal Cochran at least appeased his Wiccan gods before being obliterated because our Neolithic ancestors would certainly not be happy with him!

Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers (1988) - Run Time: 88 mins. - Released: 10/21/88 - My Rating: 7.5/10 - Just when you thought Michael had been blinded by two gun shots to the face and burned to death in a fire, you come to learn that this is not the case. Apparently, he and Dr. Loomis both only ALMOST burned to death, and now have the scars to show for it – Dr. Loomis on his face, and Michael on his hands and arms (although possibly on his face, too, but we can't confirm that much because he's always wearing that painted-white Capt. Kirk mask!). So now, Michael Myers, once thought to be an invalid, apparently regains his sight and movement, and is extra ticked off! His sister "Laurie," however, still feared him enough to fake her death in a car accident and relocate to Summer Glen, California, under the assumed name "Keri Tate." (This, we learn, much later on, in the film Halloween H2O: 20 Years Later.) So as far as this film and its two sequels are concerned, there's presumably no Laurie Strode for Michael to hunt down. So, "what bloodline is he looking to end now," you ask? That of Laurie Strode's daughter, Jamie Lloyd, also an orphan taken in by another family, now seven years of age, and Michael's biological niece. The acting in this film's borderline bad, but I guess the plot makes sense, somewhat. And if nothing else, the action in this film makes it totally watchable, and the ending is quite possibly the best one in the franchise's history. The thing you have to know here is that everyone in the Myers' bloodline apparently has a bond where they can feel one another coming, and so his niece is aware he's after her, even before she ever meets him. With the help of her foster sister Rachel, the two have a great showdown with Michael, that eventually sees all the cops and rednecks in the town unload their entire arsenal on Mr. Myers, which makes Michael fall backwards into what-looks-like an open grave, but truly isn't. Just when you think Michael's finally dead and buried, you see a masked camera view walking up the Lloyd household stairs and you watch as the maternal figure in the family gets stabbed presumably to death by a pair of scissors in the family's bathroom. However, in a surprise twist, it's not Michael doing the stabbing, it's his niece Jamie – dressed as a clown, just like Michael had back in 1963 – doing it this time, and she's just one year older than Michael was when he did his first killing. It would now appear that the entire Myers family is insane!

Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers (1989) - Run Time: 96 mins. - Released: 10/13/89 - My Rating: 3/10 - Once again, just when you think he's dead, he comes back home! This time, after falling into his shallow grave, Michael apparently rolled out of a hole in the back of it and into a stream, then floated down it until he washed ashore at a fisherman's hideaway alongside the small body of water. Barely able to stand anymore after taking 10 bajillion bullets, Michael quickly collapses, but the fisherman, who has clearly never watched his local news(!), nurses him back to health for a year, only to be repaid with a snapped neck and immediate death thereafter. Michael puts his mask back on, and we're off to the murder races once again. He's still seeking his niece Jamie, whom we're now told is nine years of age (even though the math is wrong – she was seven in the last movie + one year of Michael's nursing = she's eight, right? – nope, she's nine, don't ask me how), and she isn't very hard to find, since she was sent to a Children's Clinic after her thankfully-failed attempted homicide on her foster mother. Apparently, nobody in her foster family dislikes her for attempting to kill the mom because they're all super happy to see the now-mute and barely-able-to-walk kiddo at the clinic. This movie makes little sense, since Rachel quickly dies via scissors to the chest, and her best friend Tina, whom we've barely just met, is the person Michael best feels is going to lead him to Jamie, so he goes after her at the tower farm. Using her telepathic skills, however, Jamie realizes her uncle is now en route to Tina, so she and her super-cute little friend Billy go to try and save the day. Now that she can not only walk again, but actually sprint to get there, little Jamie gets there in no time, and the showdown between her and Michael begins. It eventually works its way from the farm to the Myers house, where ten thousand cops and Dr. Loomis have set their booby trap for Michael to walk right into a haze of gunfire like in the previous film, only this time the cops inexplicably flea the scene on account of one of the little girl's visions – this time, those visions pertain to her friend Billy and something bad happening to him – leaving only Dr. Loomis and Jamie behind, which is of course the perfect time for Michael to strike. This is when Dr. Loomis makes the dumbest decision ever made in this entire franchise, which is really saying something considering somebody had to approve the release of this horrible fifth installment, and that's to try to reason with Michael by walking right up to him in the middle of another one of Michael's killing sprees and asking him to put down the knife and get control of his rage. Michael was not amused when Dr. Loomis tried to grab his knife, so he cut him and proceeded to chase Jamie once again. Later, Jamie, not being the brightest herself, doesn't learn from Dr. Loomis' mistake of trying to appeal to Michael's humanity, and attempts to do so again, only this time her uncle seems to be listening to the pleas – that is, until she touches his mask, at which point his anger kicks back in and the chase continues. It isn't until Dr. Loomis, who apparently survived his stabbing, re-appears, that the day is saved. He shoots Michael with a tranquilizer gun, then continues beating him to a pulp with a wooden plank until the doctor himself suffers a stroke. The sheriffs come in and take Michael away to a holding cell to later be transferred to a maximum-security prison, but before they can, some stranger in black shoots up the Sheriff's Station and allows Michael to escape once more. Jamie, of course, feels this telepathically, and wakes up screaming "no!" in terror. The end.

Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers (1995) - Run Time: 87 mins. - Released: 09/29/95 - My Rating: 5/10 - This was Donald Pleasence's last film before his death, and also the introductory film for one Mr. Paul Rudd, who plays a now-all-grown-up Tommy Doyle, the same kid Laurie Strode had babysat in the first film. Fast forward to this one, and since Laurie's foster father Mason Strode never could sell the house, Mason's brother moves his family into the old Myers home without telling them who used to live there, and a strange Tommy Doyle, who's become obsessed in tracking the boogeyman he'd seen as a kid, is now living at a boarding home across the street from the Myers house under the watchful eye of one Mrs. Blankenship (because it totally makes sense to move across the street from a guy who absolutely terrifies you!). The movie opens with Jamie having been abducted by the mysterious "Man in Black," impregnated by who knows whom, and having just given birth to her first child, a little baby boy. In order to avoid having to raise the child amid this mysterious man's cult life, a nurse helps the now-older Jamie (played by J.C. Brandy, a different actress than the one who played the role in parts four and five) escape with her baby. Michael quickly catches up to Jamie and kills her, but not before Jamie was able to hide her baby at a deserted bus station and make a frantic, albeit ignored, call seeking help, to a local radio DJ, that made it onto the aire. Having heard the call, since he's been tracking all things Michael Myers-related, Tommy Doyle figures out the whereabouts of the child, and goes to retrieve the baby. After doing so, he warns a now-retired Dr. Loomis that Michael's back again, and the murdering spree begins anew, with Michael returning to his old house in search of his new relative, but also to clear it out of its new inhabitants. One thing leads to another until we learn the mysterious "Man in Black's" identity, which is that of Dr. Terence Wynn, the chief administrator of Smith's Grove Sanitarium, where Michael had been incarcerated as a boy. We also learn that Mrs. Blankenship is one of his "Cult of Thorn" members, that they've been housing Michael since helping him escape, and that they are seeking and harnessing the evil power of "Thorn" (the strange symbol Michael has on his hand) because it means the dawn of a new age, and Jamie's baby represents the arrival of said age... or something like that. To be honest, this movie's kind of confusing, but takes an interesting turn with the addition of a strange cult and a weird ancient mythological meaning behind the Myers family. The ending's also left somewhat ambiguous and confusing, as in the final scene/showdown, Tommy injects Michael with a corrosive liquid and beats him into unconsciousness with a lead pipe. Dr. Loomis, Tommy and friends are then about to escape, when Dr. Loomis tells them to go on without him because he has "a little business" to tend to. Back inside the building, Michael's mask is found lying on the floor of the lab room, as the screams of Dr. Loomis can be heard in the background leaving us to wonder what the heck has become of all these people. Although I don't think they harnessed the power of good storytelling in this film, the potential for a good film was certainly there. But since pretty much everyone was confused by this supposed-to-be-non-thinking slasher film, for our next chapter, instead of getting a continuance on this bizarre cult storyline with some potential, we instead got...

Halloween H2O: 20 Years Later (1998) - Run Time: 86 mins. - Released: 08/05/98 - My Rating: 7/10 - ... which was essentially the teen movie version of a Michael Myers film, equipped with everything a Late '90s teen film had to have: (the introduction of) Josh Hartnett, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Dawson's Creek's own Michelle Williams, a rapper on the decline now attempting to act (LL Cool J) and many pop culture references, including subtle nods to the Scream franchise (remember in Scream when the teens are sitting around the living room at the house party watching the original Halloween movie? Well, in this film, Michelle Williams' character and her friend are watching Scream 2 in their dorm room, in one of the greatest instances of art-imitating-art, which is even a subject of discussion in that movie's opening film class sequence) and the original Psycho movie (Janet Leigh, who played the main protagonist Marion Crane in THAT film, discusses bad things possibly happening to her colleague Laurie Strode, which of course is played by her real-life daughter Jamie Lee Curtis, before getting into the same car Marion drove in the 1960 horror classic, while a very faint and subtle version of Bernard Herrmann's Psycho film score briefly plays in the background). Also, I guess because there was so much nonsense to wade through between the ludicrousness of Halloween parts four through six's plot lines, this 1998 film's creator messed up with the timeline. Despite the fact that Laurie Strode would've had to have had her daughter Jamie at 20 years of age (if Jamie was seven in 1988, as they claimed in Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers, she would've been birthed in 1981; Laurie was born in 1961, making her two, as explained in Halloween II, when Michael killed Judith in 1963; Translation: Laurie birthed Judith at 20 years of age), her son in this movie (played by Josh Hartnett) would've also had to be born when Laurie was 20 years old (since this was 20 years after the events of Halloween 1978, making it 1998, and Josh Hartnett claims to be 17 in one scene, placing his birthdate within the year 1981). Aside from that lone major mathematical mistake, or – if you explain it away as the two (Jamie and Josh's character John) being twins – the improbability of the state taking away only one of Laurie's two children and leaving her with the other one, this movie is still a relatively enjoyable one. The plot is watered down so that everyone can definitely understand it, as every slasher film really should be, but action-wise, this one goes for gold. Explaining once and for all what's become of slightly-paranoid Laurie Strode, Michael's younger sister, we catch up with her, now in her Late 30's and working as the headmistress of a private boarding school, and her son, and the usual power struggle between mother and son ensues... until the two have to work together because Michael has finally put his investigative skills to work and tracked her down in Northern California. However, when Michael returns this time, he has a rude awakening: Despite having hidden from him for so long, Laurie Strode is no longer afraid of her brother, and aims to finish this murdering fiasco once and for all in the ultimate face-off. She's so intent on doing this, in fact, that she not only pushes him out a window to a concrete floor two flights below, but then hijacks the ambulance he's placed into, only to drive him out to the woods and chop off his head. Maybe Michael can die by way of decapitation. Maybe.

Halloween: Resurrection (2002) - Run Time: 94 mins. - Released: 07/12/02 - My Rating: 1/10 - Or, maybe not. Apparently, before Laurie hijacked the ambulance, Michael woke up, slashed an EMT's larynx, switched wardrobes (mask included) with him, and placed him in the bodybag. That guy who's head got cut off wasn't Michael at all, it was some random EMT that apparently didn't know how to signal "I'm not Michael!" with his hands, so of course he got his head chopped off for his lack of effort. This, despite the fact that there would've had to have been two Michael Myers' masks because Michael's clearly seen dumping his mask on the floor in the flashback, but this dude was clearly wearing it at the end of the last film. Blooper much? LOL! Nonetheless, Laurie feels so bad for having decapitated some random dude, that she's been in an insane asylum since the end of the last film, not talking to anybody, just staring out the window all day long, waiting for Michael to seek his revenge, at which point she'll try to remove his mask before finally killing him once and for all, only for him to grab her when she goes for it and throw HER off the side of the mental ward's roof to HER death instead. End of Laurie Strode. Michael continues on... although it makes no sense for him to do so, since his sole purpose is to end his bloodline, and he now has. Oh yeah, and did I mention that this movie came out in an era obsessed with "reality television?" The only reason I mention this now is because the rest of this film takes place at the Myers home, where they are about to begin filming a reality T.V. show starring random people walking around Myers' old home investigating it. I guess Michael's not a fan of reality television? Either that, or he just doesn't like sharing his home – he's living in a tunnel under his old home now, by the way! – with random people? Either way, he poops on their party, rains on their parade, or whatever other cliché fits nicely here, as he shows up and starts killing the likes of text-happy Bianca Kajlich (Rules of Engagement's Jennifer Morgan), Busta Rhymes (I guess because LL Cool J already got tired of filling the washed-up rapper turned actor role?), and others, until the latter kicks his ass, Wat Chun Lee-style, and eventually electrocutes Michael presumably to oblivion, and/or into the remade Halloween world of Rob Zombie. In this film, the action was quick and non-stop, which I appreciated, but that was about where the good stuff ended. The rest was just hogwash.

Rob Zombie's Halloween (2007) – Run Time: 109 mins. - Released 08/31/07 - My Rating: 6/10 - After so much unnecessary crap had been done with this franchise in recent years, it really was time to reboot and re-imagine the whole thing. Enter Rob Zombie. Starting from scratch, Rob attempted to retell John Carpenter's classic tale about a mysterious soulless monster born to an affluent Midwestern family who stalks teenage babysitters including his own sister, mercilessly killing everyone in his path and never uttering a single word to anyone, making him an impossible case study even to the most accomplished and seasoned psychologists. The problem most people have with this film is that Rob Zombie didn't do any of that! Instead, Rob Zombie made up an entirely new backstory for Michael – the same one pretty much every real-life serial killer has: his mom's a stripper, his dad's an alcoholic jerk, his promiscuous older sister treated him meanly, the kids at school bullied him and so he found some empowerment in the killing of defenseless little animals – until all that graduates to newer, more extreme levels of antisocial behavior, wherein he ends up tying-up and stabbing his abusive stepdad, beating his teenage sister's boyfriend to death with a baseball bat, caressing his sister's leg and then stabbing her right in the gut with a butcher knife, and beating down his schoolyard bully with a humongous tree branch. In other words, Rob essentially took a classic American slasher flick and turned it into a white trash festival, but then again, wasn't that to be expected from a man who has essentially made his entire directing career from "redneck"-ifying everything he touches? You'll also recognize the cast from this movie, as it's exactly the same as the cast from every Rob Zombie movie to date: Sheri Moon Zombie, William Forsythe, Sid Haig and Ken Foree, just to name a few. In fact, in typical Rob Zombie fashion, his wife who can't act worth a lick was cast as the maternal figure to this mama's boy version of Michael, and therefore given most of the lines in the early scenes, all of which she spits out with as much soul as a mannequin. Also in typical Zombie style, he cast a very famous face from an odd movie we all know and love – in this case, A Clockwork Orange's Malcolm McDowell – and makes him a character in the film. Unfortunately for poor Malcolm (and the late Donald Pleasence before him), both of whom are actor's actors and did try their best to make chicken soup out of chicken S#!+, Dr. Loomis is still one of the most under-developed characters in cinema who only seemingly exists to motivate the various police departments to chase after Michael, and to remind them all of his soulless eyes. Now, for a little-known fact about the first Halloween film: no blood was ever shown on film. The creepiness came from the suspense of having a no-motive soulless monster walking around with evil on his mind and no real reason for it. In this film, gore is all you have. There's no suspense, there's no creepy Michael mystique to scare us, there's just blood and porn everywhere, since Rob essentially used this film as an excuse to leave blood-strewn bodies of naked women at every turn, making this title fall more under the "porn gore" genre than an actual "slasher" flick. It's not scary, it's just pointless, and though it did attempt to fill in some of the holes of the original film (How did Laurie end up getting adopted by the family just down the street from Michael's, and how did nobody know who she was? What was Laurie's new family like? How did Michael's mom react to his insanity, and how'd she die? What caused Michael to kill, and where'd he get his mask from? Etc.), it left brand-new questions unanswered (When did Michael Myers start talking? Why does this kid think he can disappear by simply putting on a mask? When did Dr. Sam Loomis start looking at Michael as a cash cow via book sales, instead of as a very needy soul to save? How does a little blond kid who as a child seems so friendly with people who ain't picking on him turn into an oversized retarded redneck with greasy black hair that talks to no one and wants to kill everyone?). Rob also took some liberties with the film, such as pushing the date of Michael's first murderous incident back four years for no apparent reason, other than maybe it was too hard to find a six year old who can play such a wide range of emotions in Hollywood? However, it ain't all bad, as the film's cameos range from Machete's Danny Trejo to Rock & Roll High School's Clint Howard. There's also a lot of subtle nuances and homages to the original. For instance, and I think a lot of people missed this one, the character of Annie Brackett was played by an original Halloween cast member in Danielle Harris, who as a little girl, had played Laurie Strode's daughter Jamie Lloyd in parts four and five of the franchise. This time around, she – thankfully! – did a much better acting job. Also, the music that was played throughout the movie, such as The Chordettes' "Mr. Sandman" and Blue Öyster Cult's "Don't Fear The Reaper," stayed true to the original film. I also liked Rob's own additional musical inputs, such as Alice Cooper's "Only Women Bleed" playing softly in the background during the Annie and Paul sex scene ("black eyes all of the time, don't spend a dime, clean up this grime, and you there down on your knees, begging me please, come watch me bleed!") … the subtlety of that one made me smile a bit. But then again, we all liked Rob when he was a musician. Maybe he should've stuck to that because, as a director, he's unfortunately very one dimensional. Finally, the last good thing he did was that during the closing credits, Rob remembered to pay homage to Moustapha Akkad, the Syrian-born filmmaker who produced the Halloween horror movie franchise, who had died in November 2005 of wounds sustained from a triple hotel bombing in Jordan. Nevertheless, this movie still doesn't work, since it is the end result of what happens when you try to explain and humanize a monster who is best served with a mysterious presence, so that he can be an otherwise unexplainable creepy anomaly. I can kind of see where Rob was going with this film and I think it might've even worked had another director with more vision tackled it, but with Rob Zombie, we were destined to end up with the same old redneck song and dance (e.g. foul-mouthed dialogue, unncessary porn scenes, excessive gory violence, and so on). The sad part is, he didn't even learn his lesson, as he went on to make an even worse Halloween film just two years later, basically for no other reason than the studio throwing a lot of money his way!

H2: Halloween 2, a.k.a. Rob Zombie's Halloween II (2009) – Run Time: 105 mins. - Released 08/28/09 - My Rating: 2/10 - Despite having two years to read a few of the many negative reviews about his last film and correcting what he'd done wrong, this film makes it abundantly clear that Rob just doesn't care about making a good product because the same mistakes he made in part one, he remade here, only this time, since fans had already pointed them out to him, they weren't as forgiving about it. First off, this movie starts out with an excerpt about the image of a white horse meaning purity. We get that Michael sees his mom as the symbol of all that is pure, but we really don't care! Nothing about a Michael Myers film should even attempt to be that (pretentiously) artsy. Secondly, and once again, gross imagery, vulgar language and shock value dialogue does not a horror movie make, especially not a classic like this one that gets its scares by doing less rather than more, by rarely really even showing blood and yet messing with your mind far greater than had it done so, by not humanizing (or even trying to explain) an almost supernaturally sinister monster. It would appear from watching this film and all his others that Rob Zombie just doesn't get that fact, as one of the very first scenes in this film shows excessively bloody medical procedures being performed on people. We kind of figure going toe-to-toe with a soulless, knife-wielding monster and getting stabbed repeatedly will leave you in that state, we really didn't need to see it. Totally unnecessary! Also, how are you supposed to root against Michael when everyone he's killing appears to be even more despicable than him as a person? In the last film, he had insane asylum workers raping a woman patient. As if that wasn't gross enough, this time Rob Zombie one-ups himself by giving us two dead body transporters talking about having sex with a corpse ("What's the difference between jam and jelly? You can't jelly your c**k up that girl's @$$!"). This is the kind of juvenile, rednecky dialogue that just doesn't make us sympathetic toward Michael's victims, which believe it or not, Rob, would infinitely make their deaths more torturous for us had we been. It's 2015 now, it was 2009 when this movie came out – we've already seen just about everything that's to be seen, we're now completely desensitized, nothing you can do or say is going to shock us anymore. Not giving us the constant gore and porn we've come to expect from today's society would scare us more than giving it to us. Get with the times, man! Another thing that really ticked me off about this movie was the fact that Michael has become just a caricature of some ridiculously tall, unbelievably strong bad guy, as was especially evidenced by him flipping a car over with his bare hands while Laurie sat in it near the end of the movie. Everything that once scared me about Michael is nowhere to be found in this over-the-top WWF/WWE version of him. (I know Tyler Mane was never employed by the WWE, but he was employed by WCW, and trained by Stu Hart, among others, so it's pretty much the same thing.) To me, just about any tall redneck with a knife can now be Michael Myers. He's no longer unique. That's the scariest thing about this film: Rob Zombie managed to turn a boogeyman into a laughable bad guy caricature – talk about the ultimate demystification! Also, why is it that Rob brought back the two worst actors from his first film? Well, one of them is his wife, so I guess we know why he did that (it's not like anyone else is offering her acting gigs!), but as for Scout Taylor-Compton, who turned self-reliable and highly respected Laurie Strode into a whiny little priss in the last film, why'd she get rewarded for that performance by becoming the lead this time around when you've got friggin' Malcolm McDowell waiting in the wings with a character who we've waited 31 years to actually learn something about?! Seems like a wasted opportunity to me, although I did enjoy hearing Malcolm utter the phrase "nice and sparkling clear" again in what I'm sure was a homage to his days of ultraviolence, my little droogs! Meanwhile, Daeg Faerch, the little kid that played young Michael in the 2007 film, who was really the only saving grace as far as the actors were concerned in Rob Zombie's first experiment with this franchise, got replaced by some kid that looks nothing like him just because he'd grown some since the last film? Sometimes I wonder if Rob wasn't purposely trying to make a bad film here to get himself kicked off the studio's pressure project. Well, if he was, kudos to him because... it worked. But seriously, Michael doesn't even stalk his victims anymore, he just beats the crud out of them at the most predictable times for about two seconds until a bloody corpse is revealed, so at what point in this film is anything actually supposed to scare us? And the ending, where little teenage girl Laurie is the one who finally kills big giant man-beast Michael, then tells him she loves him, comes out of the shed wearing his mask and ends up in an asylum herself, seeing the same dumb artsy images of her real mother walking a white horse, has got to be the dumbest ending to any Halloween film yet, even outdoing Busta Rhymes' ninja warrior showdown with Michael in the eighth film of the franchise before his "What's wrong with you people? Michael isn't a sound bite!" speech.



All in all, we had a nice relaxing time going through all these to get ready for Halloween. However, this is only the first weekend where we're doing a horror movie countdown for our favorite holiday.

Next weekend, we'll tackle all four Scream films.

Stay tuned!


P.S.: In case you haven't yet heard, 2016 might bring us a new Halloween film, Halloween Returns, which will chronologically take place after the first two original films and will reportedly ignore all the others, probably rightfully so. I know it's probably going to stink, but oh well, now that I'm all caught up, you know I'm going to want to stay that way, so I'm on board with it, no matter what. However, I'm really hoping that they don't run Michael's legacy into the ground again by coming up with some newer, even more ridiculous ideas than they've done in the past (e.g. the reality show, the "Man in Black" and his "Cult of Thorn," the artsy white horse crap, etc.).

Wednesday, September 16, 2015

Republican Debate No. 2

MY SCORES

Donald Trump... B-

He was still a blowhard in every sense of the word, but I can tell that he's at least been working on his debating skills. Between trivial insults aimed at Rand Paul ("Why's he even here? He's got less than 1% of the vote!" or "I've never attacked Rand Paul's looks, although there's clearly a lot of source material if I wanted to.") and Jeb Bush ("We wouldn't have even been in the Barack Obama mess had it not been for the last three months of your brother's presidency being so God awful that not even Abraham Lincoln could've won the White House for the Republicans!"), he actually made some good points regarding actual policies last night, which is a vast improvement from his first go-around. "People keep saying I have no political experience, but nothing could be further from the truth. I've been involved in politics my whole life, I was just on THAT side of it before and now I'm on THIS side of it. I may be an entertainer, but I'm a businessman first. Always have been."

Dr. Ben Carson... C+

He didn't say anything particularly dumb, but he didn't really say anything that made a lasting impact either. He was kind of treading the waters on this debate, although his sense of humor was clearly still in tact, like when he said about Trump, "He's an okay doctor!" The nice guy routine can only get you so far in a presidential election, Dr. Carson, so as much as I like you as a person, you're going to have to step it up a notch at the next debates.

Ted Cruz... C-

He was clearly trying to take tough stances in this debate, and that'd be all fine and dandy, except that I didn't really agree with any of them. Plus, when the moderator told Trump that three of the senators on the stage with him were at least partially responsible for the Syrian refugee crisis, and then proceeded to ask Sen. Marco Rubio and Sen. Rand Paul why they voted along with Obama, accidentally excluding Sen. Ted Cruz, his absolute need to appease his audience about that Obama-backing vote was just unnecessary, never mind the fact that he also had to tell the moderator that he thought he ranked ahead of Rubio and Paul as if to stroke his own ego. Was that really necessary?!

Jeb Bush... D

He was trying to get a word in edge-wise against Trump all night, but never really accomplished that. Trump kept one-upping the career politician at his own game. However, we did learn -- yet again -- that Bush cut $19 billion in taxes in the state of Florida. How many times has he said the same thing throughout the first two debates? We get it already, Jeb, and we also get that Trump used to be a left-leaning Hillary lover. What else you got for us? Is this really the guy who's supposed to be the anti-Trump and steal the Republican vote? Doesn't seem to be working too well so far!

Mike Huckabee... C-

I keep forgetting that Huckabee's running for president because he sounds more like a hired preacher than a politician at these debates. Just once, I'd like to see him feed us something other than a party line "he learned in basic Civics class." In trying to be overly nice ("We've got 11 great candidates up here"), he often just comes off as condescending to those standing next to him, and I don't even think he realizes this. Seriously, the Supreme Court can't make a law, Mr. Huckabee? We all know that! Please, tell us something we don't know already. Anything, really. I'm trying to make you sound like a better, more interesting candidate here. Work with me just a little bit.

Scott Walker... C

I watched a three-hour debate, and can't remember one thing Scott Walker said. However, I do remember that smug look on his face every time they cut to him, and that he kept placing himself into the Trump-Bush feud, two things I never wish to associate with any candidate. Oh wait, he did make ONE good point -- why are we giving the 11-gun salute and hosting a White House dinner for the president of a country that keeps cyber-attacking us?

Carly Fiorina... A-

She left Trump speechless with her very simple response to his "who would want that face for president?" comment. A speechless Trump is something I've never seen before! Aside from this, she also made very good points about a lot of things ranging from how to deal with Russia to how to face-off against Hillary, which a part of me feels is the whole reason she entered into this campaign in the first place. She's clearly thought her campaign positions through a lot more than most of her opponents have, thus far. Let's see where her poll numbers go from here.

John Kasich... A

Carly may have had the highlight reel moments of the night, but Kasich was clearly the most-seasoned politico on the stage. From reminding us that he had been the only Republican candidate to actually have worked with Reagan and made policies alongside him, to reminding us that when he left Washington in 2000, he left it with a five trillion dollar surplus, to scolding both Bush and Trump about how nobody at home cares about their personal feud, that the people are tired of all this immature bickering, to just focus on fixing the problems and stop the pedestrian nature of these debates so far, the guy pretty much stole my heart and my vote (away from Dr. Ben Carson) on this night. This makes two straight debates where Kasich is solid now, so if he can keep this up, I don't see why his numbers wouldn't start rising soon. He may actually be the true anti-Trump, in that he ain't knocking on everybody and trying to divide the G.O.P. even more. For now anyway, he's actually running on a unity platform, wherein he's more worried about expressing his own credentials and getting the people to know him and how he can work with the other side when necessary than attacking the other side every chance he gets. If there's any true maverick in this race, it's this guy!

Marco Rubio... B

He seemed to really know his stuff and have hardcore opinions about everything, but he seems to have a hard time getting away from the politician's façade, meaning that he appears not to want to tell us things he thinks he knows for fear of alienating even a single vote. This guy could be good -- heck, he may even be great! -- if his policy implementation were as in-your-face as his general overall knowledge database, but since it's not, he comes off as more of a know-it-all weenie with big ideals of what he wants done who really doesn't have the cojones to get the wheels moving in that direction because he wants everybody to like him. You might be a nice guy and you may mean well, but for now, I really just don't trust you. Lose the politician's demeanor and open up to me. If you show me you can trust me, then maybe I can repay you that same favor. Until then, I'm giving you a solid "B" for knowing your stuff and having a heck of a lot of potential.

Chris Christie... B+

Is it just me, or doesn't Chris Christie really seem to be coming off as an everyman in these two debates so far? Judging only from what I've seen at the debates, I really want to like the guy and think I probably would... if I didn't already know about all the baggage and corruption that his time in New Jersey has sprung unto our world. Sorry, Chris, one part of me really wants you to do well in this race, but the other part of me knows there's absolutely no way you can, no matter how much you try to make yourself the "people's champ" by telling your fellow politicians that nobody cares about their personal career achievements or by pointing the camera on the audience and asking them "Who thinks a Barack Obama America is going to breed a better future for your children than the life you knew before 2008?" and then telling us that you'd be the one to change that rampant negative view of our government. You may truly genuinely want to be the people's champ, but in order to be so, you can't be the most irresponsible person when given even the slightest bit of power, which is exactly what you've proven to be until now. However, good job debating last night!

Rand Paul... F

An eye doctor posing as a politician should've at least brushed up more on politics before entering into the fold. The best thing about Rand Paul is that he's Ron Paul's son, and Ron Paul's a great candidate. Unfortunately for us, Ron Paul's son is a friggin' nincompoop with little to no redeeming qualities, and frankly, I'm done with this guy already. Educate yourself a little before talking in front of ALL of America. Hell, Trump's a buffoon, but next to you, he's looking like a cross between Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking and Nikola Tesla. I fully expect to see this guy demoted to the little kid's table by the next debate, where Bobby Jindal's probably going to run circles around him.


UPDATE (09/21/15) - NEW POLL #'S (FOR THE AFOREMENTIONED CANDIDATES)

01. Donald Trump: 24%
02. Carly Fiorina: 15%
03. Ben Carson: 14%
04. Marco Rubio: 11%
05. Jeb Bush: 9%
06. Ted Cruz: 6%
07. Mike Huckabee: 6%
08. Rand Paul: 4%
09. Chris Christie: 3%
10. John  Kasich: 2%

Also, Scott Walker, who now has less than half of one percentage point with the Republican crowd, has officially pulled the plug on his campaign, just ten days after Rick Perry became the first candidate to forfeit his candidacy. Therefore, the field has been narrowed down to 15.

Monday, September 14, 2015

Bananas Are Bad For You!

Well, here's one you may not have heard: bananas are bad for you. Okay, not really, but I needed to catch your attention, and it seems to have worked... haha!

But seriously, they are kind of bad for you. Let me explain.

Like many foods, bananas naturally contain some radioactive isotopes. In fact, it contains enough of those for the U.S.-based think tank, Nuclear Threat Initiative, to warn that they can trigger sensors used at U.S. ports to detect smuggled nuclear material. Sounds like a lot, no? Turns out, a typical banana contains 0.1 microsieverts of radiation. To put that in context, a typical CT scan in a hospital exposes humans to between 10 and 15 millisieverts, which is about 100,000 times more.

Also, everybody knows bananas affect your potassium levels. Well, if the level of potassium in the body is too low or too high, it can result in an irregular heartbeat, stomach pain, nausea and diarrhea. Potassium chloride is even one of the chemicals used in lethal injections in the U.S., as extremely high doses of it can cause cardiac arrest. Adults should consume about 3,500 mg of potassium per day, according to the UK's National Health Service. The average banana, weighing 125 grams, contains 450 mg of potassium, meaning a healthy person can consume at least seven and a half bananas before reaching the recommended level. However, there are some people who should steer clear of foods that are high in potassium, namely those with kidney disease. Patients on dialysis can have heart attacks from eating too many potassium-rich fruits. This isn't a big concern for a healthy human being, though, as they'd probably need about 400 bananas per day to build up the kind of potassium levels that would cause their heart to stop beating.

So yes, bananas can be bad... if eaten in ridiculous quantities. Still, so long as you only eat a few per day, you will be doing your body nothing but good.

Friday, September 11, 2015

When Losing Your Head Becomes Literal

Now, I've seen it all! We all remember the tale of Frankenstein, where the main antagonist is created from a re-animated corpse. Well, that's a made-up tale by Mary Shelley, and yet, it's the closest thing we have to this real-life story. There's a Russian dude right now that is seriously considering having a head transplant in December 2017. Nope, that's not a typo, he's not having a brain transplant, he's having a full head transplant. You read that correctly.

When I heard that, I had ten million questions. First and foremost, is that even possible?! Then, who's going to donate their head and/or body? (Don't we kind of need both to live?) What about all the nerve endings and the spinal cord - how are they going to reconnect all of that stuff and make them all work again? Has anything like this ever been tried successfully before? Are the various associations for neurological surgeons okay with them doing this (i.e. is such a thing legal)? Also, the guy having the procedure done to him is a 30-year-old Russian man named Valery Spiridonov, who has Werdnig-Hoffmann disease, and obviously I'm no doctor, but doesn't muscular atrophy stem, at least in part, from offbeat brain synapses? So how is getting a new body going to help him any, if his disease will transfer in via the brain transplant that you would think has to accompany such a surgery, right? I may be totally off with that last question since I really know nothing about muscular atrophy and/or how it works, aside from having worked on a volunteer basis with the Muscular Dystrophy Association in the past. But either way, with so many questions quickly filling my mind, I decided to read up on it some more.

Here are a few key points that I found:

• The surgery will be performed in China by Sergio Canavero, an Italian surgeon and neuroscientist who leads the Turin Advanced Neuromodulation Group, with help from Ren Xiaoping, a controversial Chinese surgeon from China's Harbin Medical University.

• The procedure is expected to last up to 36 hours, and it will require Spiridonov’s head be cooled as well as the donor’s body to extend the period during which the cells can survive without oxygen.

• The head being transplanted will be that of Mr. Spiridonov, and the body that it will be getting transplanted onto will more than likely be the forced donation of a Death Row inmate, which will surely elicit public scrutiny, so that part of the plan they've yet to confirm.

• In 1970, the head of a monkey was placed onto the body of another at the Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine in the U.S., and this hybrid was able to live via assisted breathing for nine days. That was the last "successful" - and clearly, I'm using that word very loosely here - head transplant.

• As for the surgeons involved with this particular surgery, only one of them has performed this sort of procedure before. Ren Xiaoping has conducted 1,000 head transplants on mice and has announced plans to perform the same operation on primates later this year, this despite the fact that his 10-hour operations have yet to result in any hybrid mice living longer than a few minutes. However, not to be a total Debbie Downer here, he has been "successful" in getting them to breathe, drink and see during that short span of life that remained for them.

• In regards to the spinal cord reattachment, Helen Thomson described the procedure Canavero intends to use at New Scientist back in February: "The recipient's head is ... moved onto the donor body and the two ends of the spinal cord - which resemble two densely packed bundles of spaghetti - are fused together. To achieve this, Canavero intends to flush the area with a chemical called polyethylene glycol, and follow up with several hours of injections of the same stuff. Just like hot water makes dry spaghetti stick together, polyethylene glycol encourages the fat in cell membranes to mesh."

• The test subject has a muscle-wasting disease, so there's also a very real chance that he might not even make it to December 2017.

This is, for all intents and purposes, an experiment that almost no one wants to see happen due to the low probability of success, despite what it would mean for the world of medicine should it work itself out to the best possible outcome. Thankfully, Ren is quoted as having said that "a lot of media have been saying [they] will definitely attempt the surgery by 2017, but that’s only if every step before that proceeds smoothly,” and right now that is looking very not likely considering all the complications that could arise from a surgery such as this one. Valery is essentially a guinea pig in this thing, but according to The Daily Mail, he's already been quoted as saying that "[his] decision is final and [he] do[es] not plan to change [his] mind.”

So with that, I say, good luck to you, sir, and just in case things don't go quite as planned, may GODSPEED! But just know, there are things out there that are far worse than death, so I really hope you'll reconsider before December 2017 or whenever this surgery finally comes to fruition.


Thursday, September 10, 2015

Meet Your Ancient Relative

A missing cog in our evolutionary chain is what two cavers named Steven Tucker and Rick Hunter discovered while seeking adventure in a region of South Africa known as the "Cradle of Humankind." Though the cave may be a popular climbing spot, since so many fossils of early human ancestors have been found there in the past, the chamber where they ended up at is incredibly hard to get to.

Anyone looking to do that first has to squeeze through a narrow passage known as "Superman's Crawl" — wherein you must keep one arm pressed against your body and raise the other above your head like Krypton's beloved hero — and if you succeed at that, then you have to drop down a 40-foot narrow, pitch-black chute. At the bottom of that is where these two men found a trove of bones, strewn about as if they had been tossed there on purpose. The cavers, assuming they had found something exciting, sought scientific confirmation.

Two years later, after 1,550 other human-ancestor fossils, including bones and teeth — the most specimens of a single ancestral human species ever found in Africa — had been recovered from the site by Lee Berger's scientific team at South Africa's University of Witwatersrand, and processes such as forensic facial reconstruction had been completed, the world was introduced to "Homo naledi," a new species that lies somewhere along the evolutionary tree between Australopithecus afarensis, which contains the remains of Lucy, and H. erectus, an extinct great-ape species that walked upright.

This newly-discovered species is said to have had human-like hands, wrists and feet, but more primitive shoulders, torsos and pelves. It is also said to have had a much smaller brain than that of a modern human, and would have looked something like this...

Especially curious, though, is that the bones appear to have been deposited in the cave intentionally, a sign that these early human ancestors either buried their dead ceremoniously or that they dumped their bones there to keep away predators that might be attracted by the dead bodies.

Either way, this suggests that these individuals may have lived within a small area, unlike many early human ancestors, which were hunter-gatherers.

For more information on the finding that National Geographic called "one of the greatest fossil discoveries of the past half century," please read the two studies published earlier today in the journal eLife.

PS: In case you're wondering, "naledi" means "star" in the South African language Sotho.

Wednesday, September 9, 2015

NASA Talks Pluto (The Planet, Not The Dog)

NASA’s New Horizons mission team announced that the piano-sized craft, which made history on July 14 when it performed the first fly-by of planet Pluto, started to send home the rest of the data it took during the event on Saturday.

So we can now expect to learn new things every week about the remote dwarf planet and see raw exclusive pictures taken during the fly-by. NASA said that it would start posting unedited images of the planet on its site Friday, September 11th, and the agency plans to continue doing it every Friday until all the data is sent to Earth.

According to mission investigators, New Horizons was able to send just five percent of the info it has gathered on Pluto so far. The rest of the 95 percent is expected to reach servers on our planet in the next 12 months.

The photos already sent by the probe, which were taken from a 7,800-mile distance, were beamed back shortly after the historic encounter. The rest of the data was stored on the craft’s drivers for later transmission.

Mission investigators disclosed that dozens of gigabits of exclusive scientific data are queuing to be transmitted. Scientists hope that the material would help them better understand the history of the dwarf planet and of our solar system.

New Horizons' investigators plan to extend the mission and send the probe to a Kuiper Belt object dubbed PT 1. The probe is expected to reach its new target by 2019, and start in late October. NASA still needs to approve the necessary funding for the mission, though.

This is why the transmission of the Pluto fly-by data, including high-resolution imagery, spectral images of the planet and scientific measurements made within the atmosphere, will take so long. As New Horizons gets further from Earth -- PT 1 is located 6 billion killometers from our planet -- the radio signals would have to travel even longer distances to reach Earth.

The data transmitted by NASA’s orbiter will be received by the agency’s Deep Space Network, a network of radio dishes located in California, Australia and Europe.

The transmission rate would be between one and four kilobits per second, and each signal would require 4.5 hours to reach our planet, despite traveling at close to the speed of light, NASA reported.

New Horizons is currently located three billion miles away from our home planet.

The imagery that already reached Earth shows a silent icy world with ice mountains and younger-than-expected plains.

Tuesday, September 1, 2015

Desperate Days in Blue John Canyon

For those of you who have either seen the movie 127 Hours starring James Franco as real-life canyoneer Aron Ralston or read Mr. Ralston's own testimony of his April 26, 2003 accident in the autobiographical book Between a Rock and a Hard Place, I bring you a follow-up piece done by NBC's Tom Brokaw called "Desperate Days in Blue John Canyon," in which Tom takes Aron back to the scene of the tragedy on his 28th birthday. For those of you who haven't seen or read either, you may want to do so before viewing these six YouTube clips, as Aron's story is a harrowing, albeit inspirational one, and definitely worth at least knowing about...