"I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry" Review

This wasn't my picking. But, my brother was a bit down and had wanted to see it, so I decided to go along for it. I admit to not being a huge Adam Sandler fan, but liked one or two of his films and enjoy Kevin James on "The King of Queens" as well as his showing in "Hitch," alongside Will Smith.

After seeing this film, I admit to having mixed feelings. I honestly don't even know where this review is going to head, even as I start.

In "...Chuck and Larry," Sandler and James play the role of two Brooklyn firefighters. Adam Sandler stars as a womanizer, humping anything with what Borat would call a "vagine." Kevin James, on the other hand, is a widower, with two kids, one of whom, is rather flamboyant. Due to James' financial woes with the kids, he receives a word of advice that if he gets married again in the near future, that could be the answer to all his problems. He then stumbles across an article in the paper in regard to a domestic partnership for gays. Sandler owes James for saving his life and said, "I owe you. Anything you need. Whenever. Wherever. I'll do it." It takes some convincing on James' part, but he's able to persuade the horny Sandler, who has 5-6 women messing around in his bedroom at the time. Throughout the rest of the film, James and Sandler attempt to balance their lives, in order to prove to some that they're gay (Mr. Fitzer- Steve Buscemi), but to prove to others that they're not THAT gay, such as their attorney, Jessica Beal and also the other firemen.

Now on to my opinions regarding the film. There were some jokes that just fell flat, flatter than Twiggy. But, there were some parts of the film where I laughed fairly loudly. I was offended by some jokes and thought Sandler's "voice" of James' deceased wife was pretty distasteful, but the film did have its funny parts and I feel that the "critics" may have been a bit too sensitive overall. I do believe that the film wanted to have it both ways (no pun intended here). On one hand, they wanted to do anything possible to create a laugh, but on the other hand, they wanted to leave the audience with the message that gays are people too and deserve equal respect as anybody else. The problem was that the film creators used every gay stereotype they could muster up into making all homosexuals appear to be, for lack of a better word, "freaks."

Overall Film Quality Grade: 5/10 - I, by no means, feel that this is a great comedy, but felt it was tolerable to sit through once. No Oscars will be awarded to this film and I may never have the motivation to see it again, but in the end, some heart was there to the final message.

Comedic Grade: 5.5/10 - Some of the jokes were offensive and/or distasteful, but "critics" may have been a bit too sensitive overall to the film's humor. The first half of the film was not very humorous and I was about to write it off as a horrible comedy, but the laughs seemed to increase in the second half and made for a semi-decent viewing experience.

Sad

It was just reported that Boise State star tailback, Ian Johnson, has been receiving death threats. Why is this? Because of his pending marriage. Johnson is an African-American and his soon-to-be wife is Anglo-American. Yes, that's the reason for the death threats.

I hear many, I'll just call us whites (even though we're not really), say that they're sick of "blacks" (even though they're not really) pulling out the race card. They're sick of "blacks" pulling race into every issue and making it the issue, even though it's not. They're sick of everything having to do with race. It seems that many have the philosophy that if we ignore a problem, it doesn't exist or if we ignore it, the problem will simply go away. Unfortunately, that's not going to happen. If one ignores that they have AIDS, well, they're going to die. It's not just going to vanish mysteriously into the night. So, many just don't want to hear about it. They want to pretend that racism doesn't exist anymore and they want everyone to hold themselves accountable for everything in their lives, so that no excuses can be made.

I can understand bits and pieces of that. I get sick and tired of excuses being laid before me or others on a consistent basis, but I typically don't consider "race" to be such an "excuse." Whether we want to believe it or not, racism is very much alive in this country today. It's just more latent, as far as I'm concerned. While the majority of people may tend to be kind and courteous to individuals of different ethnicities than their own to their face, one may see a completely different attitude behind their back.

I read some very ignorant statements the other day by, I presume, "whites." They stated that it was always "blacks" in trouble, always "blacks" committing crimes, "blacks" were the thugs, they couldn't speak English properly, they wore distasteful clothing, listened to distasteful music, had funky hair, all had platinum teeth, all were involved with gangs, all made excuses and never took responsibility for their own actions, etc. Another said something along the lines of that all "blacks" should be lynched, although, he used another word for "blacks," which I won't repeat. Almost comically enough, he commented at the end of his comment that he wasn't a racist.

While I'm sure that many people get sick and tired of hearing the race card being pulled and sometimes, rightfully so, unfortunately, racism is still very prevalent in this country, which gives legitimacy to the card being used at times. I too wish that we didn't have this problem still. I too wish that the race card had no place in this country, because there was no racism. But, that'd be naive of me to say. Even in the year 2007, where gay marriage appears to be the most polarizing issue in terms of marriage, an African-American man and his soon-to-be Anglo-American wife received death threats because they're of a different skin color. Sad. Sad. Sad.

To that, I wish Mr. and Mrs. Johnson all the best and more than anything, that they can stay safe and secure all throughout their marriage and that we can slowly improve as a country in regard to the prevalence of racism.

The 24-Hour "News" Media

Due in large part to the non-stop 24-hour "news" cycle that is spun on a daily basis, the media has gone from reliable to anything but. Instead of fact-checking and garnering information from credible source material, the media now tends to prefer quantity over quality. If the anonymous source has an interesting story to share, whether true or not, chances are that it'll make the 24-hour news cycle on some "trusted" news network. This isn't even about Faux News. While much bias is shown in the opinion-oriented shows on Faux News, which largely lean toward conservative Republicans, when it comes to the "news"-oriented programs, the networks are all alike. Whether it be CNN, MSNBC, Faux News, CNBC, or what have you, chances are that rumors and speculation will go reported more often than well documented facts and studies from credible sources. Why? The time issue. No longer do the networks have the kind of time to continually spit out factual documented information. It takes time to conduct a study, to interview individuals or groups, to be a well-substantiated investigative journalist. When networks air for 24 consecutive hours in a day for seven days in the week, while they may be able to report a fact or a finding in a study here and there, they need more information and more stories to fill up the remaining 23 hours. This is a reason why there are opinion-oriented shows on these "news" networks in the first place. Sometimes, a network (many times, several) will become so obsessive over one particular story, that they harp/report about it for hours on end. Remember the Anna Nicole Smith death? The Paris Hilton jail term and the day she was released? The Duke lacrosse case? Now with the Michael Vick dogfighting case?

With exception to Paris Hilton, these other three scenarios (and many others) largely consist of opinion, emotion, and speculation. There are little to no facts reported. The day Anna Nicole Smith died, nobody was certain of the reasoning behind it. So, what did CNN, MSNBC, Faux News and others decide to do? Oh, let's speak to people they know on the air and attempt to find the answers for ourselves. Honestly, until the investigation is complete, what will these on-air interviews actually accomplish? Other than fill up air time? Not much. ...And until the investigation is completed, those in charge of that investigation will be unable to speak about it. So, all that gets discussed on air deals with what the person was like to be around, what they were like as a parent or a husband/wife, a memory he/she has of that person, and what they think may have happened. People give modern documentarians a lot of grief (Michael Moore, in particular), claiming that some of their facts may be "fudged," but in comparison to these "news" networks, the documentarians are a fact-checking goldmine. These filmmakers have a year to two years, at least, to complete these films. Because of that, they have plenty of time to receive information from hopefully credible sources, fact-check, and come out with a final product that is both entertaining and factually informative. That isn't the case often times in the "news" media.

The Duke lacrosse case was harped about for how long by the "news" media, who for the most part, convicted the three lacrosse players of rape just after the story broke. Innocent until proven guilty? Not in the "news" media. In the "news" media, it's "Which slant will improve ratings the most?" Unfortunately, for the most part, it's by depicting individuals, especially celebrities, as being guilty before such is proven. These young college kids' received death threats, were tormented, were suspended, and their lives will be partially tarnished forever. Why? Why, when a case breaks such as this one, does the "news" media obsess over it? It reminds me of the radio and why I don't listen to it much anymore. An artist or a band may release a hit single, but what becomes of that single? It gets overplayed and many who may have liked it at first despise it not long after. However, the effects of the "news" media overplaying a story such as the lacrosse case are much more detrimental than the radio overplaying a song.

What about the Columbine massacre? Remember the media then? Bothering family members of the victims, while they were mourning the loss of their loved ones. It was disgraceful. Then, oh, let's blame musicians and video games, Marilyn Manson in particular. Manson's name, for a long time, was associated with Columbine. He canceled the rest of his tour and isolated himself for a long time, as he received many death threats, as well. After a while, certain mediums reported errors in their initial broadcasting, stating that the killers, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, weren't in fact fans of Manson. They actually despised his music. But, by that point, it didn't matter. The damage had been done. Fortunately for Manson, Michael Moore's documentary, "Bowling for Columbine," helped him restore a bit of his pre-Columbine reputation and actually gave people a different sense of who he was as a person. It seems that the public has all but waved the allegations that Manson was indirectly responsible for the killings.

That brings me to the most recent obsession, with NFL star Michael Vick. The man's trial has not begun yet. He plead not guilty just a few days ago, yet some claim that whether he's guilty or not, his name will forever be affiliated with dogfighting. Again, the "news" media does not stand by one being innocent until proven guilty. If they can boost their ratings by ruining a person's reputation, before they're convicted in a court of law, then they will do so. The "news" media likes to speculate, as they don't have access to facts many times, so let me speculate. What if Michael Vick is found not guilty as he plead just last week? What then? Some state that he'll never play NFL football again because of this, regardless of if he's innocent. But, why? Los Angeles Lakers' star, Kobe Bryant, was charged with rape, but those charges were dropped. He was never even suspended and is one of the most dominant players in the NBA, if not THE most dominant player in the league. Even though the charges were dropped, should Kobe not have been allowed to play in the NBA ever again? Even though he was never proven to be guilty, should he always be treated as such? With the Duke lacrosse players, should they never have been allowed back at the University or allowed to play for the team, even though it was found that the strippers lied about the allegations? Does their damaged reputations mean more than their innocence? Should Manson never have been allowed to release another album or tour again, because he was partially blamed for the Columbine massacre? Even though it was discovered that the killers despised his music and he had nothing to do with it directly anyway? If one is truly innocent until proven guilty, then why are they not treated in such a manner? Why are some and not others? Why is the media more obsessive about some stories, convicting certain individuals before their trials start, more so than others? If none of these individuals are proven to be guilty, then they are to be known as innocent, according to the law of the judicial system. The reputation of a person proven to be innocent should not be tarnished like that of a person who's proven to be guilty, largely due to the 24-hour "news" cycle.

As usual, I believe the "news" media to be wrong. Kobe Bryant is slowly rebounding from his temporarily tarnished image. The Duke lacrosse players will probably due likewise, especially after having transferred elsewhere. Manson has been able to do likewise, having released three albums since the school shooting. If Vick is proven to be not guilty in a court of law, there will always be some people who will stand up and firmly believe he did it, but if he's proven to be not guilty, the bashers will slowly fade. Suspicions will always be prevalent regardless of the verdict, but that wouldn't be enough to prevent a person from doing their job. Kobe plays basketball. The kids at Duke goto school and play lacrosse. Manson sings, performs live, paints, acts, writes, and directs. Vick would play football. If that were to occur, the most guilty of all the parties I've written about in this blog would have been the "news" media, for temporarily (perhaps permanently) destroying the reputations and images of these people.

The Call

I've pondered about this a great deal (not obsessively, I promise) over the past few months. I've conversed and debated about it in those months. Even though it's a gray issue, meaning there is no definite right or wrong answer, I think that for such a gray-colored issue, one side has a B to an A grade in reasoning and the other ranges from a C to an F. I'll be nice, I'll say a C to a D.

The problem is the fact I live in Nebraska (for now). This debate swirls around Nebraska football and their 2007 Cotton Bowl against the Auburn Tigers. It deals with head coach Bill Callahan's fake punt call at his own 29-yard line when the game was tied 7-7 in the first half.

The only argument I've heard from the other side is this, "Well, you know. If it had worked, we'd be calling him (Callahan) a genius. But, it didn't that time."

I suppose I've also heard this line, "Well, it was early in the game. He (Callahan) probably figured that his team would be able to come back."

But, I can't logically agree with either point. Auburn had 50 total yards at the half, yet were tied 14-14 going into halftime and eventually won the game 17-14. The Tigers netted 138 total yards of offense for the game. Coming in, it was expected to be a low-scoring affair. Both clubs had more speed on the defensive side of the ball than their respectable offenses could counter successfully on a consistent basis. With all this information at hand and the way the game was flowing to begin with, how can one say that Callahan would've felt that Nebraska could've caught up? In a game like that, you don't want to put your team in that kind of predicament. In a college basketball game between two very defensive-minded teams, such as UCLA and Pittsburgh, turnovers and offensive efficiency will be the determining factors to winning the game. If Pitt is careless with the basketball and attempts to play an out-of-style fast-paced game at the offensive end, this will most likely end in disaster for the Panthers. I dislike when teams play "not-to-lose," but in defensive-oriented games like these, sometimes that has to be the philosophy taken. It's all about putting the team in a position to win at the end and in these types of games, a coach can attain that by not putting his team in positions to lose at the earlier and middle portions of the game. So, Callahan, with his team tied early on and his defense having only allowed 30 total yards, had no business faking a punt at his own 29-yard line, putting his defense in a hole they didn't deserve to be in the first place. The only other touchdown Auburn had scored before that second, due to the fake punt, was via an interception which was returned inside the Red Zone. So, at that point, Auburn had zero, zero effective drives against Nebraska's defense. Their most efficient drive all day came in the second half on their go-ahead field goal. Nebraska's offense wasn't showing too many signs of life either, outside of their incredible opening drive score, which took approximately seven and a half minutes.

In response to the other argument, why in the world would Callahan have been declared a genius if Nebraska converted the fake punt? That would've spotted them at their own 30-yard line, with 70 yards to go for a touchdown and about 50 yards to go for a field goal attempt. With how Auburn's defense had stepped up after that initial drive by Nebraska and with how well they'd played for most the season in the staunch SEC, Nebraska would have had to attained yardage good enough for 5-7 additional first downs to have scored on that possession. If Nebraska was at midfield or the Auburn 40-yard line, then this may have made more sense. Auburn would've therefore needed to actually gain 20-30 yards to get into field goal range and 50-60 yards for a touchdown, while Nebraska would've need 40-50 yards for six points and about 20-30 to get into field goal range. Many times when coaches make big-time decisions, they have to weigh the potential gains and losses. In this case, I don't care how one slices it, the potential losses far exceeded the potential gains. It may be difficult for me to convince some fellow Nebraskans of this, but that was one of the dumbest calls I've seen in recent memory. On that kind of stage, with a team's defense playing so well, and just handing the opponent a go-ahead score, which they'd eventually win by, I can't for the life of me say that even if it would've worked, it could have been called genius. Perhaps it's just wishful thinking on the part of some or denial on the part of others, I don't have the slightest idea. All I know is that on that day, Nebraska fans can legitimately say that the coaches lost the game. I don't say that often, but unfortunately, it occurred for the Huskers at the Cotton Bowl against Auburn this year.

Selfish Times

Nope, again, I'm not referring to myself here, but to another very close to me. Their selfish words have bothered me enormously in the past week. There are three instances in which I speak:

1) My grandma had a 15-20 minute seizure two Wednesdays ago, followed by extremely heavy breathing on Thursday, and the doctors prevented her from eating or drinking anything from that point. Someone I know had scheduled a week and a half long trip (not far from where my grandma lived) to see some family. She was saddened by the news regarding my grandmother, but not because she was going to die within two weeks. No, she was saddened because her death was going to alter her plans.

2) Directly before my grandmother's death, this person called, almost surprised that she hadn't died yet. What'd she say following that? "Well, at least I'll get a free trip out of the deal."

3) My father was offered and accepted a job out-of-state. I have contemplated all my options and in the end, I felt I may be best served moving out-of-state, as well. But, what did this person respond with? "Well, you better think about it, because if you don't move, I'm going to think about it as well."

There you have it. In the past two weeks, this person has virtually said that my grandma's pending death didn't upset her as much as the fact it may alter her plans. She also said that she'd get a free trip out of the deal, due to my grandmother's upcoming memorial services. She also basically but she and my father's marriage upon my shoulders of moving with them or not. I don't know who this woman is anymore, but from what I've heard in the previous two weeks, I can't say I like all too much.

Wisdom from the Broken-Hearted

No, it's not me that's currently heart-broken, but I have been heart-broken before, as have most people 18 or older. But, I am a tad bit worried about my brother, whose heart was broken not too long ago by a gal he dated for four years. While his and my situations are complete separate entities, there are several similarities and I wish that he could somehow learn by what I went through a few years ago when my then girlfriend of two years and I broke up.

Right now, he's just hanging onto history. His now ex has already begun officially dating someone, two weeks after their break-up. That tells me one thing, that she was seeing somebody while they were still dating. That has pained him, to say the least, but at the same time, it's made him realize that their relationship is officially over and he has to move on. But, he seems insistent on hanging onto the friendship. Why? History. She was his life for four years. It's very difficult to just let that large a chunk of one's life go after four years. I can understand that. But, it'd be nice if he could see this from an outsider's perspective.

She's already seeing a guy (was before the break-up) two weeks after their break-up. News has also come to light that she lied to him and kept things from him rather regularly. I guess they mutually agreed not to get hammered when in the presence of a lot of strangers of the opposite sex. My brother doesn't get wasted, let alone with people he doesn't know. But, his ex was in a sorority and regularly had the opportunity to do such things. She told my brother that she didn't. When he inquired about how much she drank, she'd respond by saying, "Just one or two beers." Reliable sources have stated that this wasn't the case. She got hammered much more often than she implied and went out much more often than she led my brother to believe. Who were these sources? My brother's friends. My brother also complained a great deal throughout all four years of her not being able to open up to him about anything. So, again, I have to ask him, why would he want to maintain this "friendship," with a person whom won't open up to him, whom started dating a person while they were still going out, and whom regularly hid things from him she know he'd object to or inquire about, only to tell his friends? I guess he told her recently, "You have to be honest from here on out if you want to be friends with me." From here on out? That should tell him something right there. If she hadn't been honest for the previous four years, why in the world does he believe she'll be honest now? How could he even look at her right now, in knowing she's already dating a guy and had been just before she broke up with him?

He and my grandmother just died. I don't know if he attempted to use that information to bait his ex's attention or what exactly, but he told her and in response, she said that she'd try to be nicer and that they should hang out when he gets back in town (today). She'd help him unpack, as he just spent the past week and a half in Florida with a friend and his family. Not a good idea. While it may be difficult to get over an ex of an extended period of time when merely hearing their voice over the phone, it's twice as hard when seeing them in person. The temptations are always there, because of that....history. The trick is to give history a time to truly wallow in the past, so that it does not interfere or blend in much with the present. Because, right now, it's a confusing time for my brother. They still keep in fairly regular contact with one another. While he may be upset when they don't talk for a day or two, he feels relief when she finally does call back. He's in an incredibly vulnerable state right now. I'm sure she knows that. But, again, with his baited use of my grandmother's death, was her offer to help him unpack because she truly wanted to work on the "friendship" or just to be nice? While his heart may want to tell him the former is true, his mind conflicts with his heart and tells him otherwise.

He told me that if he stopped calling, he feels she would as well. He puts in twice the effort she does to make it work. I added, "Just like in the relationship. That's not how things are supposed to work. If you have to give it your all and on top of that, compensate for their lack of effort, then you're going to exhaust yourself on multiple levels and it's not worth it." He agreed, but he's still thinking about seeing her today.

Repeatedly, he said, "I'd like to believe that I'm mature to handle seeing and just knowing that she's dating another guy and carry on a friendship with her." Eh. Maturity has nothing to do with this. In this predicament, it wouldn't be mature nor immature. It'd just be flat out stupid. What does that tell the female in this situation? "You can lie to me, keep things from me, mentally cheat on me, not be open and honest with me, and I don't care. I just want you in my life." Yeah...that could lead to some problems. Anytime she's down or has a potential problem with her current or a future boyfriend, if this current relationship doesn't last very long, who might she go to, who she knows is vulnerable and will always be there for her, regardless of how much she uses and takes advantage of him? My brother.

It pains me to see this transpire, because even though the time durations were different, this relationship of four years and mine of two years are so similar in so many regards. It's almost like deja vu' for me. I know what he's going to say before he opens his mouth and I know how to respond, what he should and shouldn't do, etc. The truth is that this relationship meant a lot more to him than it did to her. He was in it for the long haul and she just wanted to have a boyfriend, one different from all the rest she's had, in an effort to potentially alter her ways and for the better. But, in the end, her history caught back up to her and she decided these new mannerisms and philosophies weren't worth the time nor the effort, so she regressed back to her old, natural self. While my brother's next move was to propose, her next move was to get drunk with her sorority sisters and potentially cheat on him with her current boyfriend. While he's currently attempting to transition himself into the adult world, she's currently content in the sorority world.

He keeps analyzing and telling himself that this is for the best. He's having dreams which may provide closure. But, something still isn't allowing him to let go. He's still intent on hanging on to something that isn't there and perhaps never was, just because it's familiar and comfortable. Their reactions post-break-up are very telling of how they went about things in the relationship. The fact that she just up and moved to another guy illustrates the lack of seriousness on her behalf toward she and my brother's relationship. His heartache, over-analyzing, and constantly needing to sort his thoughts out through conversation with several individuals depicts how much he did care, wanted thing to work, and how much effort he put forth in making that happen. The more effort a person puts into something, the bigger the joy or the pain they will feel in the end.

Even though he doesn't want to hear this, all I can tell him is that it's best to stay away. You've talked to her post-break-up enough times, asked her all the questions you needed to ask. Just give yourself time to get over she and the relationship. You will only delay the process if you continue to hear her voice every day or two and especially if you continue to see her. In the end, that may be possible, but now is not the time. In the end, perhaps she will get over the drunken sorority party life, grow, mature, and be able to be open and honest with my brother and others in her life and they could potentially share a friendship with one another. But, my hunch is that it won't happen for a very long time, if ever, and there's no use in torturing yourself for a friendship that is nearly impossible to attain at this current juncture. History has been set. The memories will always be there. Nothing said nor done can be erased from the records. But, your history with her has come to a close and it's time to distance yourself from it as much as you can, so that the folder full of records doesn't open slightly and tempt you from opening it back in full, only to hurt yourself again.

Boys may have to register as sex offenders for rear-slapping...

Two 13-year old Oregonians, Cory Mashburn and Ryan Cornelison, were arrested in February, due to their slapping girls' bottoms in the halls at school. The felony charges have since been dropped, but the possibility looms that these two young men may have to register as sex offenders for life.

The boys claimed that the rear-end slapping went on all throughout the school and was just a way to say, "hello."

Now, I personally have never been a fan of the bottom slapping. I've never engaged in it and don't feel we should be teaching our kids that it's okay and is just a way of saying "hello" by touching another's bottom. However, I also don't believe these two 13-year olds should have to register as sex offenders for life for this. An after-school detention, a week's worth of after-school detentions, along with a meeting between the boys, their parents, and the principal would suffice. But, based on their slapping the covered rear-ends of females in the hall, I don't believe they should have to knock on neighbors' doors, and tell their story about how they're registered sex offenders. They may have been dared. Perhaps the gals slapped the guys' butts the day before and the guys were just getting them back. Perhaps it is very common at the school. What should be done is a lecture on sexual invasiveness and how the bottom slapping is, according to some, an invasion of privacy. However, I can't see this working too efficiently, because if one spectates sporting events at all, what will they see? Butt slaps, plenty of them. Catch a pass for a first down? Expect some butt slaps. Tackle a guy short of a first down, again, some butt slaps.

There are other ways to demonstrate congratulations or to say hello to another. There's always the high five, the wink, the head nod, actually speaking and saying words such as, "Hey there", etc. If schools truly have a problem with this, perhaps they should begin giving students a mandatory course on such matters. Because, to many 13-year olds, it may be nothing more or less than a welcoming gesture. Nowhere in the article did it speak of how the girls felt in the situation, so we, as observers (readers), are left to speculate. Should these boys be punished and lectured in some way? Yes, I think so. But, do I feel that they should be registered sex offenders? There's no way I believe that to be the case. I doubt that will occur, but you never know. I have a feeling it'd create quite the uproar if it did.

The World of Black and White

Yes, this is meant in an ambiguous fashion, which I'll get to momentarily.

First, let me write out a contemporary math equation. What's Kobe Bryant + Duke Lacrosse team = ? Michael Vick.

No United States citizen other than the four accused (and perhaps a few others) in the case know much of anything regarding what did or did not occur in that Virginia home. Nobody. I don't know. You don't know. The attorneys don't even know what exactly did or did not transpire. Yet, based on the articles, the analysts' commentary, and average Joe's commentary, Michael Vick has been proven guilty in a court of law and is currently serving six years in prison, having been permanently banned from ever playing in the NFL again. Oddly enough, Vick just plead not guilty yesterday and the start of the trial won't get underway until November 26th.

I don't think I have heard this much rage in the public over a case in I don't know how long. I didn't hear this much rage even when Lakers' star Kobe Bryant was indicted on rape allegations. Bryant was not suspended by the league before he was proven innocent or guilty in a court of law. He lost a few sponsors, but Reebok didn't take his jerseys off the shelves for fans to buy. PETA didn't get involved and protest on the streets. It was ONLY a rape charge- a woman alleging that he forced sex upon her against her will. Oh, no, that's no big deal at all. Even with some rage, the charges were dropped and until we know differently, Kobe Bryant is/was not guilty of the rape allegations.

Three members of the Duke Lacrosse team were indicted on charges that they raped a couple strippers. There was a bit more outrage in this case. The three lacrosse players received death threats, property was vandalized, and they were the three most hated individuals on campus for about a year. Again, in the end, the men were proven to be not guilty.

That brings us to Michael Vick. He plead not guilty yesterday to two felony charges affiliating him with dogfighting. The trial won't begin for about four months. The team has suspended him for four games. Commissioner Goodell is having investigators look into the case to see what type of action he should take. He has lost many sponsors. Nike suspended his shoes until the verdict is final and Reebok has stopped the selling of his Falcons' jersey. PETA members are flooding any street associated with Vick and protesting.

Just like in the previous two cases, the media and the citizens have rushed to immediate judgment. Will the verdict be similar? It's impossible for me to say at this juncture. But, in saying that, just as it's impossible for me to say, it's impossible for others to say, as well.

Why does a man, who just two weeks ago, feds claimed would probably not be indicted on any charges, why does a man allegedly involved in dog fighting receive such worse treatment than a man charged with raping a woman? I don't enjoy dogfighting. I don't even enjoy boxing or wrestling, let alone dogfighting. But, dogfighting is legal and very big in some countries. Where is raping a woman legal? Why does Kobe Bryant receive treatment that he is indeed innocent until proven guilty, but Michael Vick is convicted before the trial begins?

I don't like playing the race card. I wish it didn't exist. I wish it didn't have to be utilized at times. I think the PETA would act in such a manner regardless of what ethnicity the person is/was. I do believe that. BUT, the public's reaction? I can't see it being so negative if the defendant were, say, Tom Brady, Eli Manning, Marc Bulger, Trent Dilfer, Peyton Manning, Chad Pennington, amongst others. Michael Vick was a very polarizing athlete to begin with, due to the style of his play. Traditionalists have never liked Michael Vick, because he's not the pocket passer that they have grown used to through the years. He's a scrambler. He makes plays with his feet. So, he polarized the football world even before this incident. But, now? Oh boy...

This past year, the media have attempted to make Michael Vick their bad boy in football. The media loves their bad boys. There was Dennis Rodman in basketball for a time. Rasheed Wallace has been given the reigns since Rodman retired. Terrell Owens was the bad boy in football and handed the baton to Michael Vick. The media loves to have a guy they can speak and analyze about as a villain. It's almost cliche' anymore, that athletes want to be movie stars and movie stars want to be athletes. Well, in these scenarios, those affiliated with sports want to attempt to present a Hollywood-like plot and storyline. How do they do this? With good guys and bad guys.

In the spring, if some don't recall, Michael Vick was taken aside at an airport and was reported to have had a little compartment in a water bottle, which has an odor reminiscent of marijuana. Right then and there, he was convicted and guilty of possessing marijuana. Guess what? The tests came back negative. There were no illegal substances in his possession. So, what occurred then? The media defended themselves, by saying, "Well, Vick deserved it. We don't take back anything we said." Others claimed that there was a conspiracy, that Vick really did possess marijuana, but had connections to show otherwise. How will they react if Vick is proven not guilty this time around?

It amazes me how people allow their emotions to conflict with logical reasoning and morals. Many will claim to believe that we are all innocent until proven guilty, yet when something like this occurs, then that's not the case at all. They allow their emotions to get the very best of them. Indictment does not equal guilt. Indictment simply means that, in this case, the federal government believe a crime was committed and they believe the accused may have been involved. This has to be proven in court. Some claim, "Well, it's the feds, so he has to be guilty. They convict 91% of those they indict!" Yeah, but one has to look inside the numbers. Most everyone they indict don't have they type of money and/or representation that Vick has for himself, so yes, of course they're going to be convicted. When a defendant in a federal case does have his/her own representation, the percentage of convictions for the federal government drastically decreases.

But, just based on what we know (which really is nothing), let's attempt to think logically about this, not allowing emotion to distract us, okay? Just two weeks ago, the federal government stated that Michael Vick would unlikely be indicted in this case. Just two weeks later, he was indicted. Something must've happened in those two weeks, wouldn't you say? It was also stated yesterday that this case is superseding, which means that either charges will be added or someone's charges may be dismissed. Kind of coincidental, don't you think? The chances are that one of the other three defendants told the feds what they wanted to hear regarding Vick, which thereby led to his indictment and the dismissal of their charges, which will probably be released sometime in August. But, now let's think about something else. As it was stated yesterday, the other three defendants have prior criminal records and Vick does not. The specific records were not stated, but drug and alcohol charges were included. One defendant has to receive regular drug tests and another has to wear an ankle bracelet. Based on this information, can the feds, citizens, or a jury trust these three convicted criminals with their testimonies? It's a double-edged sword for them, because on one hand, if the allegations are true, then they'd be the ones to know, but on the other hand, due to the fact that they already have criminal records and Vick does not, how trustworthy are they with what they state in a court of law or outside a court of law?

Let's also attempt to think about the charges themselves. Okay, now, I admit that I'd be hard-pressed to believe that Vick didn't have any foreknowledge of anything that transpired at that household. It's possible. I mean, if I became famous and wealthy, there's no way I'd think any friends or family of mine would transform a house I provided them with as a dog fighting venue, so I guess I could see naivete play a factor. But, again, it's difficult for me to believe he had no knowledge of it whatsoever, so the conspiracy charge may be a difficult one for his defense team to prove his innocence. However, I also have a difficult time believing he'd have the time to actually be involved in a dogfighting operation. Professional athletes may only play in the regular season for 3-5 months in a year, but it's a year-round job. In football, one has training camp, the pre-season, the regular season, hopefully the playoffs, then off-season training and work-outs, practice, weight lifting, film study, charity events, etc. This goes on for an entire year. With Vick's residence being in Atlanta, where he plays football, I find it very difficult to believe that he'd have the time necessary to be involved in these operations.

But, like with everything else I've read, those are just speculative hunches right there. All I know is that in the media and in the public, Michael Vick is a convicted felon and with his sponsors dumping him as they have been, the NFL no longer cares what transpires in Vick's life. People are seeing it all in black and white. All they needed to see were the two words, Vick and dogfighting, and they immediately passed judgment. The surrounding content meant nothing. The entire story could have read, "...and today, quarterback Michael Vick was caught in his backyard fighting with his labrador. Vick stated jokingly following the wrestling, 'Yeah, I think he won this match, but I'll get him next time! (laughs)'." It's odd in a way. Currently, Vick reminds me of shock rock artist Marilyn Manson following his 1996 album release of "Antichrist Svperstar". He just seems to bring out people's prejudices. All-in-all, I just hope that Vick is given a fair trial and that justice reigns supreme in the end. If Vick is found guilty on all charges, I hope he spends a good deal of time in jail. But, my hunch tells me otherwise and if that's the case, I hope people are able to forgive and forget their own rushed judgments.

NBA Ref Conspiracies Now Given Some Thought

Many people view most conspiracies and conspiracy theorists as, for lack of a better word, crazy.

In some cases, they're right. I've read and heard about some conspiracies that are comical, they're so absurd. There are others I feel are probably too far-fetched to be true, but ones that I don't completely rule out. There are yet others that I give more serious thought.

With the events that have unfolded in the NBA this past week, I can only imagine what some of the conspiracy theorists' reactions were/are. I wonder if Dallas Mavericks' owner Mark Cuban was/is one of those theorists.

It was made known this past week that the FBI is investigating former NBA referee Tim Donaghy for potentially betting on games he officiated and making calls which helped manipulate the results to favor his heavy bet. How long did he officiate? Thirteen years. He has said in recent days that he will cooperate and rumor has it that others may have been involved too.

This has been a bad month in sports. The Barry Bonds' steroid scandal is ever present and especially now, as Bonds is only three homers away from passing Hank Aaron as the all-time home run leader. Michael Vick was indicted on two felony counts affiliating him with dog fighting. Now, Tim Donaghy, a thirteen year NBA official, is being investigated for possibly betting on games he refereed and making calls in order to win money at game's end.

I admit to not watching much basketball anymore (except for the playoffs), but I have witnessed more iffy and more downright bad calls by the referees in basketball than football or baseball through the years. Just this past year, the Phoenix Suns' star, Steve Nash, got deliberately kneed in the groin and no foul was called. Even after reviewing the tape, officials claimed that the knee was accidental. Uh-huh. Two Suns' players were suspended for stepping one foot onto the court when a brawl was about to ensue. They didn't get involved in the fight at all. All they did was stand up, and walk one foot onto the court. It's been difficult for me to watch NBA basketball at times because of the officiating. Officials' don't dictate the pace of a baseball game. The pitchers, hitters, and managers do. They don't dictate the pace in a football game either. The players and coaches do that, as well. In basketball, while some officials allow the players and coaches to dictate the pace, I see the officials doing this a lot more in this sport than in any other. It was ridiculous at times in the playoffs this year. An up-and-down fast-paced shoot-out in the first half became a snoozer in the second. Fouls that weren't called in the first half were called twice over in the second. The teams went from living on the fast break to living at the free throw line.

I can only imagine what Mark Cuban is thinking right now. "Hey, I told you all so!" He has not shied away from criticizing NBA officials through the years and has had to pay hefty fines due to that.

I wonder if Donaghy and others are found guilty, will the coaches, owners, and players who were fined for criticizing these very officials in the past be reimbursed, since, well, they were right? It's not like they NEED that money back, because they're millionaires, but it's just the whole principle of the thing.

Commissioner David Stern will have to do some soul-searching this off-season in order to instill some credibility back into the NBA. Unfortunately, whether Donaghy is found guilty or not, there were many critics of NBA officiating to begin with, so when word of this got spread, one can only imagine what this had already done to the NBA image.
While I still stand by my word that Donaghy and the others are innocent until proven otherwise, I'm sure many will say that if proven guilty, it didn't surprise them much.

Biased Announcers

Extra Innings is an interesting package, as one can watch any baseball game at home. They could live in Boston, be a Dodgers fan and catch every West Coast L.A. Dodger game throughout the season. It's kind of neat to watch the different commercials played in different parts of the country, from Minneapolis to San Diego to Washington D.C. Along with that, it's also very intriguing to listen to the different announcers, which represent all 32 ball clubs.

That brings me to a game I saw this past week between the Atlanta Braves and the San Francisco Giants in Frisco. It was Game 1 of the four game series and was shown on Bay City Fox Sports via Extra Innings. The two announcers obviously represented the hometown Giants and their commentary certainly illustrated that. Now, I can understand some bias. That's fine. I regularly watch the Braves and there will be times that Joe Simpson, Skip or Chip Carey will say something along the lines of, "It'd be nice for the Braves to win this one," but they don't repeat those lines very often. If the Braves are stinking up the place, they don't shy away from being blunt and objectively stating the facts, which I like. These Giants' announcers complained all game long about the strike zone, especially in regard to second baseman Ray Durham. I watched the game. I admit to having a pretty liberal strike zone, but the strike calls that Durham and the announcers complained about looked like strikes to me. The first one was above the belt, but right down the middle. There is that new "high strike" rule, fellas. A pitch right above the belt is supposed to be called a strike now under that rule. The second pitch may have been a bit more arguable, but I still think it was a strike. The pitch was the same height as the previous, but was a bit further inside. Where the catcher caught the ball, I can understand Durham and the announcers' gripe, but remember, it doesn't matter where the catcher catches the baseball. It only matters where the ball crossed the plate. From the angle I saw it, it appeared that the ball caught the inside corner before appearing to be inside when the catcher caught it. It's not like these were horrible calls no matter which way the broadcasters want to call it. I've seen some awful strike calls before, balls that were a good six to twelve inches outside when the ball crossed the plate (figuratively speaking, in this case). I've seen ankle high balls get called strikes. These pitches may have been somewhat borderline, but borderline in any scenario, depending upon the home-plate umpire that night, could be called strikes. Some umps have much stricter strike zones than others.

I've thoroughly enjoyed some game calling by the announcers in Florida and of course in L.A. (the Dodgers), but the Giants' announcers on Monday night kind of got on my nerves there after a while. Outside of the complaints regarding the strike zone, they were alright. They called a decent game, made some intriguing statements throughout, and kept the viewers in tune to what was going on. But, the on-going complaints just got to be too much. Slight bias to root for a team is one thing. Bias to the point of annoyance is another.

Negativity

Not too long ago, an individual made a comment that (s)he felt my blogs were "cranky" and "negative". I re-read most of them and didn't see much different in terms of trends from when I started blogging back in December of 2005 to now, July of 2007. The complaint(s) steered in the direction of my being too critical. Now, I fully admit, that I'm not a regular optimist. I don't go about life pretending everything is wondrous just after my grandmother dies, but I'm no eternal pessimist either. I see myself as someone right in between those two extremes- a realist. I attempt to see all sides to a story, to an argument, and from all the information I'm given, make a logical conclusion. I attempt to look at the pros and cons, place those on a scale and see which side outweighs the other. I only bring this up, because it brings me to a predicament which I felt was truly negative. I don't believe that a "critic" is eternally negative. Comedians critique daily oddities, fashion trends, stereotypes, language, amongst other things, and their intention through this is laughter. Entertainment critics do this through weighing all the elements of a film, a musical album, a live performance, a painting, or what have you, and there will be times that their reviews seem a bit on the negative side, but there are also times where the direct opposite is the case.

That brings me to a conversation I had not too long ago. I attempted to help this individual in a class, point them in the right direction, but they refused to put forth much effort on their own time. As a consequence, they failed the class. I attempted to take an optimist's approach and tell them, "Well, hopefully this experience will lend you some new insight when you take the class again, so that the same mistakes aren't made." But, no, that just ticked them off further. Their main complaint? "I'll never use this in my life. It's worthless! It's a waste of time! What's the point?" I again tried to shed some light on the subject (no pun intended) and said, "Well, while you may not need this material to function at your future job following the attainment of your degree, you will need to pass this class in order to receive the degree. So, try not to think of it as worthless and a waste of time, a subject you'll never use at your job. Try to think of it as one piece of the puzzle which completes your degree and allows you to work at that job." But, no, this didn't help either. They were irate and just said, "I won't ever need this! Period!" Okie dokie!

In my opinion, that's negative. He refuses to look at the potential benefits from taking and passing this class and is content (not really) on looking at the downsides. To him, it doesn't matter that this class is required in order to receive the degree he wants. That's irrelevant. In fact, in his mind, it shouldn't be required at all.

I mean, if we want to look at this realistically, then sure, perhaps this class isn't necessary for the job he intends to get after he receives the degree. But, couldn't we say that about a lot of classes? Isn't it nice to have some basic knowledge in most subjects? I mean, are geography classes necessary for a math teacher to function properly? Are math classes necessary for a poet to function properly? Are literature classes necessary for an athlete to function properly? I don't NEED education in some of these areas, but it is nice to hold some basic knowledge in physics, chemistry, physical and human geography, algebra, biology, microbiology, etc. Is he content on being completely ignorant in an area? Does that appease him? I don't understand this negative mentality. While in the long run, the class may not provide necessary information for him to utilize at his workplace, but why be so insistent on hating the class and everything that relates to it, when it is required for him to utilize anything legally at his future workplace?

While we have had leaders dictate to their people in the past, internally, I believe that mood and attitude are our dictators. If he truly had a positive attitude regarding this class and provided the effort to signify that, then I have no doubt in my mind he'd pass it with flying colors. But, that's just not the case and as long as he refuses to believe he should be required to pass the course to attain his degree, he'll have difficulty in doing so, unfortunately. I really wish him the very best, because I want to see him succeed, but it's very difficult for any person to speak directly to him on this topic, because it infuriates him to the very fullest.

Worried

A dear old friend of mine compared N'Sync to the Beatles the other night. I was speechless. I must say that I'm worried about the kid. Any soothing words, responses, or perhaps reasonable insight into the comparison itself? Thank you so much for your time. John Lennon vs. Justin Timberlake. I never thought the lad would make such a comparison. (sighs)

Documentary...what is it anymore?

My brother and I got into a friendly discussion the other day after my mom and I saw the new Michael Moore documentary, Sicko.

I guess my brother had never heard of the movie, but he was quick to point out, "Well, you've got to kind of take what he says with a grain of salt."

I responded with, "Well, I've read a lot of the critiques and it seems to me that many mistake opinion and/or wisecrack as fact."

He replied with, "True, but opinions aren't supposed to take place in a documentary."

I came back with, "Well, it's a pretty common theme in contemporary documentaries."

That's where the discussion ended. So, I thought I'd look the word up at dictionary.com.

1. Also, doc·u·men·tal /ˌdɒkyəˈmɛntl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[dok-yuh-men-tl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation. pertaining to, consisting of, or derived from documents: a documentary history of France.
2. Movies, Television. based on or re-creating an actual event, era, life story, etc., that purports to be factually accurate and contains no fictional elements: a documentary life of Gandhi. –noun
3. Movies, Television. a documentary film, radio or television program, etc.

Consisting of, concerning, or based on documents.
Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film.
n. pl. doc·u·men·ta·ries A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration.

adjective
1. relating to or consisting of or derived from documents
2. emphasizing or expressing things as perceived without distortion of personal feelings, insertion of fictional matter, or interpretation; "objective art" [syn: objective]
noun
1. a film or TV program presenting the facts about a person or event.

Alright, so, a documentary, according to dictionary.com, is "A work, such as a film or television program, presenting political, social, or historical subject matter in a factual and informative manner and often consisting of actual news films or interviews accompanied by narration."

BUT, another definition states, "Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film."

One mentions editorializing and the other does not. Again, even the definition of "documentary" isn't black-and-white.

So, what exactly is a documentary? Has the definition altered in the past ten years or so? If factual information is brought to light throughout a documentary, can the information be used in attempt to persuade the audience in one manner or another? Can the film still be construed as a "documentary"?

I honestly don't have an answer to those questions, but think that it makes for an interesting debate. Who would've thought, a gray area in defining "documentary"?

But, if we look at it further, while many modern documentaries contain a certain level of subjective opinions, if we look at the documentaries of yester-year, while there wasn't as much subjectivity, there were just as many, if not more falsities. Documentaries of the religious, political, psychological, historical, or even scientific variety might hold statements from legitimate sources that may be seen as factual at the time of the production, but a year or two down the road, those "facts" have been proven to be false. Heck, there's even a book being sold (with some girth to it) that goes in to detail regarding all the lies our history books (documented information) have told us through the years. So, what is a documentary? Do they even exist? Just as my brother says opinions don't belong in there, one may have to let their opinion be known in regard to answering these questions.

Sicko Review

One of the most polarizing figures in all of entertainment, Michael Moore, goes from criticizing President Bush in Fahrenheit 9/11 to being critical of the American health care industry in Sicko.

There's always a lot of talk even before a Michael Moore film debuts. With Fahrenheit 9/11, some right-wing organizations attempted to get the film banned in certain theatres and while they did have an effect in a couple areas, if anything, they provoked even more people into going and seeing the film, as it became the top-grossing documentary of all-time. With Sicko, the pre-film talk came in regard to Moore's trip to Cuba in attempt to garner aid for some 9/11 rescue workers. Without permission, the Feds claimed Moore would have been violating the trade embargo. Although, I have not heard any updates on the predicament for a few weeks now, so I haven't the slightest idea of where it stands currently. While I agree that Moore may have been better served in taking the rescue workers to Canada, France, or Britain, it seemed that he and the workers were on the same wavelength with what he was trying to prove. The only place on "American" soil which practices universal health care is that on Guantanamo Bay for suspected terrorist masterminds. It was indeed sad and ironic that these 9/11 heroes could receive the same kind of aid on American soil. So, they resorted to their next plan, Cuba. America has countless more resources and finances than Cuba, but only ranks two spots above the third-world country by the WHO in health care (#37 and #39). That fact speaks volumes right there.

Just this past week, one Dr. Sanjay Gupta claimed that Michael Moore fudged some facts in Sicko. Wolfblitzer and the gang at CNN spoke to Gupta right before Moore was scheduled to be on the program. At the allegations, Moore spoke out and often on the matter, wanted the records to get straightened, and for CNN to issue him an apology on the matter. Not until just over the past 24 hours did CNN do such a thing, where they admitted two errors in Gupta's alleging that Moore fudged facts in Sicko and they apologized for these slip-ups. Moore has been scheduled to speak to Wolfblitzer again tomorrow. That should be a smoother conversation than before, but we'll have to wait and see.

So, as usual, there's a lot of talk swirling in the air in regard to Sicko. There should be, for it may be Moore's best film to date.

One thing Moore has been criticized of in the past is that he's on camera too often. This could be said in his first three films: Roger and Me, The Big One, and Bowling for Columbine. He's hardly visible at all on camera through the first half of the film and overall, I'd say he makes the fewest appearances in this film than any other he's directed.

Another common critique of Moore is that his film's are too one-sided. I could see this with Fahrenheit 9/11. Moore, in no way, shape, or form attempted to depict any counter-arguments. But, one has to remember. At this time in our history, the mainstream media were common cheerleaders in President Bush's background, so while F-9/11 was in and of itself a very one-sided film, in the grand scheme of things, it balanced the overall media scale. If it had been produced now, then the scale would largely be tilted in favor of Bush bashers, as his approval rating range is anywhere between 26% and 33%. But, that wasn't the case when Fahrenheit debuted. In Roger and Me and The Big One, Moore had a slated goal, journeyed to achieve that goal, and the viewers traveled with him. In Bowling for Columbine and now with Sicko, Moore's ideology may be seen on camera or heard in the tone of his voice, but the goal is to ask thought-provoking questions and find answers to those questions. Why did the school shootings occur? Why is there so much gun violence in America? What can be done to improve on this problem? In Sicko, the same process unfolds, as the questions are asked, why do countries such as Britain, France, Canada, and Cuba, amongst others have less problems with babies dying during birth? Why do citizens live longer, on average, in those countries? What are the pros and cons of socialized medicine? Who are the biggest winners and losers with the system we currently have and likewise, who are the biggest winners and losers in countries with a socialized health care system? What can Americans do to help improve their system? While I can understand some people's arguments, especially in relation to Fahrenheit 9/11, of Moore's one-sidedness, I don't understand that as much with his other films, especially in regard to Bowling for Columbine and Sicko.

The strength of this film, as is the case with most Moore films, is how it draws the audience in with individual's personal stories. From a man having to pick between his ring ($12,000) and middle ($60,000) fingers after chopping both ends off in a saw incident to a woman getting into an automobile accident but being rejected for the ambulance ride to the hospital because she wasn't pre-approved for it to a woman's child being rejected from aid at a hospital and dying as a result a short time later to many other stories, Sicko pulls the viewers in emotionally and I admit, it was difficult to hold tears back on several occasions.

Another strength is also common amongst Moore films, as he has a way of balancing the seriousness with humor to compile a very entertaining film. Even many anti-Moore die-hard Republicans that I know admit that he makes entertaining films. The humor is needed more than ever in Sicko, as it is the most emotionally charged of his five films.

One thing I noticed about this movie which made it difficult to view at times were the sudden and drastic changes in mood. While the movie was very funny in some portions and it was very powerful in others, the alterations in mood were so sudden and drastic at times, that it made for quite the rollercoaster ride.

While some like to state that Moore fudges his facts, many times I notice that these "fudging" of facts are misinterpretations of opinions and wisecracks. The biggest problem, I think, is the fact that Moore doesn't delve into black-and-white topics. It's almost impossible to do so. Gun violence. Corporations. War. Health Care. There is not a definite answer to any question surrounding these topics. Moore picks the facts from typically "legitimate" sources to complete his story and make a strong persuasive argument or to draw the audience in as far as humanly possible. Are there counter arguments that need to be heard? Of course. But, again, national health care is not a black-and-white issue. It needs to be pondered, researched, compared, and discussed. I don't think it's Moore's job or others like him to create yes-people to their ideologies, but to provoke thought and in the end, potentially provoke change. With these gray issues, one can only research from as many sources as possible, contemplate the topic thoroughly, and through all of that information, common sense, deep thinking, and logic, come to their own conclusion. He expressed many facts throughout the course of the film to compare the U.S. with such countries as France, Britain, and Canada and also to express the downsides to our current system here in America. The numbers were compelling, to say the least.

I think Michael Moore has one-upped himself with Sicko. I viewed the film in a rather small theatre and I haven't heard that many laughs and that many tears shed during one viewing of a film in a very long time.

Grade: 9.5/10 - Sicko was by no means perfect, but I think it's Moore's best work to date. It's full of laughs, tears, thought, and should provoke numerous discussions after viewed. I recommend everyone to see it, but also recommend everyone to do further research, thinking, and discussing after viewing the film.

1408 Review

Let it first be known for the record that not many movies scare me. I find most horror flicks to be almost corny and humorous (unless they're based on a true story, of course). I enjoy Hitchcockian flicks and psychological thrillers, but still, they don't frighten me much.

With that in mind, no, 1408 didn't frighten me at all. My brother, who was sitting next to me, jumped a few times, though! It was an interesting flick to sit through, though.

Samuel L. Jackson was intense and stylish in his limited role, but John Cusak was THE man on display for the majority of the film. Some spirits and ghosts made their presence felt, but all-in-all, it was Cusak front and center. The film could've been called, "John Cusak's Room" and that would've fit perfectly with what transpired through the course of the film.

Cusak was entertaining. One has to give him that. The guy was all over the place, both literally and figuratively speaking. He was cracking a joke one minute, was a complete jerk the next, and was delusional the next (or was he?).

The film did a pretty good job of catching the viewers' interest from the outset. The build-up to Cusak's entry into room 1408 was solid. But, once he entered that room, there were some hits and misses, as far as I'm concerned. Some of the visuals and special effects were enticing, but some were almost comical. There were a few times in the middle portion of the film where I actually chuckled at some of these spirits and attempts of frightening the viewers. The film concluded in a very interesting fashion. I've read several different theories on what transpired, what the events potentially symbolized, etc. I won't let mine be known fully for I don't want to let out any spoilers. I will say that there were quite a few holes in the plot, but even then, the film was intriguing and kept my attention throughout. While I don't feel this film was terrific by any stretch of the imagination, it was watchable and I may be able to sit through it again in the future. Time will have to tell on that one. It's a valiant attempt of re-creating a Stephen King novel, but doesn't quite live up to another King novel, The Shining.

Grade: 6/10 - While the plot holes are numerous and some of the scare attempts are almost comical, John Cusak is able to hold the viewer's attention on his own and while the odd and disoriented plot may confuse and not make too much sense to some, it is likely to intrigue many.

Indicted

Well, it's now official. Atlanta Falcons' quarterback, Michael Vick, has been indicted by the federal grand jury in connection with the dogfighting in Virginia. The indictment is for conspiracy to travel in interstate commerce in aid of unlawful activities and to sponsor a dog in an animal fighting venture in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District in Richmond, Virginia. Vick, along with three others, Purnell Peace, Quanis Phillips, and Tony Taylor, were also indicted on similar charges.

While I am disappointed by the news, I stand by ESPN analyst Michael Clayton's assessments, in stating that since this is Vick's first brush with the law and he has yet to be proven guilty, the Falcons should stand by him as their starting quarterback and commissioner Roger Goodall shouldn't suspend him unless he is proven guilty.

The problem will be that this case could drag on for the entire football season. This could be quite reminiscent of the Kobe Bryant venture with the Lakers a few years ago when a woman claimed that he'd raped her. Vick and the Falcons will have to remain extremely focused throughout the course of the season and Vick will have to display his leadership on the field unlike ever before, so that his teammates know he's there to win a football game and that's the only thing on his mind.

It's been an interesting month. What started with a federal investigator stating there was enough evidence to indict Vick took a turn a couple weeks ago, when the feds stated that Vick would most likely not be indicted. The rollercoaster ride took another turn for Vick and the Falcons today, as it was made known that the quarterback would indeed be indicted by the grand jury. At this point, I wouldn't be surprised to see many of Vick's sponsors back away from the star quarterback, much in the manner of Kobe, but like with Bryant, I'd be surprised if the team and the league commissioner did likewise. While the man has been indicted, he hasn't been proven of guilt. If that does occur, then I think he should be suspended for a season. If it doesn't, then no suspension should transpire at all.

When in pairs or in groups, guys can be jerks...

Not to sound like Forrest Gump, but my mama always said that when guys are with other guys, they can be jerks. I guess I've known that for quite some time, but I kind of figured (hoped) that these tendencies would slowly dissipate as they age and (gulp) mature. But, that's not always the case, I guess.

I hung out with some friends last week. When we were talking one-on-one, things were fine. They actually listened, showed concern, and acted like what I view a friend to be like. But, once they were surrounded by other males, then they suddenly felt the need to show off their "manliness" and act like a complete jerk. So, what's the reasoning behind this and especially as we grow older. I can understand this behavior in teenagers more so than adults. I mean, in the adolescent/pubescent years, one is experiencing heavy changes throughout their life, on the physical and emotional level. One is apt to experimenting with certain things, out of curiosity or to perhaps fit in and they're constantly trying to find themselves, their own identity. I'd HOPE that the need to fit in would diminish after they find themselves and that their identity would be more in grasp than it had been 10 years prior. But, what do I know?

While it seems that the potential good escalates with each and every head in a situation, the potential bad escalates as well.

bin Laden back from the dead! Not really...

Scare tactics aplenty this past week. Michael Chertoff said he had a gut feeling of a terrorist attack this summer. Then a "new" al-Qaeda video was released with one Osama bin Laden playing a 40-second role. Is the boogeyman back? After all this time when he hasn't made himself known in a visual sense, is he actually alive?

Don't be fooled... The video was a compilation of old clips. How old were these clips? A senior U.S. intelligence official says, "It may have been recorded prior to the September 11 attacks." Oh boy! The video (or compilation of clips) is that old?

If anyone truly wants to believe that this tape is authentic and recent, you may want to observe some bin Laden photos from a clip in 2001 and then this "recent" video.

http://infowars.com/articles/terror/bin_laden_uncovers_secret_anti_ageing_process.htm

He doesn't appear to have aged much, does he? In fact, I think he looks younger in the "recent" clip. That's quite the trick, especially with all the health problems he's endured. Who knows, maybe he's an avid member of Rogaine and knows Michael Jackson's plastic surgeon...

Bush against invading sovereign nation without its permission?

Yes, you read that correctly and what nation do I speak of? Pakistan. Since 2005, the Bush administration has known that al-Qaeda's senior leadership has resided in Pakistan, but what did Tom Fingar, of the office of the Director of National Intelligence say in regard to the situation? "It's not that we lack the ability to go into that space. But we have chosen not to do so without the permission of the Pakistani government." I see... This didn't stop the administration from going to Iraq. Heck, even after years to reflect and perhaps an opportunity to come to grips that no permission was ever granted, we're still in Iraq! So, this is all quite befuddling to me.

Karl Rove, AKA Bush's brain, had this to say about the predicament, "The United States has concerns about taking unilateral action in a sovereign nation without their approval. And so this has always been the difficulty we have with - [laughter.] Unless, of course, they're Saddam Hussein."

Am I saying we should invade Pakistan? Heck no. I just find it quite amusing in an ironic sort of manner that the Bush administration's words, attitudes, and actions are so drastically different on Iraq and Pakistan. Interesting, indeed...

8-Year Old "Terrorist" Prevented from Flying Home

It was just reported the other day that one Bryan Moore, an 8-year old on his flight back home after visiting his sister, was prevented from doing so because his name was on the terror watch list.

Moore explained the story as follows, "They almost got me scheduled in and then the lady just bowed her head and said, 'We can't get you on this plane, you're a terrorist.'"

That's right, Mr. Moore (not yet in 3rd grade) was red flagged as a threat to national security because his name was on the terror watch list.

The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) claims that no children are on the terror watch list and that it's up to the airline to let the child board the airplane if their name does indeed match up with that of a terrorist on the watch list.

Great Lake Airlines figured the situation out eventually, but not until the plane had left, so young Bryan Moore had to wait until the following day to go home.

Not long ago, I wrote about how it felt as if almost all company-written e-mails were automated and that there were more machines doing human-like work than humans themselves. Here we go again. Could the lady not have looked right in front of her and I'm guessing down a ways to realize that this kid was most likely not a terrorist? It's not like his name was unique. It's Bryan Moore. How many Bryan Moore's are there in this country? It's not like it was Olga Lois Kozlowski or something of the sort. Doesn't common sense ever play a factor? Can't one make a decision on their own? What, if a guy's name was Joe Smith and that was caution for a red flag, would all the Joe Smith's in the world be under potential scrutiny come time when they arrive in an airport? Decision-making tests should be enforced at every occupation out there before one can be hired. In this case, the potential employees could be asked, "Now, if an 8-year old boy going into the 3rd grade had a common name, like say, Bryan Moore, and his name was red flagged as a threat to our national security, because that name's on the terror watch list, what can you conclude and what do you do?" Oh oh...thinking...decision-making...oh no! What does the machine say? What have I been programmed to say? Which button do I press? Ahhhhhhh!!!!! How about the button to send them off to telemarketing positions? That works...

Bush admits administration leaked CIA name...

For the first time, President Bush admitted that someone in his administration likely leaked Valerie Plame/Wilson's name. Yet, he claims that the case has run its course and he hopes that everyone can now move forward.

As he said and I quote, "I'm aware of the fact that perhaps somebody in the administration did disclose the name of that person. I've often thought about what would have happened if that person had come forth and said, 'I did it.' Would we have had this endless hours of investigation and a lot of money being spent on this matter? But, so, it's been a tough issue for a lot of people in the White House. It's run its course and now we're going to move on."

In recent weeks, President Bush has commuted Scooter Libby's 30-month prison sentence and hasn't ruled out a complete pardon on the matter.

So, what can we conclude? Bush has admitted that it's likely someone in his administration is guilty of leaking the CIA name, commuted Libby's jail time, and has not ruled out a full pardon of Scooter Libby. It seems to me that Scooter may have been the cover-up, the scapegoat for a larger fish in the Bush administration, either Karl Rove or Dick Cheney. This is what I thought at the get-go, and with Bush's words and actions in recent weeks, I'm even more convinced of that.

Mother and Child Kicked Off Flight

A report was just released in regard to a mother and her 1 1/2 year old son being kicked off a Continental ExpressJet flight in Houston after an 11-hour delay at the airport.

Why, one might ask? The year and a half year old kid, Garron, repeatedly said, "bye-bye plane" as the Continental ExpressJet taxied. A flight attendant came over following the safety instructions and said, "OK, it's not funny anymore. You need to shut your baby up."

The mother, Kate Penland, explained to the flight attendant that Garron would fall asleep soon and the attendant responded with, "It doesn't matter. Regardless, I don't want to hear it. It's called baby Benadryl."

Penland then said, "Well, I'm not going to drug my child, so you have a pleasant flight."

Following that, the attendant announced that they were going to return to the gate and the two passengers (Kate and Garron) were going to make an exit off the plane.

Other witness passengers on the plane stated that the child was no louder than the adults on the flight and were quite surprised and taken back by the flight attendant's words and actions.

At the time I read this article, approximately 65% of the people in the poll disagreed with the flight attendant's actions, 25% agreed, and 10% were uncertain.

Yeah, children can be a little obnoxious on airplanes. They can cry and induce headaches all around them. But, what are parents supposed to do, drug their children, as the flight attendant suggested? Are the parents only supposed to travel via automobile, so that the child's crying doesn't distract or annoy anyone? Are children barred from even speaking, saying such things as, "Bye-bye plane" or "I love you, mommy"? Hey, the more they speak, the less they cry, right? What would those around the child rather hear, the child speaking or crying? I read a couple comments, saying such things as, "If you can't control your child, don't take it on an airplane!" What? This cracks me up, because when they were children and taken on airplanes, I'm sure they did similar such things. It's alright that they did it, but now that they're grown up, it should be illegal for kids to do it. I think the flight attendant's actions were preposterous, I hope that some kind of punishment is enforced on the attendant, and that Kate Penland receives some compensation for what she went through.

Gary Sheffield's Mouth

The guy can't seem to keep it closed for very long, can he? Not too long ago, he made mention that his theory on the Major League African-American population dwindling was because they are more difficult to handle for coaches than Latino-Americans. Now, a report has just been released of Sheffield making some more controversial statements. He claims that New York Yankees' manager Joe Torre treats black and white players differently, that Torre is not a racist, but that he treats whites more like men than he does blacks. He also made the comment that his former teammate, Derek Jeter, is not all the way black, and also made some comments on Barry Bonds, stating that Sheffield in no way looks like Bonds, so how can people think they partook of the same muscle-enhancing substances?

I'll make this known for the record, I find all of these comments outlandish and ludicrous, to say the least. But, I got to thinking about things and thank God we have a guy like Sheffield in sports right now. Why even listen to interviews anymore? We, the viewers, typically know what the athlete will say directly following the question. They're chalked full of cliche's and it appears as if they're reading from a cue card provided to them by their coach/manager. Often times, the interview will go something like this:

Reporter: So, (name), what do you think you can do to help your new team this upcoming season be competitive and win some games?

Athlete: Well, you know, first off, it's not about me. It's about the team. As long as we win games, that's all that really matters. I could play awful, but so long as we win the game, I'll go into that locker room feeling good.

Or, what about this potential inquisition?

Reporter: So, I'm sure you've heard (name) statements regarding you, when the two of you were teammates. What's your reaction to that?

Athlete: I have no comment regarding that.

Cliche's, no comment, reading from cue cards, it gets to be mighty boring to listen to these athletes speak, doesn't it?

So, while many times I disagree with the likes of Curt Schilling and Gary Sheffield, I have to say that I'm thankful there are the likes of such players in sports today. While we may feel those two and those like them are complete idiots, at least when we see them on television ready to be interviewed, we can actually grab a soda, some popcorn, and not know what to expect.

Chertoff's "Gut Feeling"

A few days ago, the Secretary of Homeland Security, Michael Chertoff, stated he has a "gut feeling" that the U.S. "faces a higher risk of a terrorist attack this summer."

This administration is obsessed with scare tactics. The tough talk of Bush, Cheney, and company hasn't worked with the public for years now. The color-coded terror alert system worked at first, but the efficiency has faded. The al-Qaeda videos worked for an even longer period of time (2004 (s)election, anybody), but even the effectiveness of those have worn off some. So, now what? The Secretary of Homeland Security has a "gut feeling?" A hunch? Baseball managers get paid to play off such gut feelings, but not the Secretary of Homeland Security. It's one thing to have a hunch that the opposing team will hit and run, so a manager decides to utilize the pitch-out. It's another thing to attempt to scare the nation by saying, "You know, I don't know what it is, but I have a hunch we're going to be the victims of a terrorist act this summer." Why even make that hunch be known to the public? There's nothing concrete behind it. It's just a gut feeling. I'd think by now that the administration would allude to a different strategy other than scare tactics to boost their approval rating. But, obviously, I would be mistaken in thinking that.

Robots at Work

Are almost all company e-mails automated? I've been a member of Columbia House for a while and for the first time during my membership there, I've run into some major issues. So, I attempted to send e-mails to clear the air. I've sent four e-mails, using slightly different wording each and every time, and have received about the same response e-mail each and every time. Just the other day, I asked, "Since I've received no help via e-mail, what is your telephone number where I can talk to a person and hopefully resolve the problem(s) I've run into?" I received about the same "automated" e-mail followed by information on an automated phone number. Are there any living people working at Columbia House? I guess someone tried to hack into my E-Bay account, so that's been suspended. I wrote and asked about that and they didn't have a direct answer for me. It was automated with the possible reasons for the suspension. My question dealt with why my account is/was suspended in the first place. So, I'm going to have to write a letter to Columbia House and hope that a living person reads and actually responds and will have to goto E-Bay's live chat/help in order to hopefully learn why my account was suspended and what I can do about it. There's an overpopulation of people in this world. I have to wonder by how much the robot/machine population outnumbers us.

A Day of Quote Material

Wednesday was an unusual day, to say the least. It was one of those days where I was out and about for a good chunk of time, yet in the end, I wish I had just stayed in and read a book.

First off, my mother and I went to this local restaurant a little after noon for lunch. They had an item on their overhead menu that read, "Yin Yang Boneless Wings." Never having had any such thing before, I asked the young lady up front what they were exactly. Her response, "Yeah, they're listed right up there." I then reiterated my inquiry, and asked, "No, what are they exactly?" She replied with, "Yeah, we cook them back there," pointing back to the kitchen. At this point, I had to wonder if she graduated elementary school. My mom then butted in and said, "No, what are they? What kind of sauce do they have on them? What do they taste like?" She finally was clued in to what I was muttering in the first place. "Oh, well, they're kind of sweet and sour, but with some pepper." Eloquently stated, I know, but it sure beat the first two responses. My mom and I joked about it when we sat down at the table. Perhaps she was just out of it. Maybe she was high. Maybe it was a combination of the two. But, for some reason, I have to believe this is a common occurrence for her.

Later into the early evening, some friends of mine and I headed to a pub. A friend of mine had told me that their Wednesdays were crazy, with $1 beers, $2 well drinks, and games/prizes were played/given all night. So, I went up to the bar with $3 in hand, $2 for the well drink (rum and coke) and $1 for the tip (a sufficient 50% tip at that). After he made the drink, he said, "That'll be $3.50." Because of what I had been told earlier in the evening, I curiously asked, "It's not $2 tonight?" He responded with and I quote, "Do you have a vagina?" Understanding what he was alluding to (ladies' night), but shocked at how he expressed that, I gave an odd facial expression and said, "What?" He repeated himself, "Do you have a vagina?" At that point, I pondered about stating a wisecrack or two. I had thought about laying down the $2 and saying, "No, but obviously you do. This drink's on me" or "Are you an a**hole?" But, my conscience got the best of me and I elected not to indulge in the potential confrontation. But, I did file a complaint and am getting rewarded for it, in multiple ways. The bartender is getting punished and I'm receiving a gift certificate to the pub. It was the first complaint I'd ever filed. I may have to do that more often! Just kidding...

I attempted to spin the bartender's comment all night, thinking to myself, "Perhaps it could be humorous if I really think about it." But, that didn't happen. In the end, I felt the only way it could work to his credit would be if he and I were long-time buddies or family members, who teased one another on a consistent basis with inside jokes and the like. But, a brand-new customer? It was the first time I'd been there and it had just re-opened a couple months ago. That's not the kind of first impression to leave on a person.

It was a day to forget, but one I will always remember. I've told the bartender story a few times since Wednesday and I've received the same response every time. There's a surprised look on the person's face and they say, "What?" and then laugh, followed by comments such as: "That's crazy!" or "I can't believe that!" Trust me, I couldn't believe that either. It happened two days ago and I still can't believe it occurred.

Moral of the story: Don't ask a stranger about a private part which may or may not be in their possession, for you may get fired due to your head being up your a**.

Joe Morgan compares Maddux to singles' hitter

Last night, during the Atlanta Braves/San Diego Padres game, in which former Braves' starter Greg Maddux was facing off against his old club, announcers Joe Morgan and John Miller began comparing Maddux with New York Yankees' starter Roger Clemens.

John Miller was attempting to make the argument (and rightfully so) that Maddux was a bargain, as Clemens' has cost the Yankees $22 million in a little over half a season of baseball, while Maddux has cost the Padres $10 million for a full season. Joe Morgan stated that it was due to the fact that Clemens is an intimidator, a feared, power pitcher. At this point in their careers, Clemens is still a #1 starter, while Maddux is more like a #3. Okay, I will agree with those statements. I agree with Miller that Maddux is a bargain for the Padres in comparison to what the Yankees are paying Clemens (although, one has to keep in mind that these are the Yankees, who overpay players all the time... Carl Pavano anyone?). I will also agree with Morgan that at this stage in their careers, Clemens is more of an ace than Maddux. So, there we have it. I agree with a statement made by both announcers. But, this next statement I found to be rather ludicrous.

Joe Morgan compared Greg Maddux to a singles' hitter, like Tony Gwynn and Clemens to a home run hitter and that the fans are more inclined to wanting to watch the home run bopper than the singles' man and that management is more willing to pay that home run hitter the big bucks than the singles' hitter.

Miller and Morgan then showed the statistics to compare the two future Hall-of-Famers. Clemens has been around for two more seasons than Maddux (24 to 22) and has 10 more victories to his credit (350 to 340). Both have a share of Cy Youngs, with Clemens pulling in a record 7 and Maddux won 4 consecutively a few years ago. Maddux has 16 Gold Gloves to his credit and Clemens has been shut out in that department for his career. Both have a World Series ring, with Clemens pulling in two. Maddux's E.R.A. is slightly lower for his career than Clemens' (3.09 to 3.11). Both pitchers have eclipsed the 3,000 strikeout plateau, but Clemens has a few more in his career than Maddux.

Comparing the two pitchers is silly in any regard. They're probably the two best of this era. While Clemens is more of a power pitcher with an intimidation factor that Maddux hasn't held as a starter, to compare Maddux to a singles' hitter is downright silly. The man has only won 340 games, with over 3,000 strikeouts, a lifetime E.R.A. just above 3.00, 4 Cy Youngs, 16 Gold Gloves, a World Series' ring, etc. Of all "singles' hitters" to compare Maddux to, Tony Gwynn? He was one of the best contact hitters of all-time. Many times pitchers feared guys like Gwynn more than the likes of power hitters such as Miguel Cabrera or Andruw Jones. Many pitchers, regardless if they're power or finesse, can strike out the power hitters a few times, but batters like Gwynn just make contact with the baseball and drive Hall-of-Fame pitchers mad. Both Clemens and Maddux have driven their share of batters to the looney bin. Clemens with his "rocket" for an arm and football-esque demeanor and stature and Maddux with his well full of pitches, uncanny movement, and his alterations of speed in pitches.

If we really want to compare the two, yeah, perhaps Clemens was the more DOMINANT of the two aces and perhaps the better of the two PITCHERS, but as all-around ball players, I'd probably give the edge to Maddux. With 16 more Gold Gloves and always having played in the National League and with that, able to hit the ball better than Clemens and lay down a successful sacrifice bunt (probably one of the best ever at doing that), I'd probably give the overall player edge to Maddux. But, either way, these are probably the two best pitchers of this era and it's been an honor to watch both in their prime and in their latter years. Regardless of how Joe wants to look at it, neither Maddux nor Clemens is a singles' pitcher. They're anything but. They have 11 Cy Young awards between the two of them. That says it all right there.

Different Reactions to Maas and Vick

I just read a report at ESPN.com that former Kansas City Chiefs' player and current Fox announcer, Bill Maas, was arrested, as a .22 caliber gun, marijuana, cocaine, and ecstasy were all found in his vehicle.

I then read the comments by people to the article. There was a debate on what played the larger factor in the amount of attention a story like this received and in the public's reaction, the person's ethnicity or how well-known the individual is.

After contemplating some, I think both parties have a point. When it comes to the amount of attention a story receives, I definitely feel that the status of the individual involved in the story plays a very large factor. I don't think that the ethnicity of that individual plays a factor. Michael Irvin, Michael Vick, Peyton Manning, and Larry Bird would all receive a great deal of attention by the media if there was a story involving them in a criminal activity. Bill Maas is not as well known by the public, so his story will not receive that same attention. However, after reading commentary regarding the Michael Vick situation (in which he has not been indicted and feds' claim he probably won't be indicted) and the Bill Maas predicament (where a gun, marijuana, cocaine, and ecstasy were all found in his car), the people's reactions were mightily different.

I can't recall how many negative statements were made about Vick, even following the recent news that he probably won't be indicted by the feds. He has not been indicted, charged, or convicted of anything, but the majority of the statements were calling for suspensions, jail time, fines, permanent withdrawal from the NFL, torture, etc. There were a few statements which claimed he was innocent until proven guilty, but those comments were few and far between. The majority of people were rugged, harsh, and basically asking for Vick's head on a stick. In regard to Maas, where a gun and three different types of illegal drugs were found in the car he was driving, the comments were much less harsh. They were sillier, stated in more of a joking-type manner. A couple people claimed he should spend time in jail and receive the same punishment as an average Joe who was caught in a similar situation. But, for the most part, people ripped on his announcing and joked about the situation. Why do I bring this up? Michael Vick is an African-American and Bill Maas is an Anglo-American. While I do agree that the media has presented these stories in a different fashion due to their status as public figures, but unfortunately, I believe that the public's reactions to the cases reflect the racism that is still very much alive in this country today.

Knocked Up Review

I finally saw the much acclaimed comedy, Knocked Up, the other day. For a time, I felt I was the only Nebraskan not to have seen the film. I was slightly worried, due to all the hype surrounding it, especially from some people I personally know, that my expectation level would be too lofty and I'd be more apt to being disappointed. But, this wasn't the case.

While I'm not going to make the extreme claim that this is the best comedy of all-time as some like to do or that it's the best comedy of the past decade, I will say that from start to finish, there were a good chunk of laughs, which ultimately made the film enjoyable and buyable when it is released on DVD.

For some of the crude humor in the film, the storyline was actually somewhat decent, better than expected. I typically just go to a comedy for laughs. I don't go in expecting a solid story and excellent acting, such as the Oscar-award winning film As Good As It Gets. While Seth Rogen is no Jack Nicholson and from what we've seen thus far, Katherine Heigl is no Helen Hunt and the supporting actors were not as talented as Greg Kinnear or Cuba Gooding Jr., for a rather crude comedy, the acting and storyline were better than expected.

When comparing the directors past two films, I'd have to say that I enjoyed Knocked Up slightly more than his previous effort, The 40-Year Old Virgin. The storyline and dialogue were a bit more realistic. I laughed out loud more in The 40-Year Old Virgin, but I had more of a consistent chuckle going in Knocked Up. Steve Carrell was perhaps the more likable of the two lead characters when comparing he to Rogen, but for all of the pot smoking, lounging around, and indifference to most around him, there was a drawing quality about Rogen which made him easy to root for in the end (for what reason exactly, I don't quite know yet).

Knocked Up had a similar vibe to it as Wedding Crashers. Both films attempted to infiltrate good chunks of laughter and some romance. But, unlike Wedding Crashers, where the romance felt a bit forced and almost unnecessary, the romance in Knocked Up felt more genuine and necessary. I felt like I was watching one film, as opposed to two with Wedding Crashers.

While I feel that some may have reached a bit when claiming that this was the best comedy in a decade, I did find it amusing and in the end, it had a good heart to it. Recommended!

Overall film quality grade: 7/10 - Better than expected. The acting was average to slightly above average. The story, in the end, had a good heart to it and the movie had a good flow and rhythm to it.

Comedic grade: 8/10 - From start to finish, there were a good number of laughs. There was no moment where I laughed out loud, but several where I was on the verge of doing so.