[The interviewer sits, playing with his tape recorder. Zizek enters. They shake hands, and Zizek sits. He drinks from the glass of water already prepared for him.]

Mr. Zizek, I’d like to jump straight in, if you don’t mind.

Certainly. I actually have a plane to catch later, and I always like to be there at least four hours ahead of the flight. An irritating habit of mine, I’m afraid.

Not that strange though. I can’t fly at all.

[The interviewer laughs. Zizek doesn’t.]

An extreme…interesting.

The flying?

Yes, your fear of it. Not that you’re alone, but there is, I believe, a construction of weakness within the anxiety of an extreme, or someone who has withdrawn into such an anxiety.

[The interviewer puts his right leg on his left knee. Zizek takes a sip of his water.]

Well, like you said, it’s not an unusual state…

Yes, I agree. But there is still a position of weakness involved, an almost pathetic self abuse or unravelling.

I think…I’d say pathetic might be a little strong…

Not in the philosophical sense.

Still, I’m not sure about the terminology of ‘self abuse’…Jung, I think, said that it wasn’t so much the conscious self that was responsible, but more like a trigger that…

Oh yes, the mind is a terrible master, that old debate. I believe I stand with Popper on that one, I’m afraid. There is control, or can be control.

Really…Popper…

Yes, Karl Popper. A remarkable thinker, wouldn’t you say?

[The interviewer smiles and switches his left leg onto his right knee. Zizek stares at him.]

Ok, if we can leave Popper for another time and move onto the film. I’ve been told you watched it for the first time last night?

Yes, on cable.

First impressions?

You mean did I like it?

[The interviewer laughs, awkwardly?]

Not exactly, but that probably should’ve been the question.

Debate often gets in the way of the fundamentals.

Yes, agreed.

So…yes, I did like it. On an emotional level, very much so. On a technical level, it was very well composed by the director, McTiernan, I believe…a lot of the angles were well constructed, the low shots, the Homeric delineation of McClane as he first enters the building. It was very accomplished.

Yes, it was. Did you also notice the portrayal of the terrorists, the size of Hans Gruber positioned against his men as they walk up to the party?

Hans Gruber?

Yes, the main villain. The antagonist.

Yes, I noticed it. The thinker and the brutes. I actually recognised it a little earlier than you, perhaps…when the terrorists arrive outside the building, and the two vehicles come together in what you might call antagonistic unity…and they drive parallel to each other before separation…the larger, more sinister looking van goes down out of shot, and the smaller, more acceptable public face of the threat, the car, stays on ground level.

Interesting. A representation of duality perhaps?

Well, yes, that’s quite obvious. The van is the true nature of the threat, and the car is merely the facilitator, a thing to be discarded once parked. And furthermore, there is the schematic of the environment itself, which is of course never an accident in film, where the road leads directly to the building, the castle of the city, we can presume, as the structure is shown in long shot throughout the film, dominating the landscape, which implies that the corporation, the entity boasting its success, is also inviting its doom. This, of course, applies to any object with an entrance, but is especially pronounced when the subject matter is capitalism, and as a consequence the endgame it begs for, which is destruction.

Well, you might have to consider the security guard and CCTV cameras in the building. There is always a defence somewhere in the invitation…

Yes and no. In this film, the security guard is the first to die. He doesn’t even move, or doesn’t have time to move. Therefore the defence is not sufficient, it is reactive, a shop dummy.

But it is inherent in its nature to be reactive, is it not?

Yes, and that is its failing.

But defence as a warning can be very effective…

Until the one time the warning is not heeded and, in this film, is the destruction of the building, or potentially so. And this is the interesting aspect, the placement of defence, any defence against potential intrusion of destruction of the concept…and the building in this film is very much an embodiment of concept, of ideal, an abstract wearing glass and concrete and wondrous fountains…and it is doomed from inception. As soon as you create an ideal it becomes finite and the inevitable outcome is destruction, not necessarily the end, but an end. To quote Spinoza, ‘belief and comprehension of an idea occur at the same moment,’ so once the ideal is comprehended it can only be negated, and the final negation is destruction.

I see. So you would argue defence is ultimately superficial?

Actually, it’s not an argument, it’s theoretical fact.

Really? But aren’t we debating it now?

Not at all. You merely do not understand the full complexity of it. I do.

I’m not sure I’d agree with that…

I’m sure you wouldn’t. In the same way, a 12^th Century scholar wouldn’t agree the earth was round. Never mind.

[The interviewer takes a sip of his water and spills a little.]

Ok, so how about the defence that works, John McClane? How do you place him in your dialectic?

McClane is particularly interesting as a protagonist as, naturally, he shares a lot of characteristics with the antagonists, with Gruber especially.

Is each a mirror to the other?

Not exactly, but they are similar. They are both willing to kill to achieve their endgames, and neither of them are what you would call socially adept. Gruber seems to play that part, but it is an illusion. The best illustration of the point is his similarity in appearance to the man he shoots…I forget his name…

Ellis?

Perhaps. The second man he shoots, holding the cola…

Yes, Ellis.

Ok, so Gruber is costumed in a similar way to Ellis, the beard, the grin, the suits…both men represent the face of a concept. Ellis, the smooth face of capitalism, even drinking capitalism when he is shot, and Gruber the face of politicized violence. The difference between them is the truth underneath, the inner stream of self. Ellis’ face is genuine as it is a construction of what he believes, what he loves, which is capitalism, the system which allows him to drink, have sex, take drugs. The procedure of the act is false, of course, but the act is easy enough to unravel. Gruber, in contradiction, is the many layered fraud, the Babushka doll of true intention. He acts out the political terrorist role yet it is later revealed he is a thief. He practises violence yet seems to have no real love for it. To him, it is simply a means to an end.

So what is the truth of Gruber? Is it revealed?

I would say, yes. If you look closely enough you can see what he is.

Which is?

Simply, he’s the Edmond of capitalism. Its worst face if you will. A man who is cold, detached, who can act out the face of political reason and empathy, but has no real attachment to it. And as the film’s antagonist it is implied that he is intent on destroying the capitalist ideal, the balance to the excesses of the ideal, yet as the film turns, ultimately he reveals himself to be the concept itself.

The concept stealing from the concept?

Not precisely, more like the concept eating itself. The idea eats me or I eat the idea, that kind of problematic. In this case, it’s probably the case that the idea has eaten Gruber, possibly without his cognition, as he reveals his classical education and his knowledge of industrialisation and fine suits. This is a man who knows and lives the concept and ultimately is so informed by it that he can only be its destroyer. The concept invites participation and is constructed in such a way as to prevent any kind of final victory, as it is a concept designed for the individual and one victory for one individual makes no difference to the system, a system which has, in fact, been manufactured by its first successes, and forced into compatibility with a very selfish, individualistic ideal.

Yes, one success, I suppose, means many losses for others…

Well, yes, obviously. So the stakes get higher and higher until you have a Gruber type, the macro-sized snake’s tail trying to eat the rest of the body.

Ok, so, following this logic, McClane would play the role of…?

A flake of the snake’s skin, I believe. The small man, the flea taking little chunks out of the antagonists.

 Little chunks? He does kill them all…

Yes, clearly, but look at the technique, the choreography of the violence. The first man he kills proves the point. McClane is dwarfed physically, and the only way for him to succeed is to jump on the man’s back like a child. Then a later kill, he hides under a table and shoots from behind his shield. And this is very recognisable, in fact, as an extension of guerrilla warfare. Hit the enemy and run, hit and run, constant mobility and devious, sudden violence, this is the strategy of McClane.

Does that mean he is anti-capitalist?

Not at all. Anti-system perhaps, as all guerrilla warriors are, but if you consider what he is defending then it would be difficult to promote him as anti-capitalist. He’s the defender of the castle, the quick thinker, the barbarian, the survivalist who does whatever it takes to succeed, which is inherently capitalist. And, tellingly, all actions from both characters occur inside the building, the physical actualisation of the ideal, and not from external threat…the police and FBI are shown to be impotent throughout the film…which suggests, of course, an inevitability of implosion, of the ideal eating itself.

In that case, both Gruber and McClane are pro-capitalist?

Yes, and not just the theory of it, the good and the bad, they are the totality of it. They are the practising nature of its ideal, one must win, the other must lose, but they’re both fighting under the guidelines of the system. Gruber wants his wealth, McClane, ironically, wants the preservation of the building, the hostages, the cogs or hardware of capitalism, and the continuation of the system itself which will inevitably lead to the creation and introduction of another Gruber, many more Grubers in fact.

McClane is the reason for Gruber…

Almost. A constituent part, at least. He kills him, but wants no change to the system, so more will come. Like cutting down a tree and planting another, if you can stomach such a simplified metaphor.

[The interviewer takes some more water. Zizek watches him.]

Moving on to another part of the film, what did you make of the representation of McClane’s marriage?

Ha, moving on, you say, but this could be argued as an extension of the capitalist theme.

In what way?

[Zizek pauses. He stares at the interviewer, no smile then takes some water.]

In the way that the wife is an important part in the company, in the ideal, and it is her watch that Gruber hangs onto at the end, just before he falls to his death. A Rolex, I believe, which is interesting in itself not only as a symbol of McClane’s, the hero’s,  recapture of her from the corporate…a slightly misogynistic problematic, if I may say…but also as a superficial act. The fact that the watch is gone is essentially meaningless as they walk outside at the climax still very much entrenched in the system, the ideal. One might suggest…hope even, for her sake…that there will be another Rolex in the future, under different conditions, of course, but still constituent of the system.

So their marriage is a representation of the system?

In a sense it is, yes, but in another sense it isn’t. The capitalism aspect is just one of many readings we could attribute to that marriage, or at least what we know of the marriage.

You mean, as it’s a film we can only know so much?

Clearly. It is well established that the principle of modern film is to show, not tell, and, certainly, film cannot express any part of the interior condition, not successfully at least. I suppose they could do voiceover, but it is still limited as those thoughts have to be linear and servile.

Servile?

Yes, servile to the plot.

The character has to think about the plot, I see…

Perhaps, you do. It’s really not that complex in itself. The character is not interior in the sense that he has control of his conscious self. No, the control is applied from the form of the medium, the limitations of plot and film character. In this film, to elucidate the point, McClane is sometimes shown talking to himself, supposedly an elaboration of self that tells us a little more about how he acts when in isolation, yet adds nothing to what we already know. In that sense, it is not an elaboration, but a stretching of, or a further repetition of, previously established attitude.

I don’t know, I always find it interesting when characters talk to themselves…

No, it’s not interesting at all. It’s a fraud, a false projection of the inner condition. How do we know this? Simply, because it is impossible to show on film the interior mind in isolation. The actor is not alone, he is surrounded by cameras. If it is improvisation then it is specious, as no actor would reveal anything of his own interior state, not the truth of it at least. What he would show would be a false cognitive state, a repetition most probably of something he has read or seen elsewhere. There would be no truth to the presentation. However, if you argue that it is the writer’s expression, which I sense you were about to do…

[The interviewer switches position again. Zizek smirks.]

Ha, when you’ve been interviewed as many times as I have you learn to read the other quite accurately…

[The interviewer looks at his tape recorder, flushed?]

…helped by the conditions of the environmental construct we are in, of course…by that I mean, the interviewer and the interviewee, and there are only so many scenes which can be constructed from that…but, back to the text, where were we?

The writer’s expression…

Oh yes, the writer…if we reject improvisation on the actor’s part then what remains is the writer’s expression. Now, we’ll forget for the moment that film is often written by committee, and, for our own theoretical agenda, follow the line of a sole authorial voice in the script…well, in this case, it is also impossible for the writer to express any internal truth of McClane, simply because McClane and the writer are undermined by the form. The form demands story, and character that is chained to such a story. This is why the internal thoughts that are expressed en audio are still censored, and we know this because all the thoughts are related to the plot.

I’m not sure I’d agree with that theory…

Please, it’s not theory, young man. It’s theoretical fact.

Ok, well…I’m not sure if it’s true either way.

Really.

It seems to me that McClane, when he speaks out his thoughts, is revealing himself. When he’s about to jump off the roof he tells himself, ‘I’ll never go inside a tall building again,’ which I think is a legitimate thought, and it shows his anxiety…

Yes, yes, I’m aware of what it does, but it is not truth, it is not the internal revealing itself in the external. It is plot, nothing more.

[The interviewer puts his hand under his thigh and pinches himself hard.]

Ok. If it is plot, nothing more, then what would true internal thought be if you were standing on top of a…a forty storey building?

No, that’s not it. You’re moving sideways, not forwards.

McClane should move sideways?

[Zizek pauses, puts his head in his hands. The interviewer shakes his head.]

Dear Lord…

It was a joke, Mr. Zizek.

[Zizek comes out of his hands and says ‘dear Lord’ once more.]

Well, joke or not, the point is still invalid. McClane cannot reveal internal thought at this point because he is a character within his setting. He is unaware he is being watched or listened to, of course, but the actor and the writer are not. And you could argue that the configuration of a setting, a false world environment, allows the writer to transplant the internal, the truth, onto this environment…after all, they might say, it’s McClane who said it, not a real person…but such an argument is unsustainable if you run it to its end, as, simply, this false world environment has been established to entertain an audience, and not just an audience, but a mass audience, which by its nature invites a limited amount of truth, if any…and ultimately, the false world environment of the Nakatomi Plaza must be governed and accepted by the rules of the real world environment, and therefore real truth, the real internal condition cannot be revealed as the real internal truth is absurd…or as Sartrellian theory would have it, the real world environment is absurd and real internal thought is normal. And all of this is separated, of course, from the Deleuzean reading of the film, which would argue that any externalisation or performance of the internal condition automatically renders it false. Therefore in film, and perhaps in fiction too, the internal is an impossibility.

Really? Even in novels?

Yes. And you don’t need to ask your next question, I already know it. Yes, there are internal narratives, novels done entirely in “voice”, and you would argue that it is the extension of the writer and by relation the extension of their internal condition, yet there is a fallacy involved in that assumption which leads to a cul-de-sac…how could any writer continue to exist in the real world environment if he revealed the internal truth? If the truth was written then the only realistic option for the writer would be suicide.

But…I disagree…truth has been revealed in novels, surely. What about Camus’ ‘L’etranger’?

That wasn’t truth, it was theory.

But he killed someone, and couldn’t connect with the world. Doesn’t that jar with the real world environment?

No, no…the character was disconnected, yes, but he could only go so far. As Camus himself said, ‘There is a limit to thought, and a point at which you cannot relate to yourself or the others around you as an object.’ You can show character deeds, and define him on a basic level, you can show feelings and thoughts, and define him further, but such thoughts must be censored to prevent complete alienation of the audience…what you cannot do is show everything, the absolute truth of the mind. Therefore, Camus’ character represents a state, but not an absolute truth, as it is impossible for the writer to do so. Or perhaps I should say, almost impossible. Like I said earlier, if a writer did manage to write the truth then he would have to kill himself because life would be impossible.

I’m sorry, I’m not really sure I understand why that would be so…

It is unimportant whether or not you understand it.

Perhaps you could explain further…

[Zizek looks at his watch.]

I think that would be unnecessary. We’ve talked about this more than enough.

If you think so…though I believe the point is still inconclusive…

Really.

[Zizek takes a sip of water. The interviewer looks at the clock.]

Ok, final question. Is there anything else you noticed about the film? The hero complex perhaps?

No. I’m not really interested in heroes.

Fine. No heroes then.

[The interviewer picks up his tape recorder. Zizek coughs.]

There was another aspect of the marriage that was interesting…

[The interviewer pauses then puts the tape recorder back down.]

Ok…

From a gender-sociological viewpoint, I think it was very important how McClane functioned with his wife before the crisis of the plot was introduced.

Really. And how did they function?

It was very discreet, you may not have noticed it, but there was a brief argument between the two of them in the office, when McClane was cleaning his face.

I noticed it…

Well, the actions perhaps, but did you understand it?

Yes.

Well?

[The interviewer looks at his hands, reading the answer? Zizek waits, arms folded.]

It showed, I believe, the troubles in their marriage up to that point.

And?

And…I don’t know…I don’t think there was any more to it, really. They were fighting, he didn’t respect her as a successful woman…this is what they would deal with in the film.

Interesting. That’s probably ten percent of it, maybe a little more.

Ten percent? Really…

Yes, from the actions, that was the detail we were obviously intended to pick up as the audience. However, as is common with film, it is what is implied by its absence that provides more of the detail. The state of their marriage before, for example…we know they were fighting, or a little distanced from each other, but we can suspect no more from the action as presented. However, if you take McClane’s actions as a starting point, and the socio-psychological viewpoint implied by his resistance to his wife’s career then it becomes clear that this is a man who can only function in a crisis. When the antagonistic force asserts itself on the plot, McClane becomes heroic through the same qualities that make him misogynistic in the stasis period between crises. His endgame, as we see through his actions over the course of the film, is not simply to oppose the antagonists, but to oppose his wife…to get her back in the kitchen, if you will. And it is successful…he wins her trust by killing the threat to her life, the heroic impulse other writers love to intellectualize over, despite such an impulse indulging violent and pathological fantasies, which will clearly erupt again when threatened by other external agency, most probably his wife, I believe, and her desire to prove the ‘I’ in ‘wife’…a desire which acutely conflicts with McClane’s view of the world.

So their marriage is doomed?

Yes. Destroyed by two incompatible world-views.

Well, I like to be a little more positive about things…I believe their marriage will be fine…this was their crisis, they overcame it.

You would be wrong.

Or maybe not…remember, McClane is aware of his own failings…at one point, after the argument in fact, he bangs his head against the door, calling himself ‘an idiot.’

It is unimportant. An awareness of one’s failings is not a cure.

Yeah, but people do change. That’s undeniable…

A narrow change, if any, but mostly not.

Nah, they do change…

No, they don’t.

They do.

They do not.

[The interviewer looks at the clock. He puts his hand on his thigh and pinches again.]

Ok, it’s running late, and you have a flight to catch…

Yes, I do.

So, thanks for your time, Mr. Zizek.

[They shake hands. No smile from either man.]

Yes, thank you.

[Zizek gets up and walks to the hotel room door.]

Have a good flight.

Yes, thank you.

[Zizek pauses, his hand on the door.]

I do enjoy flying.

[The interviewer smiles, turns, grips a cushion in his hand.]

Goodbye.

[The Interviewer mutters ‘enjoy your four hour wait, motherfucker.’]

[Zizek exits. He stops by a water fountain in the corridor, takes a breath, and drinks. He puts his hand on his shirt, where his heart is, and puts his other hand over his eyes. A few moments later he stops, breathes out and leaves.]

Vi har alla någon sorts jultradition varje år, vissa vill kanske se på Kalle Anka med sina nära och kära och andra kanske åker till något varmt land medan julen pågår. Själv så har man haft som tradition att åka till sin mormor och se på Kalle Anka, käka julmat och därefter öppna presenterna. Nu är det så att min mormor har gått bort och traditionen är stort sett upphävd. Kalle Anka finns kvar men det är inte lika bra utan Arne Weise, så under de senaste åren har man börjat kollat på Die Hard. Filmen har sån härlig julkänsla, och varje gången jag ser slutet så vill man se det igen.

Die Hard får mig minnas den gamla goda tiden och min mormor.

Excellent!

We were in Clacton-on-Sea for a long weekend when I came across an advert for new TV channel CBS Drama. It launched last week, and they were making a big deal about screening Dynasty, when I noticed they’re also showing every episode of Moonlighting from the start – news that had Chef in raptures. This is the cult show that starred Bruce Willis and Cybill Shepherd as David Addison and Maddie Hayes, hapless private investigators at the Blue Moon detective agency.

Arguably the pinnacle of postmodern TV – in a later series Maddie asks David where he’s been as they walk past a Die Hard standee in a video store window – there’s plenty of wandering off set and in show production references, along with a full complement of shaky cases and 80s outfits. More fun than balloons – all I need to do now is get Sky. Chef’s Kiss!

Ok, this is the complete opposite of the one i did yesterday. not too hard to gather why, just felt like doing something positive.

6.

Why it should be shit: everything about it just screams “lowbrow teen comedy”. It should be really stupid, but is actually suprisingly funny

5.

why it should be terrible: it’s the “non-pixar” film with the same plot as a pixar film released at round about the same time.

Why it’s not: Woody F’ing Allen beeyatch

4.

Why it should be shit: It’s an action film, all explosions and no plot

Why it isn’t: i have no idea, most action films i dislike, but Die Hard, something about it is just very very very awesome

3.

Why it should be shit; it’s Disney, and 90’s Disney at that

Why it isn’t: the reason Disney went shit is because it started making it’s own plots, and they are not good at that. They are good at adapting existing stories. Also; the villain in it is one of the most despicable humans ever in a film, is fantastic to watch

2.

Why it should be shit: it’s Lindsey Lohan, it’s female teen comedy, it’s based on a book which is impossible to make into a film.

Why its actually awesome: very well written by Tina Fey and co. Is one of the most quotable movies ever made

1.

Why it should be shit: the title contains the words “Princess” and “Diaries”, two of the most girly words this side of “vagina”.

Why it’s awesome: the source material. Meg Cabot is a fantastic writer, and this film has beautiful dialogue. Also: Anne Hathoway, it’s impossible to watch this film and not fall instantly in love with her, if you can watch this and not like her, you have no soul. Also; Julie Motherf’ing Andrews

Matt Bradley…Ranger Killer?  Well why the hell not?  It was Bradley who turned the momentum of the 2008-09  Stanley Cup Quarterfinal series in the Capitals’ favor at Madison Square Garden – a virtual house of horrors for the Caps the past decade – by netting two goals early in a 4-0 blowout in Game 5 of a series the Caps eventually clawed back from down 3-1 to win 4-3.

And it was Bradley again Tuesday night in New York, inspiring a Caps team with which the Rangers were having their way through the first 10 minutes at the Garden.  Despite the return of Alex Ovechkin to the lineup, the Caps spent most of the time chasing various Blueshirts around in their own zone.  New York scored quickly (albeit, not Alex Semin-quickly) on a Marian Gaborik shot past Sem-YON Var-LA-mov just 1:16 into the game.  For the next nine minutes the Garden was jumping and the Rangers were cruising.

And then Proffessor Bradley decided it was time to get bloody:

Bradley had to go into this fight feeling a little like John McClane, knowing full well he’d probably be on the wrong end of an ass-kicking, but that if the end result was that he’d saved the day it’d be full worth it.  And through a mess of blood and fury, asking the ref if he was cut while skating off was classic Brads.  Not five minutes later, Ovechkin put a sick one-timer past Henrik Lundqvist on a power play to tie the game at one.  And the Proffessor’s class was over…or not.

With the game tied at 2 late in the third period, Bradley stole a pass at center ice and outraced Rangers D-men Wade Reddy and Matt Gilroy then schooled King Henrik textbook style – high glove side – for what would be the game winner.

Bradley ended up an assist short of the Gordie Howe hat trick (why isn’t it the Brendan Shanahan hat trick?) and was awarded the team hardhat after the game.  And maybe looking for that assist, he passed the hat on to Quintin Laing, who’s gritty effort landed him a broken jaw while blocking a shot.

Brian Pothier added a late empty-netter and the Caps won 4-2, avenging a loss to the Rangers in D.C. 5 weeks earlier.  Game over, warm up the bus.  Class dismissed.

Your homework for tomorrow?  Pick up the grammatically-challenged-Brads inspired tee from the Shop.  Enjoy:

Yabancı bir kaynakta yukarıdaki üçleme beğenisini yansıtan bir grafiğe rastladım ancak tek bir kişinin yorumumu ya da bir istatistiğin sonucu mu olduğu bilgisi yoktu. Spiderman 3′e biraz haksızlık edildiğini düşünüyorum ayrıca X-Men’lerin de yüksek olduğu kanaatindeyim. Onun ötesinde basit ama güzel bir çalışma olmuş, insanın bu üçlemeleri oturup yeniden izleyesi geliyor…

I don’t generally love my works in progress. By the time I begin actually writing a new book, all the romance has gone out of the thing.

The romance is in the imagination, the creation, the invention, the pure theory of writing. The joy is in dreaming up all manners of delightful nonsense: building characters and plots and settings. And then discovering all the happy accidents where your characters and plots and settings just fall into place in more ways than you originally planned, all to make your story just that much more brilliant.

But then you have to actually write the thing, and that’s where all the fun just evaporates and the work begins.

However, this new one MERIDIAN is different. You know how I know? Because I’m writing descriptions, and liking it.

Anyone who has reviewed one of my drafts will tell you that I write the best dialog ever in the history of the written word, and that my action sequences are so well-paced and dynamic that readers often come away believing they have just watched a previously unknown Die Hard film.*

But my great weakness has always been in descriptions of people, places, and things. My worlds go by in a gray haze of vaguery and impressionism.

And now, for some reason, I am crafting my worlds. My opening chapters take place in Seville, 1522, and I have devoted more than two sentences to the city. Much more. And I’m loving it.

*Self-aggrandizing rubbish.

Majd írok az elmúlt napokról is, de most inkább a virtuális papíromra Bruce Willisről írt gondolataimat karcolom le. Azt már megszokhatta az ember, hogy a Die Hard 1-2-3 során John McClane trikóban, zokni nélkül, cigivel a szájában és egy Berettával a kezében megmenti a világot.

De ez a negyedik rész eléggé érdekes lett. Fura a magyar, mert ha valamiről nem tudja eldönteni, hogy jó vagy rossz érdekesnek mondja. Még akkor is ha inkább rossz mint jó.

Elvégre itt már nem káromkodik, nem cigizik, nincs meg a haja. Korábban mindig volt pár zilált hajszála. Nem dobja ki a diszkószőrt (mellszőr). Nincs felesége. Többet kibír mint egy fele annyi idős ember mint ő. Nem égeti meg a repülőgép hajtóműje.

Valamint az is kiderül ebből is mint bármelyik amcsi filmből, hogy minden amerikai tud helikoptert és kamiont vezetni. Ja és Bruce Willis… bocsánat… John McClane alatt a kamion akkor sem borul fel ha dől a vas és ő rossz irányba tekeri a kormányt.

Ráadásul ezek a fura észrevételek csak az utolsó 20 perc megtekintése közben merültek fel. Mi lenne ha ismét megnézném a teljes filmet és oda is figyelnék rá. Ráadásul jobb mint Rambo, mert az csak összevarrta a sebét, de Johnny fiú lelövi saját magát. Tökösebb mint a poénos Chuck Norris.

A negyedik filmet kihagyhatta volna. Olyan mintha az első három rész során felépített szobrát pisálta volna le. Ennél jobbat is tud ha akar. De a mai moziba látvány kell, cicik, vér vagy lövöldözés. Cicik nem voltak, de a többi megvolt. Csak sajnos nem ettől lesz jó egy film.

Hey, business is business.  You use a gun, I use a fountain pen, what’s the difference?

Every Thursday I will be making a list of my top 5 or worst 5 things about anything and everything. I may even do more than one list on a thursday so check back often. I am going to start off with the top 5 Bruce Willis movies of all time.

Honorable Mention Look Who’s Talking Too

This movie reminded us all what it felt like to be a baby with a razor sharp wit, a whore of a mom, and a step dad we think is hiding something from us and sister that will one day grow up to marry Tom Arnold.

Number 5 The Whole Nine Yards

I really enjoyed this movie. Bruce was funny and Amanda Peete was naked.

Number 4 The Sixth Sense

This movie was great! It did have a great twist and the build up was terrific and enjoyable. If M. Night would have stopped making movies after this film he would saved us all a lot of time and money.

Number 3 Sin City

The best comic book movie of all time is Sin City. Bruce was great in it. If you haven’t seen it buy it.

Number 2 Pulp Fiction

I would have made Pulp Fiction number 1 if it wasn’t for the movie that is number one. This movie is still great and Bruce Willis was great in it.

Number 1 Die Hard

Yippee-Ki-Yay Mother Fucker!

It seems that nature is not without a sense of irony.

Almost immediately following my last blog post about the farce of pig flu, I was stricken with a case of it.  And in the past four days spent on my couch, a lot went through my mind besides cabin fever.  Which is really more of a preface to the following list of non-sequiturs than anything else:

•”Die Hard” is a spectacular action movie.  Refreshing to see an action flick grounded in reality.  A good guy that bleeds.  An intelligent villain.  And the whole thing taking place inside a corporate building.  Excellent.  “Die Hard 2: Die Harder” was pretty much forgettable, with the exception of two cinematic plane explosions.  But a really silly premise: an airport that’s hijacked during bad weather, leaving airborne planes in holding patterns until they’re dangerously low on fuel?  Maybe this wouldn’t be so bad, except the setting is Washington D.C.  Even in the late 80’s, wouldn’t this location make it extremely easy to reroute traffic from Dulles to DC, Richmond, Norfolk, Baltimore, Philly, Pittsburgh, even Kennedy or La Guardia (just to name a few)?  Although there are bonus points for bringing in Reginald ValJohnson to reprise his role as ‘Al’ and again having it happen on Christmas–I was left wondering why these elements were forgotten in the 3rd and 4th pictures.  “Die Hard With A Vengeance” was straight-up crazy.  Samuel L. Jackson was a welcome addition to the cast and the plot was at least interesting, but this movie seemed to lose a lot of the grit of the first picture.  Also: at the end of the second picture, we see McClane and Holly happy together, the love rekindled.  This happened in the first one as well.  But in 3, he’s all the sudden separated from her and an alcoholic?  Plausible, but frustratingly unexplained.  Which brings us to “Live Free or Die Hard.”  Flat-out excellent.  Gripping and creative action the entire way through.  While deviating from the original “Die Hard” formula and being a skosh on the unrealistic side (not as much the premise as the scene where he is standing on top of a harrier jet as it spins out of control and is barely able to jump off and slide down a collapsed freeway and walk away from the whole thing), this picture was well-acted, had a great villain, a great henchman (guy in the freezer scene was acrobatic as all get-out), and a great premise.  I was very happy with the fourth and the first pictures.

•It’s dangerous to drink orange juice on an empty stomach.

•I’m not sure when it happened, but while I wasn’t paying attention Gatorade decided to start making their stuff actually taste good.  Amazing.  I’m not sure why I didn’t think of this before…  no, wait–not me; them.

•I wish sweating was voluntary.

•Only because I haven’t written about it previously, The Beatles: Rock Band is superb.  A milestone achievement in fun.  If I hadn’t gotten it, I don’t think I’d ever have started liking the early half of the Beatles catalog.

•That’s all for now.

Hi BB Gamers,

Premium Games Blackberry is coming for unlimited free download at this site.

Enjoy ! You also could PC download other games in the right site or go to games collection.  

 There is no OTA link for this moment, you could download by blackberry desktop, please see the instruction how to install apps & games at blackberry

Join Facebook group for Free Apps, Games Blackberry by click at blackberry community.

You also could share the freeappsblackberry.wordpress.com review to your friends at facebook by click the facebook share at right side or click share facebook.

Games Review

Call of duty

 Lead your squad to victory in a life-or-death struggle that could change history when 2007’s #1 first-person shooter series returns to its WWII roots.

You must survive the climactic battles of WWII that led to the demise of the Axis powers on the European and Pacific fronts in all-new squad-based missions including raids, espionage and combat ops.

Demolish enemy buildings, call in air strikes and utilize deadly new weapons like flamethrowers as you fight your way through like never before.

Compatible :  Blackberry

8100,8110,8120,8130,8220,8230,8300,8310,8320,8330,8350i,8520,8800,8820,8830,8900,9000,9630.

Free Blackberry Games PC Download : Call of Duty 4

 Compatible : BlackBerry 8100, 8110, 8120

 PC Download : Die Hard  

Roulette

Go from grind to high roller with each spin of the roulette wheel.

Roulette features the full range of roulette betting options for both US & European table types enough to satisfy even the most hardened of players.

Hints & betting tips are available at any time during the play providing you with helpful descriptions and odds for every bet on the table. For newcomers, a comprehensive help system will guide you through the rules of roulette helping to ease you into this classic, fast paced casino game.

Features include:

* Great casino graphics and sounds effects

* Choice of either European or US roulette tables

* Helpful descriptions and odds for every bet

Compatible :  Blackberry

8100,8110,8120,8130,8220,8230,8300,8310,8320,8330,8350i,8700,8800,8820,8830,8900,9000

Free Blackberry Games PC Download : Roulette

Guitar Hero

Guitar Hero World Tour is ready to rock your phone! The sequel to the award-winning and best-selling Guitar Hero III Mobile is a whole new game, just like the console version. Enjoy 15 all-new tracks to start, plus a bonus song each month, and rock them on both drums and guitar! Engage in multiplayer battles against live opponents and use your battle powers to become a mobile rock legend. Go online at guitarheromobile.com to create your star persona, see where you rank, check your achievements, get new songs and more!

If the application experiences any issues connecting to the network, please contact your wireless service provider or support@handson.com for the correct Access Point Name settings for your network.  Please also note that any incoming calls, text messages, multimedia messages, and/or voice mails will disconnect you from the game.

Compatible : Blackberry

8100,,8220,8230,8300,8310,8320,8330,8350i,8520,8800,8820,8830,8900,9000,9500,9530,9550,9630

Free Blackberry Games PC Download : Guitar Hero

Tetris

Tetris. Captivating, fun, addicting. Now you can enjoy this exciting puzzle action game on your Blackberry. See why more than 60 million players worldwide have made Tetris one of the most popular games ever! Race a two-minute clock in Ultra and try Forty Line, clearing 40 lines as fast as you can. Plus, enjoy the famous Marathon mode that made Tetris a phenomenon.

Compatible :  Blackberry

8100,8110,8120,8130,8220,8230,8300,8310,8320,8330,8350i,8520,8800,8820,8830,8900,9000,9500,9530,9550,9630,9700

Free Blackberry Games PC Download : Tetris , BB Tetris  

Super KO Boxing 2

The KO Kid returns to deliver some old fashioned beat downs in the 2nd round of this arcade boxing game.

Lace up against some of the most outrageous bone-crushing opponents to ever step into the ring. Big Gip will hit ‘em hard into the sticks. 15 Cent returns with blinding bling.  The El Bulli is here the ladies and will make bull meat of opponents!

To be the champ, figure out each fighter’s tells, avoid their signature moves, and when the time is right unleash a Super Punch to knock ‘em out!

Compatible :  Blackberry

8100,8110,8120,8130,8220,8230,8300,8310,8320,8330,8350i,8520,8800,8820,8830,8900,9000,9500,9530,9550,9630,9700

Free Blackberry Games PC Download : Super KO Boxing

Solitaire

For those who don’t want a gazillion Solitaire games, we’ve made Solitaire Buddy Classic. This game just contains the classic game of Klondike, which is what most people think of when they say “Solitaire”.

This classic game is easy to play, and we’ve thrown in some of the customizable options that have made Solitaire Buddy Gold so popular.

Features:

- On-device help

- Unlimited Undo/Redo

- Auto moves

- Tracks games played/won

- Restart the same game at any time

- Automatically saves game when you exit

- Customize your game

- You choose: card size

- You choose: Automatic moves

- You choose: Card back design

- You choose: Game background

- You choose: Display/hide game statistics

Compatible :  Blackberry

8100,8110,8120,8130,8220,8230,8300,8310,8320,8330,8350i,8520,8800,8820,8830,8900,9000,9500,9530,9550,9630,9700

Free Blackberry Games PC Download : Solitaire

Throughout history, men and women alike have dreamed of technological advances such as advanced robotics, did they perceive that said technological advancement would subsequently result in near-constant isolation of the human race? Apparently not. The year is 2017 when a company known as VSI create ‘Surrogates‘, robotic shells in which the user can place their own personality, thoughts and to some extent their soul, into it’s well known invulnerable shell, protecting the user from harm and letting them experience anything they desire all from the safety of the users own home.

With the creation of the Surrogates, crime rates have fallen to almost nothing, until FBI agent Tom Greer (Bruce Willis) catches wind of the first murder to happen within years. Greer finds that everything isn’t what it seems within this futuristic, perfect utopia and in turn, questions what exactly defines a human. Now, that is something that really should be taken into account here, there have been countless films in the past which focus on the creation of somewhat autonomous sentient beings (even if that may be debatable here), such as in; I Robot, Terminators and Transformers, but Surrogates brings forward something unique to the table. Whilst at first, the film may not seem so dark and sinister, if you read in to the concept, it’s really quite disturbing, essentially exploring philosophical questions such as ‘What defines humanity?.’

The futuristic comic book adaptation features Bruce Willis (Die Hard Trilogy, Sixth Sense, The Fifth Element), Radha Mitchell (Pitch Black, Phone Booth, Silent Hill, also the upcoming ‘The Crazies’), Rosamund Pike (Pride & Prejudiced, Die Another Day, Fracture), Boris Kodjoe (Brown Sugar, The Gospel, Starship Troopers 3) , James Cromwell (Babe, L.A Confidential, The Green Mile) and Ving Rhames (Pulp Fiction, Mission Impossible II, Dawn Of The Dead). Willis is renowned for his die hard attitude which appears in most of his films, and he does an exceptional job throughout Surrogates of preserving that, whilst some people may see as a flaw, I on the other hand, think it’s an attribute that should be carried with him. Alternatively, Mitchell’s performance, whilst definitely professional, seemed rather benumbed at best, but this may be due to the fact her character doesn’t really get a chance to make a big impact throughout Surrogates. I would however like to applaud Cromwell on his rather impressive representation of Dr. Lionel Canter which, teamed with Willis, kept the film going for me. An intricate film which subsequently makes you think, and definitely doubt, you’ll love it if you are sci-fi/comic book fans, otherwise it might not be the film for you.

]]> http://pojokpradna.wordpress.com/2009/11/06/wallpaper-terminal/ Fri, 06 Nov 2009 06:47:57 +0000 Pradna http://pojokpradna.wordpress.com/2009/11/06/wallpaper-terminal/

Silahkan kepruk-korsi, tapi saya sendiri belum pernah nonton film Die Hard 4

Ceritanya, temen mahasiswa di kosan tanya : “Prad, di film Die Hard 4 kayaknya pake linux tuh. Tapi kok ngetik kode-kodenya bisa lewat wallpaper desktopnya? Keren deh.”

Pertanyaan itu lalu masuk file yang patut diselidiki. Lama waktu berselang, hasilnya mulai tampak berkat bimbingan mas M.Misbahul Munir (sayang, saya ndak tau blog-nya apa).

Langkah-langkahnya memang rada bertele-tele. Tapi hasilnya memuaskan untuk tampilan desktop linux kita. Bak hacker sejati yang ngetak-ngetik kode di halaman depan desktop. Iyey!

Langsung saja. Maaf saja kalau screenshot tidak disertakan semuanya. Karena sangat banyak…sementara benwith,miskin sangat. Saya menggunakan desktop Gnome di Linux Mint 7. Bisa juga diterapkan di desktop Gnome Ubuntu. Desktop KDE…maafkan hamba, karena belum punya (worship).

TAHAP I.  SISI TERMINAL

1. Buka aplikasi Terminal dari start Menu => Accessories=>Terminal

2. Sebaiknya dibuat profil baru di Terminal. Dengan mengklik tab File=>New  Profile

3. Bisa diberi nama, misal “DesktopWallpaper” (Tanpa tanda petik. Demikian juga seterusnya, jika ada perintah diantara tanda petik “”). Klik [Create]

4. Kemudian muncul jendela Editing Profile. Pada tab General, hilangkan tanda centanf pada pilihan “Show menubar by default in new terminals”

Screenshotnya :

5. Kemudian, beralih ke tab [Title and Command]. Kolom Initial Title diisi dengan “Desktop Wallpaper”

6. Pastikan pilihan berada di [keep initial title], di pertanyaan : “When terminal commands set theri own title“

Ini screenshot-nya :

7. Beranjak ke tab kolor Color. Hilangkan centang pada pilihan [Use colors from the system theme]. Pilih warna tulisan yang kontras dengan warna wallpaper. Jangan senada, karena kita bekerja di Terminal dengan mata dan tangan, bukan dengan hati

Screenshotnya :

8. Beralih ke tab Background, pilih [Transparent background], kemudian geser scrollbar menjadi [None].

Screenshotnya :

9. Lanjut ke tab Scrolling, pastikan pilihan Scroll bar is [Disabled].

Screenshotnya :

10. Tahap pertama selesai. Klik [Close] untuk menutup Jendela Profil ini.

TAHAP II. SISI COMPIZ  CONFIG SETTINGS MANAGER (CCSM)

1. Dengan anggapan CCSM sudah terinstall dengan baik dan benar. Langsung saja buka dari start Menu=>Preferences=>CompizConfig Settings Manager.

2. Pilih Menu [Utility] (itu lho yang disebelah kiri CCSM, yang berderet2 dari atas-ke bawah), cari dan centang [Regex Matching] buat mengaktifkannya.

screenshotnya :

3.  Beralih ke Menu [Effect], centang [Windows Decoration]. Klik tulisan [Windows Decoration] untuk memunculkan jendela Setting-Window Decoration. Pada kolom [Decoration windows], isi dengan “!(title=DesktopWallpaper)”. Lalu, klik [Back] saja.

screenshotnya :

4. Lanjut ke menu [Window Management].  Buka [Place Windows]. Klik tab [Fixed Window Placement]. Kemudian, di menu “Windows with fixed positions” klik “New“.

screenshotnya :

5. Begitu terbuka jendela “Edit”, di kolom [Positioned windows], diisikan dengan “title=DesktopWallpaper”. Kemudian pada [X dan Y positions]…hehe,silahkan cari-cari angka yang tepat untuk letak di monitor yang diinginkan. Karena saya ingin nanti Terminal terletak di sebelah kanan layar-desktop, saya isikan dengan angka :

X = 12385

Y = 60

Klik [Close] dilanjutkan dengan [Back] jika dirasa sudah pas.

screenshot-nya :

6.  Masih di menu [Window Management],  klik [Window Rules]. Lalu di tab [Matches], copy–paste-kan “title=DesktopWallpaper” ke kolom :

[Skip Taskbar] ; [Skip pager] ; [Below] ; [Sticky] ; [Non Resizable windows] ; [Non minimizable windows] [Non maximable window] ; dan [Non closable windows]

screenshot-nya :

7. Masih di [Window Rules], pindah ke tab [Size rules]. Klik “New”. Isikan”title=DesktopConsole” di [Sized Windows]. Untuk [Width] dan [Height], saya isi dengan angka aman sesuai monitor yaitu 600 dan 500.

screenshot-nya :

Jika dirasa sudah pas, silahkan klik [Back] dan [Close] CCSM.

TAHAP III. AUTOSTART

Terakhir adalah membuat autostart agar Terminal yang sudah susah payah disettning diatas, langsung nancep di Wallpaper begitu komputer dinyalakan.

1. Buka start Menu=>Preferences=>Startup Applications

2. Pada jendela Startup Applications yang terbuka, klik [Add]. Pada kolom [Command] diisi dengan :

gnome-terminal --window-withprofile=DesktopWallpaper

screenshot-nya :

3. Klik [Save], kemudian tutup Startup Applications. Untuk melihat hasilnya, komputer di “log off” ataupun “restart”.

Untuk mengetik di terminal yang telah menyatu dengan Wallpaper, tinggal klik kursor di depan “$”. Menonaktifkannya, klik wallpaper di luar wilayah terminal.

Maka kini saya bisa nggaya merapal mantera-mantera linux di daerah-daerah hotspot yang rame, bak seorang geek sejati

So much for 14 scripts in 14 days. I henceforth rename this project 14 scripts in 28 days just to buy myself some time. Jeez.

Right, what about Die Hard? Corking movie, does what it says on the tin. Action, suspense, heroics, goodies, baddies, guns, explosions. Die Hard doesn’t pretend to be anything other that what it is and guess what? The script is just the same.

From the very first page of the script there’s a sense of “let’s get the boring exposition out of the way as quickly as possible so we can get down to the action.” A few throw-away characters help us find out everything we need to know about John McClane. If you cut him in half he’d have the letters NYPD running through him like a stick of rock. Separated from successful wife. Strong sense of duty. Handsome. Loves his family. Can’t express his emotions.

Okay, whatever. Set up a few more simple archetype characters (cocky limo driver, good cop, drug-snorting wiseass business guy, decent boss) and off we go.

What’s next? Well, we need to make sure that this building, this high rise office block, is locked down. We can’t have hostages escaping or the police sneaking in, oh no. The script does a bit more work on this front for a page or two, locking doors, isolating lifts, cutting phone lines. This is absolutely instrumental to the success of the story. The building has got to be a trap, a closed room. This defines the field of play and the rules of engagement for us.

Wheel on the baddies.

The baddies? We’re basically talking Hans Gruber and a bunch of cannon fodder. Sure, there are one or two mildly interesting baddies but Hans beats them hands down (ha). Hans gets all the best lines. Hans gets all the power. Hans gets all the control. It’s beautiful to read. Even when John McClane begins to shove spanners in the works Hans doesn’t flinch. He’s super-smart, super-cool, utterly in control.

Which makes it all the more satisfying when dirty, sweaty, bleeding, hard-working cop-of-the-people John McClane comes out on top. John McClane doesn’t monologue. He acts. Large sections of the script are devoid of dialogue; just long action sequences punctuated by swearing. Oh, and a few wisecracks.

Ironically it wasn’t one of Gruber’s lines that took on a life of its own outside the movie. It was one of McClane’s:

Yippee-ki-yay, motherfucker.

Don’t tell me you’ve never heard that line. You know that line.

So the message is this: down-to-earth hard-working heroes who can think on their feet will always overcome cool, intelligent baddies with well-thought-out plans, superior firepower and a room full of hostages.

And even though we know full well that McClane is going to win the day (just like Captain Kirk, just like Clint Eastwood, just like Luke Skywalker) it’s fascinating to watch him do it. Do we ever really think that John is going to fail? Hell no. We know the score. We just want to watch the game.

And what a game.

Getting hot and bothered yet?

Since the good people of Stuy Town have not seen fit to turn on the heat yet, I found myself having added socks to my customary bedroom attire which is drawers. I generally dislike sleeping in socks unless I’m deathly ill, but having cold feet is just not a reality I care to deal with when I know I could do something about it. Besides, The Feath is Queen of the Chilly Feet and two people in bed with chilly feet is like two junkies sharing a rock: united in destruction. Or something.

Anyway, as I jumped into bed last night, I found myself puzzling over various things; the sort of puzzling one is wont to do when they are trying to get warm in bed and aren’t yet at the point where their brain has volunteered to shut itself down for the evening. Sitting there, I stumbled upon a question:

How come guys in porno don’t take their socks off?

Have you every just stood in your socks? It looks ridiculous. In fact, I’d go so far as to say if you need to give yourself an easy laugh, stand in front of a mirror in just your socks (you can also heighten that absurdity by adding a hat). Of all the articles of clothing I can think of, socks are the most in need of a mate–outside of a matching friend, of course. Sure; you’d still look weird wearing just a shirt and socks, but as far as articles of clothing go, a shirt just holds an air of legitimacy that socks can’t ever really hope to attain.

Socks are functional but weird and the thought of wearing only them becomes increasingly weird when you consider them being the only thing you’re wearing while shooting an adult film. For those of you who have never taken a gander a porn, the standard procedure is as follows:

1. Guy or girl shows up in some hilariously unlikely scenario or is just sitting on a couch when the appropriate partner just happens to walk by.
2. TERRIBLE small talk which–naturally–leads to the lady in question having the insatiable desire to fellate the gentleman in question.
3. Guy’s shirt comes off while girl says lewd things and rubs on the outside of guy’s pants.
4. Pants are unbuckled/pulled off as lady sates her insatiable appetite (while continuing to say lewd and quasi-hilarious things)
5. An unrealistic but entertaining version of sex takes place.

Step #4 often involves a man stepping out of, or kicking away, the pants he was wearing so that he has full range of motion to perform unrealistic but entertaining sexual acts while saying lewd and quasi-hilarious things. In this deft flinging of pant, you’ll often see a dizzying flash of white:

Socks. Pulled up.

Well above the ankle, but not comically grazing the calf.

These socks are always crispy white; they are never of the low-cut length which is drastically less hilarious to see in the air than its taller counterpart.

Why are they wearing socks at all?

I suppose there could be a practical reason. With all those hours of shooting and hoisting and angling and repositioning, perhaps the feet can’t take that kind of abuse. Bruce Willis had specials cast made for his feet when he filmed Die Hard, so perhaps its the same sort of thing. That seems a reasonable enough theory considering the fact that porn is shot from such a male-dominant perspective, i.e. lots of guy “doing” things, that bare feet on the floor is not feasible.

Laying in bed, attempting to place myself in a porn-like scenario–which is unreasonable because most porn takes place on couches or similarly angled apparatuses for the purpose of variety–I was thunderstruck by a simple fact:

There is no sexy way to take your socks off.

I tried to practice it gracefully, but it can’t be done. The awkward nature of socks, particularly medium to tall socks, overwhelms any attempt to be seem sexy.

And beyond that, taking off socks isn’t easy when you’re preparing for the throes of passion. Sure; you can step out of pants easily, but socks have you gripped up in such a way that, even on your best attempt, you end up doing that weird stompy, wriggling thing that makes you look like you have an itch about the legs.

Of course, low-cut socks seem like a reasonable alternative, but you just can’t wear low-cut socks all the time, especially if you’re wearing shoes and not sneakers. I imagine from a work perspective in the adult film world, the prospect of a low-cut sock slipping off and ruining a take is enough to make them a poor wardrobe choice.

Or maybe porn just has a sense of humor.

Warning: Extreme randomness ahead.

So today we were randomly having a conversation about which actors we would want to save the world from invading alien zombies. Deep stuff I know. My A-Team would be as follows:

Daniel Craig:
Think about the two new Bond movies. He kills people even when he’s not supposed to. Those alien/zombies don’t stand a chance.

Gerald Butler:
300, Gamer, RocknRolla, Reign of Fire. This man is all that is man. Burly, bad ass, and a good singer to boot. Bonus points for being born in Scotland.

Will Smith:
Recommended by Taylor and Craig, I was pretty set against him at first. Fresh Prince and Hitch do nothing to boast about his apocalypse survival skills, but I think he’s finally out of his juvenile stages. Hancock, I Am Legend, and Men In Black (1 & 2) all attest to his butt-kicking skills.

Runner-ups:

Sylvester Stallone:
Freaking buffest 60 year-old I’ve ever seen. I’d take him, even at his grandpa age. You can’t beat Apollo Creed and take out an entire army of Burmese bad guys and not be considered for zombie-killer status.

Hugh Jackman:
Despite his extreme manliness exhibited in the latest X-Men, I don’t know if Hugh would be able to pull it off without his claws. As Taylor put it, “He’s a bit too much of a musical type person to save the world.”

Bruce Willis:
I don’t doubt Bruce’s world saving skills, the Die Hards and Armageddon proof they’re there. But I think they’re buried under a few too many years in the field. His age was showing in Live Free or Die Hard; he was way too slow getting up from jumping out of the police car.

Angelina Jolie:
That’s right. I listed a chick. She’ll kick your butt if you think otherwise. The Tomb Raider series, Mr. and Mrs. Smith, and Wanted are proof.

Also mentioned in the conversation:
Sean Connery, Michelle Rodriguez, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Samuel L. Jackson, and Jackie Chan.

So. The question of the day is, who is your A-Team that you’d trust to save the world? Leave a comment with your answer.

William Atherton, estrela de ‘Duro de Matar’ e ‘Caçadores de Fantasmas’, está confirado no elenco do sexto e derradeiro ano de ‘Lost’.

Quem soltou a notícia com exclusividade foi Carlton Cuse, produtor executivo da série, que lançou uma série de tweets ontem confirmando a participação:

“Damon (Lindelof) e eu somos fãs de ‘Duro de Matar’ e estamos muito felizes que Atherton vai participar de ‘Lost’. A vida é boa!”

(a previous post from the former NuPoppa blog)

Our DVR is peppered with the funny (Graham Norton Show, The Daily Show, 30 Rock, SNL, Flight of the Conchords), what I’ll call WTF (Oliver Twist, Barry Manilow concert — clearly my wife’s) and the simply awesome. The “simply awesome” consists of: Fletch, Animal House, Fletch Lives, Vacation, Caddyshack, Gung Ho! and a Barry Manilow concert (kidding).

I don’t drink (anymore), but the “simply awesome” USED to be called “hangover movies.” These are the movies that, on a lazy Saturday or Sunday (or Wednesday for some of you) you can rely on. You can watch the first 20 minutes with one eye open, then fall asleep for 30 minutes, wake up, finish it to the end and still feel satisfied. Back in the day, that would have included about 5 Advil and 2.6 gallons of water to hydrate. Drooling on pillows and couches was also usually de rigeur.

These are also movies that, sadly or simply awesome-ly, most men can quote with relative proficiency. So, it begs the question: what should be the first movie that my son and I share together when he gets older? Should it be highly quotable? Should it be educational?

Some in the running:

Fletch
Pluses: It is only one of the greatest movies written and made for the male 38-42 set. Period. This tightly-wound romp is highly-quotable. I can already imagine my boy at a party of my peers saying, “John Cock..toas…ton.” Throw a lampshade on his head and he’ll be life of the party.

Minuses: I see none.

Lessons Learned in film: Never trust Joe Don Baker. I think this is a lesson we all should learn. Kidding. He would kick my ass if he read this.

Animal House
Pluses: Filmed in Oregon. Classic dialogue. A heartwarming story about college life. Shama-Lama-Ding-Dong.

Minuses: Otis Day and the Knights have never been the same since.

Lessons learned in film: Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life.

Vacation
Pluses: The late, great John Hughes. Beverly DeAngelo buffin’ it up a bit. Chevy Chase at his finest. The Wagon Queen Family Truckster with the optional Rally Fun Pack. Eugene Levy calling Rusty “Rueben.”

Minuses: Not 100% realistic about what a family vacation is about. It’s more like 96% real.

Lessons learned in film: There is no way in hell we are driving a long distance anywhere. I refuse to put my boy through that.

Out of Africa
Pluses: For our purposes here, very few, though it is a fine film. The late Sydney Pollack was a genius.

Minuses: It’s “Meet Joe Black”-long. I mean, REALLY fu**ing long.

Lessons learned in film: Those rich, white bastards screwed it all up. Africa is best experienced doing humanitarian work. If the boy wants to be in the Peace Corps someday, I’m all for it.

Everyone Says I Love You
Pluses: Great cast. Alan Alda. Natalie Portman. Drew Barrymore. Julia Roberts. Woody Allen. Goldie Hawn. The list goes on.

Minuses: Edward Norton, though a FINE actor, isn’t a very good singer. And he’ll probably kick my ass if he reads this.

Lessons learned in film: If s**t goes sideways, it’s OK to sing a little. Just don’t do it in public, people might think you’re a freak or something.

Die Hard
Pluses: Bruce Willis is from South Jersey, where my family lives. And, of course, Alan Rickman. He’s SO money.

Minuses: The dude with the long blonde hair. He’s creepy.

Lessons learned in film: Kick ass first. Take names later.

Say Anything
Pluses: John and Joan Cusack. Cameron Crowe (who could write something on a cocktail napkin and I’d probably read it). Ione Skye. Piven as a younger man. Seattle. It captured the angst that we all felt when we were in college.

Minuses: “In Your Eyes.” Great song, but I have this uncontrollable urge to buy a boombox and hold it over my head. It captured the angst we all felt when we were in college.

Lessons learned in film: Don’t live in Seattle. You’ll just end up going to London on a study abroad program anyway.

Believe me, we have plenty of time to go over this, but one can never be too prepared. I’d love your thoughts on the first movie I should share with the boy. It can be on the list or one not on the list that you think is a winner.