So this weekend is Mammoth Mountains big kickoff weekend and while they have been open off and on for a few weeks now this is the “official” opening party. There’s some ski movie and DJ tonight(whoop dee doo), tomorrow is when the real fun starts. Transworld Snowboarding’s video Get Real will be shown in the Village and then after everyone will mosey into Whiskey Creek and well, you can figure out the rest. After you complete your hungover day of riding with a thousand other hungover people on Saturday make your way to the Village once again and check out the I Am Snowboarding art show.

The show is about celebrating the life of Jeff Anderson one of the most prolific snowboarders of our generation who sadly passed away back in 2003. Jeff was a huge part of the snowboard community, the early 2000’s Mammoth scene, and a very talented artist. This show is sure to have some really cool work as it features pieces from over forty of the industries top artists. You can split your time between mingling with the artsy types and watching Mammoth’s new video Hot Laps which I know for a fact will feature some very very hot laps from talent like Mason Augirre, Greg Bretz and Tyler Flannigan. Of course there will be giveaways, beer gardens and more name dropping than one person should have to suffer but all in all I’m positive it will be a good time. Heck you might even go snowboarding while you’re there, I hear this Mammoth Mountain is pretty fun. See ya on the hill.

Cheers.

Here are some videos and teaching ideas about writing.

http://www2.scholastic.com/browse/article.jsp?id=3749217

We are excited to be apart of the New Music Monday partnership with SAMaM Global.  Today, we bring you musical duo, Anderson Cale!  Check them out!

They’re album artwork was done by the same person who also does Coldplay’s artwork.  Awesome, huh?!  Be sure to check out their current album!  It hits iTunes tomorrow!

You can also follow the guy on Twitter:  @AndersonCale!

And you can follow us, too, while you are at it:  @RPattzProject! LOL

 

The idea for Anderson Cale’s music began with a fear of flying. An almost paralyzed white knuckled Jeff Anderson’s paranoia left him when he discovered ambient music in 2002. “I think it was the simplicity and repetitive mellow lull that calmed my fears”, Anderson remarks. It’s then he posed the question, “why can’t there be music written for the purpose of bringing peace to the anxious soul?” He would then dream and write scattered ideas for the next six years waiting for the day when his dreaming would become a reality.

Anderson Cale began in October of 2008 when Jeff approached Jesse Cale with the possibility of collaborating on an ambient post-rock record. Not knowing their chemistry as songwriters, they decided to move forward when Jesse brought Jeff a rough sketch of what would become track 5 on the record, “Windows and Doorways”. Anderson then knew in that unforgettable moment that they were cut from the same mold.

In the beginning, the recording was considered by Anderson Cale to be an outlet for creativity and to produce something that might bring peace to family and friends. They had no idea that they were starting down a path that was going to change their lives and others. As their recording process progressed they began to realize that this project was growing far beyond their original vision. They were shocked to find how artistically compatible they were, creating sounds from household items such as a cooking wok and tea sets. Having limited resources, they were forced to think outside the box and they were able tap into a creativity that neither of them knew they possessed. Thus, Anderson Cale was born.

Post-production, the boys were flooded with an overwhelming response from new fans as well as a few leaders in the music industry. It was undoubtedly clear their new artistic expression has a larger purpose than what was foreseen in the beginning.

Anderson Cale exists to provide an aid for peace in your life. In a world that thrives on chaos and disorder, it is essential to clear your soul. They hope that their music will act as a distraction from distraction so that you can enter into a place of rest. Music is communication that transcends language and culture. No matter what your existence may look like, we all experience pain and are walking away from love. Anderson Cale’s satisfaction comes from knowing that this record will act as a compass to guide you back into love, for that is the only place to find true rest for your tormented soul.

“The journey has been easy thus far, because we’re not trying. We simply made what we feel to be a good piece of art without the visions of grandeur. We want our music to bring some freedom from the stresses of life. We know not everyone will appreciate our music, but for those who listen and love it, we create for them.”

Source.

Note: This article was started Saturday morning, and finished early Sunday morning.  During Saturday’s action, both Iowa and Oregon (two top eight BCS teams included in this analysis) lost.  While these results affect the future BCS results, the said results do NOT affect the flawed philosophy of the BCS and its “computer rankings”.

The BCS claims to be fair and objective.  The BCS claims to have the best way to determine the two teams who deserve to make the National Championship Game.  In reality, the BCS couldn’t be any more misguided, and it’s not because the Division I Football Bowl Subdivision is missing a playoff system.  Rather, it’s an outdated and a far too simplistic system that the BCS has, a system far from being the best solution towards determining which teams deserve to compete for the national championship.

First off, the objectivity of the BCS gets thrown out the window when it includes the USA Today coaches’ poll, the Associated Press poll and the Harris Poll in its rankings.  That human element alone destroys the credibility of the BCS’ claim of being objective.  However, the polls are among the lesser concerns the BCS committee should have.  In fact, it’s their “computer rankings” and their decision to completely exclude margin of victory (or any other qualitative stat) that serves as the biggest problem in the BCS’ failure to fairly and correctly determine the championship contenders.

In a nutshell, the BCS “computers” focus on won-loss record and strength of schedule to determine which teams “deserve” to make the national championship and the at-large bids in the “BCS bowls”.  Right now, the only things the BCS has right are (1) having the BCS AQ (big six) conference winners in a BCS bowl game -and- (2) having the highest-ranked team from a non-BCS conference in a BCS bowl game (given the said team is in the top 12 of the rankings).  Furthermore, the BCS restricts a given conference from having more than two teams in the BCS bowl game, which is a relatively fair rule in most years.  These factors won’t be criticized.  However, what will be criticized is the lack of any factor in the “computers’” system besides won-loss record and strength of schedule.

The BCS’ criteria for finding the “most deserving” teams for their bowl games involve determining the teams that have beaten the “best” competition, without suffering too many loses.  The BCS logic is sideways at best, as the committee fails to factor in any qualitative stats into the formula.  The BCS more or less says the name of the game is to find “who beat the best”, when the true name of the game is to find “who is the best”.

To best discuss the ailments of the BCS “computers”, I’ll break down each “computer” system one-by-one:

Jeff Saragin NCAA Football Ratings
visit his ratings at USA Today
Sagarin makes it very easy understand his system.  He has two factors, ELO-CHESS and PREDICTOR, combine to make his final ratings.  One factor considers the results, while the other tries to add some qualitative factor.  Here’s exactly how Sagarin explains it:

In ELO-CHESS, only winning and losing matters; the score margin is of no consequence,
which makes it very "politically correct".  However it is less accurate in its predictions for
upcoming games than is the PURE POINTS, in which the score margin is the only thing that matters.
PURE POINTS is also known as PREDICTOR, BALLANTINE, RHEINGOLD, WHITE OWL and is the best single PREDICTOR
of future games.  The ELO-CHESS will be utilized by the Bowl Championship Series(BCS).

Whoops.  In attempt to mix quality of play (in whatever flawed play, it’s better than not using it at all), Sagarin has somewhat decent rankings.  However, the factor that only considers winning and losing is used to determine which two teams play for the national championship.  Why?  Because it’s “politically correct”.  Whoops.  As you learn in this post, if you didn’t already know, the BCS cares more about political correctness than actually doing its job and finding the two best teams in the nation to play for the championship.  Enterting today’s games, we had these numbers:

• Iowa: 2 ELO-CHESS, 15 PREDICTOR, 8 RATING
• Oregon: 4 ELO-CHESS, 4 PREDICTOR, 2 RATING

Anybody who’s anybody who watched Oregon trounce USC last week knows that the Ducks should be ranked higher than an Iowa team who trailed home last week entering the fourth quarter against Indiana.  Let’s take a look at the top eight in both the ELO-CHESS and RATING scores in the Sagarin rankings:

• RATING: Florida, Oregon, Alabama, Texas, TCU, Boise State, Cincinnati, Iowa
• ELO-CHESS: Florida, Iowa, Cincinnati, Oregon, Boise State, TCU, Alabama, LSU

Whoops.  Texas isn’t even in the top eight in the BCS portion, though they’ve played more like the fourth-best team in the nation after you consider the weak Big 12 conference the Longhorns play in.  To put it as simple as needed, RATING > ELO-CHESS when it comes to finding the best teams.

Anderson & Hester Ratings
visit their ratings at AndersonSports
Ah, nothing’s better than using the wrong system, except for pumping your chest when you use the wrong system.  This fool, Jeff Anderson, actually have the gall to say their right, and Chris Fowler is wrong for complaining about the BCS getting rid of margin of victory in their ratings.  Heck, the article itself is called “Why Chris Fowler is wrong”.  L-O-L.  Puh-leeze.  Let’s see how this article begins:

On ESPN SportsCenter on Saturday night, Chris Fowler criticized the Iowa Hawkeyes for their close wins and labeled the BCS decision not to include margin of victory in its computer rankings as “stupid.”

Couldn’t be more true.  Let’s continue:

The adjective applies, but not to the BCS decision.

Whoops.  Again.  Of course, Anderson follows up that bonehead statement with more stupidity: his “reasons” why he’s “right”.  He starts with:

The object of the game is to win.  Iowa may not be winning in the manner that Mr. Fowler wants, but that’s somewhat beside the point.

Somewhat beside the point?!  How so?!  BCS has acknowledged that there’s not enough sample size to determine who’s “most deserving” based on wins and losses alone, yet quality of victory is “somewhat beside the point”?!  Are Temple and Idaho better than FSU and VaTech?  No, you’ll probably point to strength of schedule, so how about this: are Temple and Idaho better than Central Michigan and Fresno State? Wins and losses aside, it’s an easy NO.  Okay, continue:

The BCS Standings are not trying to mirror Las Vegas in projecting who would win in a (hypothetical) future matchup. They are trying to reward the most deserving teams.  In terms of accomplishments on the field, to date, Iowa has achieved quite a lot.  The Hawkeyes are the only team in the BCS top-10 that has beaten two current BCS top-25 teams on the road, and they’ve also beaten #18 (in the BCS) Arizona….There’s no denying their success to date.

Okay, if the BCS are trying to “reward the most deserving teams”, then why is a team that struggles to defeat Northern Iowa and Arkansas State at home in second place, according to the computers?   We’re talking the team that needed to beat Michigan State on the last play in one game and a 28-point fourth quarter at home against Indiana in another.  Yes, yes there is denying their success, BECAUSE IOWA HAS BEEN AVERAGE IN TWO-THIRDS OF THEIR GAMES.  Hey, what about Oregon?  The Ducks are 3-0 against top 25 teams, including that killing of USC, yet Iowa is five spots ahead of Oregon.  Go figure.  Next:

Unquestionably, including margin of victory in the computers would encourage teams to run up the score in an unsportsmanlike way.  If teams instead showed good sportsmanship, they would be penalized.

Okay… sure.  Eliminating margin of victory from the BCS has definitely helped sportsmanship, seeing as how 14 games were decided by 24 points or more.  My school went through a 254-41 stretch in four games, and nobody called our radio station calling the football team classless.  However, if that’s not good enough, I’ll show a great solution, one that won’t penalize consistent, efficient teams like the BCS does.  Here’s how Anderson closes:

Far better to reward teams for winning against good competition and leave the style points to diving and gymnastics.

This deserves the award for “FAIL Comment of the Year”.  Hey Bozo, guess what other sport uses “style points”?  COLLEGE BASKETBALL.  Guess which sport has the most popular tournament? COLLEGE BASKETBALL.  I’ll bury the Anderson grave by saying this: far better to reward the best teams and leave the “beating good competition” argument to the morons.

Richard Billingsley ratings
visit his ratings at College Football Research Center
After finally finding Billingsley’s explanation, I give him credit for being the most articulate with his system.  He’s all fine and dandy in my book (besides missing any sort of qualitative stats), but then closes with this sentiment.

It’s no secret that I’m a big fan of the BCS….Thanks to the BCS we no longer have to deal with “mythical” national championships. The BCS is not standing in the way of a playoff. The regular season in college football is a playoff.

Sorry, Richard, but this is a still “mythical” championship the BCS has, because the system doesn’t devote its resources to determining the best teams, without any qualitative stats and all.  You mean well, and you realize the BCS is flawed, but you don’t realize the true flaw of the BCS.  One that still makes the championship game “mythical”.

Colley Matrix Ratings
visit the ratings at the Colley Matrix website
Back to poking pancake-sized holes to this computer’s claims.  Colley tries to persuade viewers, in his abstract circa 2002, mind you, that his matrix achieves seven goals.  Just to name two, the matrix:

3. uses a minimum of assumptions,
7. produces common sense results.

First, Colley is using the assumptions that having a margin of victory is “running up the score” and that “running up the score” is “unsportsmanlike” and that “unsportsmanlike” behavior is a more important factor than finding the best teams.  Second, by having such assumptions, Colley is ignoring the common sense that some sort of qualitative factors (besides strength of schedule) needs to be used to determine the best teams.  After all, what determines who has the strongest schedule?  Win-loss record?  Well, if so, it simply builds a web of misguided SOS figures skewed by a small sample size.  Next victim.

Massey Ratings
visit his ratings at his website
Nice try.  You try to eliminate the random factors of the game, yet… you guessed it.  No qualitative stats.  Score.  Venue. Date.  That’s it.  And I bet you “score” = win or loss.  Massey claims to have a goal of differentiating a win, a big win and a loss, but he can’t do that with only the score, venue and date.  Massey at least tries to eliminate the random factors, he needs to get in this decade with his football philosophy (the version he uses was last updated in 1999).

Dr. Peter Wolfe Ratings
visit his ratings at his website
Yet another claim of a “reasonable system” without any qualitative stats.  Wolfe fails to provide that, or an example as to how his “formula” works.  There just seems to be no substance, and it’s getting tiresome pointing out the flaws here.

Conclusion: What should be the solution?
Let’s face it, BCS, your system is worse now that margin of victory is completely excluded.  You made steps to include the smaller schools in the fight, but you still fail to find the best teams.  You have “computer” systems that nothing more than “brains” that either have no clue about how quality football teams play or no chance to make a quality system thanks to your anti-MOV rules.

My solution, a system that includes all of the above:

1. Quality stats, such as passing efficiency differential, non-garbage margin of victory, turnover margin, yards per attempt differential, third down differential, etc.
2. A drive-by-drive ratings system: similar to the FEI ratings
3. A possession-based ratings system: the time led by two possessions has a higher value than the time same led by one possession (the max value would be four possessions, so any lead by 25+ points would be equal)
4. Win-loss record and strength of schedule factored as before
5. NO influence by the polls

To weed out any doubt, yes I DO believe that this system would be much better than the current broken BCS system.

In ELO-CHESS, only winning and losing matters; the score margin is of no consequence,
which makes it very "politically correct".  However it is less accurate in its predictions for
upcoming games than is the PURE POINTS, in which the score margin is the only thing that matters.
PURE POINTS is also known as PREDICTOR, BALLANTINE, RHEINGOLD, WHITE OWL and is the best single PREDICTOR
of future games.  The ELO-CHESS will be utilized by the Bowl Championship Series(BCS).

It’s hard to believe that this film was made 16 years ago.  It is timeless.  Kevin Smith, you are of the finest cinematic kind.  Finding Clerks at the local video-in-a-box for a buck was a bit painful, but I didn’t mind saving the salad.

In this clip, Dante and Randall discuss Star Wars politics.

And here’s “What a Wookie” from Trey Parker’s ‘DVDA’:

For all those guys working behind the counter in suburbia this film is for you.

Convenience and video store clerks Dante Hicks (Brian O’Halloran) and Randal Graves (Jeff Anderson) are sharp-witted, potty-mouthed, and bored out of their minds. Between serving nonstop shoppers, the overworked counter jockeys play hockey on the roof, visit a funeral home and deal with their off beat love lives.

The one great thing about Clerks is that it was only made for $27,575, and it grossed over a million at the box office. The dialogue in this film is like Pulp Fiction but with much more crudeness and a lot more humor. Kevin Smith shows that he has a great ear for colorful speeches, his characters are dropouts from Generation X who look at life with distrust and talk about marriage as if they were from another planet.

The film certainly is an up-close look at the Clerks, it basically is as normal as you get it. The customers walk in they walk out and you see these two clerks interact with one another and talk about the lives they dislike but the lives they understand.

Smith creates dialogue for these characters that seem so real and we feel like we know some of these characters from somewhere. They talk with such obscurity and rawness that you are grossed out but you laugh at the same time and know this is how real people talk.

The problem I had with this film was that I just wish there was more scenes about anything. The film isn’t very long and I liked to hear the insight of these two and the people around them and I just wanted more.

Consensus: Clerks. works because of it’s raw but insightful and entertaining dialogue mixed in with  very short budget and some very original real-life characters.

9/10=Full Pricee!

Former Transworld co-worker and friend Torrey Cook has organized another stellar snowboarding photo/art show. Torrey, along with Dawn True and Brian Cook have gathered some of snowboarding’s finest photographers and artists to create one of a kind collaborations in memory of Jeff Anderson who passed away in 2003.  Jeff Anderson was a professional snowboarder/free thinker/artist that I had the privilege/opportunity to photograph a few times. For this show, I partnered up with long time friend Scott Lenhardt. The story behind the photo I chose is that this was Jeff’s morning warm up run in the Utah backcountry before hitting jumps and filming with Shane Charlebois for Kingpin Productions. Oh, and Jeff did this run backwards (switch).

To learn more about this event, go to: iamjla.org. He was and remains an inspiration to many.

I’m not even supposed to be here today!

– Dante Hicks

This is the first time I have seen Kevin Smith’s breakthrough film, Clerks. Since its release in 1994, it has a cult following with people who follow Smith. This film reeks with Smith’s staples raunchy, obscenity filled, witty dialogue. It’s not a masterpiece, but it was a enjoyable ride.

The movie revolves around the day of the life of Dante (Brian O’Halloran), a lonely convenience store worker that is trying to get through the day. He is called into work on his day off to open up the store. He doesn’t want to deal with the riffraff that comes into the store everyday.

This is a mundane take on twenty-something people that are living their unremarkable lives. Dante is friends with Randal (Jeff Anderson) who works a crappy video store that is attached the store. Randal is an abrasive personality that rubs Dante the wrong way.

Dante has to deal with his girlfriend, Veronica (Marilyn Ghigliotti) always prodding him to do something with his life instead of working at the convenience store. Dante still has feelings for his ex-girlfriend, Caitlin (Lisa Spoonauer), who he finds out in getting married.

Throughout of the movie, Dante and Randal have to deal with multiple customers with some serious problems. Have Jay and Silent Bob (Jason Mewes, Kevin Smith) loitering in front of the store selling drugs and such.

A movie shot entirely in black and white was a good choice to convey how lifeless these characters lives are. O’Halloran had some very good moments in this film. There was a long continuous shot between two characters that lasted roughly five minutes was great.

That being said, this movie is not all good. Some of the sequences dragged on a bit too much. I don’ know if Smith wanted the customers to be overtly quirky and insane. The character of Randal is such a dick; I don’t understand how Dante could be friends with him.

Judgment: All and all, not the greatest movie ever, but an interesting take on people trying to find their way in the world.

Rating: ***1/2

By Jeff Anderson “the Muscle Nerd”

Much research has been done into the seemingly impossible task of “spot reduction” of body fat.

You know…like how to burn fat directly off of your belly WITHOUT taking away from the butt you’re so proud of.

While experts have claimed that there’s no way to “spot reduce” where you’re able to take of the fat, recent studies are showing that it may in fact be possible.

For example, scientists have studied exactly WHERE fat is burned from in order to fuel certain activities.

It seems that there may be a unique connection where the fat cells in the location of the muscles being exercised may actually provide the bulk of the long term fuel for your training.

This is NOT definitive yet, but it holds promise.

It also supports my theory (and again, this is ONLY my theory!) that your MIND-MUSCLE CONNECTION plays a STRONG role in how much, and WHERE you can burn fat.

In this article, I reveal a unique tip that I use to increase the “mind-muscle” connection to (again, in theory) burn more belly fat from your training by implementing a crazy “cardio fat blaster”…

How To Burn More Belly Fat During Exercise

1. First, if you have my best-selling “Combat The Fat” program (www.CombatTheFat.com), you know that I’m a HUGE supporter of LOW intensity cardio as a fat-burner.

Sure, you can get your panties all in a wad while you preach to me about how HIGH intensity is better, but I lay out the FACTS in my book and the men and women who have used CTF know the real deal.

Anyhoo, I digress…

2. For this exercise session, you’ll do a quick, low effort warmup of about 5 minutes on a treadmill, bike, or other exercise equipment.

3. Next, do a set of WEIGHTED CRUNCHES until failure.  Just one single set.

4. Now, go and do a 10 minute LOW INTENSITY cardio activity that uses primarily either an upper body or lower body movement (e.g. – Rowing machine/jumping rope primarily works upper body while jogging, bike, works lower)

5. When 10 minutes are up, do one set of HANGING LEG RAISES (with your legs straight) to failure and then go on to your 2nd 10-minute bout of low intensity cardio using the opposite area of your body as your last set.

(i.e. – if you jumped rope in your last cardio round, switch to an exercise like jogging on the treadmill this time.)

6. When done, do a single set to failure of HANGING ROTATIONAL KNEE RAISES…then on to your 3rd round of cardio using the opposite half of your body.

And so it goes on, switching back and forth between an abs exercise and low intensity cardio.

For your follow up abs exercises, I suggest (in order)…

=> Hanging Knee Raises

=> Either crunches or V-ups

As you can see, we slowly decrease the intensity of the abs exercise choices with each set as you get closer to the end of your workout.

But in essence, by training your abs throughout your cardio session, you send a “message” to your body WHERE you want all that fat-burning cardio to do most of it’s work.

You may think I’m crazy, but give it a try and see if it doesn’t make a difference in where your measurements start reflecting results!

Even though I’m a fan of high intensity, its always good to have some variety.  Jeff always has good info.

Get Strong! Stay Strong!

Chris

“Well, I hope it feels good.”
“You hope WHAT feels good?”
“I hope it feels SO good to be right. There’s nothing more exhilarating than pointing out the shortcomings of others, is there?”

This week, The Monday Movie presents a masterclass in customer service from Randal Graves (Jeff Anderson) in writer/director Kevin Smith’s 1994 debut film Clerks, which he famously shot for $27,575 in the shop where he was working at the time.

First up, Randal graphically illustrates the potential pitfalls for customers who fail to properly research customer demographics of local businesses when choosing a store in which to buy a videotape for their child:

And here, Randal shows the importance of a thorough knowledge of store merchandise in building a pleasant rapport with customers, through the imparting of helpful advice:

The fist of God needs to be lowered on Kevin Smith’s career.

Clerks 2 is one third of a good movie – and that’s because Jay and Silent Bob appear in one third of the film.

The other two thirds of Clerks 2 is as good as a three day old sweaty ass seat. So often accident is the agency of enlightenment, in this case, it is the agency of crap.

Something has gone fruity in Kevin Smith’s brain. Who could read this script and not recognise the highest possible level of funk and badass humanly achievable in one place. Apparently Kevin Smith – because he also wrote this steaming pile of fail.

The script is wrong, the tone is wrong, the dynamic is wrong and the content, at least for those bits without Jay and Silent Bob, is wrong.

Jay (Jason Mewes) the slacker freakazoid and better half of Jay and Silent Bob, carries the turgid weight of this movie, although you will need a freak to English dictionary to decode anything he says. The two best bits of the film are all Jason Mewes…..

I’m fucking bored man

Bob Rap and Bible Chat

And some enterprising soul has reduced this movie to it’s ideal running time……

the best 10 min of clerks 2

Jeff Anderson (Randal) is pompous and bombastic, being more than a little intense in his search for a laugh.

Brian O’Halloran (Dante) lacks even the most basic acting skills and is the Xerox machine of humour (by the way, have you heard of Nair?)

Rosario Dawson is appalling – with exaggerated head bobbing (just pose dagnamit) and over-acting to burn.

So, in summary, this movie tastes like dirt, and if Kevin Smith is given money to make another movie, his security guards will have to stop me pulling his hair out.

Yours, will tying on a bandana and preparing to lead the revolution

Righteous

p.s. make a kilo of fat desirable. Put a nipple on it

Kevin Smith’s second film to leave the View Askewniverse is 2008’s Zack and Miri Make a Porno, a bland and stupid romantic comedy with little going for it. The movie, allegedly greenlit by The Weinstein Company on the basis of its title alone, features much of what Smith fans find entertaining. There’s plenty of profanity, sex discussion, and “witty” pop culture references to pepper the dialogue ad nauseam.

For the most part, however, it simply seems like Smith is trying too hard. The writing never comes across as natural and the characters, for all of their supposed working-class charm, never seem believable or the least bit likeable. The title characters had overstayed their welcome by about the ten-minute mark, while the supporting characters offer little beyond Smith’s normal menagerie of stereotypes and cardboard cut-outs.

Seth Rogen stars as Zack and Elizabeth Banks is Miri. The two are roommates, having been friends since first grade, and they’re facing stacks of unpaid bills and rough times. With a high school reunion upcoming, the pair agrees to go on the basis of getting drunk and/or getting laid. While at the reunion, Miri meets a former schoolmate named Bobby Long (Brandon Routh) while Zack subsequently meets Bobby’s boyfriend, gay porn star Brandon St. Randy (Justin Long).

After a pair of interesting conversations, Zack and Miri head home to find out that the power has been cut. Frustrated, they go to a bar where they come up with an idea to make an adult film to generate some cash to pay their bills. They gather a group of acquaintances, including Zack’s co-worker Delaney (Craig Robinson), Deacon (Jeff Anderson), and a few actors and actresses game for making a porno. The film outlines the ups and downs of putting together the movie until a romantic plot is woven in and further complicates matters between Zack and Miri. Jason Mewes, Traci Lords, and Katie Morgan co-star.

Smith’s movie attempts to be a working-class comedy, using filth as a sort of rationale to prop up the loose, rushed love story towards the conclusion of the picture. Unfortunately the build is cheesy and Smith’s use of one particular song by the band Live comes across as one of the most ridiculous and lame moments on film in 2008. The entire structure of the picture and the supposed romance feels off for a number of reasons.

For starters, it’s tough to care about the characters. They are foul-mouthed, rude, obnoxious jerks. There is no reason to feel bad about their economic situation, as we’re made well aware that they blow all of their available funds on sex toys. They consistently whine and mumble haphazardly about how lame they are, only to come back with this veiled sense of superiority that becomes really annoying to take. Smith’s dialogue sounds pretentious and ultimately hollow, leaving room only for a slew of F-words and raunchy sex jokes that seem designed exclusively for offense and have nothing to do with character, plot, or anything else.

The performances are average, too. I’ve yet to become a fan of Rogen and haven’t found him all that great as a lead actor. He’s perfectly acceptable in a supporting role, as he was funny in Superbad, but I don’t feel he can carry a picture. Banks is only slightly better and her ability to go toe-to-toe in raunch with Rogen is admirable, but she simply fails to make her character believable or likeable in any fashion. As such, it’s hard to care much about the pair when they’re forced together by Smith’s heavy-handed writing.

Zack and Miri Make a Porno is a disappointing romantic comedy that relies far too much on the same repetitious “adult” humour and raunch. It sneaks the love story in the back door (ha!) and attempts to pull a fast one in elongating the plot by developing a “problem” for the “couple” to go through at the last minute that could have been easily solved with another two seconds of conversation. If Smith isn’t willing to put in the effort to make his filmic relationship work, why should anyone else?

2.1/10

Trailer (Red Band Trailer):

Las personas (o maquinas, quien sabe) que distribuyen las películas en México no dejan de sorprenderme para bien, y es que últimamente nos han estado trayendo películas que si bien no son estrenos al menos podemos verlas en pantalla grande y recomendarlas con otras personas.

Este es el caso de “Zack & Miri Make A Porno”, película del año pasado que ya puede conseguirse en DVD, pero que será estrenada en nuestro país esta semana, y que esta teniendo una buena promoción en espectaculares (de hecho, en uno de ellos fue en donde me entere del estreno).

Con el titulo “Hagamos una Porno” (buen titulo creo yo) Zack y Miri llegan a los cines de (espero) todo México el próximo 12 de junio.

Click en la imagen para ir a la página de la película

• Gatunek: Komedia romantyczna
• Produkcja: USA (2008)
• Czas trwania: 101 min
• Polska Premiera: 26-06-2009
• Światowa premiera: 07-09-2008
• Polski dystrybutor: Kino Świat
• Reżyseria: Kevin Smith
• Scenariusz: Kevin Smith

Obsada filmu

• Jeff Anderson
• Elizabeth Banks
• Justin Long
• Traci Lords
• Ricky Mabe
• Jason Mewes
• Katie Morgan
• Craig Robinson
• Seth Rogen

Ordynarna, hardcore’owa, nie pozostawiająca żadnych złudzeń… opowieść o miłości. Ten film mógł wyjść tylko spod ręki twórcy „Clerks – Sprzedawców” – Kevina Smitha. Starzy kumple i współlokatorzy, Zack (Seth Rogen) i Miri (Elizabeth Banks), muszą stawić czoła ciężkim czasom i górom długów. Kiedy sytuacja kryzysowa doprowadza do tego, że w mieszkaniu odcinają im prąd i wodę, wpadają na pomysł szybkiego zarobku – wyprodukowania domowego filmu porno z udziałem kilkorga przyjaciół. Zack i Miri przyrzekają sobie nawzajem, że wspólny seks nie zrujnuje ich przyjaźni. Ale kiedy rozpoczynają kręcenie filmu to, co na początku było tylko sprytnym pomysłem na biznes, zmienia się w coś znacznie poważniejszego…

Back when “Clerks II” was released in theaters, I was invited along with several other college journalists to interview the stars Brian O’Halloran and Jeff Anderson. Here are some highlights from the interview that originally ran in “The Battalion,” Texas A&M’s student newspaper.

This interview was originally published in The Battalion, Texas A&M's student newspaper on July 20, 2006.

Jeff Anderson on doing “Clerks II”:

I was almost the guy that ruined it. I didn’t want to do it. I didn’t think it was a good idea. I thought we had a better chance of screwing it up than actually making a good sequel. I just wasn’t anxious to do it. I wasn’t pursuing an acting career. I don’t get recognized a whole lot from “Clerks.” I’m out there writing and not wanting to do things in front of a camera. I’m not wanting to sit down and have “Clerks” discussions for the rest of my life. Doing a sequel opens me up to all that again. I’m hoping (wearing) the backwards baseball cap throws people off again.

Brian O’Halloran on life between Clerks films:

I was frozen in carbonite. So I was well preserved.

O’Halloran and Anderson on who would replace them in an all-star cast version of “Clerks”:

Anderson: Anthony Michael Hall.

O’Halloran: This is kind of upgrading myself, but Charlie Sheen.

Anderson: Wouldn’t you go see that? I know I would. Anthony Michael Hall and Charlie Sheen in “Clerks.” That should be “Clerks III,” where they just reenact the first one with those guys.

O’Halloran and Anderson on the “Clerks” cartoon:

O’Halloran: Best time I ever had on a Kevin Smith project. Although (“Clerks II”) is cutting it close with Rosario Dawson. My heart broke when I found out (ABC) cancelled it. I thought this could be a “Simpsons” career – working on this ’till I was 80 and collecting the big money and checks. The only thing we missed that we didn’t get a chance to do is that Jeff recommended we do an episode in our underwear.

Anderson: I did that.

O’Halloran: I know. It was so f*cking inappropriate. It made me really uncomfortable.

Anderson: You were looking.

O’Halloran: Kevin still wants to do (a direct to DVD cartoon movie) sometime in 2008, and that’s probably the only time you’ll see the “Clerks” characters again – in animated form.

O’Halloran on kissing Kevin Smith’s wife:

O’Halloran: I had to make out with Kevin Smith’s wife to get in the movie. (laughs) Kevin cast his wife as Dante’s fiancee in this one, and there is a long make-out scene that was made even longer by this camera movement. And there were a lot of issues with the camera movement, so we had to make out, and make out and make out.

Anderson: That was me bumping the camera. I thought it was funny that he was kissing Kevin’s wife. Gotta do it again. Okay Brian, pucker up.

O’Halloran: And that made me uncomfortable because I thought I could get fired at any moment and be replaced with Charlie Sheen or Seth Green. I remember Kevin came up and told me that he had been watching the monitor and thinking, ‘O’Halloran has made out with my wife longer than I ever have before my pants came down to my ankles. Normally, I’m like you gotta f*ck me right now.’ And I was like, ‘Really? Sir, I don’t need to know these details. Thank you very much.’

Anderson: You said ‘f*ck’ to a college student.

O’Halloran: They can print ‘f*ck.’

O’Halloran and Anderson on seeing their faces on “Clerks” merchandise:

O’Halloran: It would be nice seeing some of that cash from that merchandise.

Anderson: I didn’t even know there were action figures. My niece called me up, and I was like, ‘I’m Uncle Jeff, not G.I. Joe.’

Anderson and O’Halloran on people being able to immediately quote lines from “Clerks”:

Anderson: (If that happens), immediately leave that room. Get yourself out.

O’Halloran: I think that’s a testament to Kevin’s ability to script dialogue.

Anderson: No, it’s a testament to our delivery.

Anderson and O’Halloran on television interviews:

Anderson: We were doing television interviews last week, and there was this toilet training expert that went before us. Under her name, on the monitor, she was labeled ‘Potty Pro.’ So we were there cracking up off camera. When we went on air, you better believe I was checking the monitor to make sure it didn’t still say ‘Potty Pro.’

O’Halloran: Seconds before we go on air, the anchor turns to me and asks how it was doing number two. I started laughing, ‘Are we still doing a bit on toilet training?’

Anderson on not getting a love interest in the new movie:

Anderson: I should have held out longer. I guess Randal’s not the lady slayer.

O’Halloran: You’re the potty pro.

Anderson: The only way I’m doing “Clerks III” is if I have 10 chicks all at once.

O’Halloran and Anderson on where they see themselves in 10 years:

O’Halloran: “Clerks III: Grumpy Old Clerks.” Hopefully, maybe directing myself. Producing perhaps. I’d like to stay in the industry. It’s a good life done right.

Anderson: I’ll be in a house on a lot of land in Montana with a lot of chicks.

O’Halloran: I’m sorry, but the vice president owns half of Montana.