Not Many Best Films - 2010

          On Groundhog Day I received this comment-question in a film-related article I posted near the end of 2009:

Hey there :)

What was the best and worst film of last year in your oppinion?
For me it might have to be:
Very best: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1
Worst: A Nightmare on Elm Street

Thanks a lot :) <3

          Well...hey back in your brain-addled and anonymous direction.

          Your unfamiliarity with spealcheque, date/time stamps, and your emoticon abuse/misuse (colon end-paren less than three is...happy dick-n-balls) causes me to assume you're a 4th grader playing on mummy's computer and bored with Myspace?  But, here's the thing, (I thought for a long three seconds to come up with an analogy you could relate to) when it comes to film opponion I'm like Eric Cartman when someone starts Come Sail Away.

          Consequently...even though last year was a dreadful year in American film...I will finish what you've begun:  2010 started with me keeping track of every film I watched, but I quit that foolishness in April because I'd yet to see one newly-released American-film worth recommending.

          My favorite-best film of last year was the amazing mystery-thriller Mother, which was released in the US in 2010 (so, technically, it qualifies as a last-year film even though it was released in South Korea in 2009).

          The vast majority of 2010 films were average-to-unmemorable dreck.  I didn't see either of the movies you mentioned, anonymous-commenter, so I can't provide you with my oppioidin on them.  I can, however, explain why I chose not to see them.

          I'll probably watch the first-half of the last Potter film, just before I watch the second-half...maybe sometime this year.  Stephen King fleeced his avid-reader's with six mini-books released monthly in the mid 90's, which I realize was before you were born, Anon-commenter, but—nonetheless—they (The Green Mile series) were an early example of a financially-successful-yet-scummy way to make more money than would otherwise be possible.  I felt almost the same way when Quentin Tarantino released Kill Bill in two parts (wouldn't a four-hour film with an intermission have been fantastic?)

          As for the remake of Nightmare:  I doubt you're aware of too very many things that occurred before your mom was born, Anon, but that movie was originally released in 1984 (to make it easier:  that's just after the Vietnam War and just before Nine-Eleven).  When your grandparents watched the first Freddy Kruger slasher flick on their parent's Betamax, they definitely were scared but, also, they were aware it was not a very good film.  So...it should not come as a surprise that the re-brand re-remake turned out bad.  (This is not to say every re-branded re-made film is like re-heating decade-old noodles; this year's True Grit was definitely worth seeing.)

          There were so many worst films of 2010.  So very many.  I successfully avoided watching most of them by paying attention to their metric and choosing to only see those films with a score higher than 60.  This is not a very good way of deciding, because...

          I posit that the worst film of 2010 was: 127 Hours.   It was a let down.  Mediocre.  It became suckage because I enjoy films by Danny Boyle and my hopes were so high.  Slumdog Millionaire, 28 Days Later, Millions, Trainspotting...how could the director of such good-to-greatness make something so empty and flat?  127 Hours was shit because it had the potential to be fantastic but really was average-to-forgettable.  I'm amazed so many people like it (its metric is in the low-80's ferfucksake).  I'm very surprised it was nominated for awards.  It will win some because it has little competition; it's one of the best turds in the 2010 septic tank.  In my pinionop, a much better film (and best trapped-man performance of 2010) is Buried with Ryan Reynolds.  But, because Buried was filmed by a almost unknown Spanish director, in Spain, it gets less attention (even though it's in English).  ...way, come sail away with me...

Individual vs Society (HR 3962)

          Although I don’t think everything can be divided into two camps I do think there are a finite number of greys.  Democrats want to improve society and Republicans want to improve the individual, is a statement both camps are comfortable with.

          Acceptance of this adage is due to combining desired improvement with words (society, individual) which present differing meanings to different people.

          Republicans think positively about individual; to them, an individual is:  a leader, a stalwart, a trail-blazer or a commander.  In the mind’s-eye of a Republican, an individual is always self-sufficient.  On the other hand, Democrats have difficulty detaching the silent and invisible adjective selfish which always seems to precede individual in their mind's-eye.

          Not so with society.  Democrats hear society and think about the large group they’re part of, which includes many who are less fortunate than they are.  Republicans hear society and see the slothful looking for hand-outs, welfare abusers, and human parasites.

          During a recent lengthy discussion with my sister (economic-free market-pessimist / social-conservative / professional-successful businesswoman) she used the term Obama care.  So, I asked her why she was against 2009's health care bill.  She mistook my question as a statement of protest, and I needed to repeat myself a few times before my clarification “just because I voted for him doesn’t mean I support everything he does,” got heard.

          I didn’t know much about the health care bill before today (and still don't know much).  I knew it was almost 2,000 pages big and was supposed to improve health care in the US (there's that word again improve, now it’s appended to health care...which hits the mind’s-eye just like society, and not like individual.)

          Since my sister is an adjunct to the medical, legal, and insurance professions I thought she'd have a rational, fact-based, explanation for dismissing it.  She does not.  Instead, she fell into an all too familiar rant-rut:  government...bad...social security...fail... Medicaid...broken...goes without saying...blah...new health care...ditto.

          I assumed she’s too close to the issue (the forest-from-the-trees analogy) but she says she sees the issue better than most because of her perspective, which is why she is amazingly confident in her ability to forecast the future failure of the 2009 heath care bill, which gradually becomes law over the next four years.

          So I found it and skimmed it.  Bill HR 3962.  It delineates (repetitively and in legal jargon) the new law, while it also updates previous laws, describes new responsibilities, outlines oversight, enrollment, and fines, as well as updates the Native American health care laws, and revises some Medicaid laws.

          In a nutshell, all US taxpayers (with exceptions) will be required, by 2014, to purchase health insurance or pay healthcare bills with cash.  No more county clinic walk-ins claiming 'too poor to pay'; failure to do so will mean facing an annual fine (like a tax) which will be assessed by the IRS.

          I have not paid much attention to this bill because I (retired military) and my fiancée (Native American) are two exceptions.  Reading portions of the bill did not clarify, for me, why it's expected to reduce health care costs, although I do see how it'll improve coverages and close loop holes.   I don’t know why my sister says it's all total bullshit.  I suspect, though, that in the next few years there will be a dramatic increase in US taxpayers joining the Christian Science Church because, after 2014, the IRS can't fine you for refusing to own health insurance if you are a member of The First Church of Christ, Scientist.  Which begs the question:  Are we sure we want the separation of church and state to be negated by an organization that advocates the creation of zombies on their registered logo?

Quadrantid Meteor Shower Tonight

The shower could peak at almost a meteor-every-30-seconds before 10pm PST (1am EST).

I read in 2010:

Only one more book than last year (48 this year); my tastes and favorites (larger) gravitated in-and-around the Fantasy genre this year.

2010 Charted

Compared to last year - golfing supplanted hiking, vacations (including scuba) and camping trips resumed this year, creativity suffered, and house-stuff (cleaning, driving, food prep, etc) was done more by my wonderful fiancée and, therefore, less by me.

Solstice Lunar Eclipse Tomorrow Night (North America)

The Dream of the 90s is Alive in Portland

Oh yes it is so alive. Here. That's where. (sleep 'til eleven.) New IFC series airs in a month. I intend to giggle at people like myself (and my homeboyzngirlz).

Zodiac Shit

Don't Know Why - Yes I Do

and really you know like

An I’d hoped to come visiting again sooner.  And you—of all people—know how they get.  And, well, I just can’t borrow a horse to go gallivanting whenever I desire.

I intended to write you, really.  But my folks really keep tabs on their stamps and I really hardly ever get any privacy.   Really.

I’z gonna, you know, call.  But my parents were—yaknow—home an-all, you know.  An I still ain’t got a phone in my room yet ya know.

I was like gonna text, but, like my parents were all—like—‘too many minutes’ and like took away my cell.  So, I was like, whatever.