Suicide Squad (or why I hate movie critics)

Another DC movie. Another instance for DC of scathing reviews not aligning with box office results. Did I drink the Haterade or did I enjoy the flick? Pretty sure you know how I'll lean on this one.....

I saw Suicide Squad when it came out and I'll freely admit that I enjoyed the hell out of it. It was a solid movie with a lot of fun moments and overall did justice to the Suicide Squad comics. This apparently goes against everything the critics are saying (currently 26% on Rotten Tomatoes as of this writing) but aligns pretty well with most others (68% via audience viewers). Surprise surprise, critics are a bunch of jackasses. Let's get through the actual movie part before I start ranting.

A brief intro for those unaware of the Squad and their new film, although it's hard to imagine there's many of those out there with all the hype this film got. SS (yes I'm abbreviating, I'm lazy) is a comic about some of DC's villains who are forced to work for the US Government to carry out dangerous tasks i.e. suicide  missions where they're not expected to survive, hence the clever title. They're headed by Amanda Waller who forces their behavior via implanted explosives in their necks and they truly are bad guys forced to do good.

The movie captures this fairly well and while I can see why some folks thought this might've been better sold with an R-rating I certainly don't think the movie suffers for being PG-13. They've got most of the main characters from the comics which of course means almost no one most people are familiar with other than probably Harley Quinn. There were complaints about the plot and villain (see below) but the movie actually follows the comics fairly well and there's not a lot to complain about if you know what you're going into.

I think everyone did a great job with the roles and I'll echo most people that Margot Robbie stole the show as Harley. She totally nailed the character and I'm definitely eager to see her solo outing which is all but confirmed as far as I've read. All the other portrayals were solid enough although some folks definitely suffered from a lack of screen time or development, Croc and Katana coming to mind.

Leto's Joker. With the performances coming before he's got big shoes to fill and I think he did a great job. It's a different take on the Joker which I'm fine with and I think it'll be interesting to see where he goes with more screen time to play with. As far as his physical appearance I actually was fine with that because of the way Leto characterized him. Sure he was dressed as a gang banger with the plated teeth and tattoos but his mannerisms, his speech and everything about him transcended that. As my wife and I were discussing on the way home, it felt more like a costume he was wearing than who the Joker was which is exactly what he's done in the past. The Joker assumes guises as part of the joke but who he is never changes and I felt that Leto conveyed that. Like with the others I think it was just harder to see given his relative lack of screen time.

All in all I thought the movie was good and a solid entry into the DC cinematic universe. Some people complained about it following the Batman v Superman movie but it actually felt ok to me because while it was a smaller scale (sort of) movie it didn't feel out of place since the heroes we're used to have not stepped up yet to major prominence. It'll be interesting to see if they do a sequel how they wrangle these characters after the Justice League movies gives us heroes that are clearly more capable of handling the bigger threats. Do they make it a more gritty, covert style film or do they try to keep it like the first one with a big villain and come up with a reason why Superman isn't there to fix it.

Based on the above it sounds like I fall a little more into the 71% instead of the 26% right? Well that's because I still don't understand these overly pretentious critics who seem to love lambasting movies that don't fit their preconceived notions. First you have the people who simply don't grasp the nature of the source material evidenced by those who gripe about the movie's villain, the Enchantress. Of course she's not a major villain you're aware of you jackass, the comics don't really have one for the SS to fight. It's not like Superman with Lex or Batman with Joker, you're not going to make a SS movie and insert a villain anyone's ever heard of because most people aren't familiar with the SS to begin with. The fact that we got the Joker in this film was as best as you're gonna get and that was only cause Harley was there.

The other thing was that the reviews for this felt the exact same as for Batman v Superman. I'm not talking about some supposed DC bias amongst critics, which apparently is a conspiracy theory floating about. No what I mean is that in all the reviews I read for both movies, when watching the movie I could clearly identify the sections of the movie the reviewer was complaining about and in pretty much every instance it didn't somehow make the movie unwatchable garbage which you would've gathered from reading the review. Like you hear a complaint about the music cues in SS being too obvious and while there was certainly a large number of songs used pretty blatantly in the film, it certainly didn't ruin the movie. But you'd think the filmmakers had put the actual bands in the movie itself and had them say, "Hey look over there, it's Killer Croc!" with the way they complained about it. Reviews lately have seemed to be filled with hyperbole just calling out minor flaws and blowing them into these massive issues that they say derail the film. It's easy to see why people think reviewers are out to get movies but I'd say it's not because of any bias to one studio over the other. I think movie reviewers are actually biased against having fun.

At the end of the day, people are gonna see this movie. It's a big tent pole summer flick and a DC comic film so it's going to make money which is awesome because I think the DC films have a real chance of giving us some good material. I wish DC had become it's own studio like Marvel as that probably would've helped avoid this painful learning curve with their films but I feel like there's hope.

I certainly know this movie will end up in my collection but again I'm biased.

Batman: The Killing Joke (a dyslexic review)

What better way to get back into reviewing movies than with one I've been waiting on for a while now. Of course the movie hadn't even been released yet and it had already stirred up controversy over the changes made to it and the graphic content so I figure why not weigh in. Although most of you probably know I'm a little bit biased....

Let's get this out there right now. I'm a huge Batman fan. I don't know as I'd go so far as to say obsessed but I know my wife would. I've got most of the movies in my collection both live action and animated. I have numerous games, toys, and other products from the license. I'll keep this as fair a review as I can but you've been warned.

Point number two. Regarding the comic this movie is based on I feel it is one of the cornerstone stories of the Batman mythos. Is it brutal, dark and overly violent? Yes. But these things are used well and in such a way as to add depth and character to the already impressive narrative that is Batman's world. This story and it's adoption into canon is the single defining moment that I feel removes Barbara Gordon from being another generic Bat-sidekick and makes her into the character people love today. Does it have it's problems, from Barbara's overall portrayal to the way some of the story is handled, sure. But it's still one of the best Batman stories out there and certainly one of the most iconic Joker stories.

Now on to the movie. I called this a dyslexic review because it feels like you're watching two movies with this one and they couldn't be more different.

First let's address the elephant in the room. Or maybe more appropriately in this case the elephant fucking in the room. (I really wanted to find a funny image for this but let's just say that you don't want to go too far down that rabbit hole of a Google image search.)

Batgirl and Batman's sex scene. That's right if you hadn't already heard they have sex in the movie. Before you go reaching for the pause button on your remote and the box of tissues there isn't anything overtly graphic depicted in the movie. There's a shirt coming off and then cut to black but you know what's going on. Far more graphic has been the reaction on the interwebs. Nerds everywhere have been sounding the rage horns at this addition to the story, people are pissed that Batgirl is just a plot device and a stereotypical female portrayal in a movie, and overall you'd think someone had killed all their respective pets.

Just so everyone's aware the first 30 minutes or so of the movie where this takes place isn't in the comic and you can certainly tell. The comic is pretty short and the entire opening of the film was added to help pad the movie's run time and supposedly give both Batman and the audience more reason to care about what happens to Barbara later in the film. I agree with the first part as it is a short graphic novel but I think the second is horseshit. Most anyone watching this movie is going to be a fan of the characters and have at least some investment in the Barbara character no matter how much screen time she has. Adding more story around her in the beginning to pad the movie would've been fine without the angsty-girl-pining-for-her-mentor story line they decided to throw in here. I personally don't have as much of an issue with them having sex in general and there are plenty of articles out there already about why it's ok based on the history of the characters' portrayal with each other so I'll leave that to you to decide. But the need for that specific handling of Batgirl in relation to Batman is just bogus. They could easily have tossed in any kind of filler story that gave us more Batgirl without the soap opera. The point is the specific fluff they decided to go with is diminishing to the character.

So decisions about how to handle the extra filler aside the other huge issue with this first part is that it is terrible. The plot and dialogue are so bad that try as they might the actors can't help but sound like trashy daytime soap opera speakers. They have an obsessed crime boss who becomes infatuated with Batgirl and gets super rape-y throughout. (Although the quick scene of the hookers leaving his boat and the redhead commenting about how he made her wear a mask which looked like Batgirl's was pretty funny. I imagine there's a lot of that going on in Gotham that you don't hear about, the prostitute cosplay as the various heroes and villains.) Meanwhile this is played against her pining for Batman and confiding in her holy-shit-we-have-a-gay-best-friend-in-our-movie! stereotype. And even the potential depth of her sleeping with Batman and it creating tension between them is ruined when she's portrayed as an immature highschooler who tries to breakup with him first cause it was totally her idea and why can't they just be best friends again?!

And then cut to the next movie. It seriously is that immediate, there's no bleed over into the Killing Joke narrative and no real tie in which to be clear I'm not complaining about. It's just that obvious how forcibly tacked on the opening sequence is. The first part ends with her voice over and fade to black then it comes in on Batman investigating a homicide at the start of the comic's story.

The actual portion of the movie that is Batman: The Killing Joke is phenomenal. Without spoiling too much it involves the Joker kidnapping Jim Gordon to "prove a point" in his feud with Batman while also interspersing one of the most canonical origin stories of the Joker to-date. The movie is a truly faithful adaptation of the comic, if you've read the comic you know exactly what happens and if you haven't read it you'll know what everyone who's read it does by the end. A lot of the credit for the plot is thus rightfully thrown to Alan Moore of Watchmen fame. Similar to that one this story is all about the psychology and depth present within the characters over the violence between them. There's still some good action in this second part for sure but there is a lot more dialogue and exposition than you might expect from a comic movie and it's handled well.

Kevin Conroy and Mark Hamill reprise their respective roles and you can tell they both brought their passion to this project. The interactions between them are impressive and Hamill in particular really steals the show. His completely non-Joker performance during the origin story flashbacks was amazing, you never got a hint of Joker in him until that final moment when he just becomes him. The final scenes between Batman and Joker at the end are so well done and it truly brings to life Moore's excellent writing. These two men were born to play these roles in this film.

You end up with two separate movies even though they're on one disc and they couldn't be more different. I know that upon repeat viewings (which I know there will be for me) I'll be skipping the first section entirely which is actually easy to do because they give you a nice split to find so that's good. This film is an essential buy for any Batman fan and for those that aren't, just ignore the first half of the film and you'll understand why this story is held up so often as one of the best of the genre.

As a quick post script I loved the quick homage to the various incarnations of the Joker they put into the film including Nicholson and Ledger. It's a quick moment in the Batcave but it's full of history and really adds to this concept of the Joker as a force of nature rather than a man. "Sometimes I remember it one way, sometimes another ... If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!"

No Man's Sky: Hype level critical!

 We're only a week out from the release of what I'm going to say is the most highly anticipated game release of 2016, No Man's Sky.

Wait. Hold on. When was that last blog date? 2013!? Holy shit I'm on a really ridiculous pattern right now. Put up 2 blog posts, disappear for 2 years. Post 2 more times, disappear for 3 years. This keeps up my next post will be in 2020. Alrighty, midyear New Year's resolution. Blog at least once a month moving forward and strive to hit once a week. Obviously there's a whole lot of shit that'll keep that from happening and I'm certainly going to struggle to find things I want to write about but better to set a goal and miss than not set one at all I guess. Especially when that goal can be accomplished via the couch and pajamas. Maybe I'll hit the gym next year. Anywhoo back to the rambling...

No Man's Sky. If you know me then you've heard about this game on several occasions as I haven't been able to shut up about it. If you don't then here are some of my favorite blurbs from the company's site.

"No Man’s Sky is a game about exploration and survival in an infinite procedurally generated galaxy.

Whether a distant mountain or a planet hanging low on the horizon, you can go there. You can fly seamlessly from the surface of a planet to another, and every star in the sky is a sun that you can visit.

Explore uncharted solar systems and catalogue unique new forms of life. Every planet’s landscape is different from the next, and populated by species never before encountered.

Every solar system, planet, ocean and cave is filled with danger, and you are vulnerable.And one mistake could see you lose everything. In No Man’s Sky, every victory and every defeat has lasting consequences.

18,446,744,073,709,551,616 planets."

Do you enjoy open-world exploration games? Well how about a game with 18 quintillion open worlds?!  That is No Man's Sky.

I'm a huge fan of open-world gaming. When playing one of the Assassin's Creed entries my favorite part of the game is opening the map up so I can see everything. Same with pretty much all the Bethesda offerings Skyrim, Fallout, etc. (I think I've only ever finished Fallout 3 as far as story goes but I have pretty much the entire map revealed in almost all of my Bethesda play throughs.)

I think my love of this genre of video games comes from the fact that it tries it's hardest to create a feeling like I can do whatever I want in the game world. (Coincidentally this is the same thing I love about tabletop RPG's.) When I read books or watch films, the thing I wish most sometimes is that it was real and I could experience it. That escapism is what games like this promise, not that I'm going to see a story play out in a world I enjoy but that I can choose to explore those worlds in full even beyond the story the game wants to tell.

Enter No Man's Sky and it's promise of a near infinite universe to explore. If you can see something you can explore it. That's a developer's promise that will have me throwing cash at my screen instantly. And not only is this the design of the game, it's the advertised core premise. Sure there will be combat, space battles and a story woven through the game but all of that is secondary to the main goal of exploring any and every thing you see. This is enhanced by the fact that things you discover are noted as discovered by you and you can even name them, making your permanent mark on the game's universe moving forward!

Scholars will look back someday on Uranus and laugh.

The game has leaked early and of course set swathes of the internet on fire around the game play videos and descriptions of what's occurred for this user. People are ranting about it being buggy, not living up to its promise of amazingness and all other rages people love to have around a much hyped game. Others are screaming in defense, claiming the leaked copy is a developer copy or that the guy is out to create false narratives, etc.

Will the game live up to people's expectations? Of course not. The kind of hype this game has generated always ends in let down. I expect mixed reviews, cautious posts of how good it could've been, and other typical responses.

Is the game a true simulation of immersion? Nope. I can't decide to build a hut and start farming crops on Mars if the urge hits me. I toss this in as people inevitably assume that no game gives you true freedom if you can't do literally anything you want. But given the limits imposed by any game, NMS certainly allows me to do everything I might want.

Will the game live up to my expectations? To quote an esteemed prophet "All signs point to Yes." I won't lie, I've watched the leaked footage and read the comments both good and bad by the leaker related to the gameplay. Everything I've seen so far leads me to believe that actual bugs (like game crashes, etc) aside all of the things he's seen are what I've been waiting to play for the last couple of years now. A near infinite universe in which my singular goal is to explore whatever I feel like exploring.

I'm sure I'll find something I wish was better about the game but for now I'm ready to strap on my space suit and go chart the cosmos!

P.S.

My interest in this game is on a whole other level and I've created a blog of a different sort to go with it. No Man's Saga will be the narrative tale of my adventures through the universe. There's no telling where it will lead, how much I'll write or how long it'll last but I was inspired to explore the game through this alternate medium which in itself is an accomplishment for a video game.

CEO's need to stop offering advice!

At this point I think most everyone has heard the news and resultant uproar about Yahoo's CEO Marissa Mayer and the whole not being able to work from home thing.  Now there's a new book coming out from Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg that's all about how women need to seize their opportunities and how they should strive to achieve success while maintaining a good life balance with their family as well.  (CNN: The myth of balancing motherhood and a successful career)  I've had gripes with the Yahoo decision for a while and this latest news has prompted a nice little blog rant.

I'm not going to touch on the actual topics of what these two women are espousing.  I happen to think telecommuting, remote working or whatever you want to call it can be a great option and should be something offered at many levels across different careers.  I think working in the office doesn't inherently provide a better or worse product simply because you can see someone.  But as I'm not an insider at Yahoo, I can't speak to Mayer's decision.  This could very well be the thing that Yahoo needs to become a relevant company again and congrats to them if it is.  I mean hell, does anyone remember the last time they seriously used Yahoo for anything?  I sure haven't and don't see myself doing so anytime soon.

I also happen to agree with Sandberg's idea and view that women should strive to achieve all they can in the workplace and out of it.  I fully agree with the idea that there should be more female leaders of both countries and companies.  Women are a valuable resource in all respects and the glass ceiling bullshit of the past needs to go, the quicker the better.  (I both truly believe this and am shamelessly trying to pander to my female readership, if there are any.)

The big issue I have with both of these recent developments is the same issue I've had for a long time now.  I'm sick of hearing various different arguments and thoughts from people out of touch with the reality of most common American people.  It's stupid, unhelpful and fucking insulting to those of us that struggle to live in the new America.  It exemplifies the entire reason why our country is in the shitter and why nothing is changing despite the various crises the country finds itself in.

I don't have a family yet but I already know it's going to be a struggle when I do between all the costs and stress and work.  While the dream of winning the lotto is still present, I'm nowhere near making millions of dollars a year.  So you'll forgive me if I call bullshit on an out of touch CEO who cancels work from home initiatives because she has the money and clout to have a fucking nursery center put in next to her new office.  I can guaran-damn-tee that if she were making that same decision, but making it from mine or any other normal worker's perspective, that there would still be remote options at Yahoo right now.  But for her it's an easy solution because she doesn't have to worry about what that might entail.  Struggling to pay for childcare or staying home isn't something she needs to worry about.

Sandberg is much the same, arguing that women should stop avoiding advancement in the career simply because of concerns over the family.  Easy enough to tell people that when you're making crap tons of cash and can afford to "balance" your home life by throwing money at it.  Not such a simple decision to make when you're trying to make ends meet while still maintaining some presence in your child's life and advancing your career.

To be clear, I understand that I have it better than a good chunk of people in this country because I have a job and a roof over my head and I'm grateful for what I have.  However I'm also aware that for those who don't have it as good as I do, I shouldn't expect them to be able to make the same decisions that I could simply because that seems to be the "right" choice for me with my circumstances.

These CEO's, and most in general from everything I've read/seen lately, are so far out of touch with reality it's scary.  It's already been established that most CEO's are psychos (Forbes: Why (Some) Psychopaths Make Great CEOs) so it should come as no surprise at this vast level of disconnect.  But it is fucking irritating and disheartening because no one seems able to call them on their bullshit.  And it's left to the minions (aka you and me) to deal with the repercussions of their decisions and policies.

A Good Day to Die Hard (although good might be a bit generous)

Let's go ahead and kick off what will (hopefully) be a regular feature on the ol' blog here, movie reviews!  Although maybe I should have waited and started with something a bit more promising...

Went to the movies this weekend and saw the latest Die Hard installment for my brother's birthday.  I was fairly excited to give John McClane another chance even given the generally negative reviews the movie has been attracting so far.  The fourth film was entertaining as hell and I thoroughly enjoyed it so I had at least decent hopes for this one.

Entertaining was about all that can be said for this movie and that's still stretching it a little bit.  I'm glad we had a gift card to throw this on and for those of you yet to see it, if you can't see it for cheap then either wait for the Netflix/Redbox rental or the cable debut.

If you haven't seen any info on this you probably don't have a TV or the Internet so I'm kinda surprised you're able to read this at all.  Anywhoo to sum up, John McClane travels to Moscow to help his son who's been arrested and is being sentenced to some horrible gulag for who-cares how long.  (What he expects to be able to do in a foreign country to help his son beat a murder rap is a bit of a mystery but that's by far the most plausible part of the movie, which can only tell you where it goes from there.)  After the initial breakout it becomes one action set piece after another, with some random conversation sprinkled in for flavor, that sees father and son argue, bond, and then kill waves of faceless bad guys.  This culminates in a climactic gun battle in (I-shit-you-not) Chernobyl where the McClane boys stop the terrorists while realizing their family bond is stronger than they first thought.

So having read that description I'm sure you're all already thinking "Oscars 2014 baby!".  But even with all that, the movie was fairly fun.  Bruce turns in his usual McClane performance and you can't help but have fun watching it.  The much needed return to the R-rating for this one allows him to toss out as much foul-mouthed and fun lines as you remember from the earlier entries.  Jai Courtney as the younger Jack McClane is pretty good, although given the action vehicle he's in and his pseudo-supporting role to Willis, you don't get much of a chance to really see what he's got.  Still he holds his own and doesn't drag the film down at all.  The chemistry between the two isn't the strongest but they seem to at least be inhabiting the same film and space, you get the impression that there's some give and take between the two.

Really where the film fails the most is the overall story and direction which of course falls to the director (not even gonna bother looking him up cause I know I wouldn't recognize him or care to).  There's almost no plotting whatsoever, you're left to figure out who's trying to kill whom via brief breaks in the gunshots and explosions.  Still given it's a Die Hard flick, I'm not gonna begrudge it that much.  What really lowered the bar was the utter insanity of what they decided to put on the screen.  Had I known how powerful a Mercedes SUV was, I'd have been recommending them to anyone shopping for a new car for years.  This thing plows off a bridge onto the top of a semi trailer stuck in stopped traffic.  From there is proceeds, Sherman tank style, to drive over all of the stopped cars in front of it crushing roofs and generally treating them like a set of bumps in the road.  Then after it gets back onto the road and into the chase, it somehow manages to ram off another bridge a fully armored APC-like vehicle before crashing.  Yet it leaves McClane with barely a scratch to show for it.  This is but one example of the kinds of crazy this movie just seems to toss out there.

Now I'm normally the first to defend a movie when it comes to the suspension of disbelief, especially to the missus when we're watching an arguably shitty movie that I enjoy.  So these initial eyebrow raising moments are a bit much and it's ok so far.  But even I had to repeatedly roll my eyes at the end of the movie in Chernobyl.  Hazmatted baddies are stalking the perimeter but the McClanes are invincible enough to stride into the irradiated buildings with nothing more than a leather coat and tactical vest respectively?  Are you fucking kidding me?!  I'd have actually been happier if no one had the suits on cause then at least you could have explained it away with something like "Well the radiation has dropped to acceptable levels" or "We sprayed all that radiation neutralizing mist over everything so it's safe now".  (Yeah they actually had a mist gun thing that sprayed out some magic chemical that made it safe to walk around in the buildings.  Guess the Russian government just hasn't got off its lazy ass to take care of that themselves yet.)  But nope, there's clearly a fallout risk here but the McClanes are just such American badasses who only care about stopping the bad guy that they're not too concerned about a little cancer.

So I'll admit there's a decent amount of griping above because this is one of those movies where it's easy to find the flaws, but overall I'd reiterate that for what it's worth the movie was a fun time.  This is the type of film you just shut your mind off, cheer on the good guys, and enjoy the carnage.  For the Die Hard fan it probably falls right around Die Hard 2 levels of quality but it certainly scratches that itch.  And at 97 minutes it's just the right amount of mindless fun.  Just make sure you aren't paying full price for it though.

No Diving in the Shallow End of the Gene Pool

Welcome to NDitSEofGP. Wow that really doesn't translate well into an acronym. Oh well.

This is where I plan on ranting and raving about the stupid shit I see people doing that drives me nuts. Granted some of this might be a pet peeve for me only, but then again it's my blog so that would make sense, right? Whatever here we go.

Movie Store edition:

Checking out the local Blockbuster yesterday (yeah there is still one around here surprisingly enough) I got a nice two-fer of stupid. Having found an entertaining game to rent I proceeded to wait in line for my turn to check out.

At the counter is Thing 1, a lady arguing about the late fees she believes are on her account in error. 15 minutes later the gist of the conversation was thus:

Lady: "It just doesn't make sense, I went in for surgery on Monday so there's no way I could have any movies out then. When I asked last time if I had any late fees you said no."

Employee: "The system only records the movies once they're checked back in but while they're out they don't show as late. If you brought them back but they hadn't been checked back in yet when you asked me, then they wouldn't show as late."

Lady: "But I had surgery on Monday so I wouldn't have any movie out now. It just doesn't make sense why these fees are on my account."

This conversation lasted for 15 minutes! The woman of course is wearing a velour matching track suit and leaves in a fairly respectable car. Clearly the issue of money is not a problem for her but she has to get back that damn 3 dollars in late fees! Heaven forbid that delinquency goes on her permanent record. Meanwhile, I am 4th in a line of people waiting to check out. Now while I won't begrudge someone for standing up for themselves, it does seem like common courtesy that if you're making no head room in your argument with the employee and you're backing the line up significantly, maybe you fight this battle another day.

So she finally realizes she can't shake the oppressive tyranny of Blockbuster and just pays the damn fine. Enter, Thing 2! This guy has been waiting with his daughters the whole time like the rest of us. But now the line is finally moving and he's up to bat. And of course in the eternity that we've been waiting for the woman to finish up her sermon he has failed to notice that the movie in his hand, WITH A 20 DOLLAR PRICE TAG STICKER ON THE FRONT, is not for rental but purchase!!! "Oh well do you have this for rent, we don't actually want to buy it." Cue the Benny Hill music as the clerk and man both go back into the store to find the rental version on the wall. And no this wasn't some obscure old flick but rather a brand new release on the wall with the 500 other copies right next to it. WTF?!

So 25 minutes later I finally get to rent my game, which now seems a woefully inadequate reward for enjoying this little Darwinian sideshow. And I don't remember having a headache when I went into the store. Dammit.

"Just when I thought you couldn't possibly be any dumber, you go and do something like this... and totally redeem yourself!" - Harry Dunne

Welcome Aboard!

Welcome to my very first post! I've now entered the world of self-righteous Interwebs blogging.

Hmm a pretty weak inaugural post as far as these things go. Kinda lame. Oh well, as the disclaimer at the top says, they won't all be winners.