Favorite Movies

I recently watched the new Nolan movie, Interstellar, and I must admit that it quickly became one of my top favorite movies. I thought it would be fun to reflect and think about what I would consider my top five favorite movies. Now this list is subject to change, but I would argue that a lot of these movies had a role in shaping me as a person. These movies are in no particular order. Minor spoilers ahead.

5. Interstellar

I had to put this movie first since it was my inspiration for writing this post. In hindsight, I'm a little surprised that this is the only Nolan movie that made the list. I have loved all of Nolan's movies especially his Batman trilogy. The reason why Interstellar made the list is because it captures my childhood dream of space exploration and had a theme that love can transcend all things -even time and space. Matthew McConaughy's character captured my deep rooted desire to explore perfectly, and I was able to connect to his character more emotionally than other characters. There are also themes of survival that I consider thought-provoking.

This movie also took the time to be as realistic as possible using modern physics. Now it takes some liberties toward the end since our understanding of black holes is very limited, but despite how fantastic the movie can be, it still felt grounded enough to suspend belief.

4. The Boondock Saints

My guilty pleasure of the list. I can't necessarily call this a great movie, but this movie is just a lot of fun to watch. It is able to beautifully combine silliness, action, and emotion creating a cult hit. Exploring the morality of vigilante justice, the movie follows two brothers who take down the mob while also being chased down by an eccentric FBI agent. The two brothers believe that they are on a mission from God which is a theme I can appreciate.

I could talk about all the things I love about this movie, but the truth is that this was truly a bonding movie for me. Some of my best friends from summer camp and I bonded over this movie. My best friend from college and I bonded over this movie. This movie is fun to quote, and every time one of us quotes this movie, it reminds us of our fondness of this movie.



3. Captain America: The Winter Soldier

As avid readers of my blog know, I used to be a conspiracy theorist. Even though I don't subscribe to those beliefs anymore, I have been desperately waiting for a really good conspiracy movie. HYDRA plays the role of an Illuminati-like organization beautifully, and the reveal scene with Captain America and Black Widow confronting Arnim Zola is one of my favorite movie scenes of all time.

The movie takes heavy inspirations from Three Days of the Condor creating a sense of paranoia as you watch it. The irony is that both movies star Robert Redford although in switched roles.

I wouldn't have suspected that a superhero movie would've given me the conspiracy movie that I have always waited for, but I think that allows the movie to have that paranoid sense while also having the elements of fun that are a characteristic of the Marvel movies.

2. The Matrix

If a movie makes you question reality, then it must be worth something. This action-packed science fiction thriller explores philosophical themes that are integral to the plot! The fact that you are guaranteed to have this movie brought up in a philosophy class -versus say Dark City- tells you that this movie is worth a watch.

My favorite aspect of this movie is the idea of transcending reality. I flirted with this idea in high school especially when combined with a theory about the Tower of Babel (another time). Heck, even the idea that taking a pill can allow you to transcend reality and see a greater truth is something that seems so primordial that it appeals to me on a level that I don't think I can properly convey in words.

And of course, it's also a fun action movie with a lot of cool visuals which still hold up after over a decade.

1. The Adjustment Bureau

I remember seeing the trailer for this movie and falling in love with just the trailer. Concepts such as freewill are also very primordial to me. Defying fate and asserting your freewill is a theme and conflict that seem to hit at the very core of my soul.

Fortunately, I was finally able to see this movie a few years ago and sure enough, I fell in love with it. I would dare even say this movie moved me. The primary conflict is Matt Damon's character literally defying fate in order to fight for the woman he loves.

This movie does have that conspiracy element that I've longed for, but since the conspiracy is literally angels and God, it didn't have the same impact that Captain America gave me. With that being said, the concepts of predestination and fate are still questions that I trouble with and debate with myself every day.

I know that I didn't put these movies in a particular order, but The Adjustment Bureau may be my favorite movie. Exploring themes of freewill versus fate while also moving me emotionally, makes this a must watch movie for me. Not a lot of people have watched this movie let alone heard of it, so it's always a special moment for me when I can share this movie with someone.

White Privilege

I've been noticing a disturbing trend on YouTube lately, but upon reflection of my own college experience, this trend is really nothing new - just the name. Below is the YouTube video that "triggered" me.

When I was in college, we were forced to take a number of diversity courses. They contributed nothing to my education. We were mostly ticked off by them because it was an hour wasted that we could have otherwise spent in the lab or to do virtually anything else. The worst one I took was during my Freshman year. There was an exercise where they had everyone stand at the edge of the auditorium. The speaker would then describe a potentially discriminating event and asked for people to step forward if they had experienced it. The clear intent was for all of the white students to stay near the back and all of the minority students step forward. Well, I took the speaker as literally as possible and stepped forward every time I could think of an instant when someone asked me for my race, was denied a scholarship because I was a white man, or when a group was pledging for members but from a specific racial group. I got some weird looks once the exercise was over.

Now I don't have a problem with diversity. Considering that most of my college class comprised of

Diversity should be realized, not forced.

Chinese and Indian students, I would be hurting myself not to seek help or work with those students. To limit myself to only other white students would've made my already rough college years that much harder. I didn't need a class to teach me that. One thing that bothered me in one of my diversity classes was when a student asked the speaker, "Instead of promoting diversity, why don't we just try to recruit the best and brightest?" I'll never forget the speaker's answer. He starts off by saying that it is flawed logic, but then never explains how!

Dinesh D'Souza does a great job in the video deconstructing the argument of white privilege. Again, I never heard that term before watching the video, but I can't help but think that was the idea trying to come across through all of my diversity training. Unfortunately, this video is not unique. I've seen quite a few instances of these "diversity advocates" basically be blatantly racist against white people for past deeds against another racial group. Yes, slavery was wrong. Yes, the GI Bill mentioned in the video was wrong. The reality is that I -as a white man- am not responsible for the actions of other white men. How these people don't see this as just as racist of me thinking that all black people are criminals because a man was mugged in Tacoma by a black man is astounding. Should I call out Asian privilege because of the Mongol invasion of Europe in the 13th century? Instead of trying to look into the past in order to get present day comeuppance, let's acknowledge the fact that people were crappy to each other back in the day and move forward to create a better future.

Sam Harris

I've been a critic of the media since college, but lately it has just been getting worse and worse. I was watching Bill Maher last weekend, and then this happened:

Sam Harris espouses a fairly controversial point. Whether he's right or not is irrelevant and I'll leave it up to the reader to make that determination. What annoys me is when the media takes the sound bite of Ben Affleck calling Sam a racist and then that becomes the talking point for the entire week. Not once if rarely are Sam's points even honestly discussed. I've been doing a little digging into Sam Harris on YouTube, and while I disagree with him on a lot of issues, I love his style of argument. This man could talk about for hours about something I disagree with, but because he is so logical and precise, I can't help but find him compelling. Sam Harris is critical on all religions, but he rightly points out that terrorism is -for the most part- uniquely a problem in Islam. It just disgusts me to see such an intelligent man be slandered by being called a bigot.

Discovering Sam Harris has been like uncorking a bottle. Because of him, now I am finding a lot of influential philosophers and speakers. One of the reasons why I was a conspiracy theorist for so long was because instead of anyone explaining why they were wrong, people would simply dismiss them as kooks. Sam Harris and others like him actually take the time to deconstruct an argument and actually discuss the ideas versus name calling.

Even though I disagree with Sam Harris on a lot, if I could meet someone like him, we would be friends instantly simply because I would love the conversations. I don't even think you necessarily need to be super smart. You simply need to be able to admit what you know and don't know and be honest about it. A huge frustration of mine has been getting into a conversation with someone only to have it boil into a heated argument. Then the other person will just give up, say I'm right, and then ignore the conversation we just had. I personally learn more from arguing with people because it helps me get out certain logic traps that I've held onto for years. Sadly, I have only had really good conversations like this with my younger brother, but we tend to agree on a lot of things. Fortunately, I can learn a lot just from watching Sam Harris and other philosophers on YouTube, and I highly recommend it.

Race

The situation in Ferguson, Missouri has been getting out of hand. These riots started over the police shooting of Michael Brown. The white police officer shot Michael Brown, a black man, who allegedly had his arms up showing surrender when he was shot. This is being used as an example of perceived police racism towards black people in America. These racial tensions are just further extensions of Treyvon Martin and accusations of other black people being mistreated by police.

While I don't doubt that there are certainly racist cops, I do think that a lot of the perceived systemic racism is perpetrated by the media. The main reason for this blog post was my absolute disgust when watching CNN at the gym and seeing horrible race baiting segments suggesting a race war in America. We don't know much about the Brown shooting, and we should be very skeptical about witness testimony because it is often unreliable. Likewise, we shouldn't jump to the conclusion that Brown is completely innocent. It won't surprise me if the police officer is exonerated. Take Treyvon Martin for example. The media painted him as some sort of innocent child. It turns out that he badly beat up Zimmerman before he shot him, yet the media didn't run stories about that fact for months. I doubt a lot people even know about why the police were so quick to presume that Zimmerman acted in self defense.

Disinformation is the worst thing for a democracy

If it turns out that the police officer acted poorly, then I trust that the system will act accordingly. My problem is when the media like CNN jumps to a conclusion and then propagates a false narrative. I believe that duping the public like this is far more dangerous to our country than terrorism, Ebola, or another economic crash. I'm sure CNN is doing this for ratings, but I know myself and others are beginning to trust the media less and less. It's frankly hard for me to believe anything I see or hear about on television anymore.

Ghosts

Despite my religious beliefs, many are surprised to learn of my incredible skepticism of ghosts and other paranormal entities. Some of my skepticism is informed by my religious beliefs, but most comes from learning about haunted houses being scams from historical societies. I do believe in the possibility of angels and demons, but I would tend to believe in more practical explanations than supernatural ones. With that said, I wouldn't decry a seemingly miraculous event as being assisted by angels even if supernatural intervention wouldn't be necessary. However, demon possessions I would consider to be preternatural where clearly something extraordinary is happening, but I wouldn't rule out mental illness very quickly. Granted, I have never witnessed an alleged demon possession, so I can't say that with absolute certainty. The reason why I could believe in angels and demon versus ghosts is simply because I don't see biblical evidence for it, but as I said, my stronger case is with the prevailing evidence that a lot of hauntings are fake or exaggerated.

One of the more interesting theories behind ghosts and other paranormal events is that they may be caused by something called infrasound. Sounds below 20 Hz which is below the human hearing range is infrasound. Humans may not be able to hear it, but sounds with a frequency of 19 Hz have been experimentally shown to produce weird effects on humans. This may have something to do with the resonant frequency of the human eye being 18 Hz. Infrasounds can be produced by old motors like in ceiling fans, pipes, and storms. That ominous feeling in your stomach when a storm is incoming may be from infrasound.

From the James Bond Skyfall trailer

The closest paranormal experience I've had was fairly recently. I was accessing the supply closet at work. All of the sudden the projector screen automatically came down and flashed the image to the right at me. This really spooked me quite considerably. Accidentally bumping into the control panel and activating the projector is down right impossible. Heck, just trying to purposely activate the projector is hard enough. Granting that, the unlikelihood that a trailer for a movie that came out two years ago would happen to be playing and playing this particular scene is just unsettling. I'm not sure what sins I should be thinking on, but needless to say it definitely gave me pause. Not evidence of a ghost, but it is funny that my coworkers would always complain about a ghost setting off the toilet's automatic flusher. 

Guardians of the Galaxy Review

Peter Quill aka Starlord is abducted by aliens when he is a kid back in 1988. Flash forward to the present, he recovers a mysterious orb that is sought after by Ronan the Accuser. He eventually gangs up with several other extraterrestrial companions to stop Ronan from destroying the galaxy.

Like the first Thor movie, I was really worried over how much I would buy into this movie. Make no mistake, not only did I buy into it, but I thought that this was one of Marvel's better movies. Special effects were great. Despite the fantastic scenery, it never felt fake to me. The acting was phenomenal. The actors did a great job of balancing drama with comedy.

Probably the best feature about this movie is how well it stands on its own. There are virtually zero references to the other Marvel movies. There are two minor ones (which have the potential of being HUGE references to future Marvel movies) and several of the races that Lady Siff named in Agents of SHIELD make their debut. Other than those references -and of course the obligatory Stan Lee cameo, this movie is its own movie. With that being said, this movie explains a huge plot motivation from The Avengers (one of the two minor references). While future Marvel movies may explain this motivation, this is definitely the first that I am aware.

Since this is a Marvel movie, I can definitely guarantee you that there is indeed a post-credits scene. It has very little to do with the plot (if any), but it is certainly a huge laugh-out-loud, WTF moment. It introduces a character that has had its own movie before, but I will be surprised if I see this character outside of this post-credits scene.

Not once was I bored watching this movie, and despite all of the new characters, I never lost track of them. There are a lot of great action scenes, laugh-out-loud moments, and even some touching moments. It was definitely worth the ticket price!

I give this 4 stars out of 5

---

1 star = I hated it. Avoid it at all costs.
2 stars = I didn't like it, but you might.
3 stars = I liked it. Doesn't warrant a repeat viewing.
4 stars = I really liked. Has rewatchability.
5 stars = I loved it. Make plans to watch it.

Other Dimensions

Like a lot of other people, I've heard of there being more than three spacial dimensions for a long time. I was able to understand time being the fourth dimension, but I couldn't comprehend higher dimensions until I started taking computer science. With that being said, I could only understand it mathematically. I still couldn't visualize what a fifth or higher dimension would actually mean until I saw the video below. Not only did the YouTube Imagining the Tenth Dimension series show me what higher dimensions could be, it showed me how to visualize higher dimensions into infinity. You may need to watch the video multiple times before fully grasping it.

 

The funny thing when I discover things like this is how much other things I've experienced in life make sense. For example, alternate dimensions depicted in fiction are now more apparent. Obviously, I saw evil versions of my favorite heroes before, but I never really thought about an alternate dimension as part of a fifth dimensional space. So in a way, my understanding of higher dimensions allowed me to appreciate science fiction more.

Even with my understanding of higher dimensions, I have always been skeptical of multiple dimensions. Mostly because of the philosophical and religious implications. If there are multiple versions of me, are there multiple Heavens and Hells too? If all of my choices end up resulting in a new universe (a concept called imaginary time), then what purpose does choice really mean if I made the exact opposite choice in another universe? I also liked my thought experiment that if there are infinite versions of me, then there should be a version of me with God-like powers that I can control through my mind and have that being breach through to this dimension. Obviously I can't do that, but I couldn't understand why if the omniverse (multiverse of multiverses) theory was true.

A couple years later, I had a roommate who had much less of a scientific educational background than myself and my other friends. To this day, he is my quintessential example of someone who can be very wise without necessarily having a bunch of knowledge. I tried explaining the 10 dimensions video to him, and his first thought was what if all of this was BS. The truth is that he is 100% correct because higher dimensions may make sense mathematically, but there is no solid reason to truly believe that higher dimensions would necessarily behave like this (based on a loose understanding of quantum mechanics) or even exist at all. His skepticism of something that so many people will just accept at face value is something I still strive for every day. As of the writing of this blog, there is no evidence of dimensions other than the four we can perceive.

Or is there ...

The reason why I am writing this blog is because of my recent discovery of something called the Mandela Effect. Named for a lot of people believing that Nelson Mandela died in a South African prison in the 1980's than just recently. This was mildly interesting until I learned the shocking truth of the Berenstein Bears.

I grew up fondly reading Berenstein Bears book, computer games, and -I think- the cartoon. You may be surprised to learn that I didn't grow up with the Berenstein Bears but rather the Berenstain Bears. Don't believe me? Look it up! This discovery still blows my mind. The reason why this is relevant is that instead of believing that a lot of people misremembered the same thing, some have argued that this is proof that a good chunk of us may have instead quantum tunneled into another dimension. While not convincing proof of other dimensions, I don't think the Mandela Effect can simply be dismissed. I'm sure a lot of you reading this blog have the same false memory. Did we all travel into an alternate dimension? I do especially like the idea that this all happened when they activated the particle accelerator at CERN that some theorized would destroy the world. Maybe it transported us into an alternate dimension instead.  

Healthcare

President Obama's healthcare plan continues to be controversial especially since it passed the congress by such a narrow margin and without a single Republican to support it. Despite this, there is still a huge push for more socialized healthcare like in Canada and Europe. The argument seems valid. People need healthcare in order to survive. The problem is just like with food there is a finite supply of it.

Like with a lot of my political viewpoints, the Army certainly shaped this one too. For all intents and purposed, we have socialized healthcare in the Army. The good thing about it is that if I need to schedule a check up (in the Army, it's mandatory annually), then it is very easy and I don't have to worry about paying for anything. The problem is when there is an actual problem. Yes, not having to pay for it is nice, but just about every soldier in the Army will tell you that it's not that great. If you have a pain in your leg, you can go to the emergency room which could mean waiting for hours or you can schedule an appointment. Since healthcare is free, a lot of people will take full advantage of it. Generally with pain, a doctor will give you some aspirin, tell you to take it easy, and then come back if there is any more pain after a week. Well that pain actually was a fracture and by walking on it, you just made it worse. Because the doctor is overworked and everything is free, in order to offset costs and time, they will usually give you the minimal treatment and send you on your way. In the rest of America, you can get what you are willing to pay for, and if you have insurance, then you just pay a deductible.

Now the American system isn't perfect, but I definitely prefer it over the socialized system we have in the Army. Most soldiers will prefer to see an outside provider for the very reasons I gave. The problem with the American system is now health insurance companies aren't really providing insurance. Since you are basically forced to have some kind of health insurance, it's not really insurance. All this has done is create artificial demand thus skyrocketing healthcare costs making not having insurance a practical death sentence. The way it is supposed to operate is kind of like gambling. You can get your money's worth from an insurance company if bad things happen to you, but if not, then the insurance company is able to make profit. The reason why it's nice, is because it minimizes risk in case of emergencies since not a lot of people may have several thousand or even several hundred dollars on them at a single time. With health insurance being forced to sell to people with pre-existing conditions, this risk pool is further diminished since people with pre-existing conditions know that they will be getting their money's worth from the insurance company.

I'm not unsympathetic to those with pre-existing conditions, but there needs to be a better solution than forcing insurance companies to sell to those people because that is not the function of insurance. Those companies only want to sell to healthy people because the only costs they will incur are emergencies such as broken limbs or catching an illness. The United States already has Medicaid which is supposed to deal with people like this. Instead of creating a new ridiculous draconian healthcare program, just rework what we already have. Nothing annoys me more in the government than government redundancy. I'd be willing to bet that a lot of waste of taxpayer dollars could be eliminated if we cut down on seemingly redundant programs.

I don't know what the future holds with healthcare, but there is no way that President Obama's Affordable Healthcare Act (also known as Obamacare) is going to be sustainable. That fact that it didn't even take effect until after the 2012 elections makes me think that not even the president is confident with his healthcare plan. I can already foresee this being a losing issue for the Democrats in 2016.

Smart Wear

Unquestionably, the iPhone and subsequent smart phones have revolutionized the world more than any other invention in the last couple decades. The internet was a marvel back in the 1990's, and now it is literally at our fingertips wherever we go. I assert that a lot of what makes the iPhone brilliant isn't so much it's functionality, it's the fact that it's in a single device.

A laptop can connect to the internet better and provide better computational service. A camera can take pictures at much greater resolutions. And a cellphone can stay charged for much longer than a typical smart phone. Together though, the extraordinary convenience of not having to lug around three separate devices outweighs the functional cost. The smartphone camera is good enough. The battery still can last most of the day. You can still do most basic computational things on an iPhone such as Facebook and check email which is all that most people need. But being able to carry all of that power in your pocket makes it an essential item that we never leave home without.

Definitely check out Venture Bros. on Adult Swim

So what is the next step? I am already hearing reports of an iWatch similar to that of the Venture Communicator Watch from one of my favorite television shows, Venture Bros. Google is also coming out with smart glasses soon. Ultimately, the goal -in my opinion- is to try and empty out your pockets. Apple has already succeeded in making a suitcase unnecessary, so freeing up your pockets is the next step.

In my pockets, I usually carry around my iPhone, my car keys, and my wallet. Once technology improves enough (from a security standpoint), it would be cool to be able to use my smartphone to pay for my groceries. The wallet will be trickier since I don't see an easy replacement to ID cards, but this is again a security problem to solve. Cars already have keyless ignition, so it's just a matter of cooperation in being able to start your car with an app. Once these items can be combined into one, then where do we go?

I am definitely against something as invasive as a chip. I still prefer an accessory. Aside from my conspiracy tendencies, I think all people still can appreciate being able to turn off and be disconnected from their smart devices. If smart wear is implanted in you, then it can potentially always access you. I personally like the idea of a watch more so than glasses. A watch is already more of a fashion accessory than a useful device, and as someone who just stopped wearing glasses about a year ago, I don't want to start wearing glasses again.

Trolling

Not these trolls.

A lot of my free time seems to be spent arguing with random anonymous people on various issues on websites such as Reddit. I debate to a much lesser extent on Facebook. I blame this primarily on the format being much better designed on Reddit and the anonymity aspect. On Facebook, I know exactly who I am arguing with. My friends and family won't say or accuse me of something rude and nasty. On Reddit, I do not have that same privilege.

Especially prevalent with the gay marriage discussions, I find it extremely annoying when instead of arguing against my points, redditors will more often accuse me of being a troll or some other ad hominem attack. Ironically, I consider this sort of behavior much more trollish.

So an internet troll is basically someone who says something purely to be provocative and not provide any substance to a discussion. A good example would be if we were debating about whether Nazi soldiers were truly evil or just serving out of fear, and then someone comes around and says that Nazi's weren't evil because the Jews deserved to be in concentration camps. This obviously contributed nothing to the conversation in the example, and mostly served to simply tick off people. Now the troll could've tried to argue why Jews deserved die so horrendously, but they don't or they will simply resort to more horrible, unsupported statements. Now instead of having a thoughtful discussion on evil, we are now wasting our time explaining why this troll is a moron.

On the flip side, take the gay marriage discussion. Instead of arguing me on points of contention, I am usually accused of being a bigot. Now I have to explain how I have no animosity or hatred towards homosexuals instead of explaining the points I am trying to express. Simply because I don't agree with the majority, I am called a troll despite bringing up a legitimate point and giving valid reasons.

This is a huge problem in discussing important topics. Especially on topics that are very emotional on both sides. Maybe the antisemitic troll in my first example honestly thought he was bringing up a good point. The problem is that it's becoming a fundamental skill now to be able to identify logical fallacies such as ad hominems. If you aren't able to identify such fallacies, then a troll cannot truly be identified. If arguing the evil of Nazi's and the defense is that the Jews deserved it, then you have to be aware and able to point out that why such a statement is ludicrous. My example was a bit extreme and obvious, but there are plenty of instances where it is not obvious. Conversely, you cannot simply win an argument by being offended.

I think the best advice is to simply ask if the person is bringing up a valid point. That is probably impossible to define, but it can be expanded a little bit. Is the point honest? Is the point reasoned? Is the point purposely insulting? An atheist referring to Jesus as a zombie may seem honest and reasoned, but it is obviously insulting to a Christian especially since a christian would not characterize Jesus as undead but rather fully alive. I think these three questions may be able to better answer whether someone is trolling or not. 

Captain America: The Winter Soldier Review

Steve Rogers returns as Captain America, but this time he must face a familiar foe except this time he doesn't know who he can trust.

Sorry for the brief and cryptic plot synopsis, but so much stuff happens that I don't want to give any of it away. This movie has great action, great acting, and a conspiracy plot that I have been waiting a long time for. The fight scenes are each different and honestly get better and better with each one - be it a simple fist fight or a man with wings fighting a jet. Chris Evans does another phenomenal job as the Captain and same with the rest of the cast. The chemistry between Evans and Scarlett Johansson is some of the best I've seen without it having to get all mushy. As for the conspiracy plot, I thought the biggest plot twist was going to be the identity of the Winter Soldier which a simple wikipedia search would've spoiled for you. The biggest plot twist is much bigger and much more vast.

There really isn't too much more say. If you are a fan of the television program Agents of SHIELD, then watching this movie is a level 10 priority! (As a side note, if you thought Agents of SHIELD wasn't that good at the beginning, it gets a whole lot better.) It was also fun to see all the little nods that Agents of SHIELD expanded upon like security levels and whatnot. The main cast doesn't show up in the film, but there is a character introduced in Thor but greatly expanded upon in the TV show that becomes a very relevant character despite how short it is.

Since this is a Marvel movie, it is worth noting that you should probably stick around for at least the mid-credits scene which not only introduces a new villain but also two new possible Avengers. There is a post-credit scene too which while interesting is not really vital. 

I think this movie is better than The Avengers, and I don't care what your plans are, you need to see this movie. It's that good.

I give this 5 stars out of 5

---

1 star = I hated it. Avoid it at all costs.
2 stars = I didn't like it, but you might.
3 stars = I liked it. Doesn't warrant a repeat viewing.
4 stars = I really liked. Has rewatchability.
5 stars = I loved it. Make plans to watch it.

Noah Review

I will preface this review by pointing out that I am a devout Christian and this may affect my personal opinion of the movie.

Noah (directed by Darren Aronofsky) follows the story from the Bible generally well but does take several artistic liberties - some good and some bad. The movie begins with a brief history pointing out that the descendents of Cain have thrived greatly over the descendents of Seth (Adam's two living sons since Cain killed Abel) with the help of the Watchers (a combination of fallen angels and the Nephilim). Noah (played by Russel Crowe) - the last descendent of Seth - receives a vision in a dream of a global deluge that will not destroy creation but cleanse it. He believes he is chosen by God (Who is referred to as 'The Creator' in the movie) to help carry out God's Will by building an Ark to restore God's creation after the flood. When he realizes that his sons need wives in order to repopulate the Earth, he journeys to a nearby village where he sees all manner of evil. Mankind has ravaged the Earth utilizing virtually all natural resources and even resorting to cannibalism. This convinces Noah that perhaps it is God's intention for Noah's family to be the last humans.

There are practically two separate plots in this movie. The first half is about figuring out Noah's dream and building the Ark in order to save creation. The second half of the movie is about Noah's cold condemnation of humanity which amalgamates to if his grandchild is a girl, he will kill her in order to prevent her from becoming a mother to mankind.

Before I talk more about the first half of the film, I really need to address what I feel is its worst aspect. The Watchers are some of the poorest CGI creations I have ever seen in a movie and seem really out-of-place in this biblical epic. I can give the added complaint that the Watchers are nothing like their counterparts in the Bible. In the movie, they wanted to help mankind so much that they rebelled against God in order to do so whereas in Genesis they rebelled in order to lay with human women. The Nephilim don't really exist in this movie, but the fallen angels become these horrible looking stone giants (a translation for Nephilim) but not the "mighty men who were of old, men of renown". Admittedly when I was reading about the Noah movie, I was really excited to see that Semyaza and the other fallen angels who are mentioned more in the book of Enoch (part of the apocrypha - not the Bible) would appear in the movie only to be sorely disappointed by this interpretation. Ignoring my disappointing preconceptions, the Watchers have descent motivations but their look honestly ruined every scene with them. Besides looking out-of-place, the way they interacted with the film reminded me of really bad animation in live-action movies from several decades ago. I can forgive their unbiblical premise, but I cannot forgive their screen presence. 

Despite the Watchers, the first half drowns this movie. It is very slow and not a whole lot is happening in it. It starts with exposition which helps explain Darren Aronofsky's view of the antediluvian world. The vision that Noah dreamed turns into a quest to find Noah's grandfather which seems like Noah and his family walking around surrounded by nothing. They add a little tension by having them be chased, but I couldn't feel any. When they finally reach Methuselah (played by Anthony Hopkins), he saves the first half a little bit because he is very charming and adds some humor. The movie slows down again when they are building the ark.

The second half of this movie almost made me like this movie. It's ironic that the first half wastes the wonders and mysteries of the antediluvian world, yet the second half takes place entirely inside of the ark and is an entirely more interesting story. Because of Man's evil, Noah is convinced that mankind should die with his family. When he learns that he may have grandchildren, he becomes very cold and states that if his grandchild is a girl, he will kill her in order to prevent her from becoming a mother for more humans. As you may have guessed, the protagonist of the movie has suddenly turned into the antagonist. Now needless to say, this is not the biblical version of Noah in any way shape or form, but I really liked this interpretation. You will literally hate Noah yet understand him at the same time. All of the actors are great.

There are some minor nit-picks like where did Methuselah get a flaming sword (and what happened to it) and why did Seth's descendents carry around the serpent skin from the Garden of Eden. I can also complain about how biblically inaccurate it is (as another example - in Genesis, all of Noah's children had wives who made it on the ark whereas in the film, they didn't), but the slow first half and the Watchers is what ruined the movie for me. I definitely could recommend this as a rental and you can choose to skip to the part where they're on the ark, but I can't really recommend seeing this in theaters.


I give this 2 stars out of 5

---

1 star = I hated it. Avoid it at all costs.
2 stars = I didn't like it, but you might.
3 stars = I liked it. Doesn't warrant a repeat viewing.
4 stars = I really liked. Has rewatchability.
5 stars = I loved it. Make plans to watch it.

The Lego Movie Review

The Lego Movie stars a normal lego figurine name Emmitt as he is told he is the only one who can stop Lord Business from destroying the world.

This movie takes place in a world full of legos. And while it may be all CGI, it looks like legos. Nostalgia, charm, and and plain good-feels make this a true family friendly movie. Full of cameos, this movie also has a sense of humor that plays on many movie tropes as well as the cameos (even with the voice actors) that I'm sure everyone will find funny. The Lego Movie did not insult my intelligence and I am confident that people of all ages would absolutely love this movie. In fact, the twist near the end was moving enough to almost bring me to tears.

Stylish, fun, something that people of all ages can enjoy. I don't think I can say enough good things about this movie. If you haven't already seen this movie, I highly suggest you do. And be sure to get your ticket early since theaters are still selling out even a month out.


I give this 5 stars out of 5

---

1 star = I hated it. Avoid it at all costs.
2 stars = I didn't like it, but you might.
3 stars = I liked it. Doesn't warrant a repeat viewing.
4 stars = I really liked. Has rewatchability.
5 stars = I loved it. Make plans to watch it.

300: Rise of an Empire Review

300: Rise of an Empire is the sequel/side story of 300. It follows Themistocles as he tries to unite the Greek city-states against the invading Persian armies of Xerxes. Rise of an Empire also sheds some light on the origins of Xerxes and why he proclaims himself as a god.

While there are some supernatural elements, they are extremely rare making this a much more realistic portrayal than its predecessor. A lot of the fantasy elements are gone which disappointed me the most since that's what made 300 great to me. The feel of 300 permeates through this movie mostly in the battle sequences, but Rise of an Empire doesn't depend on 300 which is a huge plus in my book. If someone has never seen 300, that person could just as easily follow this movie. However having seen 300, I thought the battle scenes were mostly boring. It is worth noting that the Spartans are notably absent only showing up a few times in the movie. It didn't make a whole lot of sense why the Athenians were so invincible in combat against the Persians, and the fake and exorbitant amounts of blood make a lot of fight scenes feel like a dumb video game. The lead villainess made the movie more interesting, but it wasn't enough to save it.

On a side note, I saw this movie in 3D and while it did work in a few scenes, there were a few scenes where a character was supposed to be out-of-focus but they also stood out which made the picture look really weird.

300 Rise of an Empire won't impress anybody, but the original was far superior. While this may have had the style of the original, it didn't have the same weight and emotion that its predecessor had. There are a few scenes that are worth watching, but there aren't enough to make me like this movie. I recommend just waiting for this to come out on video for rental.

I give this 2 stars out of 5

---

1 star = I hated it. Avoid it at all costs.
2 stars = I didn't like it, but you might.
3 stars = I liked it. Doesn't warrant a repeat viewing.
4 stars = I really liked. Has rewatchability.
5 stars = I loved it. Make plans to watch it.

Gay Marriage

Indiana appears to be the central focus in the whole gay marriage debate. Truthfully, I'm a little burned out about debating the idea on Facebook and Reddit, so I thought I would share a perspective that I rarely get a chance to bring up since this debate -I think- has devolved into another religion versus secularism argument. Proponents of gay marriage will often cite their belief that marriage is a fundamental human right and that any two consenting adults should be able to get married. That sounds perfectly reasonable, but when asked why they want to get married, it's always about some kind of perk.

Marriage existed as a formal and legally binding way of combining people of two families into a new single family unit. This has deep roots in both the religious communities and in nobility. In the modern sense, it was incentivized to promote the nuclear family consisting of a husband, wife, and two and half children (I think the half is from an average). You can still see this concept in television sitcoms like The Simpsons for example. In order to promote the nuclear family, the government provided married couples with perks such as joint tax filings and over 1000 other federal benefits. My objection is that if marriage is a human right, then are single people being denied their rights?

I've been in the Army for a few years now, and one thing that has frustrated me to no end is how married people in the Army are much better treated. As a single person, I have to live in government housing, and I have to eat in government dining facilities - zero choice in the matter. If I were married, I would be entitled to Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) which is several thousand dollars. Never does a house or apartment take up the entire sum, so I know plenty of soldiers who pocket the extra money. All soldiers also get Basic Allowance for Subsistence (BAS) which is basically the money supposed to used for the purchase of food. As a single soldier, I get a substantial sum of that money forcefully deducted from my paycheck, so that I am basically force to eat often substandard food (although breakfast is generally pretty good). And again, the married soldiers who don't have a ton of kids pocket the extra cash. Basically, if you are married in the military, you get more money and more entitlements. And I feel this is the root of the whole gay marriage debate.

I'm sure some are using gay marriage as another means to delegitimize religion in politics, but I think the real driving force is money. Aside from the obvious financial benefits, look at how the political organizations describe themselves, LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender). What does being transgender have to do with being gay? I've seen that acronym longer too in some places. These LGBT organizations are fighting for "gay rights". Well they haven't named any other rights except for the supposed right to marry. I'd be willing to bet that if there were zero financial benefits to being married, then this wouldn't even be an issue in the first place. If gay marriage does become legal in Indiana (which I think is just a matter of time), I'm curious to see if these organizations will just go away, or if they'll find some other way of getting more money to "right more wrongs".

Climate Change

Global cooling, global warming, and now simply climate change threatens our very world or does it? Changing the vernacular of 'global warming' to 'climate change' certainly sounds some alarms off in my mind because I fail to see why it was necessary. While some of the data is debatable, I think you would have to be a fool to deny that the world is warming. The main questions are will this trend in warming continue and what damage will it cause to the planet and our species survival?

Debate persists in some circles about how scientists obtained temperatures before temperature measuring began, but for the sake of this post, I'm not going to debate that because I have no reason. I will admit that I don't know the science or math behind it. Regardless, I do think it's important to examine climate over the past millennia.

Temperatures have certainly increased over the past one hundred years, but it's important to also realize that we got out of a period called the Little Ice Age when global temperatures were colder than usual. I think this is an important point because one of the big questions is whether mankind is responsible for this temperature increase. I think it is certainly possible due to all of the pollution we pump into the air, but I think it is also possible that a lot of the temperature increase could be purely natural. Skeptics point to solar and volcanic activity as possibilities, and global warming advocates will denounce them. Whatever may be causing climate change, something definitely caused Earth to warm a thousand years ago and then cool down considerably a few centuries later.

The Debate

Let me first start off by expressing my frustration with the term "climate denier" and the relabeling of 'global warming' with 'climate change'. If someone is a skeptic of global warming, then calling those people a "climate denier" is just plain dumb. It doesn't accurately describe their beliefs because no one is denying climate. Second, relabeling 'global warming' to 'climate change' feels like it was a reaction to people mocking global warming when we had really bad snow storms. Clearly, the problem is that the world is warming, so purposely obfuscating the terminology just seems very suspect and very agenda driven.

How Big is the Problem?

Compared to global cooling, global warming is much better for survival. Crops can grow more and longer, and life is more prosperous. Obviously, you'll need more water to keep cool, but it is much preferred to the cold where crops will have a very short growing season.

As of today, the worst case models (another issue that skeptics have) only have the world increasing by a degree or two centigrade. People like Al Gore may predict gloom and doom, but there's really no evidence to suggest that weather will be more extreme or that coastal cities will sink. Talking worst case scenario, sea levels will rise over a hundred years, and people will adapt or move very much like Venice, Italy. There will not be a sudden rise which would be devastating. However, if these trends continue, then this could be a serious problem for future generations and this is where many environmentalists point. Warming may be better than cooling, but if it gets too hot, that can be a very bad problem. There are also issues of ocean acidification and pollution. Aside from the environment, there's also the fear of peak oil.

I'll also take this time to point out that one of the reasons why fossil fuels are so much better than solar, wind, and other green technologies is energy storage. Despite how good our batteries are, nothing compares to the energy storage of hydrocarbons. Ironically, even our best batteries for green technologies can be more damaging to the environment than fossil fuels. You don't need all of the power from a solar power plant, so a lot of that power is wasted and thus money is lost.

What's the Solution?

The obvious solution to all of these problems would be to discontinue fossil fuels and move on to green energy. I also believe that fear mongering of a distant problem is not a compelling argument for a lot of people. Whether you believe it or not, global warming is debatable. You know what isn't? Wanting clean air and clean water. I think if the message focuses on more immediate effects, then the argument is more compelling. No one wants to live near a lot of pollution.

We can try and do things individually, but how do we solve the problem as a society? Throwing tax
dollars at promising technologies is a huge gamble, and most likely will stifle actual solutions. The push for ethanol seemed more political than environmental because it was a huge boon for farmers. I advocate a free market solution. Green technologies need to be allowed to grow naturally. The best way to do this? Let gas prices grow. The push for ethanol also came at a time when gas prices were quite expensive. The obvious problem is that the government would hurt the economy in the short term if it raised gas taxes but in the long term would solve the fossil fuel problem. I'd be curious if a lot of environmentalists would be happy with that sacrifice especially when everything including food would get dramatically more expensive. Don't forget that all transportation is done by fossil fuels.

I don't know if there is anything we can do immediately to solve the problem, but aside from transitioning from fossil fuels, improving our recycling system needs to happen. Huge heaps of garbage will never disappear if recycling is so complicated compared to simply throwing trash away. In Washington, we have a recycling system called commingle recycling. It's not perfect, but it does simplify most recycling. The main problem is that it can't accept plastic bags and other soft plastics which is some of the worst pollutants because they don't decompose. If the commingle system can be improved to accept more types of trash, then we may have a solution.

Moving Forward

One way or another, I am confident that mankind will persevere through this problem. It may get worse before it gets better, but mankind has endured much worse. But don't think you are part of the solution simply by complaining about other people polluting the world. There are reasons why they are polluting. It could be simply laziness. It could be they are trying to make a living. It could also be that they are trying to keep you safe and healthy. The best solution is be creative and actually figure out ways to move away from fossil fuels and producing less pollution instead of waiting and hoping for someone else to figure it out.