PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE BLACK WIDOW

Good morning, Internet.

I spent my weekend at the cinema.

This was a highlight.



By which I mean Scarlet Johansson in a blue jumpsuit kicking the crap out of inept guards, not necessarily Iron Man 2.

Report forthcoming.

Shields down,

This is dF

A SERIOUS IRON MAN POSSESSED BY ANGELS

Al Gore invented blogs so that everyone could post movie reviews. And who am I to question the will of Al Gore?

A Serious Man

In which the Coen brothers get personal, with the story of a Jewish physics teacher in Minnesota whose life slowly unravels with one crisis after another ganging up on him all at once. Oh, and it’s based on the Book of Job. Of course.

Even as a fan of the Coens, I have mixed feelings about this one. On the one hand, it’s the kind of family drama stuff I generally don’t care for. On the other hand, there’s something morbidly fascinating about watching Larry Gopnik gradually lose control of his life through no real fault of his own and being advised to fall back on his Jewish faith, only to be told by the rabbis that God’s will is a mystery.

The thing about Coen Bros films is that by average standards, they’ve never really made a bad film, but by their own standards, they’ve made better ones. Which category this falls into may depend on the kinds of films you tend to watch. But I will say only the Coens could get away with making a film where the antagonist is Life itself (to say nothing of the ending). Also, points for the subplot about the Columbia Record Club. That brings back memories.

Iron Man 2

The first thing I should mention is that this was as much an experiment as anything else, for you see, I never did see the first Iron Man, initially due to lack of interest (sorry, but I was never really into Iron Man) and then lack of time. So having been assured the first one was quite good, I was curious to see if seeing a sequel without having seen the first episode would make a difference.

The answer: probably not.

It’s difficult to pin down just what’s wrong with IM2 because there’s a lot to like in it – high-tech pr0n, military-industrial complex satire, Samuel L Jackson as Nick Fury and, yes, Scarlet Johansson in skin-tight clothes beating the hell out of people. And of course Robert Downey Jr, yr go-to man for drunk narcissistic geniuses.

But in the end, I couldn’t really get into it. I could blame it on Gwyneth Paltrow (who I’ve never really liked) or the fact there was a lot less AC/DC in the movie than I was led to believe (a lost opportunity if ever there was one) or simply that I never saw the first one. It’s not a bad film, necessarily, but I just kept thinking it could have been so much better.

Legion

Yes, I know you all warned me, but the bridal unit was keen, so we went. And yeah, it’s pretty silly and cheesy.

I can deal with the idea of God losing patience with mankind and jump-starting the Apocalypse, but the possession angle is silly (not least because it’s clearly unnecesary, since angels can manifest physically on Earth), as is the “when angels possess you, you act evil just like when demons do it” angle. And the “save the child” storyline is as cheesy and cliched as it is pointless.

And don’t get me started on the character stereotypes, the only one of which I don’t mind is Dennis Quaid, who does failure + enraged bafflement better than just about anyone. Apart from that, there’s not a whole to like about it.

Slapped by an angel,

This is dF

ROMANCE IS THE NEW PORN

ITEM [via trillsie ]: Author Elizabeth Donald tells the one about how she set up a web store to help small-press authors sell books, and decides to use ProPay to handle credit-card payments.

ProPay refuses to do business with her on the grounds that her business constitutes “unacceptable use” as a pornographic merchant.

In fact, Donald’s web site specializes in horror, science fiction, fantasy and romance – sometimes in the same book (Donald, for example, has written vampire romance novels). No porn by any stretch of the imagination. However, some of the romance bits are apparently not exclusively heterosexual.

That doesn’t make it porn, of course. Unless you live in Utah. Which, by what I’m sure is a coincidence, is where ProPay is based.

Granted, as a private business, ProPay can choose to do business with whoever it wants for whatever reason. And of course that sword cuts both ways – customers who aren’t freaked out over the homosex can choose not to do business with ProPay.

But I’m passing this on anyway because it’s worth knowing that this is how censorship works in the Internet Age – play the Porn Card, and you can justify blocking access to just about anything. Pick any existing or proposed Internet content censorship law in any country – including the US – and you’ll find porn specifically mentioned as one of the justifications for it, and the law is almost always worded in a way to ensure that you can ban a lot more than just “porn”.

To be fair, some may specifically single out child porn, which is illegal in any form anyway. But as we’ve seen in Australia, “child porn” can include small-breasted women. And as we’re now seeing in Europe, the music/film industry is considering using “child porn” as a shoehorn to passing laws cracking down on copyright infringement.

Listen to Johan Schlüter from the Danish Anti-Piracy Group, a lobby organization for the music and film industry associations:

”Child pornography is great,” the speaker at the podium declared enthusiastically. ”It is great because politicians understand child pornography. By playing that card, we can get them to act, and start blocking sites. And once they have done that, we can get them to start blocking file sharing sites”.

See what they did there?

Whatever it takes,

This is dF

PRESIDENTIAL PORTRAITS ARE THE NEW DIY

Yr hot political story of the day [via bedsitter23 ]:



Naturally, Orthmann – a Republican – says it was all a big joke and he only put the picture there to make some point about healthcare:

"I didn't do it because I have a lot of dislike for the president," Orthmann said. "It was about the push for health care, smoking and having a little fun. It was just tongue-in-cheek."

Maybe. And as bedsitter23  points out, it could have been worse.

Still, we’re in interesting territory here. I don’t have the data on this, but I’m pretty sure that any courthouse or other municipal/state govt building that displays a picture of the president does it properly and without some kind of political commentary just as a matter of decorum. Maybe there have always been exceptions and we just didn’t have the Interweb to cover it. But this is a first for me.

I’m sure a number of conservatives will use this to claim that liberals and Democrats don’t have a sense of humor. And I’ll admit that on a general level, it is kind of funny, if not exactly appropriate.

Of course, my response is that if Republicans get to hang up pictures of Smoking Barry as “official” presidential portraits, then Democrats get to use the George Bush Eats Kittens photo as their “official” President Bush pic.

Or, if Sarah Palin wins in 2012, they get to use this as her official portrait.



[Yes, I know the Bush and Palin pics are Photoshopped. So is the Obama Cigarette photo. What’s yr point?]

Anyway, I chalk the whole episode up to the general state of Fear and Loathing that has devolved political debate into the current all-or-nothing zero-tolerance partisan circus presented to us by wingnuts on both sides and the media that loves them. Neutral ground and decorum are meaningless concepts when the opposition is shouting “You lie!” during the SOTU address and/or denouncing the President as a Socialist Nazi bent on destroying America – and they’re not speaking in metaphors.

Say cheese,

This is dF