Wednesday, November 9, 2011


So there are a lot of questions circulating these days about Blade Runner. Will there be a remake? Will it be as good as the original? Will Harrison Ford be too old and brittle to re-tackle this role and have to hand over the reigns to Shia Lebouf or some other former Disney star or Duff sister?

The answer is, simply: Who cares?

Blade Runner received a 92% on Rotten Tomatoes. That alone should require an SEC investigation. 92%. That's the same percentage Colin Powell gave to the UN affirming that Iraq had WMD's. Coincidentally, those are the same odds that the only way I'll have offspring is by attaching a picture of Leonardo DiCaprio to my sperm donor application and forging a diploma.

Blade Runner takes place in the future, and being from the future and looking back on what Blade Runner was guessing at I can honestly say they got a few thing right and a most things wrong.

Where they succeeded?

Like Madam Cleo, the writer looked into the stars, threw down the cards, and found a housing bubble the size of the BP oil spill.... and then charged you $8.50 for his trouble.

I refer to the toymaker in the movie who lives alone in an apartment building and says, roughly, "This place is empty. Plenty of housing to go around." A housing surplus? In California? Only Nostradamus, Ron Paul, and the Austrian School of Economics could have gotten this one right.

They also predicted that Harrison Ford would still be a crowd-drawing romantic lead in spite of kissing like a robot.

So where did it all go wrong?

Flying cars, robotic lovers, and steam coming out of every vent in America. Sounds like a movie starring a prepubescent and pre-parkinson's Michael J. Fox or a creepy Japanese fetish, and maybe that's what this movie was supposed to be. A sex vacation to Thailand for a bunch of wealthy Toyota execs, or maybe it's just an overrated glimpse into a future that will never exist.

The one thing Rotten Tomatoes got right? There's a 92% chance I'll never listen to their reviews again.

Thursday, November 3, 2011


About 20 minutes into the movie, Justin Timberlake gives out an anguished cry when his mother runs out of time. That same anguished cry was echoed by about 80% of viewers as they watched JT try to act.

Amanda Seyfried's body gives an amazing performance while her hair, face, voice, and head give... up on trying to make this movie watchable.

Not only did the writer run out of time to compose better dialogue, given what we saw in the final cut, the director ran out of time for more takes, the movie ran out of money for special effects, and I ran out of patience.

This movie teaches us the valuable lesson that stereotypes, generalizations, and oversimplification of the complex interplay between government policy, money creation by the Federal Reserve, and the pitfalls of corporatist lobbying and governmental appointments of officials that aren't accountable to the electorate, mean that all corporations are evil and only enrich themselves at the expense of the poor.

I'd just like to thank everyone that made it possible for me to watch this movie. My phone for letting my friend miraculously call me to invite me to see it. Fandango for making sure there were seats available. My car that turned a 25 minute walk into a 3 minute drive. The studio for taking a gamble on such a ridiculous script and putting up the money, hiring the production crew, and paying a marketing team that would eventually convince me to go see it.