February 2008

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
					1	2
3	4	5	6	7	8	9
10	11	12	13	14	15	16
17	18	19	20	21	22	23
24	25	26	27	28	29

The errors of definitions multiply themselves according as the reckoning proceeds; and lead men into absurdities, which at last they see but cannot avoid, without reckoning anew from the beginning.

-Thomas Hobbes

June 27, 2007

Bruce Willis: The Man, the Myth, The Actor

So in honor of the upcoming release of Live Free or Die Hard, I really began to look at Bruce Willis as an actor and I made an interesting discovery. While many of you may not quite agree with the assessment that he is an "underrated actor" or that he should be garnering Oscar awards sometime soon, I am of the believe that he is an underrated actor, and has the capabilities to obtain an Oscar, if he really wanted one.

Quick, let's do some word association. If I were to say to you: Harrison Ford, what are the first words or images in your mind? Han Solo? Indiana Jones? Drunk guy sleeping with a coat hanger? What about if I were to say Bruce Willis? What do you think of first? Action hero? Die Hard? "I see dead people"? While Bruce has made his money (and his big name) from doing the big action films, he has earned his acting ranks while being in the smaller films that are not exactly action packed. Do you remember him wearing a bunny suit, a la Christmas Story, in a film? I do. Let's see Tom Cruise pull that off.

The debate whether Bruce is a great actor or not is not what I would really like to focus on though. Remember that interesting discovery I mentioned? You know, the one that is all of two paragraphs above this one? You probably don't remember, but that's cool, I will help you. If one were to go back and do an overview study of the types of characters that Bruce likes to play they can be categorized fairly simply with this handle:

"Reluctant, tortured hero."

Three words, and you have the type of character that not only does Bruce play often, but plays very, very well.

Think about what makes John Maclane such an appealing and wonderful character. This is a man who is put in bad situations not by choice, and certainly does not want to deal with them, but he does deal with them, despite his own personal feelings. In Die Hard, what does John try to do first? He goes up higher in the building and tries to summon help. The fire department, the police, anyone. He would have been very happy to have the LAPD come in and clean up the mess. However, that would not have made a very interesting movie, and John had to deal with those bad guys all on his own. That same philosophy carried through the rest of the trilogy and appears to be maintained in the fourth installment.

What makes John such a great character to root for is that he is not superman, not an "Ahnold" action movie clone, he is just a cop from New York in the wrong place at the wrong time. He fights against the odds and has something that we don't see too often: fear. How can you not root for someone like that? He gets lucky, uses some smarts, and a maintains a whole lot of balls to get through the troubles he gets into.

Now take the "Reluctant, tortured hero" character and apply to other films that he has done, and you will see that same quality in those characters as well. Granted, not every film he has done fits this mold, but more of them do than you think would.

The first film to really take this into account would be Hudson Hawk (1991). Bruce plays an ex-con who only wants to live a normal live and have a Latte. He is instead coerced into the proverbial "one more job" and off we go.

Or look at The Last Boy Scout (1991). The character in this film may as well have been John Maclane, as similar as they were. Bruce plays a private detective who used to be a Secret Service agent for the President and took a bullet for the Pres. He was relieved of duty because he was guarding a sleazy politician who was beating up young girls and Bruce beat the hell out of him. The character becomes a drunk and falls off the radar until...you guessed it, he is brought into a series of events (against his will and wishes, gasp!) and must deal with the issues on his own.

You get the idea now, he is really good at these characters. Other films that fit this mold are Pulp Fiction, Twelve Monkeys, Last Man Standing, The Fifth Element (John Maclane in space), Armageddon, The Sixth Sense (a bit of a stretch, but still falls within the definition), Unbreakable (this one is THE definition of reluctant hero. In this one he actually has super powers and doesn't want to use them), Tears of the Sun, Sin City, and even Grind House.

There are elements of this character types in other films that he does, but the above films really match that mold. So I then put it to you, dear reader, who plays this type of character better than Bruce? Let me expand on that a bit further, who plays the character better, and for such a long time, as Bruce? Please note that I am not saying that the characters in each film are just cookie cutters of the other (despite my jokes about "Maclane in Space") as I believe the characters do have enough differences to make them unique. It is the character type I am focusing on here. If I had to pick one actor who could be close (damn close) to playing an excellent reluctant hero I would pick Clint Eastwood. That's a good choice, right?

Well then, there you have it. I did it, I put it out there. Clint Eastwood and Bruce Willis, in the same sentence, in terms of acting.

Would you have believed it? I would not have either, until I really thought about it. Yet when the term "(insert adjective here) actor of our time" is thrown about, is Bruce ever at the end of it? I have not heard it, at all. Should it be? Absolutely. Without a doubt. You may or may not agree with me, but if you are still reading this, then chances are you are a fan of Bruce as well, and it is about time that he begins to get credit where credit is due. Not as an action hero, but as an actor, plain and simple.

Bruce Willis, the actor. Kind of funny sounding at first, but at its core, that is how it should be.

Posted by Boon | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

June 26, 2007

What if Thomas Jefferson Were Alive Today?

A blog after my own heart:

What if Thomas Jefferson were alive today? What if the founding fathers were still around? What would they say about the way we live? Some of these questions are explored when writer of the Declaration of Independence and philosopher behind the American Revolution, Thomas Jefferson, is transported to the year 2003 through a freak time [traveling] accident, and starts up an [Internet] weblog to record his thoughts and adventures in today's time with Daniel, his all-too-American roommate.

Antics and zaniness ensue. But, a quick perusal through the pages of this site shows the author's done his homework on the third President, or "Teej" as they call him. Be sure to browse the entries chronologically starting here.

Posted by Rammage | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

June 20, 2007

Monkey Business

The nomenklatura of Montgomery County Maryland has struck again. This time they are after a monkey named Armani.

Recently Armani, a young male Black Cap Capuchin, was ripped from his surrogate mother's arms by Animal Control. Animal Control went to the house, commented how nice everything was for Armani, yet removed him claiming his status was illegal in the state of Maryland. After spending almost a year being with the only mother this young primate knows, Animal Control placed him into a Zoo and sent Elyse, Armani's mother, a bill for $1,344.20 per month for the Zoos care.

We are fighting to get Armani home before irreparable emotional or physical damage is done to this primate who remains caught in the crossfire.

Armani faces possible euthanization under Maryland law. If he could talk, it would be "HIS WISH" to be with the only caretaker he knows.

Montgomery County, our nation's best example of a county government gone awry, consists of one million government bureaucrats who sit around all day, earning six figures, and dream up new ways to control the proletariat all in the name of "The People." And now they're extending their reach to the monkeys, too.

Help out Armani here.

Sign the petition here: Online petition - Release Armani back to his life friend Elyse Gazewitz

Posted by Rammage | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

June 8, 2007

Atlantis Is a Go

Raise your hand if you know the Space Shuttle Atlantis is planned to launch tonight. Keep it raised if you know what time and on what television network you can watch live coverage of it. Keep it raised if you actually plan on watching it. I’m willing to bet there aren’t too many raised hands out there except for the true (pardon the term) “space geeks.”

It’s sad if you think about it. This country used to be enamored with space and space travel. Whenever there was an accident the whole country went into mourning. Think Apollo I, Challenger, and Columbia. Kids used to look up to astronauts as heroes, and wanted to grow up to be one themselves. People would travel to Cape Canaveral just to see the Shuttle launch as a vacation. I lived in Florida and we would go to the Cape for the launches quite frequently. If you have never seen one live it is quite a show, lemme tell ya. And now? Nary a peep.

I’m not a “space geek.” I’m far from it actually. I think that it is important that we continue space exploration, but I admit I’m one of the uninformed on the goings on in the space program. Luckily I have a good friend who works in the industry, so I get all my space news and tidbits from him. Including the notification that he will be busy tonight, “because we are launching.” When he told me this last night, I had to ask him to make sure. “You mean a shuttle is being launched tomorrow?” That’s how informed I am. And I’m guessing the rest of you as well. It’s just not out in the public anymore unless something tragic happens and lives are lost. Then it becomes the argument of why are we even doing it in the first place.

So I wish all in NASA and those involved with this mission good luck and Godspeed. May everything run without a glitch and you get everything accomplished.

Edit (7:00pm CST): Launch was a success. I had a friend of mine see it live and he sent me this picture.

Posted by G-Dawg | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

June 7, 2007

Harrah's Bans Microsoft Word Creator for Being Lucky

Harrah's Entertainment has banned Microsoft Word creator, Richard Brodie, for "being lucky."

I've meant to blog about this for some time.

I'm a quite-a-bit-better-than-average Texas Hold 'Em player (at least I'd like to think so...I think my poker buddies would agree). I also know the textbook best-odds video poker strategy, and play it consistently (when I get tired of live Texas Hold 'Em).

My Libertarian nature tells me that a casino should be able to deny service to anyone it darn well pleases, but it still annoys me that casinos routinely ban people from their establishments not because they're cheating, but because they are smart players. Wouldn't it be wiser for them to just change the rules of the games they run, to make sure players, on average, lose more money than they win?

On May 10, Harrah's sent certified letters to several high rollers informing them that their business was no longer wanted at Caesars Palace or any of the other Harrah's properties in Nevada, California, and Arizona. I was one of them. I called the office of Tom Jenkins, regional vice president, and got a call back from Terry Byrnes, the VP of customer service. He told me I was being 86ed because they couldn't figure out how to make a profit off me.
Now understand, the only games I play are poker and video poker. In poker, the house makes a 100% guaranteed profit straight off the top. In video poker, the house controls every aspect of the game: the pay tables, the amount of the house edge, and the promotions and incentives they offer. There is no way to use skill - or even cheat - to beat video poker. You can't count cards. You can't peek at the dealer's hole card. It's a machine. The best you could possibly hope for is to play computer-perfect, which I don't, and even if that were possible the machine still has a maximum theoretical payout chosen by the casino. The only thing the casino can't control is luck. One reason I like video poker is because you can get lucky and win. You hit a royal flush every 40,000 hands or so. If you're lucky enough to hit two, you're ahead! If you hit three, you're ahead for a long time!

Boy, have I been lucky at Harrah's.

I hit four huge royal flushes in the last year at three of the Las Vegas Harrah's properties. Not surprisingly, I'm ahead, although I've put 80% of it back. This seems to rub them the wrong way. But I have trouble imagining the thought process that would cause someone to decide that kicking out one of your most loyal customers is an appropriate solution to the problem of him having extremely good luck. If they think the machines are too loose, make them tighter. If they think they are giving me too much in comps, give less. They control every aspect of the game. Except luck. And kicking out players who have been lucky makes about as much sense as banning people from playing the lottery because they win it.

Posted by Rick | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)