Top things I'll miss from Chicago

1. My Friends, I haven't met a greater group of people in my life

2. Rush St. on a Saturday night

3. Gino's East Chicago-style pizza (Uno and Due are ok too)

4. Jogging by the lakefront

5. That fucking awesome skyline

6. Batman cleaning up the streets

7. Lincoln Park

8. Michigan Avenue

9. Ashkenaz Deli

10. Blackhawks games

11. Wrigley Field and Wrigleyville

12. Indian food on Devon

13. Evanston lakefront

14. Top of the Hancock and Signature Lounge

15. Navy Pier and Millenium Park

16. Jake Melnick's burgers

17. Drinks at the Drake (and trying not to stare at the classy, hot girls)

18. The lab (the people, not the work)

I'm sure there's PLENTY more stuff, but for now that pretty much encapsulates my amazing five years in this city. I hope to be back as soon as I can. For now, goodbye Chicago, you made me the man I am today.

Obama in Europe

So now Europe can join in the latest phenomenon to hit America: Obamamania. How eerie is it to see people waving, and not burning, American flags abroad? Anyways, Barack Obama just visited Germany where 200,000 people packed into Tiergarten Park to hear Obama deliver a cliched speech about the need for unity between America and Europe. Although I concur with that sentiment, I think Europe needs to show some wiggle room on the war on terror before we fall into each other's collective arms.

First of all, we can all agree that Iraq was a mistake. Atleast, Europe and the more enlightened half of America (which is now the enlightened 90%) have that common ground and I don't blame them for not sending troops there. However, I simply cannot comprehend why France and Germany, the strongest EU countries, are so reluctant to send troops to Afghanistan and other hotspots in the global war on terror. Afghanistan has suddenly seen a resurgence of the Taliban and a growing influx of jihadis from neighboring countries. It's unrealistic in today's world to keep paring down military expenses, especially if you are a supposed ally in the war on terror. Not to mention being so uncommittal. Say what you will about America, but atleast we have the balls to committ to something, whether it's just or unjust is a totally different question.

Regardless, Obama touched on the issue, but failed to drive it home to Europeans. Nevertheless, I commend him for not taking a scattershot approach to visiting Europe as Bush does. Bush deliberately visits countries outside of the Franco-German sphere of influence so he doesn't encounter dissenting viewpoints. I shouldn't be surprised when he utilizes the same strategy domestically. Obstinancy and closed-mindedness, qualities all presidents should have, right?

Anyways, the spirit of Obama's tour is dead-on, but I think the rhetoric needs to remain tough with regards to Europe. A certain level of ideology (but not demagoguery) will be necessary in regards to the war on terror. There is a black-and-white component to the WoT (again not to be confused with Iraq) and Europe should be mindful of that.

Poor McCain...

If you were to turn on the news nowadays, it'd be difficult to tell if Barack Obama was running against anyone. His international tour has been treated more as a coronation than a diplomatic trip. The media entourage accompanying Obama includes Brian Williams, Katie Couric, and a gaggle of other high-profile newscasters and journalists. Meanwhile, the media hardly batted an eye when McCain visited Iraq and South America a few weeks ago.

In addition, Obama is DEMOLISHING McCain in fundraising. It must be embarassing for the GOP that a Democrat is outraising a Republican by a three-to-one ratio. Much of this has to do with the fact that many Bush donors are not getting behind McCain, but you would think McCain could do better than this. The RNC has more money than the DNC, but it's not a huge margin and it doesn't matter anyways because Obama has so much money that he actually refused public funds! Never thought I'd see the day that a Democrat largely on the backs of smallish donors completely trounces the GOP in fundraising.

It seems that Republicans have largely consigned this election to the Democrats. They're not even trying anymore; you can't just chalk this up to media bias. Obama, for all his charisma and positives, is not Jesus Christ. Although I support his candidacy, I realize that he is just like any other Chicago politician. He knowingly schemed his way to the top of the Southside political scene in the 90s (the latest New Yorker has an excellent article detailing this). Part of my enthusiasm for his candidacy stems from the fact that Bush really has been THAT bad. In any other situation, I'm sure I would be less than impressed with Obama.

Nevertheless, part of me does feel some sympathy for McCain as the forgotten candidate. He really needs to step up his appearances and exposure to fight off the prevailing sense that he's nothing more than an out-of-touch old fogey. The Republicans also need to let go of their hesitation to get behind McCain otherwise this will be a complete wash of an election. But then again, that's sort of what I want I suppose...

The Dark Knight

Last night I FINALLY was able to watch the much-anticipated batman movie at AMC River East 21 near Navy Pier. Even after the first weekend, tickets for shows have been sold out and people have been queueing up for shows a full hour before the movie actually starts. Truly, I have never seen this response to a movie AFTER opening weekend; it's crazy. Luckily, thanks to a great friend of mine I was able to get seats and watch the movie from a good vantage point in the back of the theatre.

The final verdict? This movie just may be the best superhero film I've ever seen. There are moments where it excels beyond the original Tim Burton film, but I hesitate to make direct comparisons because they are so different stylistically (more on that later).

The first thing that separates this movie from its direct predecessor and other superhero films is its scope. Batman's origins have already been established so now this movie can completely focus on Batman fighting crime against his ultimate arch-enemy, the Joker. This inherently makes the movie more of a thrill ride in comparison to Batman Begins, where lengthy flashbacks and slow-paced dialogue in the beginning were necessary to establish the Nolan franchise of Batman movies.

Second, the storywriting is very solid and always leaves you second-guessing yourself. There were so many scenes, including several huge shockers, that I didn't see coming at all. No-one in the movie, except for maybe Batman himself, is safe and thus the tension built in the film is palpable. I could nitpick by saying a few scenes dragged for far too long, but in the end the two-and-a-half hour running time flew by. I especially enjoyed the mass panic scene at the end of the film; it presents an interesting conundrum.

Third, you can't have a great movie without great performances and here is where The Dark Knight really separates itself from other superhero movies. Christian Bale, as always, is a joy to watch. He's the perfect actor to portray Batman and that's really all I can say. My only gripe is that his choice to voice Batman with that gravelly voice started to grate on me towards the end of the film. I had to strain to hear what the hell he was saying during some of his longer monologues. Morgan Freeman as Lucius and Michael Caine as Alfred are solid again, and Alfred shows himself to be a bit of a Machiavellian. Maggie Gyllenhaal takes over for Katie Holmes as Bruce's love interest, Rachel Dawes. Not a lot to say, she's ok in her somewhat limited role. Aaron Eckhart as Two-Face finally clears our minds of the awful Tommy Lee Jones Two-Face from Batman Forever. To watch his rise and fall is one of the best subplots in the film because of its tragic quality.

Of course, everyone's talking about Heath Ledger as Joker. Let me say this upfront: it will be a shame if he is not nominated for an Oscar. Screw sentimentality over his untimely passing, this was a masterful performance by a great actor. He makes the Joker character entirely his own. Heath makes this Joker a man with a brooding psychosis coupled with the abject mania we associate with the comic book character. It laid to rest any doubts I had about Heath Ledger being Joker. Who would have thought after that awful teen film he did in the late 90s that he would blossom into this? It's depressing to think that an actor so talented is gone, but this is one hell of a swan song. RIP Heath Ledger.

This transitions into another topic of interest actually: Is this movie better than the original 1989 Batman film (where the Joker was also the primary antagonist)? To me, it's like comparing apples and oranges and it really depends on how you think Batman should be portrayed. If you prefer a realistic, grittier version where it seems plausible that a billionaire guy can dress up as a bat and fight bizzarre villains, then you will say Dark Knight is better. The Burton film is fantastical at its core and one could argue it captures the spirit of the comics better than the Nolan movies. It has its own unique cinematography and mood, and in this way I prefer it to Dark Knight. Also, comparing Nicholson and Ledger is pointless. As per the mood of "Batman", Nicholson's Joker is more comic. Ledger's is more savagely, brutally mad (he doesn't even do that trademark laugh very often). Each portrayal fits the respective moods of the films and one is not better than the other.

Nevertheless, The Dark Knight is firmly nestled at the top echelon of the summer action movie blockbuster. This is how it's done. It's a complex, dark adrenaline rush from beginning to end and I can't wait to see it again in IMAX.



As an addendum, Chicago has never looked so magnificent onscreen. It's really surreal to see the River, Lower Wacker, the skyline, Navy Pier, and, rather appropriately, corrupt cops and politicians used to stand-in for Gotham. Plenty of films have been filmed in this city, but the fact that they used Chicago as Batman's hometown gives the city a cool factor that The Untouchables or The Sting could never equal.

Bayh-sexuals

President-elect Obama (sans some political disaster) recently held a national-security summit in West Lafayette, Indiana aka the home of Purdue University. Not only does this tell us that Obama is working hard to get Hoosiers to vote blue, but it also means that a certain Democratic senator from Indiana may be on the vp shortlist. That's right, Senator Evan Bayh may have just vaulted himself past other higher-profile VP contenders, such as a certain wife of a former President.

Evan Bayh, a typical Heartland Democrat, would help balance out Obama's weaknesses, especially with respect to national security and Obama's not being a white male. Bayh also has experience in governance thanks to his stint as Indiana's governor for 8 years. One weakness is that he can come off as uncharismatic especially in comparison to Obama. Second, if Obama presents his platform with a primary focus on Iraq, then Bayh's former staunch support of the war effort may send mixed messages to the public. Regardless, I think Evan Bayh would be a solid pick, and if it eventually leads to his becoming POTUS eventually, then I'm all for it.

As for the prospect of Indiana falling in the Democratic column, I wouldn't entirely count out the possibility even without Bayh on the ticket. It has been 44 years since Indiana voted Democrat, but tell me if in the last four decades there has been a blue politician with as much hype as Barack. Based on the Indiana electoral map, here is the easiest route to victory in the Hoosier state:

-Win Indianapolis by a large margin. It's the largest urban area in the state and has a large black population. This is the most critical point because Kerry split the vote with Bush in 2004 and the collar counties will assuredly vote for McCain.
-Use your Chicago connections to win the three Chicagoland commuter counties by huge margins
-Win Fort Wayne, Bloomington, and West Lafayette convincingly. Ft. Wayne is a former industrial town with a large black population, while Bloomington and West Lafayette are college towns.
-Lastly, try to do somewhat respectably in the rural areas. I don't expect Obama to win even one of the rural counties, but if he accomplishes the three former goals then it shouldn't matter.

Top 5 ways to die in Rambo

5. Machete cutting off both of your limbs

4. Bayoneted then thrown into a fire

3. Arrow through your face, then blown to smithereens by a bomb

2. Trachea ripped out by Rambo's bare hands

AND...

1. Disembowled by a knife Rambo made himself then kicked down a hill

Nuh Nuh Nuh Nuh Nuh Nuh BATMAN!

Like most people in America, I will be watching the latest Batman film, entitled "The Dark Knight". Unfortunately, I did not have the foresight to buy a ticket in advance for a weekend showing in the city where it was filmed. Hence, I will probably watch it in IMAX at Navy Pier early next week. Although it stinks, I'm not one of those who absolutely needs to be the first person to see it so whatever.

Regardless, the hype has been through the roof here in the stand-in Gotham of downtown Chicago. I have no doubt it will kick all sorts of ass, and that I will be well-satisfied. You see, I'm more than just a casual fan. One of the first movies I ever taped and watched religiously thereafter was the original Adam West Batman movie. Batman was the only comic I actually used to buy when I was a kid in the 80s and early 90s. Batman: The Animated Series, in fact, was one of my favorite cartoons growing up. It was unusually dark and sophisticated for a kids serial, even my dad watched it. Of course, I've watched all the movies from the old Adam West one up to the craptastic Joel Schumacher ones and including the modern Nolan incarnations. The question is how does each measure up after all these years and with a more sophisticated, analytical mind?

1. The Adam West Batman film

Like I said before, this was one of the first movies I had my dad set up the VCR to tape for me. Although most people hate the Adam West's Batman, I stand alone as a fan of this movie. Sure, it's incredibly campy, but even today it brings a smile to my face and entertains me. In essence, that's all I require from a movie. Seriously, if you can keep a straight face during that scene when Batman has to dispose of that bomb, then you have no soul.

2. Batman by Tim Burton

To me, this is the quintessential Batman movie. Almost 20 years later, it remains my favorite superhero film. There are some heavweight actors in this film such as Kim Basinger, Michael Keaton, and of course Jack Nicholson. What can you say about Jack's performance, he perfectly captures the manic nature of the Joker. He would almost steal the show if it weren't for Michael Keaton's masterful portrayal of Batman. What I love about his performance is that he is as good as Bruce Wayne as he is Batman. In public, Bruce Wayne acts aloof and goofy, while in private he's a brooding man. As Batman, he's the understated badass we all know and love. It's a subtle, brilliant performance considering that he's playing a guy who dresses up as a bat to fight crime.

3. Batman Returns

For the second modern batman movie, Tim Burton was given full reign over the film. As a result, this movie is even more bizzarre and dark than the first one. Now, I don't hate this movie, but I felt like there are too many Burtonisms in this movie. The man is a visual genius, but he went a bit too far in the visual scope of this film. I sincerely believe it distracts from the plot and the Batman character at times. In addition, the decision to have Catwoman and the Penguin further distracts from Batman himself. Nevertheless, it was still a good movie, but unfortunately the aforementioned "burtonisms" alienated some of the mainstream audiences ( most importantly the kiddies) and spelled the end of the Burton era, which really was unfortunate.

One thing I have to add: the scenes where Penguin bites the guy's nose off or the one where the penguins act as pallbearers after he dies: unintentionally hilarious. Also, this movie spawned one of my favorite brawler video games for the SNES so I can't hate on it too much.

4. Batman Forever

So this is where things started to go downhill for the modern Batman franchise. Gone are Michael Keaton and Tim Burton and in come Val Kilmer and Joel Schumacher respectively. In an attempt to make it more mainstream, they brought in Jim Carrey to play the Riddler who at the time was the biggest comedic actors in Hollywood. Everything is changed in this film. Gone is the subtle, gothic nature of the first film. Gotham itself is like this cyberpunk, garish version of itself full of neon lights.

This movie is strictly mediocre fare. I really disliked the complete focus on Riddler at the expense of Batman, but then again that may be a good thing because Val Kilmer's portrayal is extremely stiff. Even Two-Face, a guy who is half monster and half-human, is overshadowed by Riddler and has almost no development or backstory. They also introduce Robin in this movie, which is a bit of a disappointment given how whiny he is. Then again, this movie is still ok in my book. It doesn't dazzle, but it doesn't really offend either. One thing I must say, this movie has one of the best soundtracks ever. The Offspring, the only U2 song I actually like, Smashing Pumpkins, and Seal are all on this LP. I would definitely download it.

5. Batman and Robin

Oh boy, this one is a real stinker. When I think of this movie one phrase comes to mind, CHEESY AS HELL! The Adam West movie is at least campy in a funny way, this one is just campy in a shitty way. The movie is a spectacular mess because it tries to pack in a million subplots. Mr. Freeze and his wife, Poison Ivy's origin, Robin's jealous nature, Batgirl's origin...it's just too much for one movie. Also, some of the sequences make me cringe with embarassment. For example, Batman and Robin play hockey with a diamond while wearing batskates or how about the one where Batman and Robin publicly bid money to date Poison Ivy. Who the hell wrote this plot? Mr. Freeze also has a million one-liners and puns, and every one of them is painful to listen to.

I think it really says something when this movie essentially destroyed the careers of three actors: Chris O'Donnell, Alicia Silverstone, and Arnold Schwarzenegger. Uma Thurman, in fact, had a downturn in her career too until the Kill Bill franchise. Trust me, it's THAT bad.

6. Batman Begins

Almost a decade later, Christopher Nolan rejiggered the franchise with this offering. It's certainly a return to the Burton movies stylistically, but he makes it totally unique. Although I don't like it as much as the original 1989 movie, this movie is fantastic in its own right. Christian Bale may be the best Batman ever, though I liked Michael Keaton's Bruce Wayne better. Sans Katie Holmes, there are some great actors in here including Morgan Freeman and Michael Caine. One thing this movie does better than the original is fleshing out the origin of Batman. In fact, most of the movie is focused on how he becomes Batman after suffering the loss of both of his parents.

It's a new batman for a new millenium and it wouldn't have worked without Christian Bale and Christopher Nolan. These guys are young and talented, so I look forward to atleast two more films after Dark Knight. Thanks goes to them for rescuscitating a broken franchise.

The latest New Yorker cover

The latest New Yorker has generated some real controversy for some real reasons. Hendrik Hertzberg, one of my favorite writers for the New Yorker, has argued that the cover is clearly satirical, and is addressing the obviously false rumors that Obama is a Muslim, etc for purposes of parody. The Obama camp and most of the media has contended that the cover sends a dangerous message to the public and constitutes irresponsible journalism.

Although I agree that this cover is in bad taste, I think Hertzberg and the New Yorker are in the right here. As any avid reader of the New Yorker can attest to, the publication is obviously elitist liberal in its slant. They wouldn't do this cover to be injurious towards Obama on purpose. If this cover came from, say, the Weekly Standard, then I would suspect a more malicious, politicized motive.

Regardless, I can empathize with Obama's camp. Unfortunately, when the average American sees this cover at the drug store, they are not going to understand the figurative layers underneath the explicit image of Obama in a turban shaking hands with a wife holding a machine gun. At this time, the number of people in this country who fallaciously believe Obama is a Muslim has gone up, and this was before this issue came out onto newsstands. Though the New Yorker has every right to publish whatever they want, it does not help Obama's "proving of his americanness" case to the American people. Here is where the New Yorker maybe should have exercised some caution. At the same time controversy sells, so what the hell do I know about the media.

We must remember this also: If we truly embrace what America is about, it shouldn't even matter if Obama is a Muslim or not ! Race and religion still color American life unfortunately, and this cover and the reaction towards it doubtlessly proves that notion.

Russia and China, what the hell are you thinking?

Russia and China, members of the United Nations Security Council, have both vetoed America's desire to place sanctions on Zimbabwe. Good idea guys, let's continue slapping the wrist of a guy who not only openly flouts democracy, but also one that has presided over some of the largest crimes against humanity over his (now just prolonged) reign of tyranny. It's shameful enough that it took America this long to take some action, but it's even worse that we have not just one but TWO nations opposing sanctions against Mugabe. This is precisely why the Security Council should be expanded to include nations beyond Russia and China, two totalitarian countries operating under the guise of democracy and/or Western capitalism (I realize both are mutually exclusive, but still).

As for Robert Mugabe, there are very few people I wish to burn in hell, but Mugabe makes that ignominious shortlist. To borrow a phrase from a good friend of mine: "What a cunt!". Thabo Mbeki also deserves some reproach for essentially standing pat. South Africa as the continent's most powerful country has curiously remained silent as people are slaughtered and thousands flee to refugee camps in SA. America may be in decline, but if countries like Russia, China and South Africa fill the void, then the world is in some serious shit. Even Europeans have to agree with that sentiment.

Nevermind about another Rambo movie

Well I thought that the last Rambo film's ending made it quite clear that there wouldn't be another Rambo film, but I guess I was mistaken. According to news reports, Stallone is working on a script for another Rambo movie (he's about halfway done). I've learned to not underestimate Sly after Rocky 6 turned out so well and the latest Rambo film was quite good as well. If he can resuscitate two icons now in their 60s, then I don't see any reason he can't keep aforementioned 60 year old icons going...

Indians : the kind of Asian

In the USA, when someone says "Asian" it typically refers to people from East Asia or Southeast Asia, in other words people with Mongoloidal features. Mongoloidal features are your typical single-eyelid, wider faces and fat deposited around the cheeks. When one fills out any census form, Asian is clarified to include not only East Asians or Southeast Asians, but also people from the subcontinent (eg. - Indians and Pakistanis). In many ways, this highlights the problems with using the Asian term as synonymous with race, when it really should mean "person who derives heritage from the continent of Asia". Regardless, under the current classification of Asian in the US, it doesn't make a lot of sense to group people from the subcontinent in with Koreans, Japanese, Filipinos, etc. Although there are some commonalities, I think South Asians are too culturally, linguistically, and racially distant to be lumped in with "yellow Asians".

Now, there are some historical links between India and the countries East. Perhaps notably in the religious sphere. Indian religions have spread East, most notably Buddhism which is a predominant religion in the Far East. In addition, Hindu myths like the Ramayana are known and re-enacted in places like Thailand and Cambodia. Much of SE Asia, in particular, had a strong Hindu tradition and later Buddhist one. For example consider the history of Angkor Wat in Cambodia, a former Hindu temple. Islam's springing board to countries like Indonesia and Malaysia was from India after the Mughals took over. Religion can be a vehicle for culture so you can expect to see commonalities springing forth from this, especially in SE Asia.

However, I think these similarities are outweighed by some significant considerations, and make Indians only nominally "Asian" (referring to the US connotation). First of all, perhaps the most striking argument you can have is race itself. People from the subcontinent, by and large, belong to a different racial classification, particularly those from northern India. Genetic studies have been conducted which have shown people from India to be more related to people from Europe (especially Italy and Greece) than people from Thailand or China, despite the proximity of East Asia to India. This can be attributed to the history of India being invaded from the West throughout its history. India has the tallest mountain range in the world on its northeastern borders and water on the southeastern and southwestern ends. Historically, invaders swept through the northwestern deserts and were able to quickly take over across the relatively flat plains. It started with the Aryans (from the Caucasus), continued with the Macedonians, continued with the Mughals from Central Asia/Persia and then the imperialist Brits. All of these people are Caucasoidal and, hence, have spread their genes to people from the subcontinent, particularly in the North.

Genetic testing supports the notion that Indo-Aryans (which constitute the racial majority of India) are essentially dark-skinned Caucasians. Facial structure and build confirm this. Our faces are longer, hair is wavier, and eyes are rounder compared to people from the Far East. There are Mongoloidal Indians, but they are mostly concentrated in the Northeast with the Chinese border and are not part of mainstream India. They're not even five percent of India's population, in fact. In the 1920s, an Indian Sikh man tried to sue to be included in the Caucasian category, but obviously people can't let go of skin color and look at more relevant markers like facial skeletal structure or genetics. The term Caucasian isn't synonymous with white; it merely means someone from the Caucasus. Going by genetics, Caucasoidal racial classification refers to a broad swath of people from Europe to the Middle East to Central Asia and, yes, including the subcontinent (especially North India and Pakistan).

Linguistics also show a marked difference between Indians and people from the Far East. Most people in the subcontinent speak Indo-European languages, where the vernacular is remarkably similar to languages spoken in Europe. For example, mujhey is me, tum is you (tu in Spanish), mata is mom and I can go on and on. Plus, Hindi uses a conjugation system (endings of verbs and pronouns change depending on who's doing the action) virtually identical to that of Spanish or Italian. In addition, as a result of invasions from peoples of Central Asia and Persia, you will find many words borrowed into Sanskrit script based Hindi. I can't tell you how many words were similar to Urdu-derived words when I visited Turkey, it was quite astounding. As a result, languages like Hindi, Urdu, and Punjabi belong to the Indo-Iranian subfamily of Indo-European languages. Although the devanagari script has obviously been used in Thai or Cambodian languages, the actual vernacular is not related at all and vernacular is more important in grouping languages. That's why people learn to talk before they write and most nomadic people were able to survive without a written language for centuries.

Perhaps another difference lies in culture itself. India is really a remarkable country so full of influences derived from all its ethnic groups. However, most of North India has a culture that has been influenced by the Mughal occupation. For better or for worse, relics of this period are evident everywhere you go in the North. Perhaps the most important is in the food we eat. Unlike "Asian" food, Indian food particularly in the North is heavily dairy-based. Yogurt, cheese, and milk are all important components of Indian cuisine, and partially why cows are considered sacred. Can you imagine Indian food without paneer or raita? I can't. Rice (basmati variety) is a staple but is mostly used as a supplement for wheat-based flatbreads (unless you're in the South where it's rice and more rice). Naan, puri, and roti are important for the Indian meal. In addition, many of the foods we eat have their origins from Persia and Central Asia. Paneer, Naan, Kofta, biryani and pulao are all Persian or Turkic in origin. Rice can't be used as a Pan-Asian unifier because rice is eaten everywhere in the world, whether it's Cajun Louisiana or Africa. Walking around India, the edifices, the bazaars, the ladies draped in salwars, it all reeks of a Mughal flavor and doesn't feel "Asian", but rather distinctly Indian with heavy Persian influences.

If it were up to me, the entire racial/ethnic category system would be revamped. There should be more detail employed in collecting this data. Caucasian should be expanded to include Indians and Pakistanis (25% of 2nd generation Indo-Paks do so already). Or if we want to continue labeling subcontinentals as "Asian" then include the entire continent as well, including the Middle East and Turkey. The third option is to simply set the subcontinent aside as its own category. There are just not enough Pan-Asian unifiers on a genetic, racial, linguistic, or cultural level to warrant the status quo.

Irate Gamer...more like Ignorant Gamer! HyukHyukHyuk

If you grew up in the 1980s and early 1990s, you were part of a pioneering generation. No, it's not because you witnessed the end of the Cold War or had awesome cartoons, it's because of your being alive during the golden age of video gaming. I'm talking about NES, SNES, Genesis and other consoles prior to the advent of FMV and true 3D graphics. Video gaming was not as mainstream as it is now, and the games had real heart. Because this was really the beginning of modern gaming, quality control was not as stringent as it is now. In addition, there was no Internet to widely disseminate information about games or game reviews. You just bought a game through word-of-mouth or took a chance with your 60 bucks. Hence, lots of real shit was released. Outside of a few developers like Nintendo or Capcom, you were taking a big risk. For every Zelda there were a million Pit Fighters.

So it behooves me to see the army of retro game reviewers online willingly choosing to subject themselves to "shitbombs" like ET and Total Recall. It's amazing how saturated the internet is with these sorts of reviewers until you consider the popularity of James Rolfe aka "The Angry Video Game Nerd". The AVGN phenomena started with a video lambasting "Castlevania II" for the NES. A few videos later and suddenly the guy is an internet celebrity. What started as a youtube thing has grown into a franchise hawking DVDs, shirts, and special features on spike tv. I started watching rather late, around the time of the Atari review, but I'd like to think I'm a fan of Rolfe's work. I don't agree with all of the character's gripes about the games being reviewed, but I find his combination of cogent scriptwriting and sickeningly scatological remarks entertaining. I can appreciate the amount of time and work he puts into his videos, and he strikes me as a guy proficient in all forms of media, from tv to movies to video games. The character himself is memorable and Rolfe, though not a Brando by any means, is a good actor for an online serial.

Given his massive popularity, it's only natural that there will be a slew of imitators. Just search "video game reviews" on youtube and I guarantee most of them will be atleast somewhat inspired by a profanity-laced AVGN rant. One reviewer, in particular, stands out as an AVGN doppelganger: a guy named Chris Bores aka "The Irate Gamer". It's not a new assertion to say that Chris Bores, who came well after Rolfe, is a blatant plagiarist of the AVGN. That goes without saying and anyone who believes otherwise is either completely naive or does not know the definition of plagiarism. There's a difference between inspiration and ripping someone off, and Chris Bores errs towards the latter hard. Though that's a compelling enough reason to dislike the Irate Gamer, I think there are a number of reasons to hate his show based on its own merits (or lack thereof):

1) Chris Bores cannot act

The definition of irate is mad beyond belief, or should I say angry. However, the Irate Gamer is more like the "Mildly Perturbed Gamer" in his serial. You don't believe that the guy is genuinely mad because he's a very, very poor actor. He consistently overacts and it's obvious that he's forcing it. You don't need theatre acting chops to do an online serial, but you should atleast be able to convey anger believably when the entire premise of your show is that you're a pissed-off gamer masochistically tormenting himself with crappy games.

2) His "humor" is not funny at all, unless you find the title of this post hilarious

Chris has a unique concept of humor, one that curiously lacks the ability to even make one elicit a chortle here or there. Much of the over-the-top scatological remarks a la AVGN that he attempts just fall flat because he lacks either the delivery or the acting chops as discussed above. Imagine you had a friend who tried to curse you out but was just too awkward to pull it off and ended up just humiliating himself. That's what listening to Chris is like. Plus, his jokes are lame and repetitive, if they didn't work the first time then they won't work the sixth or seventh, man. The rest of his humor is derived from repeating AVGN expressions like "shitload of fuck" over and over. Sorry Chris, why would I settle for your cover band act when I can see the real thing?

3) The script is piss-poor

Many of the phrasing is just plain awkward to listen to. There are serious syntactical errors and mispronunciations abound. You know there's a problem when the person who penned the script has difficulty reading his own words. I think Chris knows his analysis of the games and the writing are weak points so he overuses effects to compensate. Ask George Lucas how that strategy worked out for the new Star Wars movies (but then again he made boatloads of money so I guess the joke's on me).

In fact, the errors in the script are exacerbated by his gratingly annoying voice. I know this isn't really his fault, but I think there's a reason certain people go into voice-acting or narration and others don't. He has this cringe-inducing Clevelander accent that even a native Clevelander like myself finds irritating.

4) You doubt he's a gamer at all

This really is the most serious offense of Chris Bores. Quite simply, it's difficult to believe that this guy is a gamer at all. First, the guy makes frequent errors when he's researching information for his reviews. I first noticed this with the SMB2 review of his and, since then, I've read that there have been research errors in many other episodes. This really is inexcusable if you posit yourself as a retro gamer.

Second, he slams classic games that just happen to be difficult. Sure, Contra and Ghosts n' Goblins are hard games. but they're classics because they have addictive gameplay and adept controls. Hence, the challenge spurs you on, and who doesn't like a little challenge? Slamming Contra solely for being too hard shows a lack of respect for the beginning of gaming. It would be different if he critiqued it because of graphics or gameplay (ie - somewhat legitimate reasons to dislike a game), but after someone forwarded the Contra review to me; I lost any respect I had for Bores' work.


None of these points are really new; these are sentiments echoed by everyone who was a gamer in the 1980s reliving their memories and frustrations vicariously through the Angry Video Game Nerd character. It's unfortunate that a parade of subpar imitators has flooded the internets, led by the grand jester jackass IG.

Rambo: a real American hero

I just got back from my spectacular trip to Greece and Turkey. Words can't really describe how awesome the Aegean is; it's a veritable Shangri-La.

One thing I noticed from the trip was the curious dearth of American visitors. Usually the cruise ships and touristy locations are chock full of Americans (immediately distinguished by their jutting guts and naivete). I suppose a weak dollar and an economy in recession will do that.

Rather appropriately, when I came home, I watched the entire Rambo DVD collection ( a present for my dad for Father's Day). John fuckin' Rambo, a symbol of better times for America. The first three movies are a guilty pleasure; they are the ultimate 80s action movies along with Commando and Bloodsport. The first movie is a classic, and is as much about Rambo's fucked up psyche and his 'Nam PTSD as it is about action. The second movie is more of a straightforward action film, but is still an entertaining romp. Plus, that Asian girl who helps Rambo is pretty hot. The third movie is undeniably the weakest and is pure anti-Soviet propaganda. Nevertheless, I still liked it for the wanton violence.

Just this year, Stallone released another Rambo film entitled "Rambo" (which, as one might guess, is confusing because unofficially the first movie is "Rambo". Why else would the third movie be called "Rambo 3"?).

Let me say this right away: Rambo is one GORY movie. In the previous Rambo movies, when someone gets shot they fall down. Here bodies explode and guts fly all over the place. Little kids get bayoneted, women get raped, and heads are decapitated. It's certainly not for the faint of heart.

The plot involves Rambo living the simple life in northern Thailand when these Christian missionaries come along and ask Rambo to take them upriver into Burma. Burma is where all the aformentioned raping and killing is occurring. By now, the rest of the plot is self-explanatory: the missionaries get caught and a sixty-year old Rambo has to save them.

The plot is so simplistic, but the film is one hell of a ride. The movie is really a love-letter to Rambo fans. If all you want to see is Rambo wield that badass bow one last time and use a machine gun to mow down enemies, then you'll undoubtedly be satisfied. In addition, I respect Sylvester Stallone (the director) for making the movie as violent as he did because this is what really happens on a regular basis in junta-ruled Myanmar. And it's oddly satisfying to see the resurrection of an all-American badass who doubles as a one-man army, I must say. These are uncertain times for America and although we can't return to our past prominence, atleast we still got John fuckin' Rambo.

It's certainly not as good as the first movie, or the second one, but I think it's better than the third one and is a worthy addition to the original Rambo trilogy. The ending is especially satisfying because Stallone makes it clear that there will not be another Rambo movie.

In fact, if another Rambo movie was made, I think Stallone getting arthritis would be a bigger concern than making up a plausible plot. Stallone is sixty years old and he looks...strange. His face is curiously wrinkle-free and it doesn't move when he talks. It's all botoxed out. Stallone is buff, but not as lean as he was in the original trilogy. Most of this can be attributed to old age, but I wouldn't be surprised if Stallone has been taking some 'roids. Thankfully, he doesn't take his shirt off; a shirtless Stallone in Rocky Balboa was enough for me.

Regardless, I enjoyed this Rambo movie and it gives more closure to the character, as opposed to the third movie which just has Rambo driving off with the Colonel. The critics have not been kind to the movie mostly because of the violence and the superhuman nature of the Rambo character. I think these critics are simply missing the point: Rambo is a cartoon. Of course no-one can infiltrate Soviet camps, fight off entire platoons, or take on the National Guard single-handedly. In fact, one of the defining characteristics of Rambo is that he's a superhuman with a fragile psyche, which makes the Rambo character an interesting dichotomy.

So my advice for any of the four movies: turn off your brain and enjoy the bloody (literally) ride.