An entire holiday nearly devoted to hedonism. And really good scary movies on TV. And multiple excuses to party one's ass off.I know I will be enjoying myself =]
Happy Halloween!
WildCoyote
In the dark of the night, evil will find you
I just reached the conclusion that yes, Halloween is in fact my favorite holiday EVER.
An entire holiday nearly devoted to hedonism. And really good scary movies on TV. And multiple excuses to party one's ass off.
I know I will be enjoying myself =]
Happy Halloween!
WildCoyote
An entire holiday nearly devoted to hedonism. And really good scary movies on TV. And multiple excuses to party one's ass off.I know I will be enjoying myself =]
Happy Halloween!
WildCoyote
Something to keep you motivated
Three men. One great question.
Who is the hottest? Damn, if these were the candidates, I'd abstain. You can't possibly decide.
I don't even know.
You decide.
*sigh*
WildCoyote
A Cure for Troubled Times
Although I realize that we still have a lot of stigmas to get rid of and many disillusions to dispel, I am decently happy with how easy it is to be openly homosexual in Springfield, Missouri. I have worked really hard to try and create an environment in this city in which people are tolerant (Palin's favorite big word--didn't you see how proud she was that she pronounced it correctly on national television?).
Yes, I have had my experiences with discrimination and prejudice in this community. Yes, I am usually offended by someone's intolerance and ignorance; even the fact that sometimes people get uncomfortable when they realize I'm gay (it's not really all that hard). But in spite of all of that, I had a blast last night at a big gay party out in somebody's barn. The fact that the community in Springfield can mobilize enough have a really decent turnout at an event like that means that they could mobilize for our rights and social equity.
Anyway, it was a great party and a great night.
In a tangential but almost entirely unrelated side note, apparently we have a roundabout just outside of town on one of the minor highways. How exciting is that?!?
Pretty damn, if you ask me.
Yes, I have had my experiences with discrimination and prejudice in this community. Yes, I am usually offended by someone's intolerance and ignorance; even the fact that sometimes people get uncomfortable when they realize I'm gay (it's not really all that hard). But in spite of all of that, I had a blast last night at a big gay party out in somebody's barn. The fact that the community in Springfield can mobilize enough have a really decent turnout at an event like that means that they could mobilize for our rights and social equity.
Anyway, it was a great party and a great night.
In a tangential but almost entirely unrelated side note, apparently we have a roundabout just outside of town on one of the minor highways. How exciting is that?!?
Pretty damn, if you ask me.
And God said, "let thou be completely intolerable on the face of the Earth..."
Sometimes, I could hit someone in the face because of their arrogance and ignorance. Anyone who can fascistly subscribe to a belief system that uses fear and intimidation to scare people into their doctrine is evil. It's amazing to me that the majority of the United States of America's population simply doesn't understand how horrific Christianity can be.
For example:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081025/ap_on_re_us/christian_right_attacks
How sick is this? It just makes me even angrier that there's so little I can do about it.
Some people are just so filled with utter hatred (excuse me, piety) that they really buy into and believe the racist and discriminatory bullshit that they are preaching. They are right about one thing though: the world may be headed towards a scary future... at the hands of the Christians.
I wonder when they decide to endorse holy wars if people will come to their senses?
Oh, and Dr. James Dobson, this is a special message for you and the horrible organization called Focus on the Family:SUCK MY HOMOSEXUAL ATHEIST LIBERAL COCK YOU IGNORANT, MISLEADING, INTOLERANT-FASCIST-BIGOT-ASSHOLE.
... on second thought, please don't...
Fuck you and your Ph.D. in Christian Psychology. You are directly responsible for the hardship of so many people. I honestly hope that one day someone gets to bring you to justice and that you realize before the end how hateful your message is, how many lives it has affected, and how worse off the world is because of the things that you preach to the masses (which eat it up like cheesecake on a silver platter).
It's days like these that I look around and sigh with the vague hope that humanity isn't sowing the seeds of its own destruction.
WildCoyote
The most sane person on the planet...
Is this guy. Right. Here.
www.fuckjohnmccain.com
I hope they give him a show on MSNBC.
Not even kidding.
=]
WildCoyote
www.fuckjohnmccain.com
I hope they give him a show on MSNBC.
Not even kidding.
=]
WildCoyote
The land of the free (depending on your definition of freedom)
Well, folks, it looks like the good ol' US of A has done it again.
I know that I can always count on the American people to ruin my lovely evening, further encourage my growing dislike of humanity, and give me something to rant about. At least I have something to spend my time being frustrated at. (Yes, I realize that I ended that sentence with a preposition. Deal with it.)
Being an openly gay male, it is my hope that one day I will be afforded the same rights as every other American citizen; I will not be a second-class minority that is continually marg
inalized in American society and American politics. Even though I have serious issues about monogamy (see: The Case Against Monogamy) I do believe that everyone, EVERYONE, should have the right to the option of marriage. Gay, straight, bisexual, transgender, etc etc.; black, white, red, yellow; Chinese, Egyptian, French, American, Venezuelan, Australian, Syrian; tall, short, fat, skinny; male or female; any and all of these and more I'm sure. Everyone has the right to get married in our country. I don't even care if can you speak English; I don't care if you regularly brush your teeth; I don't care if you don't have a driver's license; I don't care if you make a million dollars a year or if you live off of welfare: everyone has the right to get married to whomever they so choose.
In May of 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that Proposition 22 of the California State constitution was unconstitutional on the basis that it violated the equal protection clause of said constitution. Proposition 22 enacted a statute that "limited marriage to a relationship between a man and a woman." On June 17, 2008, it became legal for same-sex couples to get married in the state of California. Kudos to CA, and the Supreme Court for having the balls to go up against such discriminatory legislation.
So here's the conservative reaction to this, because they absolutely cannot stand the fact that fags are getting married all around them:
PROPOSITION 8: California Marriage Protection Act
I would love to say that I am both shocked and outraged but quite frankly it doesn't really surprise me. In a land where a mother wouldn't love her own offspring because of their sexual orientation, I understand that this kind of narrow-minded paleolithic way of thinking is firmly embedded in our current "modern" society. Unfortunately, for me and the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF OTHER LIKE ME, this kind of thinking is denying us some of our basic freedoms, mainly: THE RIGHT TO GET MARRIED AND BE HAPPY.
Where does said right derive from? Several places. Since I already wrote a ten-page research paper on the Defense of Marriage Act and Why It's Unconstitutional, I will spare you the subsequent litany on why same-sex marriage does not violate the United States Constitution in any way, shape, or form. The only reason that same-sex marriage violates any state constitutions is because several states enacted legislation to amend the definition of marriage in their constitutions.
This is a classic case of blatant discrimination. It's amazing to me that these right-wing fundamentalists don't draw the parallels between gay rights and the African-American civil liberties struggle of the 1960's. It's the same story, different time period. Soon we will have assigned places to sit on the bus and subway.
Just how sad and behind is our country? Well, let's see: Belgium, Canada, Norway, South Africa, Spain, and the Netherlands all recognize and allow same-sex marriage. In the United Kingdom, civil partnerships have identical legal status to a marriage, and partners gain all the same benefits and associated legal rights; ranging from tax exemptions and joint property rights, to next-of-kin status and shared parenting responsibilities. Partnership ceremonies are performed by a marriage registrar in exactly the same manner as a secular civil marriage.
The thing that people who argue that marriage is a religious institution and therefore legalising same-sex marriage is a violation of church and state fail to recognize is that marriage is both a state and religious institution. Guess what you have to do to become legally accepted as a partnership in the United States? Sign a MARRIAGE LICENSE. It's not legal nor federally recognized until you do. You can have as many marriage ceremonies at your local church as you want to but that don't make it legit, Sparky.
Likewise, simply allowing same-sex couples to get married does not force any religious institution to marry those couples, in the same way that no religious institution is forced to marry any hetero couples: they can choose not to. So there's no interference with religion in any way by legally recognizing a same-sex marriage. At all.
I like Senator Obama's sentiment on the subject:
By the way, the proponents of Prop. 8 cite that "All 4 candidates endorse their cause!" based on Sen. Joe Bi
den and Gov. Sarah Palin's statements during the V.P. debates in September. Actually, the Obama/Biden campaign is in support of deregulating marriage as a state institution, instead, redefining "marriage" as a religious institution and "civil union" as a federal institution. Effectively, this means that you have to sign a CIVIL UNION to become legally recognized as a couple in the United States; you then get "married" in a church, synagogue, or equivalent religous facility. So, even hetero couples would have to get a civil union to be legally recognized as partners. What this would do is effectively extend all the same rights, benefits, and recognition to both hetero and homo couples. Pretty fantastic idea, huh? So although Joe Biden and Barack Obama don't support "gay marriage", they certainly don't support any form of discrimination or traditional definition of marriage.
Somehow it is beyond me that many people consider that we live in the greatest country in the world, yet would advocate the subjugation of any minority seeking refuge and equal protection under the law. It's the basis that our country was founded on: everyone is equal, and everyone has the right to pursue their own personal happiness (insomuchas it doesn't hurt anybody else). And let's face it, homophobes: two fags hooking up doesn't affect or even remotely affect you in any way, shape, or form. So why the fuck is it such a big deal to you? The fact that there are people in this world that would spend such effort on marginalizing and discriminating against other people is both sad and astounding to me.
Oh yes, for all you red, white and blue blooded Christians out there, I realize that our country was founded under God in one teensy place in the damn Preamble. This is the particular reason why we don't let buddhists, muslims, or jews into our country, and why we certainly don't let them worship here... in the same way your pedantic, antiquated, and hateful beliefs don't apply to homosexuals. Sorry, bro.
I am nearly ashamed to live in a country that would tout itself as "the greatest country in the world" when there are people living in it that do not have the same version of humanity, rights, or citizenship extended to them as others.
My point here being: if this passes I'm considering moving to Canada.
PS- if John McCain wins the presidency, I am already checking out apartments in Montreal.
WildCoyote
I know that I can always count on the American people to ruin my lovely evening, further encourage my growing dislike of humanity, and give me something to rant about. At least I have something to spend my time being frustrated at. (Yes, I realize that I ended that sentence with a preposition. Deal with it.)
Being an openly gay male, it is my hope that one day I will be afforded the same rights as every other American citizen; I will not be a second-class minority that is continually marg
inalized in American society and American politics. Even though I have serious issues about monogamy (see: The Case Against Monogamy) I do believe that everyone, EVERYONE, should have the right to the option of marriage. Gay, straight, bisexual, transgender, etc etc.; black, white, red, yellow; Chinese, Egyptian, French, American, Venezuelan, Australian, Syrian; tall, short, fat, skinny; male or female; any and all of these and more I'm sure. Everyone has the right to get married in our country. I don't even care if can you speak English; I don't care if you regularly brush your teeth; I don't care if you don't have a driver's license; I don't care if you make a million dollars a year or if you live off of welfare: everyone has the right to get married to whomever they so choose.In May of 2008, the California Supreme Court ruled that Proposition 22 of the California State constitution was unconstitutional on the basis that it violated the equal protection clause of said constitution. Proposition 22 enacted a statute that "limited marriage to a relationship between a man and a woman." On June 17, 2008, it became legal for same-sex couples to get married in the state of California. Kudos to CA, and the Supreme Court for having the balls to go up against such discriminatory legislation.
So here's the conservative reaction to this, because they absolutely cannot stand the fact that fags are getting married all around them:
PROPOSITION 8: California Marriage Protection Act
ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California. Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Fiscal Impact: Over next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments. In the long run, likely little fiscal impact on state and local governments.
I would love to say that I am both shocked and outraged but quite frankly it doesn't really surprise me. In a land where a mother wouldn't love her own offspring because of their sexual orientation, I understand that this kind of narrow-minded paleolithic way of thinking is firmly embedded in our current "modern" society. Unfortunately, for me and the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF OTHER LIKE ME, this kind of thinking is denying us some of our basic freedoms, mainly: THE RIGHT TO GET MARRIED AND BE HAPPY.Where does said right derive from? Several places. Since I already wrote a ten-page research paper on the Defense of Marriage Act and Why It's Unconstitutional, I will spare you the subsequent litany on why same-sex marriage does not violate the United States Constitution in any way, shape, or form. The only reason that same-sex marriage violates any state constitutions is because several states enacted legislation to amend the definition of marriage in their constitutions.
This is a classic case of blatant discrimination. It's amazing to me that these right-wing fundamentalists don't draw the parallels between gay rights and the African-American civil liberties struggle of the 1960's. It's the same story, different time period. Soon we will have assigned places to sit on the bus and subway.
Just how sad and behind is our country? Well, let's see: Belgium, Canada, Norway, South Africa, Spain, and the Netherlands all recognize and allow same-sex marriage. In the United Kingdom, civil partnerships have identical legal status to a marriage, and partners gain all the same benefits and associated legal rights; ranging from tax exemptions and joint property rights, to next-of-kin status and shared parenting responsibilities. Partnership ceremonies are performed by a marriage registrar in exactly the same manner as a secular civil marriage.
The thing that people who argue that marriage is a religious institution and therefore legalising same-sex marriage is a violation of church and state fail to recognize is that marriage is both a state and religious institution. Guess what you have to do to become legally accepted as a partnership in the United States? Sign a MARRIAGE LICENSE. It's not legal nor federally recognized until you do. You can have as many marriage ceremonies at your local church as you want to but that don't make it legit, Sparky.Likewise, simply allowing same-sex couples to get married does not force any religious institution to marry those couples, in the same way that no religious institution is forced to marry any hetero couples: they can choose not to. So there's no interference with religion in any way by legally recognizing a same-sex marriage. At all.
I like Senator Obama's sentiment on the subject:
[he supports extending] "fully equal rights and benefits to same-sex couples under both state and federal law....And that is why I oppose the divisive and discriminatory efforts to amend the California Constitution, and similar efforts to amend the U.S. Constitution or those of other states."
By the way, the proponents of Prop. 8 cite that "All 4 candidates endorse their cause!" based on Sen. Joe Bi
den and Gov. Sarah Palin's statements during the V.P. debates in September. Actually, the Obama/Biden campaign is in support of deregulating marriage as a state institution, instead, redefining "marriage" as a religious institution and "civil union" as a federal institution. Effectively, this means that you have to sign a CIVIL UNION to become legally recognized as a couple in the United States; you then get "married" in a church, synagogue, or equivalent religous facility. So, even hetero couples would have to get a civil union to be legally recognized as partners. What this would do is effectively extend all the same rights, benefits, and recognition to both hetero and homo couples. Pretty fantastic idea, huh? So although Joe Biden and Barack Obama don't support "gay marriage", they certainly don't support any form of discrimination or traditional definition of marriage.Somehow it is beyond me that many people consider that we live in the greatest country in the world, yet would advocate the subjugation of any minority seeking refuge and equal protection under the law. It's the basis that our country was founded on: everyone is equal, and everyone has the right to pursue their own personal happiness (insomuchas it doesn't hurt anybody else). And let's face it, homophobes: two fags hooking up doesn't affect or even remotely affect you in any way, shape, or form. So why the fuck is it such a big deal to you? The fact that there are people in this world that would spend such effort on marginalizing and discriminating against other people is both sad and astounding to me.
Oh yes, for all you red, white and blue blooded Christians out there, I realize that our country was founded under God in one teensy place in the damn Preamble. This is the particular reason why we don't let buddhists, muslims, or jews into our country, and why we certainly don't let them worship here... in the same way your pedantic, antiquated, and hateful beliefs don't apply to homosexuals. Sorry, bro.
I am nearly ashamed to live in a country that would tout itself as "the greatest country in the world" when there are people living in it that do not have the same version of humanity, rights, or citizenship extended to them as others.
My point here being: if this passes I'm considering moving to Canada.
PS- if John McCain wins the presidency, I am already checking out apartments in Montreal.
WildCoyote
Say it ain't so, Joe!
I'm going to go see V.P. candidate Joe Biden speak in a matter of hours.
I'm hoping that there will be a q&a, although that's highly unlikely.
Because here's what I'd ask him:
*clears throat*
That's all.
WildCoyote
Because here's what I'd ask him:
*clears throat*
You said in the V.P. debates that both you and Sen. Obama are against gay marriage. Since I'm gay that's a big part of my agenda, so what incentive does the gay community have to vote for you?Just because I want to see him eat his words, and I know he won't be expecting that kind of question from southwest Missouri. Ha.
That's all.
WildCoyote
The Case Against Monogamy:
The Rantings of an Adolescent Homosexual Commitment-phobe
So. I understand that there are plenty of marriages out there that last forever and ever until death do they part (death's a bitch, sometimes) and that there are many many many happy, committed couples that stay together and pray together and blah blah blah. So here's the thing: I don't think marriage is the be all, end all.
I increasingly find myself becoming a pariah for thinking (and saying) so, but it's true. Marriage is not the final answer to relationships. And here's why:
One. I can't even get married in this country. No, not even in California, silly. That's a gimmick. A joke. And Republicans don't agree with it anyhow. So marriage, for me, in this way, is not even a viable option. Which is just fine as I don't plan on getting married any time soon [if ever].
Two. People seem to have this idea that relationships progress along a very certain system, a list of the "right" way to meet someone, fall in love, and follow a very boring plot line for said relationship. I think it goes something like this:
A. Meet desired partner.
B. Become infatuated [minorly obsessed with said person].
C. Start dating.
D. Start fucking.
E. Fall in love and/or have children*.
*having children is negotiable at E stage; it is often the product of D stage, in which case E stage also becomes negotiable
F. Get married.
G. Get a mortgage on a house you can't afford.
H. Have children/more children.
I. Attempt to raise children.
J. Deal with separation anxiety when said children grow up and begin relationship processes of their own.
K. Grow old together and take really dumb vacations to places like Tunica, MS.
L. Death does you part.
However, this is not the only method that works, and although it works for everyone who has a 1950's view of the family, *cough* conservatives *cough*, there are many different ways to go about this process. It is particularly interesting to mix up the steps a little and see where that leads, or, some people never decide to make it past stage D.
This "linear" idea of the relationship process is embedded into our psyche from the moment we meet dysfunctional mommy and daddy. It's the only norm presented by our modern society. And if you don't follow this norm, you're defective. You don't get it. You don't make the cut. You're not "relationship material".
Let's face it, many people are happy to be single and enjoy all the promiscuous sex they can handle in their relatively short lifespan. And many people add a divorce stage at random at any stage between F. and L.
Three. Marriages don't work FOR-EV-ER. Many times you wake up ten years later next to a complete stranger, or even worse, THE SAME PERSON YOU MARRIED. People grow and change, that doesn't stop after age 25. Sometimes they grow together, sometimes they grow apart. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Conclusion:
Marriage doesn't have to be forever. It's a nice idea, it's just a fourteen-year-old-schoolgirl idea of romance and love and happy endings. I don't write this because I'm bitter or disillusioned or jaded or spurned or had a bad childhood; I write this because it's the truth. Marriages can last for twenty years, ten years, five years, two years. It's the idea of commitment (at the time) that counts. Saying, "Look, I will devote myself entirely to you so long as we can stand to be devoted to each other." Marriage is a serious commitment, to be sure, but it is not the solution to the relationship equation. It shouldn't be entered into or exited out of lightly, either. But there's absolutely nothing wrong with ending a marriage when it's done and over, when the two people are neither in love nor compatible any longer.
And for being single: that works for some people. Why is there such pressure in today's society to have a partner, a significant other, a lover, a companion? Some people go their whole lives without marrying or committing, not because they can't, but because they don't want to. Again, there's nothing wrong with that.
So this question of "when will you meet a nice boy/girl and settle down?" is one that is entirely out-dated and slightly ignorant. I think people should decide what works for them on their own terms, without being told from infancy that there is a certain formula for reciprocal happiness with a significant other. Marriage should be considered an option, not a goal. Marriage doesn't (at least, it shouldn't) give you any higher standing or more respect as an individual. Congratulations! You've mastered commitment! Huzzah for you!
Now fuck off and let the rest of us single people lead our lonely lives running from all forms of relationships. HA!
No, seriously, I really mean all of that but the preceding sentence. And I might mean that just a little.
So, since this has been a ranting blog, let me end it with something REALLY amusing, stolen from Aa at Braving the Elements.
:]
WildCoyote
So. I understand that there are plenty of marriages out there that last forever and ever until death do they part (death's a bitch, sometimes) and that there are many many many happy, committed couples that stay together and pray together and blah blah blah. So here's the thing: I don't think marriage is the be all, end all.
I increasingly find myself becoming a pariah for thinking (and saying) so, but it's true. Marriage is not the final answer to relationships. And here's why:
One. I can't even get married in this country. No, not even in California, silly. That's a gimmick. A joke. And Republicans don't agree with it anyhow. So marriage, for me, in this way, is not even a viable option. Which is just fine as I don't plan on getting married any time soon [if ever].
Two. People seem to have this idea that relationships progress along a very certain system, a list of the "right" way to meet someone, fall in love, and follow a very boring plot line for said relationship. I think it goes something like this:
A. Meet desired partner.
B. Become infatuated [minorly obsessed with said person].
C. Start dating.
D. Start fucking.
E. Fall in love and/or have children*.
*having children is negotiable at E stage; it is often the product of D stage, in which case E stage also becomes negotiable
F. Get married.
G. Get a mortgage on a house you can't afford.
H. Have children/more children.
I. Attempt to raise children.
J. Deal with separation anxiety when said children grow up and begin relationship processes of their own.
K. Grow old together and take really dumb vacations to places like Tunica, MS.
L. Death does you part.
However, this is not the only method that works, and although it works for everyone who has a 1950's view of the family, *cough* conservatives *cough*, there are many different ways to go about this process. It is particularly interesting to mix up the steps a little and see where that leads, or, some people never decide to make it past stage D.
This "linear" idea of the relationship process is embedded into our psyche from the moment we meet dysfunctional mommy and daddy. It's the only norm presented by our modern society. And if you don't follow this norm, you're defective. You don't get it. You don't make the cut. You're not "relationship material".
Let's face it, many people are happy to be single and enjoy all the promiscuous sex they can handle in their relatively short lifespan. And many people add a divorce stage at random at any stage between F. and L.
Three. Marriages don't work FOR-EV-ER. Many times you wake up ten years later next to a complete stranger, or even worse, THE SAME PERSON YOU MARRIED. People grow and change, that doesn't stop after age 25. Sometimes they grow together, sometimes they grow apart. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Conclusion:
Marriage doesn't have to be forever. It's a nice idea, it's just a fourteen-year-old-schoolgirl idea of romance and love and happy endings. I don't write this because I'm bitter or disillusioned or jaded or spurned or had a bad childhood; I write this because it's the truth. Marriages can last for twenty years, ten years, five years, two years. It's the idea of commitment (at the time) that counts. Saying, "Look, I will devote myself entirely to you so long as we can stand to be devoted to each other." Marriage is a serious commitment, to be sure, but it is not the solution to the relationship equation. It shouldn't be entered into or exited out of lightly, either. But there's absolutely nothing wrong with ending a marriage when it's done and over, when the two people are neither in love nor compatible any longer.
And for being single: that works for some people. Why is there such pressure in today's society to have a partner, a significant other, a lover, a companion? Some people go their whole lives without marrying or committing, not because they can't, but because they don't want to. Again, there's nothing wrong with that.
So this question of "when will you meet a nice boy/girl and settle down?" is one that is entirely out-dated and slightly ignorant. I think people should decide what works for them on their own terms, without being told from infancy that there is a certain formula for reciprocal happiness with a significant other. Marriage should be considered an option, not a goal. Marriage doesn't (at least, it shouldn't) give you any higher standing or more respect as an individual. Congratulations! You've mastered commitment! Huzzah for you!
Now fuck off and let the rest of us single people lead our lonely lives running from all forms of relationships. HA!
No, seriously, I really mean all of that but the preceding sentence. And I might mean that just a little.
So, since this has been a ranting blog, let me end it with something REALLY amusing, stolen from Aa at Braving the Elements.
:]
WildCoyote
We Saw The Shadows of the Morning Light, The Shadows of the Evening Sun, 'Till The Shadows and Light Were One
I just watched Southland Tales... holy shit, what a complete head-fuck.
Richard Kelly may have gotten a bit ambitious with this one-- it takes his
delusions
terest, it should have been more concise. And the plot elements were not nearly as effective, circular, nor complete as Donnie Darko. However, the soundtrack was phenomenal; so was the acting, strangely enough. Even though it was a dark comedic look at the apocalypse, I bought it. The quoting of revelation got a bit pedantic but I can see how it was just about the only thing to create any segway between the seemingly unrelated scenes.
Kelly shows us yet again that there is much more to film-making than stock characters and expensive stunt scenes.
I do have to wonder: did the actors understand the movie they were making any better than I did watching it?
Richard Kelly may have gotten a bit ambitious with this one-- it takes his
delusions
terest, it should have been more concise. And the plot elements were not nearly as effective, circular, nor complete as Donnie Darko. However, the soundtrack was phenomenal; so was the acting, strangely enough. Even though it was a dark comedic look at the apocalypse, I bought it. The quoting of revelation got a bit pedantic but I can see how it was just about the only thing to create any segway between the seemingly unrelated scenes.Kelly shows us yet again that there is much more to film-making than stock characters and expensive stunt scenes.
I do have to wonder: did the actors understand the movie they were making any better than I did watching it?
Lying is the most fun a girl can have without taking her clothes off... but it's better if you do.
I found a neat video yesterday on MySpace (sad but true). Ok, let's go ahead and address this now: all of you people who think that Facebook is 
ultimately superior to MySpace as an online social networking system and consequently "outgrew" your MySpace and deleted it-- you're completely full of crap. MySpace is an incredible idea, even if it's not the first of it's kind. You've got to give Tom some credit-- look what MySpace has evolved into. Now whether that's a good or bad thing for society, culture, and our future generations is another argument entirely. But let's face it, Facebook people, MySpace isn't such lame salad as you would like to have us believe. I have both, personally, because they both have their respective advantages and disadvantages.
Even if MySpace now has several corporate sponsors. And the new music player fucks with my profile... but Tom sent out a lovely message that said th
ey were working on improving it.
So about this nifty video I found:
It's an animation of Radiohead's Reckoner from the In Rainbows album, by Clement Picon. It was one of the winners of Aniboom's Animation Contest. The part when the tree is red and golden reminds me of The Fountain (which of course is my fav movie of all time. Duh.)
Radiohead - Reckoner - by Clement Picon
ultimately superior to MySpace as an online social networking system and consequently "outgrew" your MySpace and deleted it-- you're completely full of crap. MySpace is an incredible idea, even if it's not the first of it's kind. You've got to give Tom some credit-- look what MySpace has evolved into. Now whether that's a good or bad thing for society, culture, and our future generations is another argument entirely. But let's face it, Facebook people, MySpace isn't such lame salad as you would like to have us believe. I have both, personally, because they both have their respective advantages and disadvantages.Even if MySpace now has several corporate sponsors. And the new music player fucks with my profile... but Tom sent out a lovely message that said th
ey were working on improving it.Oh, and the new Facebook isn't going anywhere. Deal with it. I just switched over one day and I haven't really noticed any sort of intense dissatisfaction since. So quit trying to get it changed back; it's like GOP getting the presidency-- not gonna happen :)
So about this nifty video I found:
It's an animation of Radiohead's Reckoner from the In Rainbows album, by Clement Picon. It was one of the winners of Aniboom's Animation Contest. The part when the tree is red and golden reminds me of The Fountain (which of course is my fav movie of all time. Duh.)
Radiohead - Reckoner - by Clement Picon
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)