&t skeet on mischa: Hicks Donuts

skeet on mischa

i wouldn't have given you it if i didn't agree

Nov 6, 2006

Hicks Donuts

Not sure if I’m going to be able to pull off a full week of updates or at least the new weekly standard of four updates, if I’m lucky to find enough material to write about. School is kinda nagging me right now.


In case, anybody was wondering, I have yet to watch a new episode of “The OC,” and probably won’t watch a new one in the near future either. Robin Brown said it was “weird” the other day via a text message.

Jay Z’s lead single for his comeback album should’ve been “Lost Ones” as opposed to the back to back Just Blaze produced, “Show Me What You Got,” and “Kingdom Come.” Sure if anybody else was on either one of those Blaze produced songs, it would’ve been pretty hot. Yet since, it’s Jay and Blaze, it needed to be better than that. Am I the only one who remembers “Public Service Announcement” from “The Black Album”? Also, why is everybody making a big deal about how Jay is being introspective and reflective on a record? I mean, haven’t they ever heard a record with Slug on it?

Granted, I had to pull out the Monty Hall card in order to see the film again, but Borat still holds up a second time around. I still laughed fairly hard at the same jokes I laughed at nearly six months ago. More importantly, the theater was fairly packed for a late Saturday afternoon matinee and they were laughing extremely hard too and quite often as well. You see, I think that this one of those rare instances where internerd buzz actually helped a film succeed at the box office. With that other film from this past summer was ruined by hype, Borat wasn’t because, well, we kept on writing about it and people who look to blogs as tastemakers, saw that we as a whole were really into this whole Borat business, so they kept on talking about it and well, this crazy thing happened where the final product was actually a masterpiece. I’m just wondering what’s going to be on the DVD. I’ll try to watch it one more time between now and then, but I’m looking forward to the DVD; cause there’s a scene in the trailer where Borat is in a civil war reenactment and I feel compelled to watch it.

Also, does anybody else think that with the success of the film, more people will go and get the “Da Ali G Show” DVDs and in a way, potentially ruining the beauty of the Bruno film?


The trailer for Smokin’ Aces I saw before Borat is a work of art. It can be viewed here. I don’t know if writer/director Joe Carnahan got into my brain one night while I was asleep, but thankfully, he answered my thoughts and provided us with what appears to be the other half of the double feature that Tony Scott started last year with his much maligned and an skeet on… empire favorite (and not because a professor I had who gave me an A in his class worked on it) Domino. It also looks like what Wayne Kramer was attempting to do earlier this year with Running Scared, which I would’ve caught if it wasn’t for Paul Walker as the male lead and I may check it out over winter break, but that’s besides the point. The trailer its self is a throw back to the days of grind house trailers; if this film was made in 1974, it’d be a perfect fit right in between the trailers for Rolling Thunder and Kiss The Girls and Make Them Die on 42nd Street Forever: Volume 2, but at the same time, it has that really, weird desperate, ‘let’s try to be cool like a Tarantino film’ 1995 vibe to it. Lot of fairly good actors playing bizarre and unusual characters. At first, it feels like I don’t want to say this, but it felt like a Guy ‘I’ve never seen a Tarantino film’ Ritchie, but as soon as the drums from the DJ Shadow track, “Artifact” slams across the speakers, you realize that you’re watching the trailer for a film that’ll be magical and with an extremely large body count. Honestly, it’s the best use of DJ Shadow’s music in a film that I’ve ever seen. People may take a shit on them, but there’s a certain degree of artistry in making an action film or at least an action film that’s worth our time. And because it’s such a good looking film, it’s rather easy to ignore the fact that a person like Ryan Reynolds is in it.

And well, we need a film like this because by looks of it, the new Tony Scott film, Déjà vu took some ADHD medicine or something.

And finally, this goes out in particular to the California kids, who happen to be register voters. I’m pretty much voting down party lines; I got a thing in the mail from Dianne Feinstein and the Dems telling me how I should vote and most part, I agreed. Most importantly, I agreed with the Dems position of No on 85. That’s pretty much the only reason I’m voting this week; to vote no on 85. We can’t sleep and let California turn conservative all of a sudden. Granted, Arnold will sadly be re elected as the governor because everybody loves that joke, but let’s just stop there. Let’s keep things crazy out here. Vote No on 85 and elect Jerry Brown. I bet if Cory Kennedy Gallo endorses a candidate for this election, more people would get out and vote this year.

7 Comments:

At 1:32 AM , Anonymous Bonham Hathaway said...

Borat was brilliant.

 
At 11:53 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

I thought I took the OC off the tivo, but apparently not. Weird... is a good word for it. If you had told me that the part of the show where Ryan becomes a cage fighter was the high point of the episode, I would not have believed it. Or maybe I would have.

The show's writing is not any better. Seth Cohen's running plot exposition was really poorly integrated into the episode, as were all of the attempts to kick off the B, C, and D arcs. Willa Holland I still enjoy for some reason, and there was a good shot of Rachel B. staring at her answering machine, but as soon as she started talking I lost interest.

 
At 1:02 PM , Blogger Passion of the Weiss said...

if cory kennedy gallo endorsed...guarantee it'd be hardcore conservative though...have you checked out Gallo's politics...the guy's slightly to the right of Attila the Hun.

 
At 3:26 PM , Anonymous josh said...

i gotta tell you, if that thing you got in the mail is a "democrat's voting guide" and has an eagle on the back and dianne on the front, it's produced by the no on 87 people. the thing is suspect, even down to the language they use to describe each prop. im with you voting down the democrat line but that voter guide (if its the one you got) is a waste of space.

 
At 10:34 PM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cory Kennedy + Gallo? Check your watch; this is officially the moment in which I become old and no longer understand what the fuck is going on with young people. (I may have implied in previous comments that this has already happened, but this is the real deal.)

Do we get to post our political endorsements? I've got a bunch, but I'm not going to sully DR's comments section without his permission. In related news, I have the option of voting for a city supervisor candidate named "Starchild" tomorrow.

 
At 10:08 AM , Blogger Douglas Reinhardt said...

josh- yeah, the thing i got has a large photo of dianne feinstein on it. it's probably a waste of paper as no on 87 propaganda, but you know, i'm voting no on 87 simply cause julia robert supports the bill and i can't stand her. you know, the only people who are supporting the bill are like clinton, al gore, brad pitt and julia roberts. everybody else is against the bill.

najork-go nuts.

 
At 11:35 AM , Anonymous Anonymous said...

Honestly most of it's pretty simple. My default in these things is generally to vote no on everything, because I think the system is stupid. That said, the important ones for me are no on 85 (parental notification), no on 83 (sex offenders!), and no on 90 (eminent domain), which is written really badly. I'm also not fond of 1A, though others may disagree. Of the bonds, 1E (flood prevention) is probably the most critical; beyond that, they're typical bonds. I will probably also vote for 84 (the other water one), but I'm not sure about the others.

A couple notes on random props that are probably dead in the water already:

87 -- This one is funny, because it really is free money. The marginal cost of pumping more oil is so low that nothing will happen except that Chevron (mostly) will pay more to the state of CA. (The prop is written so that the cost can't be transferred to consumers.) This stinks a little bit of the classic "we're going to nationalize the industry after you build your rigs" maneuver, but other states already have this kind of tax in place, and at this point, I think big oil can QQ more, as they say. Another entertaining bit about 87 is the opposition of that firefighters' group, which has apparently declared themselves up for sale -- they've taken in a couple hundred k in donations from Chevron recently.

89 -- This is interesting for two reasons. First, they really made an effort to learn from the ways that this sort of program has failed in other states. It's a really strict (possibly unconstitutionally strict) public funding law. The problem is, any functional public funding system in CA would just drag us further into the hell that is the proposition system, since those can clearly be bought. 89 tries to cope with that too, except that they became overwhelmed by the need for revenge -- it contains a big fuck you reversal of the attempt to hamstring union/non-profit contribution power in Arnold's special election. The way it's written, non-profits get unlimited contribution rights to proposition campaigns, while individual and corporate donations are strictly limited. I find this hilarious. Anyways, it's doomed.

88 - This appears to be an attempt to make and end-run around prop 13. Intriguing.

I better stop now. I don't really care about the governor's race. I actually was more fond of Wesley as a Democratic candidate, but oh well. Also, what is up with the SF Chronicle endorsing Arnold?

 

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home