Here's my list of the best movies of the past 10 years. I should say that there are some movies out there that I haven't seen, or haven't had a chance to see all the way through, so I guess these are the best movies to come out in the past decade that I have happened to see. Anyway, if you have not seen one of these movies, rent it, try to catch it on TV, or whatever.
10. The Pianist
09. Children of Men
08. Inglourious Basterds
07. No Country For Old Men
06. The Hurt Locker
05. Let The Right One In
04. Superbad
03. Thank You For Smoking
02. O Brother, Where Art Thou?
01. The Dark Knight
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Saturday, November 21, 2009
Podcast Episode 1: Girl Tazed By Police, Legalizing Pot, and 2012 Hysteria
Check out my new podcast above by clicking on the title to download the latest episode, or check me out on iTunes. Just click on the iTunes icon over on the left and it will open up iTunes. Once on the iTunes page, just click "SUBSCRIBE" and you'll automatically get new episodes right as I post them. If you’d like to get send a message, question, comment, a topic to cover, or send me a news story, you can e-mail me at bradnewsoftheday@gmail.com, or leave a comment here on the blog.
Labels:
Child Safety,
Mainstream Media,
Podcasts,
Police Brutality,
War on Drugs
I'm back
I'm baaaaaaaack. And I am now podcasting. Check out my new podcast above by clicking on the title to download the latest episode, or check me out on iTunes. Just go to the podcast section of the iTunes store and search for "Brad News of the Day".
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Review: The Hurt Locker
I know it is suppose to be Brad News of the "Day", but I've been taking a break from the blog for a while. Sorry for not posting in a while.
Anyway, I saw "The Hurt Locker" today and I loved it. This is a really great war movie and probably the best one I've seen on Iraq. I haven't really seen one like it before, but for the subject given, I think it was done right. It's not really that gore driven like most war movies nowadays. There is some gore in it, but it's nothing that's just shoved in your face as if to say, "Look at the horrors of war!" Instead, it relies on the suspense of disabling bombs and wondering where the enemy is to really draw you in. Some of the cinematic camera work I thought was really good, especially the slow motion, but they also had some shaky cam and quick cuts in parts that I think distracted a bit. The shaky cam was the only really part I hated about this movie, but it wasn't all over the place, so you can probably easily overlook it.
The story, which follows a U.S. Army bomb disposal unit in Iraq, is split up into mini stories about the same three guys during their tour instead of just one event they go through. I think it works pretty well given the subject. There are some gunfights and good action scenes, but it's not one of these films where you have a huge battle and people are shooting all the time and there's just total chaos and gore everywhere. Like I said, it's a lot more suspense driven. The acting was good. The main character, played by Jeremy Renner, is kind of a James Dean bad ass of guy that always seems to have a cigarette hanging out of his mouth. He's like those old Hollywood cool guys, which I haven't really seen in a movie in a while.
As far as politics, it doesn't really take the pro war/anti war position, but takes the approach that war is a drug and some guys just want that Adrenalin rush, which I think makes sense. There are parts that remind me of something out of "Trainspotting", or some other movie about addicts. That whole pro war/anti war thing has been done a million times before anyway. If anyone's mind about war has to be made up by watching a movie about it, then I think they really shouldn't put themselves in a position to make a call on if it's right, or wrong. I like the whole "take it as it is" attitude when it comes to war movies.
I think this movie did a really great job of conveying the sense that you don't know where the enemy is at, or who the enemy is. Just about every place they stop to dismantle a bomb, there are onlookers, people with cameras, etc. and you kept getting the sense that one of those guys has the detonator and you're at the edge of your seat wondering if they'd shoot him in time. You really get a sense of paranoia that these guys must go through on a daily basis of not knowing who to trust. Over and over you find yourself almost positive some guy is the enemy and then come to find out they're not. Then you're left with kind of a sense of guilt that you wanted him to get shot when he wasn't guilty. A lot of movies have shown people what war looks like, but very few have really made the viewer make moral decisions that the soldiers themselves have to make. This movie did a great job of drawing you into making those decisions in your head.
Some of the Iraq War Vets might call BS on some of the stuff since this is a work of fiction and not based exactly on true events. I'd love to hear a review for this movie done by an actual Iraq War veteran, so if you are one and saw the movie, or found a link to one, please send one my way. I think if you're looking for that perfect cinematic masterpiece, you might be little disappointed, even though there are a few great visuals in the movie, it kind of has a B movie feel to it. On the other hand, I think it was a good action film, with good acting, was really well thought out, and the suspense really kept me on the edge of my seat the entire time. I give "The Hurt Locker" a 9/10 and highly suggest checking it out.
Anyway, I saw "The Hurt Locker" today and I loved it. This is a really great war movie and probably the best one I've seen on Iraq. I haven't really seen one like it before, but for the subject given, I think it was done right. It's not really that gore driven like most war movies nowadays. There is some gore in it, but it's nothing that's just shoved in your face as if to say, "Look at the horrors of war!" Instead, it relies on the suspense of disabling bombs and wondering where the enemy is to really draw you in. Some of the cinematic camera work I thought was really good, especially the slow motion, but they also had some shaky cam and quick cuts in parts that I think distracted a bit. The shaky cam was the only really part I hated about this movie, but it wasn't all over the place, so you can probably easily overlook it. The story, which follows a U.S. Army bomb disposal unit in Iraq, is split up into mini stories about the same three guys during their tour instead of just one event they go through. I think it works pretty well given the subject. There are some gunfights and good action scenes, but it's not one of these films where you have a huge battle and people are shooting all the time and there's just total chaos and gore everywhere. Like I said, it's a lot more suspense driven. The acting was good. The main character, played by Jeremy Renner, is kind of a James Dean bad ass of guy that always seems to have a cigarette hanging out of his mouth. He's like those old Hollywood cool guys, which I haven't really seen in a movie in a while.
As far as politics, it doesn't really take the pro war/anti war position, but takes the approach that war is a drug and some guys just want that Adrenalin rush, which I think makes sense. There are parts that remind me of something out of "Trainspotting", or some other movie about addicts. That whole pro war/anti war thing has been done a million times before anyway. If anyone's mind about war has to be made up by watching a movie about it, then I think they really shouldn't put themselves in a position to make a call on if it's right, or wrong. I like the whole "take it as it is" attitude when it comes to war movies.
I think this movie did a really great job of conveying the sense that you don't know where the enemy is at, or who the enemy is. Just about every place they stop to dismantle a bomb, there are onlookers, people with cameras, etc. and you kept getting the sense that one of those guys has the detonator and you're at the edge of your seat wondering if they'd shoot him in time. You really get a sense of paranoia that these guys must go through on a daily basis of not knowing who to trust. Over and over you find yourself almost positive some guy is the enemy and then come to find out they're not. Then you're left with kind of a sense of guilt that you wanted him to get shot when he wasn't guilty. A lot of movies have shown people what war looks like, but very few have really made the viewer make moral decisions that the soldiers themselves have to make. This movie did a great job of drawing you into making those decisions in your head.
Some of the Iraq War Vets might call BS on some of the stuff since this is a work of fiction and not based exactly on true events. I'd love to hear a review for this movie done by an actual Iraq War veteran, so if you are one and saw the movie, or found a link to one, please send one my way. I think if you're looking for that perfect cinematic masterpiece, you might be little disappointed, even though there are a few great visuals in the movie, it kind of has a B movie feel to it. On the other hand, I think it was a good action film, with good acting, was really well thought out, and the suspense really kept me on the edge of my seat the entire time. I give "The Hurt Locker" a 9/10 and highly suggest checking it out.
Monday, June 8, 2009
Wisdom Tooth
I've kind of been taking a break from the blog a few days. Today, I got a wisdom tooth pulled, so I'm going to try to use this time to dig up something to talk about. Either that, or I'm going to do some art. I meant to post some pics of my recent trip to the Buffalo River, so I might get around to doing that. I think most people who visit my blog have already seen them though. Still, I'm going to post them anyway.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Normalizing Violence
I recently saw a video made by Penn Jillette about this Japanese Game called RapeLay. As far as I know, this game has only been released in Japan, but basically it's a video game about raping little girls. Naturally, a game like this has a lot of people upset. Some women groups are saying this game is normalizing rape and people have said similar stuff about violent video games that supposedly normalizes murder and stuff like that.
Personally, I don't buy it this "normalizing" argument. I don't think that playing a video game, reading a book, or watching a movie with violent acts in it will make a normal person do evil things. I think a person already prone to do these evil acts might be more likely to find entertainment in violent movies, or video games, but take those away and that person is still prone to do evil acts. Take away those fake forms a entertainment and they might even be more likely to find entertainment in real life victims. I think Penn makes one of the best cases I've heard against this normalizing violence argument.
He's basically making the point that normalizing the behavior is actually from trying to ban the video game, or denounce it, and saying that it's a video game's fault that a person might rape. It's not an object, or something someone sees simulated that makes them do bad things. A normal person can tell the difference in reality and fantasy. A person does bad things because they want to do bad things. Perhaps a person had horrible things done to them as a child to cause a mindset of revenge, or to seek out power over someone else, but entertainment like video games, or movies don't do anything to you. You're the one in control, not them. If anything, people could use those as an outlet to express aggression in a safe way instead of doing it in the real world. I think this same argument can be applied to many things people wish to ban, like guns, or drugs.
A lot of people state that drugs, like steroids, cause "roid rage", and some drugs do affect judgment, but when people talk about this, they seem to overlook the fact that a lot of already violent people might want to be the toughest and meanest dude on the block and take steroids. Which comes first; the chicken, or the egg? I don't think it's the steroids that make the guy mean, it's just that a mean guy is more likely to use steroids.
It's the same way with guns. I know lots of good people that own guns. Even I own guns. I don't look at a gun, or pick one up and all of a sudden get the urge to start mowing people down. I've played lots of violent video games and watched lots of violent movies and don't get the urge to mow people down. These objects hold no evil magic that can possess a normal human being and turn them into a murderer. People just do bad things because they want to, not because some object, or a form of entertainment takes over their mind.
Personally, I don't buy it this "normalizing" argument. I don't think that playing a video game, reading a book, or watching a movie with violent acts in it will make a normal person do evil things. I think a person already prone to do these evil acts might be more likely to find entertainment in violent movies, or video games, but take those away and that person is still prone to do evil acts. Take away those fake forms a entertainment and they might even be more likely to find entertainment in real life victims. I think Penn makes one of the best cases I've heard against this normalizing violence argument.
He's basically making the point that normalizing the behavior is actually from trying to ban the video game, or denounce it, and saying that it's a video game's fault that a person might rape. It's not an object, or something someone sees simulated that makes them do bad things. A normal person can tell the difference in reality and fantasy. A person does bad things because they want to do bad things. Perhaps a person had horrible things done to them as a child to cause a mindset of revenge, or to seek out power over someone else, but entertainment like video games, or movies don't do anything to you. You're the one in control, not them. If anything, people could use those as an outlet to express aggression in a safe way instead of doing it in the real world. I think this same argument can be applied to many things people wish to ban, like guns, or drugs.
A lot of people state that drugs, like steroids, cause "roid rage", and some drugs do affect judgment, but when people talk about this, they seem to overlook the fact that a lot of already violent people might want to be the toughest and meanest dude on the block and take steroids. Which comes first; the chicken, or the egg? I don't think it's the steroids that make the guy mean, it's just that a mean guy is more likely to use steroids.
It's the same way with guns. I know lots of good people that own guns. Even I own guns. I don't look at a gun, or pick one up and all of a sudden get the urge to start mowing people down. I've played lots of violent video games and watched lots of violent movies and don't get the urge to mow people down. These objects hold no evil magic that can possess a normal human being and turn them into a murderer. People just do bad things because they want to, not because some object, or a form of entertainment takes over their mind.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Police Brutality 3: Oklahoma Highway Patrol vs. EMT
Classify this under bad judgment. So the ambulance is taking a woman to the hospital and the Oklahoma Highway Patrol pulls them over, and starts a big fuss. According to the EMT, the cops did this because they were flipped the bird, which the EMTs said they didn't do. Even if they had been flipped the bird, did that warrant the cops stopping an ambulance with a patient on board? Did it occur to these cops that the woman inside could be dying? This is some of the worst judgment from cops I've ever seen. Not only that, they choke the EMT. I think resisting arrest is a stupid idea, but still, there was a lady inside that needed help and the cops were preventing this. They were sworn to protect and serve and they did neither in this case. Instead of pulling the ambulance over, why not help it get to the hospital and then have a discussion with the EMTs there if they really had a problem? Eventually, they did do that, but after delaying the woman getting medical care. Seriously, what were they thinking? If this was in any way inside the law for the cops to do this, then the law needs to be changed. Here's an account (PDF document) of the whole situation according to one of the paramedics involved.
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Settlers of Catan (REVIEW)
(DISCLAIMER) This isn't really about a video game, but trust me, this is just as fun. I read a friend's blog the other day and he was posting about this new, award-winning, board game he has been playing called "Settlers of Catan". He went on to tell how great it was. I'm usually not one to play board games. I sometimes get in the mood, but I'm not one of these people that plays them every weekend, or anything. Me and this guy used to play video games together, so I respect his opinions, especially when it comes to games.
So I did some research into it, decided it looked like fun, and ordered it off of Amazon (free shipping takes too long). I just can't get enough of it now. I never thought I'd have so much fun playing a board game, but this is almost like the perfect board game. It's kind of like a mix between "Risk" and "Monopoly" only it doesn't take all day to play, like they do. You can probably play a game in about an 1-2 hours. Like all games, it's kind of complicated at first, but you pretty much get it down in 1-2 games. It looks complicated because it's so different than what you're probably used to, but it's actually really simple. The best thing about it is you get to customize your own board and every game is different. People can't just rely on one strategy and you don't seem to have that one friend that is far superior than everyone else, like in "Scrabble". You pretty much have to have multiple strategies to win.
The point of the game is you are settling this island and have to roll dice for resources to buy up roads, settlements, and cities. You can also trade with other players. Settlements and cities are worth different victory points, along with some other stuff you can do, and the way you win is by getting 10 victory points. This is the reason it doesn't take so long is because you aren't eliminating players, just trying to beat them to 10 victory points.
There's an interactive online tutorial that I suggest checking out. You might also try the free online version here. If you like that, the actual board game is around $30-40 and is for 4 players, ages 10+. There's an expansion set that allows for 5-6 players and also a bunch of Catan spin-off games. This is sure to be one of those classic games in a few years that everyone will have in their closets to cure a boring weekend.
Monday, May 25, 2009
Wednesday, May 20, 2009
GPS Tax
Have you ever wondered what would happen if all of a sudden the GPS satellites in space stopped working? Well, "Skynet" would fail and civilization would end as we know it. Well, maybe not...MAYBE. Currently there are 31 GPS satellites in space, but there only needs to be 24 to keep the system going. However, they are nearing the end of their lifetime and Obama is cutting the funding on the GPS program. In fact, some people say that we could have less than 24 functioning satellites by 2010 (my money's on Dec. 21, 2012). That's is a little unnerving considering all the stuff that's around now that relies on this system.
Since the satellites were put into space by our government, funds will have to come from the taxpayers of course. So now there are rumors on a GPS tax to help fund new satellites to replace the old ones. Since it would be next to impossible to tax someone every time they used GPS, the plan will likely be to tax GPS devices. However, would this really be enough to launch satellites into space? Maybe I'm underestimating the amount of new GPS buyers out there, but it seems like more "regular taxes" will be required to really get these up and running.
Of course you have companies that make GPS systems for people, cars, airplanes, boats, etc., so why couldn't they get together and make their own private system that the military can use, or pitch in to replace the current satellites? It's obvious that if they don't do something to help fix this system, they're out of the business. Of course if the tax payers are going to pay their bills, why should they front the money? I'm sure they'll be opposed to a tax on their devices they sell and will get them some lobbyist in Washington to put a stop to that. Being that our current rulers, I mean representatives, aren't the type to just let the free market do its thing, I wouldn't doubt they'd use more taxes for this.
I should say that I've never actually used a GPS device personally. I like shinny, cool technology, but I'm more of a map, compass, moss on a tree kind of guy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)





