“Logan” Movie Review

I grew up on a steady diet of Marvel comic books, toys, video games and Saturday morning cartoons.  It should come as no surprise then, I’ve always been a fan of Wolverine.

Today I caught a matinee showing of “Logan” and was blown away.

To me, the hallmark of a great performance is not being able to imagine anyone else playing the part, and Hugh Jackman’s portrayal of the titular character is nothing short of perfection.  I can neither imagine nor would I have any interest in seeing anyone else in the role.

I don’t go to the theater as often as I used to, but I’ve seen almost every X-Men movie on the big screen:  The good (“X-Men,” “X2: X-Men United,” “X-Men: Days of Future Past”), the bad (“X-Men: First Class,” “X-Men: Apocalypse”) and the ugly (“X-Men Origins: Wolverine”).

Speaking of “X-Men Origins: Wolverine,” when I first discovered they were making a Wolverine spinoff film I was excited, but less so once I found out it was an origin story.  In my view, they’d already done a stellar job of detailing enough of his backstory in “X2: X-Men United” to further develop the character, but omitted enough to preserve his enigmatic past.

In seeing that film, I thought it started off great, but it was clear too much executive meddling ruined it.  Fox seemed more interested in setting up unnecessary characters for spinoff films than in doing Wolverine’s story justice.

The second solo film, “The Wolverine” was a marked improvement over the first and found Logan battling his foes in Japan.

“Logan” was a completely different animal, no pun intended.  It was dark.  Depressing.  The film was incredibly well done, with equal parts action and heartbreak.  As the credits rolled, I felt a piece of my childhood had died, in the form of an old friend, a character I’ve known and loved since I was a kid.  I left the theater feeling sad and a little empty.

I’ll miss seeing Jackman’s Wolverine on the big screen, but respect his decision to walk away from the franchise and always leave us wanting more.

For those of you who haven’t seen it, I definitely recommend watching it, although I’ll admit I don’t know if I could watch it again.

Joe Bob Briggs & “MonsterVision”

Who else besides me remembers “MonsterVision”?

For those of you not in the know, “MonsterVision” was a TV show on the TNT network that ran from early 1991 to late 2000.  It primarily featured horror, sci-fi and fantasy films although occasionally other genres would slip in as well.  During its run, it was originally hosted by a Claymation-style moon character, and later by magicians Penn and Teller before finally receiving its permanent host, the legendary Joe Bob Briggs.

Joe Bob Briggs is the pseudonym of syndicated film critic, writer and comic performer John Irving Bloom.  Bloom was born in Dallas, Texas but was raised in Little Rock, Arkansas.  He attended Vanderbuilt University on a sports-writing scholarship and later began his writing career at Texas Monthly and the Dallas Times Herald.  While at the Herald, Bloom created the comedic persona of “Joe Bob Briggs” to review b-movies and other cult films.

The Briggs character is, essentially, a humorous, unapologetic Texas redneck with an undying love for drive-in theaters.  Originally, his reviews were reserved only for movies showing at the local drive-in, but later he began reviewing films available on VHS and DVD.

In the early 80s, Bloom lived in New York City where he encouraged film fans to engage in a “Postcard Fu” campaign in opposition to the city’s plans to renovate and redevelop 42nd Street, which would inevitably lead to the closure of many of the Big Apple’s ’round the clock grindhouse theaters.

In 1985, Bloom debuted his one-man show, “An Evening with Joe Bob Briggs” (later retitled “Joe Bob Dead in Concert”) in Cleveland.  After its success, Bloom took the show on the road and performed in more than fifty venues over the next two years.

It was the stage show that led to Bloom being invited to guest host “Drive-In Theater,” a late night show featuring b-movies on The Movie Channel (TMC).  Briggs was such a hit, he was later signed to a long-term contract.  The show (now retitled “Joe Bob’s Drive-In Theater”) became the highest rated show on the network and ran for nearly a decade.

“Joe Bob’s Drive-In Theater” ended after TMC decided to change its format in early 1996.  Bloom wasn’t without a gig for long, however, as he joined TNT as the new host of “MonsterVision” just four months later.

“MonsterVision” typically aired two movies a night, with the better known title usually receiving top billing.  The second movie was billed as “Joe Bob’s Last Call.”  Briggs host segments typically took place both in and outside his trailer and featured his usual comedic commentary including his trademark “Drive-In Totals,” a humorous list of a movie’s highlights, as well as other trivia about the film.

Unfortunately, “MonsterVision” was canceled in July 2000 with its final episode airing in September of that same year.  Gone but certainly not forgotten, “MonsterVision” will always hold a special place in my heart.  I still hold out hope we haven’t seen the last of Joe Bob hosting all-night monster movie marathons.

As the man himself has said, “The drive-in will never die.”

 

 

 

Finding Your “One Thing”

I believe the meaning of life is to give your life a meaning.  I’m reminded of a scene from “City Slickers”:

That “one thing” is going to be different for everyone.  What gives one man a sense of fulfillment may not give another the same feeling.  Essentially, your duty in life is to find that one thing that really speaks to you and do it.  Don’t feel badly if you can’t find that thing, whatever it may be, right away.  Keep trying new things until something “clicks.”

Learn to enjoy your life as you would a song, which isn’t all about the final note (or where things ultimately end up), it’s about appreciating the journey the melody takes you on along the way.

 

Never Let a Woman Be Your “Everything”

Women aren’t goddesses deserving of worship.  They are meant to be companion pieces to a man’s already full, well-rounded life.  A woman mustn’t be a man’s raison d’etre, and if she is, she won’t be his woman for long.  A woman would rather play “second fiddle” to a man with higher priorities than be “everything” to a man with nothing else going for him.

If you’ve been neglecting other important aspects of your life, MGTOW might be an effective short-term solution but it is not a lifestyle to be admired in the long run, as it deprives a man of the enjoyment that can be found in women when they’re correctly managed/properly prioritized.

As with most things in life, there are pros and cons, benefits and drawbacks.  Women are certainly no exception.  A “9” or “10” might provide you a boost of pride when walking with one on your arm, but due to their inevitable sense of entitlement and greater propensity to cause drama you may not be as happy with one in a long-term relationship as you would a woman of lesser physical attractiveness.  Sure, you won’t be as proud to show off a “6” or “7” but if she’s a loyal companion and would make a good mother to your children, it may be a worthy tradeoff.

Generally, upper echelon chicks are better suited as great one-night-stands, fuck buddies or mini long-term relationships, but could, in rare instances, be better relationship material than a 6 or 7, it just depends on the girl.

Bottom line:  No girl should be regarded as “one in a million” but “one of a million.”  If she leaves you, your life isn’t ruined.  As most modern-day women offer little value to a man’s life outside the bedroom, she can be easily replaced.  The more value a woman is able to offer you in other areas, (e.g. cooking, cleaning, child-rearing, etc.) the less expendable she is.  But even then, as a man whose constantly looking to improve himself and thus raise his own value you should be able to find plenty of women capable of fitting that bill.

Risky Business

If there’s an attractive woman you’re interested in, and you’re unsure of how best to proceed, remember this:

Never treat a woman as if she’s some goddess deserving of worship, treat her like your bratty kid sister.

If you worship a girl who is used to getting worshiped by thirsty guys, you’re not going to stand out from the pack, and you’ll never get to where you want to go.  Stand out by not giving a fuck, or at least appearing not to.  How can you do this?

  • Don’t agree with everything she says
  • Tease her

If she says something stupid or makes an unfunny joke, playfully call her out on it and/or don’t laugh.  Also, you mustn’t be afraid to escalate things with her both verbally and physically.  If you’re too afraid to “make a move” she’ll know her value exceeds yours and you’ll be left dead in the water.

As Curtis Armstrong’s character in “Risky Business” once said:

“Every now and then, say ‘what the fuck.’  ‘What the fuck’ gives you freedom.  Freedom brings opportunity, opportunity makes your future.  Say ‘what the fuck’…If you can’t say it, you can’t do it.”

 

 

Relationship Musings

I think some guys make the mistake of wanting a long-term relationship so they won’t have to put so much work into gaming women. This is a logical fallacy of the highest order. It takes every bit as much work, if not MORE, to attempt to keep one woman in all her never-ending fickleness happy than it does to go out and game other chicks.

The problem is, the longer you’re with a girl the more reason she has to believe the pussy pipeline of your past has all but dried up. Without the threat of outside competition to keep her on her toes, the worse her treatment of you will become. This is why you must continue to game other women even whilst in a relationship.

I’m not saying you have to cheat nor am I saying not to. That choice is yours. You do need to keep your skills sharp, however. At bare minimum, you should be approaching girls who catch your eye and make conversation with them. Game is like a muscle, it takes a long time to build and can quickly atrophy if it isn’t used. Should things unexpectedly go south with you and your girl, wouldn’t you rather have the confidence to go out and pick up another right away? Or, even better, already have others in your rotation?

Although it would be nice to be in a relationship with a woman that doesn’t take you for granted, in the long run it’s just not realistic. By becoming her boyfriend you lose your independent essence, a key component of what attracted her to you in the first place. Without that, her attraction to you will eventually fade. And to think, women have the nerve to say men are the only ones more interested in “the chase.”

Once you enter into a relationship with a woman, and commit yourself to an agreement of exclusivity, you lose A LOT of leverage. Women may like security in financial matters, but despite their protestations to the contrary, they don’t like romantic security.  Loyalty is a trait men greatly admire, and rightfully so. But if a woman knows she’s got you “on-lock” it’ll turn her snatch drier than the Sahara.  It’s boring to them.

It isn’t that women want to be cheated on per se, although some are no doubt gluttons for punishment. It’s that (and this shouldn’t come as any great shock) women want men of such value they’re afforded opportunities to cheat but instead choose not to. However, in the event such a high-value man should happen to stray, it’s not uncommon for a woman to choose to share him with another rather than go without him and whatever he provides.

If you’re a man of more modest value, it’s likely you’ll develop a case of “one-itis” and over-value your girl. The easiest way to avoid one-itis is by not allowing yourself to become a “kept man” in the first place. As a wise man once said, “Always keep two in the kitty.” It’s sound advice.

Why Jon Stewart is a Chicken Shit

Here’s something that’s always pissed me off about Jon Stewart — and why I consider him to be a chicken shit.  When he was host of “The Daily Show,” he’d frequently call out others’ actions, but if anyone tried calling him out, he’d hide behind the fact his show was a “comedy.”

To see him “in action” doing this, I’ve provided the following clip:

Essentially, the political-comedy genre allows a comedian to:

  • Use their celebrity as a platform to get public attention
  • Dip their toe in political waters by calling out actions of politicians/pundits, etc.
  • If ever they find themselves on the receiving end of criticism, cop out behind “it’s just a joke.”

If a comedian makes a statement, is it their real opinion or part of their “shtick”?  This provides them a certain amount of cover —  If a comment is well received, they can own it as their own belief.  If not, they can claim it merely a “comedic misfire.”

Politicians clearly aren’t afforded this same luxury.  Before Trump (B.T.), if a politician made an off-color remark or a joke that fell flat, it very likely could have cost them their political race, or possibly even their career.

The problem is, a comedian can “hit” a politician, but a politician can’t hit them back.  Why?  Because “it’s just a joke” when a comedian does it, but it’s considered “mean-spirited” if a politician responds in kind.  Comedians clearly have no problem with such hypocrisy, as Bill Maher frequently pulls this same kind of dodgy bullshit.

Comics are instigators who use a defense mechanism similar to “You wouldn’t hit a guy in glasses, would you?” when challenged.  This is what needs to happen to them when they try and pull that shit:

It’s interesting to note that when the shoe’s on the other foot, Stewart isn’t so good at taking a joke at his own expense.  Here’s a clip of Seth MacFarlane on Piers Morgan’s show talking about an experience he had after parodying Stewart on “Family Guy.”:

Hey Stewart, don’t dish it out if you can’t take it, pal.