Thursday, April 10, 2008

The Very Best Movies based on Comic Books

Only movies that are based on specific comic books are included here. There will be no Unbreakable or Mystery Men on the list.

Let the countdown begin!

10. Men in Black (1997) - Funny aliens. Smith and Jones funny, too..

9. Batman Returns (1992) - Admittedly, this film has some problems. But, hey, Michelle Pfeiffer is in a black, leather catsuit. A black, leather catsuit! But even that wouldn't have mattered if the movie was a bore. But Michael Keaton, Chris Walken, and Danny DeVito all turn in good performances.

8. Hellboy (2004) - Never read the comic. But the movie is waaaay cool.

7. Batman Begins (2005) - The origin of Batman. Now with ninjas!

6. X-Men 2 (2003) - Not quite as good as the first X-Men but pretty darn good nonetheless.

5. Batman (1989) - Say what? Mister Mom is Batman? It worked.

4. Spider-Man (2002) - The Marvel Comics icon shines on the big silver. Maguire was great as Parker, I don't care what some people say. Dafoe was great as the Goblin (too bad we couldn't see his facial expressions with the stupid Goblin mask on). Everything fit.

3. X-Men (2000) - Every character is nailed perfectly (except Storm who is just a tad off). All the characters--both the X-Men and the Brotherhood--are cast correctly. The story is solid captures the feeling of the comic book accurately.

2. Superman (1978) - Not much I can add to the accolades this film has received. The only Superman film that gets Superman right (Superman 2 definitely not withstanding).

1. Spider-Man 2 (2004) - The first film was great and I didn't think it could be beaten. But it was. Stronger characterization, better villain (Dafoe was good as Goblin but the choice by director Sam Raimi to have the Goblin wear a mask that did not allow facial expressions was not a good choice), and increased intensity. This film is as good as comic book based films get.

There you go. No Superman 2 on the list you say? That's right, folks, and here's why: Superman slept with Lois Lane in 2! Stupid, stupid, stupid. Thanks, (directors) Dicks Donner and Lester, thanks for sullying an American icon. Why not beat up mom, crap on the flag, and piss on apple pie while you're at it?

Monday, April 07, 2008

The Unofficial NBA Hall of Fame

Unlike Major League Baseball and the National Football League, the National Basketball Association does not have a hall of fame. Rather, the NBA is included with college, women, and international basketball in the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame in downtown Springfield, Massachusetts.

That's nice. But it's time for an NBA Hall of Fame. And since I'm not a basketball superstar or zillionaire or some sort of American celebrity with any kind of pull in or on the NBA, if I do decide to create a website (likely a blog) that functions as an NBA Hall of Fame, it will be the Unofficial National Basketball Association Hall of Fame.

First, I'm president of the Unofficial NBA HoF inductee committee (I may be the only guy in my circle of friends and family interested in this so I may be the committee as well). Since I only have my brother and a buddy at work who are qualified to be on the committee, this could be a very small committee.

We'll set up some sort of nomination process where only committee members can nominate potential HoF inductees. Any nomination would have to be backed by at least two committee members to get to the next level. All the nominees that get past the first two phases would then be voted upon by the committee members. Only those nominees that receive unanimous consent would then be inducted into the NBA HoF.

I would hope that the initial Hall of Fame class would include James Naismith (the guy who created basketball), Red Auerbach (the first great NBA coach), George Mikan (the first dominant player), Wilt Chamberlain (the greatest scorer and rebounder), Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (the MVP king), Magic Johnson and Larry Bird (the two players who popularized the NBA), and, of course, Michael Jordan (the association's greatest player).

This is all very preliminary and may never come to fruition, but it would be a kick if I (and some buddies) could get this thing off the ground.

Thursday, April 03, 2008

Tobacco and terrorism.

Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates (among other Islamic nations) donate millions of dollars to American universities every year (Harvard just received twenty-million dollars from a Saudi prince). These donations are often used to create Middle-Eastern Studies departments. We all know that any department with studies on the end of is a bulls**t program filled with leftist nonsense, i.e. women studies, African-American studies, etc. These Middle-Eastern studies departments become nothing more than vehicles for Islamist propaganda and the professors who run these departments are very often apologists for radical Islam.

That's fine. I don't want to stop universities from receiving donations from whomever they want. And if professors want to extol the virtues of Islam--radical or otherwise--fine.

However, many of the same universities that receive donations from Arab states with ties to terror will not accept donations from tobacco companies on moral grounds,

That's screwed up, folks.

Accepting money from Islamist states while not accepting money from tobacco companies based on moral grounds only illustrates how backwards the view of right and wrong are at the university.

I find nothing wrong with accepting money from so-called Big Tobacco even if this money goes into research on lung cancer or the effects of second-hand smoke. Why is it if the American Lung Association produces a study on tobacco it's deemed legit but if RJ Reynolds does the same, the study is tainted?

Because, you say, RJ Reynolds has an agenda.

The American Lung Association doesn't have an agenda? Are you high? Their agenda consists of bilking literally billions of dollars through legal terrorism (lawsuits)out of tobacco companies.

It seems to me studies produced by the American Lung Association should be at least as suspect as those produced by tobacco companies.

I don't smoke, I never have. It's a filthy habit, I don't like it. But the hysteria over smoking (especially second-hand smoke) is silly. What we need is some hysteria--just a little--over real threats like state-sponsored terrorism. Let's stop worrying about tobacco donations to colleges and start worrying about the Islamist propaganda being pushed by leftist universities.

Wednesday, April 02, 2008

It's not guilt by association.

Damn, the American left is dishonest.

Barack Obama's relationship with Reverend Wright is not being codemned because it is guilt by association. It goes beyond association. Barack Obama chose to join an Afro-centric church. He choses to cast Reverend Wright in the role of his mentor. Senator Obama choses to subject his two young daughters--ages six and nine--to the rantings and ravings of a terrorist supporting, hate-monger like Jeremiah Wright.

Senator Obama should damn well explain this relationship that he chose to develop and deepen over the decades. It is not guilt by association which implies some sort of casual relationship, poker-on-weekends relationship. This thing Senator Obama has with Reverend Wright is not casual in the least.

So stop it. Stop calling this guilt by association. Would you, the reader, stay in a church whose pastor said god damn America and published terrorist manifestos in it's newsletter? Would you subject your children to such hate?

I doubt it.

Barack Obama is not guilty because of his associations, he's guilty of choosing a bad guy to be his mentor.