The sorry sack of shit who was once Osama bin Laden's driver/human buttplug, Salim Hamdan, has been tried and convicted for being the al-Qaeda scum that he is.
Like all these cowardly Lions of lslam he's cries like a baby when called to account for his part in the savage butchery of innocent victims. This guy is more disgusting than most of them. Here's what he had to say, according to the AP and other wire services:
"It was a sorry or sad thing to see innocent people killed. I don't know what could be given or presented to these innocent people who were killed in the US," Salim Hamdan said at his sentencing hearing, speaking in Arabic through an interpreter. "I personally present my apologies to them if anything what I did have caused them pain."
I think the best thing to do is to let this guy present his apologies in person to all the people who were murdered while he was on his knees giving blow- and handjobs to Osama bin Laden. I think the best thing would be to take him out back and shoot him through the head.
After all, as things presently stand,many of people he has caused pain can't hear him apologize BECAUSE THEY ARE DEAD!
Did this bastard try to turn Bin Laden in after 9/11? Did he do ANYTHING to stop what's been going on? Of course he didn't. He has a million excuses for why he didn't do anything, but the fact remains that he went along with the boys of al-Queerda until he was called to account.
He deserves to be executed, as do all the assholes who actively participate in or support terrorist activities.
Some people just won't go away. The latest of such assholes is Rajan Zed, self-appointed defender of All Things Hindu.
In a statement released Monday, Zed demanded (on behalf of Hindi everywhere) that Mike Meyers personally apologise for his portrayal of a comical spiritual leader in movie flop "The Love Guru."
While I think Meyers and everyone involved with the making of "The Love Guru" owes apologies to everyone who was subjected tothat craptacular movie, I wish that Zed anyone associated with him are specifically excluded from that apology.
I further hope that any apology for "The Love Guru" ends with, "And Rajan Zed can go fuck himself into his next life for all we care."
Here's the latest from Zed, via WENN...
Hindu leader leader Rajan Zed is demanding that that funnyman Mike Meyers publicly apologise for "lampooning Hinduism" in "The Love Guru."
In a statement released to WENN on Monday, Zed stated that although the apology may not completely undo the damage done to the community, it might help "heal the wounds somewhat of a disturbed Hindu populace".
Zed, the president of Universal Society of Hinduism, says, "Ksama, or forgiveness, is one of the main virtues of Hindu ethics. If Mike Myers offers a genuine public apology, Hindus would not only absolve him but might also pray for his success in future movies."
Zed launched a protest movement against The Love Guru in March, urging all Hindus and other religious groups to boycott the film.
He claims that the failure of the film is largely down to his protest campaign.
Zed is a self-absorbed, self-deluded moron whose ego is too big for words. "The Love Guru" flopped because it was a steaming pile of crap. In fact, if Zed wasn't such a publicity hungry asshole, it would have done far worse at the box office, because I'm certain a number of people went to see it because of him rather than staying away.
In 1978, the first unstoppable mad slasher of cinema drenched the movie screens with blood. Michael Myers, the silent, white-masked killer who butchered his parents one Halloween night when he was still a small child, and then escaped from an asylum many years later to finish the job on another Halloween night--because he missed his sister the first time around--still stands tallest among his imitators, from Jason Vorhees on down the line.
The original “Halloween” not only opened the floodgates for slasher flicks in the 1980s (and a few of the genre continue to trickle out to this very day), it started the career of suspense film director/writer/musical score composer John Carpenter, the late and very-much-missed producer/writer Deborah Hill, and actress Jamie Lee Curtis.
It's now 30 years since "Halloween" was unleashed upon the public, and that film still stands as one of the best-made and smartest of all slasher flicks, and it still deserves a place on any Top 25 Horror Movies list.
This post offers reviews of the the best films that has Michael Myers slashing his way through the plot. In fact, it covers the only films with the character that are worth seeing. (And, yes, I feel comfortable making an absolute pronouncement, because I fear the god-awful Rob Zombie remake in 2007 killed the franchise once and for all... one year short of this auspicious 30th anniversary. Although, maybe not. The graphic novel "Night Dance" was a spectacular read, so maybe Michael will be back to splash the screen with blood again.)
Halloween (1978) Starring: Jamie Lee Curtis and Donald Pleasance Director: John Carpenter Rating: 8/10
Michael Myer, who has been confined to a mental institution since committing several brutal murders as a young child, escapes and returns to his hometown to kill his last remaining relative, his sister. While his psychiatrist Dr. Loomis (Pleasance) tries to get the local sheriff to clear the streets of Halloween trick-or-treaters to protect them from a killer who the doctor believes to literally be possessed by evil spirits, Michael is cutting his way through the population of Haddonfield, getting ever closer to his actual goal, his sister, Laurie (Curtis).
"Halloween" was the first of this type of movie--an unspeakably violent, hands-on killer butchers his way through hapless victims until one girl faces him alone--and it still remains the best. The gore may be mild compared to the countless slasher flicks that follow, but the tension and terror flowing from the screen remains unmatched.
All actors featured in “Halloween” turn in great performances, with Curtis’ portrayal of the terror-stricken, yet scrappy, Laurie being particularly impressive. Horror movie veteran Pleasance also turns in a great performance as the stressed-beyond-stressed-out, gun-toting mental health professional bent on stopping a man who is “pure evil” before he murders again. Even the actor playing the masked, silent Michael Myer is wonderful—he has an animal-like way of cocking his head that is very creepy.
Other strong aspects that really make “Halloween” stand out is the camera-work, lighting, and set-dressing. All of these combine to turn typical small-town America into a creepy and threatening environment that is as much a character in the film as the principle actors. Much of the tension that is built in the early parts of the film grows from the curiously unsettling aura throughout the town of Haddonfield.
Finally, the soundtrack score of "Halloween" needs to be singled out for praise. Performed completely on synthesizers by director Carpenter, it stands as not only one of the creepiest horror movie scores but also as one of the best works of electronica ever composed. Plus, no other horror movie has a theme as memorable as "Halloween." (Only "The Exorcist" comes close, and the theme from it wasn't originally composed for the movie.)
Halloween II (1981) Starring: Jamie Lee Curtis and Donald Pleasance Director: Rick Rosenthal Rating: 7/10
'Halloween II" is a direct sequel to the original movie, picking up pretty much exactly where it left off. After narrowly escaping death at the knife-wielding hands of her insane brother, Laurie is taken to the local hospital while an apparently dead Michael Myers is taken to the morgue in its basement. It quickly becomes apparent that someone was a bit hasty in declaring Myers dead—a natural mistake since Dr. Loomis had shot him six times in the chest--and soon he is stalking through the darkened hospital and sending everyone on the graveyard shift to the graveyard. Maybe Laurie won’t live to see the sun come up on November 1st after all.
The film takes place almost entirely within the Haddonfield hospital. Director Rick Rosenthal. Rosenthal successfully uses the empty, darkened hallways to evoke suspense and horror, and to eventually emphasize the isolation of Laurie as she for the second time in one night is the object of her brother’s murderous intentions.
On the acting front, we’ve got Curtis and Pleasance reprising their roles from the original “Halloween”, and they are just as good as they were before. Curtis once again strikes a perfect balance between strength and terror, and Pleasance once again excels as a man obsessed with putting an end to what he views as evil given form on Earth.
The only weakness that prevents this film from being as good as the original “Halloween” is, curiously, the script. Although Carpenter and Hill wrote both, the story for “Halloween II” never really seems to build up quite the same momentum as the original movie. The middle is actually downright dull at times.
“Halloween II” is still worth watching, but a tighter script would have made it so much better.
Halloween 4: The Return of Michael Myers (1988) Starring: Donald Pleasance, Ellie Cornell, Danielle Harris, and Michael Pataki Director: Dwight H. Little Rating: 6/10
Ten years after Michael Myers brought real terror and bloodshed toa Halloween night in the small town of Haddonfield, he escapes while being transferred between two asylums. He returns to his old stalking grounds, but finds that his sister, Laurie is now out of his reach. However, his young niece Jamie (Harris) is not so lucky. Soon, the bodies start to pile up, and Jamie and her teenaged protector (Cornell) may not survive the night, even though Dr. Loomis (Pleasance) is once again stalk Michael as he stalks them.
With “Halloween 4,” Myers joins the ranks (whether he is elevated or if he falls depends on your point of view) of all the other indestructible psycho-killers, since he was burned to a crisp on camera at the end of “Halloween II.” However, Dr. Loomis, is also back (and he didn’t fare much better than Myers in that fire), so he is probably the only slasher-flick hero who is as indestructible as killer himself!
Like “Halloween II” was an inferior film when compared to the original, so is “Halloween 4” weaker than both its predecessors. The greatest flaw is the setting of Haddonfield. Where Carpenter and his crew managed to infuse the town itself with a sense of dreadful anticipation, the director of this film just conveys that it is like any other little town. Because of this, the movie doesn’t seem quite as suspenseful as those that came before. Yes, there are plenty of shocks, and Myers is now conducting himself as we have come to expect from a man in his like of work (like Jason, and Freddy, and dozens and dozens of other cinema maniacs that appeared in the decade since Myer first cocked his head at Laurie Strode), but the same level of tension is never quite reached.
Acting-wise, however, the performances are as good as they were in the first pair of movies. Curtis isn’t in the film—her character reportedly died in a car accident shortly after she gave birth to a daughter—but instead we have Danielle Harris, a very talented child actress playing Jamie, Myers new target. Cornell also puts on a good show as the stubborn teenaged girl trying to keep herself and Jamie alive as Myers is killing people all around them. At first blush, Pleasance’s performance seems to be a bit much, but if one considers that Dr. Loomis has shot Myers in the chest six times, in the face twice, and burned him alive, and still the human monster fails to die, then it would make sense that the character has gone completely nuts. In that light, his performance is perfect.
Like “Halloween II”, this installment suffers from script problems. In this case, the script isn’t ponderous, but instead is burdened with some useless and annoying subplots (such as one involving brave rednecks hopping in their truck to go kick Michael-ass). I suppose the filmmakers sensed the other problem with the film’s storyline—that Myers was starting to no longer be scary. We saw all his tricks in the first two films, and all we had now was the same as before, except he was so monstrous that he would go after a very young child.
This problem with Michael Myers is what let to some truly stupid missteps in the three movies that followed. Someone, somewhere, decided to take Dr. Loomis at his word. Soon, the series was burdened with bizarre Satanic cultists. It's almost a shame that "Halloween 5: The Revenge of Michael Myers" marks the point at which the series tips over the edge of the abyss and plummets into the Bottomless Depths of Truly Crappy, because it has what I've always thought to be the most striking poster/home-video cover image of the entire series--Michael holding his trademarked butcher knife with the blade fading into an image of a young girl in a harlequin costume. Harris and Cornell are also both back with excellent performances. It’s a shame the overall movie isn’t have been better. (That's the illo at the tip of this post, by the way.)
The final word on “Halloween 4” is that it’s worth seeing if you like your slasher-flicks with some good acting. But you should avoid everything that follows it... with the exception of "Halloween: H20"
Halloween: H20 (1998) Starring: Jamie Lee Curtis, Josh Hartnett, Adam Arkin, Michelle Williams, and LL Cool J Director: Steve Miner Rating: 7/10
Keri Tate (Curtis) has spent the past twenty years trying to put a single night horror behind her. Her successful career as an educator has helped, as has the love of her now-teenaged son (Hartnett) and the fact that she faked her death and changed her name when she became pregnant with him. But now, the past is coming back with a vengeance... Keri will no longer be able to deny that she is Laurie Strode. Michael Myers is back, and he still wants her.
"Halloween: H20" is the only entry in the series since "The Return of Michael Myers" that is worth your time. In fact, it's one of the best slasher movies to emerge from the late 1990s when the genre enjoyed a bit of a revival, because it doesn't engage in self-mockery and remains true to the tone and mood of the original "Halloween" films while presenting a slasher story with a slightly different structure than what we're used to.
Like the original "Halloween", the film is a bit slow in its wind-up, but during this first part of the movie, we get to know the characters--the still-emotionally tortured Laurie/Keri, her son, her would-be suitor (Arkin), and likable innocents who are soon to run into the human killing machine that is Michael Myers.
Also like the original "Halloween", this film does not rely on body count and gory, creative butchering of characters. Instead, it relies on the fact that teh audience actually cares about what happens to the characters in the film. With its well-written script, solid cast--Curtis in particular is fabulous as a broken Laurie Strode who suddenly finds the strength to fight not only for herself but for the life of her son--and a highly underrated director at the helm, the audience is drawn into the action and terror as it builds and unfolds.
(I feel Miner is underrated, because this and other horror films he's done shows that he understands that there needs to be a pay-off to any build-up of suspense, and that the key to making a horror movie truly scary is that the characters in the film need to be human and sympathetic. Both of these facts seem to be lost on many modern horror film directors who believe that one fake scare after another and flat characters surrounded by CGI monsters is all that's needed.)
"Halloween: H20" was a great way to celebrate twenty years of Michael Myers striking fear into the hearts of audiences around the world--it almost managed to reach the great heights acheived by Carpenter and Company in the original film. It remains the last worthwhile entry in the series.
I've heard several people commenting on the fact that Starbucks will be closing some 600 stores with glee in their voices. Somehow, they think this is a good thing. Some believe it will result in little indie cafes opening up (which never happens in Reality... when a coffee shop closes around here, nothing seems to take its place) and others are just assholes who seem to take delight in the fact that people will be losing their livelihoods.
I tend to zip through a Starbucks drive-thru about a week. There is a little coffee shop I prefer that gives me my mochas for less than half of what Starbucks charges, so I go there more because of purely financial reasons. However, Starbucks does generally taste better, although it depends on the barista. (Although, more and more they're both losing out on my money, as I'm making huge pots at home, dumping fat-free vanilla creamer in my cups, and saving lots of cash.)
But I sure as hell am not deriving any pleasure from the news that people are losing their jobs. No one ever forced me to go Starbucks and pay $4+ for a cup of coffee or $3 for a breakfast sandwich (which was quite tasty BTW).
I truly can't relate to some of my friends, nor to the dimwits quoted in this article from Reuters. I can't derive pleasure from people losing their jobs. (Well, with some exceptions. I'd celebrate if Melinda Vigliotti of New York lost her job.)
Some coffee drinkers gleeful over Starbucks financial troubles By Ellen Wulfhorst
NEW YORK (Reuters) - One coffee drinker's bad news is another coffee drinker's good news, it seems.
Financial woes at Starbucks Corp., which is planning to close 600 underperforming U.S. stores and lay off 12,000 employees, is evoking glee and little sympathy from aficionados who say they resent the coffee shop giant and favor small independent cafes.
"I'm so happy. I'm so not a Starbucks person," said Melinda Vigliotti, sipping iced coffee at the Irving Farm Coffee House in New York. "I believe in supporting small businesses. Starbucks, bye-bye."
Seattle-based Starbucks burst onto the national scene in the 1990s and grew to more than 6,000 locations around the world. But with cups of coffee that can cost several dollars, it faces a slowing economy and slowed consumer spending.
"Starbucks has really created a coffee culture, raising awareness of good coffee, which is good for independents," said Carol Watson, owner of the Milk and Honey coffee shop in Chicago. "But on the other hand, they're on practically every corner, and that makes it tough on the little guy too."
In Birmingham, Alabama, retiree Peggy Bonfield, drinking coffee at the Crestwood Coffee Shop, said: "When a Starbucks closes, it makes room for a local business to start. I consider that good news."
The schadenfreude of coffee drinkers drawing satisfaction from another's misfortune is part of the popular culture that enjoys the downfall of companies or celebrities, said Jim Carroll, a Canadian-based trends and innovation expert.
"There are a lot of people out there who take delight in seeing an icon torn down by the masses," he said.
Starbucks fell victim to a rapid change in attitude, fueled by Internet bloggers complaining endlessly about everything from layoffs to its breakfast sandwiches, he said.
"Starbucks was a cool brand, and then all of a sudden it's not a cool brand," he said. "There's this new global consciousness that is out there that can suddenly shift."
New York Web designer Zachary Thacher, who favors Greenwich Village's cafes, said he avoids Starbucks. "They've commoditized cafe culture, which is why I don't go," he said.
But it's not as though Starbucks doesn't have defenders.
"It's convenient," said Anthony Castro, sitting in a Starbucks near his job at New York's Museum of Modern Art. "I know what to expect."
In Birmingham, Crestwood regular Gary Adkins said he felt Starbucks gave employees good salaries and benefits.
Not everyone felt strongly. "It's just coffee," said Marc Poulin, a systems administrator at Zibetto Espresso Bar in New York. "If I was an investor, I'd care."
(Additional reporting by Tim Gaynor, Andrew Stern and Verna Gates; editing by Todd Eastham and Steve Miller)
WALL-E (2008) Starring (the voices/sound effects of): Jeff Garlin, Ben Burtt, Elissa Knight, Fred Willard, John Ratzenberger, Kathy Najimy, and Sigourney Weaver Director: Andrew Stanton Rating: Ten of Ten Stars
Centuries after humankind has abandoned Earth for a spent garbage dump, the last of a one-time army of robots that had been unleashed as part of a clean-up attempt is happily toiling away. He repairs himself when needed, and he amuses himself with his friend the cockroach and by listening to songs from his favorite musical. But, one day, something strange drops from the sky, bringing with it another robot and WALL-E's existence is changed forever... and he becomes the catalyst for the very rebirth of humanity.
"WALL-E" is a supremely cute animated film about robots finding love and humanity gaining a second chance through it. If you've seen the previews, all you know is that WALL-E is cute... the story is completely unrevealed. And it's a doozy of a story! Action! Romance! Laserbeams! Robot rebellion! Corporate greed and corpporate responsibility! This movie has something for everyone and it's a film the entire family can go see together.
I've heard a lot of talk about the film's environmental message. Yes, it's there, but it's a sensible one. This is not a Church of Al Gore propaganda piece with cute robots... it's a well-crafted, genuine piece of art. Anyone who wants to drag politics into this film is an idiot, plain and simple.
I don't want to talk too much about the story, because watching it unfold and discovering the secrets hidden within the grand spaceship Axiom is part of what makes the film such a joy. I will, however, state that it should be impossible for anyone to give this movie a bad review, because there are few films that will draw you so completely into its world and accept its rules as real as this one. Even when, late in the film, they have a cartoon person and film footage of a real person side by side did the sense of reality created by the animation and the characters in this film break. (Okay, it probably helped that it's Fred Willard featured in the film clips... if there ever was a flesh-and-blood cartoon character, it's Fred Willard.)
I friend of mine mentioned that Walt Disney Pictures/Pixar are contemplating putting this movie forward for a Best Picture Ocsar nomination. I scoffed when he did, thinking to myself it was a dippy marketing move, another sign of how increasingly irrelevant the Oscars are as a watermark for excellence in movie making. However, his praise of "WALL-E" was so high that I decided to go see for myself.
You know, I think Walt Disney Pictures/Pixar ought to consider putting "WALL-E" forward for a Best Picture nomination for this year's Academy Awards. It is an excellent film on every level, and it's one that everyone should make the time to see. (And stay for the end credits... they're very nicely done.)
Get Smart (2008) Starring: Steve Carrel, Anne Hathaway, Alan Arkin, Dwayne Johnson, Terence Stamp, Ken Davitian, and Dalip Singh Director: Steven Segal Rating: Eight of Ten Stars
When the international crime syndicate and freelance spy-ring KAOS gains a complete roster of field agents working for the most secret branch of the United States intelligence services, CONTROL, the Chief (Arkin) promotes eager-beaver analyst Maxwell Smart (Carrel) to field agent. Together with the only other agent not compromised by KAOS, Agent 99 (Hathaway), he sets out to discover what notoriouls KOAS agent Seigfried (Stamp) intends to do with stolen radioactive materials.
"Get Smart" has received some early bad reviews, and I think this is one of those cases where some critics need to pull their heads out of their asses. This movie is an excellent update of the 1960s spy spoof that modernizes the characters and conflicts without feeling the need to denigrate and mock the original show (as was done in movies like "Starsky and Hutch") or all but ignore the original show, except for a little lip service ( as was done with the "Mission: Impossible" movies). This film takes all that was good about the TV series, even to the point where some of the spirit can stil be felt, and delivers it in a package that both those who love the old show and those who have never even heard of it can enjoy.
While I will grant the criticsm that the movie never gets quite as crazy as the TV show could be at its finest, and that only a few of the dialogue exchanges approach Mel Brooks and Buck Henry level writing (like the "if you were CONTROL you'd be dead" scene between Maxwell Smart and Seigfried, as featured in one of the previews), but the movie would have been a miserable failure if it had aped the old show. There is only one Mel Brooks and whenever writers try to copy him, they always fail spectacularly.
[center] [i]Keeping America and the world safe for democracy: Maxwell Smart (Steve Carell), Agent 99 (Anne Hathaway), Agent 23 (Dwayne Johnson) and The Chief (Alan Arkin)[/i][/center]
The actors portraying the various familiar characters are not attempting mimic those who have come before. Like Roger Moore didn't do a Sean Connery impersonation when he took over as James Bond, nor does Steve Carell do Don Adams when he plays Maxwell Smart. The character is obviously the same character, but the Carell gives his own spin on him. The same is true of Anne Hathaway as Agent 99 and Alan Arkin as The Chief. The characters are recreated, but still recognizable.
Another very smart move done by the film's creators (particularly score composer Trevor Rabin) was to retain the old "Get Smart" theme and weave it throughout the soundtrack music. They were smart to enough to recognize that the "Get Smart" theme by Irving Szathmary is one of the best pieces of television music ever written and that a "Get Smart" update wouldn't be complete without it. Just like the actors took the characters and reinvented them, so did Trevor Rabin take the spy music second only in fame to the "James Bond Theme" and make it his with a number of playful and thrilling variations as the movie unfolds. (The soundtrack music is [URL=http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0019H9WF2?ie=UTF8&tag=stevemillesdo-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=B0019H9WF2]available from Amazon.com at a discount[/URL], and the disc contains several more of Rabin's variations on the theme that don't appear in the film but which are very creative and worthwhile. Even if you don't see the movie, the soundtrack is worth owning, because this fun music stands just fine on its own.
From the first teaser ad for the "Get Smart" film, I was looking forward to seeing it. As longer previews appeared, I started getting concerned that it was going to be another adaptation/update that was going to be intended more as an excersize in mocking the original show, or too mean-spirited to really capture the "Get Smart" feel. Thankfully, my fears were unfounded, and the film turned out to be a fun, breezy upate of the classic TV show... a laugh- and action-filled spy spoof that's well worth seeing. (It may not be perfect--there are a couple of instances I found myself thinking, "Waitaminnit... why isn't Smart reacting to that comment?" and "Why did the leap to THAT conclusion?"-- but the flaws are few and minor.)
Don't trust the critics who tell you this is a bad movie.
I don't know if Osama bin Laden is trying to show that he's really not such a bad guy, or if he's just trying to emphasize the queer part in al-Queerda.
Whatever his reason, he's partying harder than a high schooler after his first beer and a couple of Ecstasy tablets.
(Okay... for the humor impaired, I KNOW that's not Osama bin Laden in the video. But it's still funny as hell.)
