Snak's Intermittent Movie Review - "Sideways"

"I'm not drinking Merlot!"

This movie isn't for the boys who read Maxim, Stuff, or skateboard magazines.
This movie is for the men who read GQ, Esquire, "Barely Legal", and Wine Makers' Weekly.
This movie isn't for dads. It's for the men a year or so before they becomes dads.
So it's not a family movie.

And it isn't for women either. It's not for women because women won't ever admit that they don't understand men. Men fully submit to the fact that trying to understand a woman is the greatest mystery.

It's a real guy movie. And I emphasize "real". It's sophisticated and deep. Any man who doesn't understand the movie, is simply not a man, and should go back to the superficial and easy dumb guy movies like American Pie, Road Trip, and Harold and Kumar Go To White Castle.

I really can't think of another movie like Sideways, except for Swingers. Sideways is the sequel. For those who don't understand it, will find it slow, but those who do, will soak up every ounce of it and appreciate the finer qualities.

Ah yes. It's very smooth. The obvious metaphor between the delicacy and preference of a Pinot Noir grape and Miles' middle aged crisis is simple yet brilliant. His description of the grape to Mya on the porch is the crux of that metaphor and part of the script that put this movie at the top of the Oscars.

If you've had Pinot Noir wine, you'll know that it is a very fine rare wine. It's taste is mild and relaxing. If you've had Merlot, you'll know that it is a bolder wine and readily available.

The juxtaposition of the two characters, Jack and Miles, emphasizes their personality differences on the extremities of typical lonely middle aged men. On one hand you have Jack, the extroverted, sexually active, well dressed, party guy with everything going for him including his upcoming wedding, contrasted with Miles, the introverted, shy, bald, fat, drunk, poorly dressed, divorcee and failed writer. Despite these polarized traits, both men have a breakdown. Jack's admission about his true feelings of his fiancee show he too, like all men, have fragile egos. For the man with everything and the man with nothing, the spirit can be shattered by a woman in an instant.

Despite his cheating, Jack does marry and Miles does finally get the courage to hook up with Mya. And notice the similarity in the names? Miles and Mya - both divorcees looking to settle down again, without the pressure.

All men can go sideways from time to time. While they think some happiness lay on a detoured path that satisfies their desires and rubs their ego, they realize at some point of epiphony that this is temporary and should probably get back on the long responsible road of virtue. However, those who never taste the Merlot, and don't explore bold new things, lose a passion for life, and the long road ahead never seems to end.

This is the essence of men and we freely admit it. Women don't. There's no wine to compare them to. Okay, maybe a blush, but there's no small firey red grape that can represent a woman's ego. For that, you'd probably need an orchard the size of California.

The only drawback to the movie is that it could have been funnier. It does have its moments, but I was hoping for a few more chuckles.

But I digress. This movie is great because it makes a man stop and really think. I mean, look at how much I've talked about it already. And I could go on and on about it, but I won't. For now, I think I'll go have a glass of Shiraz. I'm not drinking Merlot.

Snaky gives "Sideways" 4.69 fists out of 5.

The German Shepherd

I don't think there could be a better short description of the new Pope, Benedict XVI. It describes his nationality, and the common religious metaphor of tending to sheep (ie. Catholics), but it also describes a vicious dog. What about Eggs Benny? Okay, maybe not.

Some Catholics, particularly liberal women, aren't so happy about Cardinal Ratzinger becoming Supreme Pontiff. They don't think there's going to be any progressive change in the church with Benny in St. Peter's chair.

I say ... so what!

Catholicism has rigid doctrines such as no pre-marital sex, no abortions, no gay marriage, no women in the clergy, etc. Pope John Paul II stuck by them and his right hand man, Cardinal Ratzinger, did too. IN fact, Ratzy was known as the "Rotweiller" when it came to this. But why shouldn't they? Who else is going to advocate these things to 1.1 billion people (if not more)?

What if no one had pre-marital sex? There would certainly be very few abortions.

"We should just forget about all those people with the crazy extreme right-wing conservative opinions."

Oh come on already. I live in Canada, I hear that typical liberal mantra on a daily, if not, hourly basis. It's tiring, and most of all it's insulting and intolerant to those who do have the belief, faith, and prinicples of Catholicism -- whether you agree or disagree with them. It's like telling an estout Muslim to start drinking beer. It doesn't wash with them, nor does gay marriage and many other "conservative" similarities.

I can even tolerate with the no women in the clergy thing. I mean, look at how some of these priests get hot and bothered with young boys. Ah, but they didn't follow the no pre-marital sex rule. In fact, priests can't get married, so they shouldn't be having sex at all. End of point.

But I think once you allow women in the clergy, which I agree with, then why can't they all get married? Speaking of marriage, with gay marriage, the Holy See's doctrine is that a gay couple is not God's will. God's will in this sense would side with nature where a man and a woman in love, created by God, is the only means by which procreation, the most wonderful of things, can occur. This is true. Once the Catholic church allows gay marriage, they can kiss the no pre-marital sex rule goodbye. A domino effect occurs. Who knows where it will lead. Polygamy? Oh, that's just around the corner folks. Will you tolerate that?

But the whole gay marriage thing was decided a long time ago when atheist and agnostic heterosexual couples got married. The church had no business here because God wasn't on the invite list.

However, like many things, the gov't should then stay completely out of the debate altogether and let individuals and individual churches to decide. But gov't likes to control marriage and what rights you can have (when you already have by just existing by the way). So why bother?

The answer is simple. Taxes. The gov't likes to control who pays taxes.

The church was one of the first institutions to implement a tithe - a 10% flat tax on everyone. Then they got you to pay so you have your deceased loved ones be moved from purgatory to heaven. Sounds like how the government says you have to pay taxes or the country will fall apart with no central control - you know, because of the separtists and child welfare.

So you're thinking, what does yippin' about the gov't have to do with the new Pope? Well, for those liberals who want the church and Pope to change relieving control over its followers should take a good hard look at their own government and demand the exact same thing - less dependence and control from the government. While I commend their efforts on one hand, they should look at the other side, otherwise their demands and beliefs are wholly (Holy?) fruitless.

However, like the government, don't expect the German Shepherd to obey you.

Movies & TV suck

We wanted to go see a movie yesterday. But there was fuck all in the theatres, so we didn't go.

Only good shows on TV now:

"CSI"
"Trailer Park Boys"
"Mythbusters"
"Question Period in the House of Commons" on CPAC (ooh, it's getting really nasty - true reality TV)

What happened to the greatest comedy ever - "Curb Your Enthusiasm" on Showcase?

And now that there's no hockey, can someone please tell me why the CBC is still on the air? And don't say North of 60, or the umpteenth Anne Murray special.

Thank God summer is around the corner.

More Kyoto Accord...

Read the following article and you'll see the proof of why I've been stating that the Kyoto Protocol is a sham, will not curb global warming, and is a UN scheme to create an international socialist system. Sad thing is, Canada just bought in big time - a whole $10 billion dollars worth. And the guy behind it all is Maurice Strong, who's been linked to the U.N. Oil for Food - Iraq scandal. And did I mention that Maurice Strong had Paul Martin as his assitant at Power Corp for many years?

http://www.torontofreepress.com/2005/cover042105.htm

The world is not what is seems. Don't believe the hype. There are other ways and means to control pollution. The Kyoto accord does none of this. It has NOT been scientifically proven that recent global warming is caused by humans. Even my climatology professor said so. The earth was much warmer than it is today many years ago. We should be concerned about POLLUTION and SMOG not natural GREENHOUSE GASES!!!

Canadians will pay on average $30/month for the useless Kyoto protocol to buy international emission credits.

It's amazing that the entire U.S. Senate, Democrat and Republican, voted unanimously to not sign on to the Kyoto protocol. Australia didn't sign on either. But Canada did! Why? Ask Maurice Strong's buddy, Paul Martin.

One Tonne of Bulsh*t

Yeah, you know what I'm talkin' 'bout. Did you know that the Liberal gov't just spent $10 BILLION dollars on trying to meet the Kyoto Accord targets? $10 billion! First it was a few million, then a few hundred million, then 1 billion, then 5 billion, now 10 billion. Stop the insanity! Looks like another boondoggle, but this one is the biggest in history! Just imagine what that money could have really done for this country rather than buying off to other countries for Kyoto credits (read: international socialism). With about 15 million taxpayers in Canada, that money could have been a simple income tax cut, or forgive some student debt, or invest it and have it grow for a few years.

So you're thinking - "But Snaky, global warming is affecting our future - our children's future." Well of course it will. But the earth has been a lot warmer in the past and a lot colder and a lot warmer, etc. Well listen up, the Kyoto Accord will do NOTHING to circumvent Mother Nature, or smog.

Why? Let's explode some of the myths regarding "Global Warming" shall we? Please visit this website 'Envirotruth.org'

Here are a few myths:

"The hypothesis that rising CO2 levels result in a direct increase in
temperature originated in 1896 with Swedish chemist, Svante Arrhenius. However, the concept was abandoned in the 1940s because global temperatures had not even remotely matched the 1°C rise predicted by the theory. Since then, the rate of global warming has slowed despite the acceleration in industrialization and CO2 emissions."

"Many people support the Kyoto Accord because they believe it is a clean air treaty that will reduce pollution. It is not. Kyoto is a treaty designed to
reduce human production of so-called 'greenhouse gases' (GHG), the recent increase of which has been associated with unnatural global warming by some scientists.

Greenhouse gases include water vapor (99% of all the GHG in the atmosphere), methane, carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, ozone, chlorofluorocarbons, hydrofluorocarbons and perfluorocarbons. Only about 2% of all GHG are produced by human activity; the rest is produced by nature. The first time frame of the Kyoto Protocol requires 38 industrialized countries (including Canada and the United States) to reduce their overall emissions of GHG so that their yearly average between 2008 and 2012 will be an average of 5.2% below 1990 levels (targets vary - for example, Canada's is a 6% reduction; Australia's is an 8% increase). Since most of the developed world's production of GHG is in the form of carbon dioxide (CO2), this means that Kyoto is mostly about reducing CO2.

Many commentators refer to Kyoto and other treaties that address CO2 levels as
'pollution treaties', implying that CO2 is somehow a pollutant. This is incorrect. CO2 is a benign 'trace gas', constituting only about 0.037% of the earth's atmosphere. It is colourless, odourless and not toxic in any fashion.

Besides helping keep the earth from being locked in a perpetual ice age with average global temperatures 33°C lower than they are now, CO2 is a plant nutrient critical to the process of photosynthesis. "

So despite these myths, what's the Liberal's plan? Rick Mercer. That's the plan. You've seen the ads. "Come on Canada! Take the One Tonne Challenge." One Tonne my ass. Seriously, I've probably gassed out one tonne of you-know-what from you-know-where in my lifetime.

The Liberal government has doled out more than $26 million in a dubious two-year advertising blitz to convince Canadians to cut pollution - including an $85,000 commercial fee for comedian Rick Mercer, Sun Media has learned.

Simply put, global warming caused by humans is still not a proven scientific fact - it's a myth. A big $10 billion myth. This "One Tonne Challenge" is one tonne of bullsh*t. Don't buy into it. Oh wait, you already have.

Liberal Corruption is biggest scandal in Canadian History

HOLY CORRUPTION!

Not like it's really a surprise. We all knew it, but didn't have the proof. The details of what happened are shocking and disgusting. Now that for the first time ever, I don't get anything back on my taxes this year, I'm even more angry. Why? Because my tax dollars in the past went back to the Liberal Party and to the separatists. You heard me! THE SEPARATISTS!

Now that the publication ban has been mostly lifted, we're now getting through the iceberg and finding out who in the Liberal party was behind all this.

Basically, before and during the 1995 Quebec referendum period, the Liberal government handed out grants to advertising firms, like GroupAction in Quebec, often for no work returned, or money and jobs handed to cronies, likely the Montreal mafia (that's right, I said the mafia!), to Jean Chretien's brother, and other scum bags.

We're talking millions of dollars.

Then the firms turn around and donate back a bajillion to the Liberal Party, as well as to the provincial Parti Quebecois! (See... there's the connection). Why do they donate? So they can continue to get contracts?

But it was federal Liberal Party henchmen in Quebec who threatened GroupAction to donate back to the Liberals in the first place or they wouldn't receive the federal advertising contracts. The federal Liberals in Quebec were $3 million in the hole and needed the money for the upcoming federal elections.

Paul Martin, our current Prime Minister, was the Quebec deputy of the Liberal caucus at the time. So this money WOULD have gone to his campaigns directly in 1993, 1997, and 2000.

I don't care if he's mad as hell and is getting to the bottom of it now. He should have put a stop to it 10 years ago.

Taxpayers should get their money back. The Liberal party owes it. Jean Chretien and Paul Martin are the biggest political crooks in Canadian history.

It's time this hegemony ended.

Yes, I want my money back, but more importantly I want my country back.

Remembering Pope John Paul II

I'm not a Catholic, nor do I ever want to be. The history of the Catholic church is brutal, and to me, in its holy hippocracy actually went against what Jesus Christ was trying to preach in the first place. Jesus spoke out and was crucified. But those who spoke out against the church were tortured and killed. It was a repressive regime upon Europe for many centuries. It stayed quiet during the holocaust. The history of the papacy is no better. Many popes were political pawns, some were dictators, and there's even one who was a gay pedophile. Not pretty is it?

So you're thinking, how is this a way to remember John Paul II? Call it contrast. In my opinion, Pope John Paul II was the greatest man of both the 20th and 21 centuries. He was a deeply spiritual man. His faith enabled him to endure nazism, communism, a tumor, getting shot, and Parkinson's disease. His courage was a symbol for the Polish people especially during the fall of communism. While Sinead O'Connor may disagree, he was highly regarded by leaders of all religions for his openness, tolerance, and warmth.

I remember when I was young and my parents really never explained religion to me. I didn't even know which religion I belonged to, or what made Jesus so great. I thought the Pope was the leader of all of Christianity, when in actual fact, he's only the leader of the Catholics. However, in Pope John Paul's case, I'd say he WAS the leader of all of Christianity, including mine.

I remember when he got shot. I remember the newspaper headlines after the Pope forgave his assailant: "Why Forgive?". What I didn't remember until seeing an old news clip on TV recently was the Pope actually visiting this guy and hugging him. Wow. Who could do that? The Pope could.

I remember when he came to Edmonton. This town was in a frenzy. I didn't know why. Years later, I figured it out and now regret not seeing him.

You've probably already heard how many times he travelled the globe, how many miles, how many people he spoke to, who he met with, etc. He had many "firsts" for a Pope, like the first to step into a mosque. He also moderized the Vatican with regards to communication channels, technology, and openness. He and Ronald Reagan shared a unique bond. Both were leaders in bringing down communism. With balance and grace, he also carefully warned all the U.S. presidents against excessive capitalism and immorality.

What irks me is all the pinko pundits out there right now who questioned his stance against abortion, same-sex marriage, ordaining women, and other things. They say he was too conservative. Oh give me a break already. Whenever these people get a chance to spew their opinion they do it. In this regard, Pope John Paul II was a man who stuck by his prinicples. I don't care if you disagree with them, you should respect them regardless. Could you imagine if he didn't? The entire Catholic Church and other Christian religions would crumble. But that's what some of these pundits want. They're socialists - they believe the government sets the standards for society and many of these governments have been going against what the Pope believes.

Pope John Paul II negated all the historical wrongs of the Church. To say he wasn't modern, is ignorant. He was the greatest of men. When he began his papacy, he was a mover and a shaker, always on the go. He accomplished so much. Even in the last few years, even with severe Parkinson's, he still raised a hand to wave, still said something. I believe it was divinity that allowed him to be with us through Easter this year. It will be a special one no one will forget. Like Christ, as his body deteriorated, his soul grew even more powerful than ever.

I've watched and read stories of people who've met him and how completely humbled they were by his presence -- how he would embrace them and tell them that they are blessed. With his courage, his dignity, and his love, he touched everyone on the globe. He was a beacon of peace and hope. His legacy and his spirit shall be a part of me forever.

I prayed for the Pope in his dying days. I cried when he died. God had a shepard on earth, and now He has a good friend in heaven.

God, make room, John Paul II has risen.