Asshat of the Month Award

Ah, the Asshat awards. Nothing brings out the fight in uncle Jimbo more than the battle for the title of Crown Prince of Idiocy. As usual it was a dogfight between Best Grip Mike (Moore) and his [current] insane ravings and a select few individuals whose mental powers prohibit them from applying for any job which require the use of heavy equipment. So, without further verbosity, here are the finalists:

Michael Moore: writer/director, nominated for Sicko.

Al Gore: self-proclaimed inventor of the Internet and savior of mother earth, nominated for his personal inconvenient truth (personal electric bill).

Jack Thompson: lawyer, God-fearing Republican, and crusader against the wretched hive of villainy know as the entertainment industry, nominated just for being himself.

Wow, this is a great group of nominees. We've got the man who double-fists foot-longs and uses a garden hose to drink his margaritas from a kiddie pool bashing Republicans for the poor condition of the health care system. Easy winner you say. Probably. But I haven't seen the "film" so I don't feel as those I can properly comment on the issue. Yeah, right. Sure I can.

Dear Mike, Hello [knocks on his oversized mellon] you big fat walking heart attack. The biggest problem with our health-care system isn't the cost of drugs, or the doctors, or yes, even the Republicans. It's all the fat, unhealthy bastards like you that live your lives under the freedoms and liberties of this country, not worried a bit about your health until the pseudo-meat and Cheese Whiz finally seizes up your pumper. Then it's all about how the "system" failed you. The insurance is too expensive, the drugs are too expensive, blah blah blah. The system that failed you is the one that kept your food-filled hand continually entering your mouth. Things are broken in this country because people fail to take responsibility for their own actions. As much as I'd like to keep going, the other nominees needs some airtime.

Al, Al, Al. You ignorant slut. $30,000/year in utility bills. Nice...your Honor, In light of this new evidence, I rest my case. Things are broken in this country because people fail to take responsibility for their own actions. [FYI, he's another fat bastard that's going to be taxing our health-care system in a couple of years.]

And then there's Jack Thompson. Many of you might not know him, but he will most likely be a multi-award winning asshat. I probably should have commented on him before, I must be slipping in my old age. If you do any research on this guy you'll find someone, despite his God-fearing, Republican background, that is more about regulating behavior than he is about reforming behavior.

It a nutshell, he believes that the evils (e.g. violence) of the entertainment industry, are what drive certain youth to commit crimes such as the Virgina Tech and Columbine incidents. He has specifically targeted violent video games as a key source of this anti-social behavior calling them "murder simulators". As a father, Republican, God-fearing man, and video game player, I think you're an asshat Jack Thompson. You win this month's award.

It couldn't possibly be the lack of proper parenting or the sensationalized media coverage that drive these troubled kids to violence. Millions of kids play semi-violent or violent video games. I and millions of kids have watched a coyote take an anvil to the head and plummet into a cloud of dust. superheroes beat up super-villians, cowboys shoot indians (and other cowboys). Over 99.99 percent of those children have never taken up arms against their peers. From a purely mathematical perspective all your points are invalid. The numbers just don't bear out the cause and effect you're trying to sell. Quite trying to regulate behavior and start working to reform it. Things are broken in this country because people fail to take responsibility for their own actions.

And for the record Jack, video games don't make me want to kick your ass, YOU make me want to kick your ass.

Occam's Razor

Call me old fashioned, but where have all the good horror movies gone? Sure we still have the occasion classic B-movie remake/revisioning, but new IPs almost all fall into what I refer to as dismemberment flicks. During the heyday of the horror movies, we had quality suspense films, slasher flicks, and a variety of other sub-genres that provided options for those of us who like to be scared silly. Everything now is ultra-violent, with an over abundance of visible brutality. Hitchcock has got to be yelling, "Cut! Who wrote this crap!" in his grave.

Which is a great segue to this gem, from Hostel II director Eli Roth.

Eli Roth, William of Occam. William of Occam, Eli Roth. You two should talk. Eli, before you two have a battle of wits, let me get you warmed up...you're going to need it. You think that your movie tanked because of piracy. Let's look at the number. $8.7 million opening week (6th place), with only an expect $30 in domestic ticket sales. Nice, bet the studio is proud.

So let's dissect your allegation. You claim that "pirates" ruined your movie. [Note: Generally, bringing awareness to pirates is a good thing, as I'm a big fan of most pirates (excluding butt pirates).] But your claim isn't really that a pirated version made it's way into people hands, who watched the film and then elected (for whatever reason) to not buy a ticket to your film. This is the traditional claim of lost revenue to piracy, direct revenue loss due to grey/black market product. You decided to take a different approach and blame not only the pirates, but also the disreputable reviewers/critics who are out to get you. Let me break this down for you very simply, I see that William is smelling blood and is getting impatient.

You contend that people across the country who would have gone to your film but didn't, did so because they read the jaded reviews of a handful of venge-filled critics who acquired a version of your film from pirates. Hey William, you're on deck.

Eli, you ignorant slut. You assume that the average movie-goer reads or cares about what movie reviewers say. You assume that there are a plethora of reviews who are willing to risk their livelihoods to torpedo your so-called career. And you assume that none of the following could possibly be true:

Uncle Jimbo's Top Ten Reasons Why Hostel II Won't Break $30million (created using the simple theory of William of Occam's razor)

10. Made a tough decision, "Dancing with the stars" won.
9. Thought the film was made by Eli Manning, knew the ending would be a letdown.
8. Saw the first Hostel.
7. There are a zillion better things to do on a summer weekend that go pay $30 for a sensory beating in a dark, smelly theatre.
6. Huge NASCAR event this weekend cut into your ticket sales.
5. Saw the first Hostel.
4. You titled your film Eli Roth's Hostel: Part II. That implies that people know or care who you are, like you're Tarantino or something. People won't go see it because they're not "in the know".
3. All the would-be serial killers where planning their summer.
2. People want their horror genre back. Less gore, more scare.
1. The movie blows. Word travels fast.

Have at 'em William.

P.S. Eli, Piracy won't kill your DVD sales, your movie will kill your DVD sales.

Where was Uncle Jimbo?

I know many of you were wondering, what happened to Uncle Jimbo? It's quite simple actually. I was traveling the world in search of truth, American Justice, and the secret ingredient to KFC. (You know, the ingredient that makes you crave the stuff once a year despite the fact that you've puked the last five times you've eaten it.)

Don't believe me? Good, I wouldn't either. Fact is, while I've had comments on a bunch of different things the following issues got in the way:

A) My life
B) Specifically, my family
C) My job (yeah I know, "what the hell?")
D) A lack of sarcastic response

Little did I know that I was being impacted by something that afflicts nearly 290 million Americans. Diminished Sarcastic Response Syndrome or DSRS. Nearly all of you have it, and you don't even realize it. I thought I was fine, but guess what? I was right. LOL.

What did you think I was about to break into some infomercial for some drug called Blowmax that would increase my sarcastic response? Please. You either have it or you don't. And Uncle Jimbo's still got it. I also think my three year old has it.

We were sitting on the couch the other day talking and he asked me a question about something. So in typical fashion I expounded on the subject in an adult-like, but understandable-to-a-three-year-old way. When I was done he said, "Thanks for explaining that Dad." He's three, with a good sense of humor. I paused. Matter of fact tone? Check. Contextual understanding? Check. Open for interpretation? Check. I had to admit to myself, I may have just been smacked with my sons first sarcasm. Then again, he's a polite boy. He may have been sincere. Either way it was a very proud moment. Polite sarcasm......(insert insidious laughter here)

Burgers + Camera Tricks + Little People = Head Scratch

So I see this commercial for Burger King the other day. First, I have to say that I'm really, REALLY glad that "The King" isn't the exclusive campaign for BK. That guy is super creepy. Creepy, like he's actually from an alternate dimension where giant plastic heads are the "in" thing like boob jobs and piercings are here.

So this ad has a bunch of construction workers building burgers. Of course the best way to build burgers, according BK, is to hire really small people with tiny construction equipment. But I'm not going to get into the economics of miniaturization in today's post.

Can someone explain to me, if you're using photographic or digital effects to shrink the actors and equipment down in size, why did they need to hire little people to play the roles of the construction workers? I mean, I've got to believe that the daily rate for little people actors is a bit higher than your average "waiter turned daytime soap star" actor right? What am I missing?

Is there some written or implied rule of the actors guild that states that for all roles implying full time smallness (e.g. not Honey, I Shrunk the Kids) that little people must be used? Or is there some deeper, more sinister reason behind this seemingly ridiculous casting?

While not as creepy as "The King," its still just as puzzling. But, at least it's not the urban, hip-hop, eat our food cause it tastes good and you'll be "ho'in fo Mickey D ya wizzle" crap that McDonalds churns out. Man those commericals blow.