October Pet Peeves

A few randoms thoughts this Halloween ....

I love "The Walking Dead", but something about it bothered me recently.  I came to the realization that very few people wear glasses in the world of "The Walking Dead".  When I say "very few", I don't mean very few relative to the real world, I mean very few relative to the world of the Zombie Apocalypse.  In the real world, the percentage of people who wear glasses is much lower than the percentage of people with impaired vision, because lots of people wear contacts lenses.  However, in the world of the Zombie Apocalypse, contacts lenses would be hard to come by.  Most people who wear contacts lenses have at most a year's supply of disposable lenses in their home.  So, even if you had the wherewithal to gather up all your contacts lenses and cleaning fluid as you fled from the zombies, your supply wouldn't last much longer than year.  Eventually, you would have to switch to your glasses, assuming you had a pair and were lucky enough to survive the Apocalypse without this happening.

"The Walking Dead" is in its 4th season, and judging by the number of glasses you see, it's doesn't seem like the contact lens wearers have switch to their glasses.  How have these supplies of contacts lasted more than 3 years?  How come we don't find people staggering around half-blind because their contacts ran out and they don't have a pair of glasses handy?  Do all the people in the Zombie Apocalypse have 20/20 vision?  What's up with that?

Dead people getting up and walking around, however?

I'm down with that.

My other October pet peeve is a baseball pet peeve that I was reminded of during game 3 of the World Series ( see my tweets from October 27th ).

I was planning to write more, but work just called me and it's 10:10 on the last day of the month.  I'm going to need to post this now to get my October post up in time.

Rich

Time for Barry to Step Up

The 2 greatest accomplishments of Barack Obama's presidency:

1) He's not John McCain.

2) He's not Mitt Romney.

Seriously, as a Liberal I've been tremendously disappointed by his presidency.  He's great at getting elected ( In all seriousness, I'm very grateful that Obama's a great politician.  Just imagine if another Alito and Scalia had been appointed to the Supreme Court rather than Sotamayor and Kagan. ), but he's been a terrible advocate for Liberal principals over the last 5 years, and perhaps an even worse de-facto leader of the Democratic party ( The best example of this was the run-up to the 2010 mid-terms, when he refused to use the bully pulpit to help out Democrats in Congress.  He should have made the argument that Republicans in Congress were standing in the way of his plan to let the Bush tax cuts expire for those making over $250,000 ( Actually, it was more than just a plan, it was a 2008 campaign promise. ).  He should have pointed out that the Bush tax cuts could expire for everyone unless Republicans in Congress voted for his plan.  His should have made it clear to all voters that Republican's in Congress were willing to let all American's tax rates go up for sake of protecting tax cuts for the richest Americans.  This would not have been a hard argument to make.  All he would have needed do is execute a few of the simplest plays in the populist Democrat's playbook.  However, he was unwilling to make that argument.  In my opinion, he wasn't willing to spend any of his political capital prior to the 2012 election cycle.  He hung his fellow Democrats out to dry.  Not only that, but I really believe that .... well maybe it's not right for me to say what I want to say.  Maybe I shouldn't commit the most common sin that political bloggers make.  Maybe I shouldn't accuse a politician of having less that noble intentions without any evidence to back up my claim.  Oh hell, what I worrying about?  There's no such thing as a noble politician.  I've written this before, but it bears repeating: There's a word for a politician who has integrity and always tells the truth, and that word is "loser".  I don't think a politician with integrity could ever make it as far as the White House, so I'm just going to accuse Obama of what I want to accuse his of, even if I don't have any evidence.  And hey, if that makes me a crappy political blogger, well I don't think I've ever claimed to be anything other than a crappy political blogger ( I'm not even sure if I am a political blogger.  Hell, I've blogged about boots. ).  Anyway, in an attempt to bring this huge tangent to a close, let me just say that I think President Obama wanted the Democrats to lose control of Congress in 2010.  Obama's many things, but he's certainly not stupid, and he must have known that running against a polarizing Republican House of Representatives would have worked to his benefit ( as it certainly did ) in 2012. ).

I can kinda forgive him for the way he governed during his first term, because he did have to worry about getting re-elected, and being a liberal Democrat probably isn't the best way to win a national election in the USA these days ( and I do give him big props for coming out in favor of Gay Marriage before the election.  Then again, he didn't come out in favor of of Gay Marriage until his Vice President forced the issue by coming out in favor of Gay Marriage first. ).  However, now that he never has to worry about getting elected again, I'd really like to see him step up and show some balls.

Specifically, I'm talking about his battle with Republicans in Congress over the budget and Obamacare.  Republicans in Congress are threatening to shut the government down ( by refusing to fund it ) unless Obama ( and least a few Democrats in the Senate ( BTW, glad to know you have the President's back Joe Manchin! ) ) agree to accept a budget that de-funds Obamacare.  

Look, I've never been a huge fan of Obamacare.  I was disappointed when Democrats ( Who controlled the Oval Office, the House of Representatives, and the Senate ( with a filibuster-proof 60-40 margin ) at the time ) couldn't manage to pass a single-payer system or even a system that included a public option.  However, what they did manage to pass ( The Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare ) is better than nothing, and it is the law of the land.  Republicans keep trying to make the point the Americans  don't want Obamacare, but the results of the 2012 elections say otherwise.  Mitt Romney made it clear that he would repeal Obamacare his "first day in office" ( impossible unless the Republican's won a fillibuster-proof majority in the Senate ( also basically impossible for the 2012 election cycle ), but few American understood that ), so any American voter paying attention knew that Obamacare wouldn't be repealed unless Obama was defeated in 2012.  If Americans thought that repealing Obamacare was an important priority, Obama would have been defeated resoundingly in the 2012.  Considering that Obama won the 2012 election relatively easily, I think it's clear that most Americans would rather see Obamacare enacted than have the government shut down.

With all that in mind, there's no reason for Obama to compromise with Republicans on Obamacare.  He shouldn't give an inch.  If the governments gets shut down because the Republicans refuse to fund Obamacare, Republicans will get the blame.  Even if the public pins some of the blame on President Obama, why should be care?  He going to be President for the next 3 years no matter what happens, and he never has to worry about being elected again.  Some pundits have suggested that Obama should compromise with Republicans to protect his legacy.  Some have suggested that Obama will not want to known as the President who let government shut down and the economy fall into another deep recession as a result.  I hope that's not the case, because if he gives in this time, the only word that will ever be used to express Obama's legacy is "pussy" ( No offense to any real female genitalia out there, which are certainly a lot tougher than President Obama. ).

Rich

Oh Crap!

I was having a great week until about an hour ago.

- On vacation to visit with Ruth's relatives in California

- Arrived Tuesday afternoon at a beautiful rented house at Lassen Volcanic National Park.

- Seriously, beautiful house.  Can't believe how nice it is.  I've only been here a few hours, but I think I might like this house better than my own house.  Can't believe how nice it is considering how little we paid to rent it ( So glad we decided against renting the cabin without electricity. ).

- I wonder if we have Wi-Fi?

- Yes, We have WiFi!

- Let's check that been going on with the Mets!

- Oh Crap!

I guess there will be no more Harvey Days this year ( and probably next year ).

OK, that's all I've got.  I know this is kinda a cheap way to fulfill my "at least one blog post a month" requirement, but I don't feel much like writing right now.  I was actually planning to write a baseball blog this week entitled "My Favorite Years", detailing my favorite years as a Mets fan ( Up until about an hour ago, this might have been the most fun I've ever had watching a non-contending Mets team.  Oh well, we'll always have Paris ( "Paris" = beating Yankees 4 out of 4 games in 2013 ) ), but that's not gonna happen now.

In any case, I'm going to post this to facebook/Twitter, and then put down my laptop and enjoy my family and the beautiful natural wonders here.

Rich

We Are All Anthony Weiner

I am Anthony Weiner.  You are Anthony Weiner.  We are all Anthony Weiner.

Sure, most of us aren't sticking our smartphones down our pants on a daily basis, but we all have a propensity for going online to show off the things that make us proud.

I'm mostly talking about the parents out there ( We all flood facebook with the latest cute pictures of our kids and stories/videos of their latest accomplishments - I'm as guilty as anyone of this, and I certainly don't intend to stop. ), but people without kids can be just as bad ( "Look at my cute pet!", "Let me tell you about the cool thing I just did!", "Look at the new thing I just got!", "Let me show you photos of the great vacation I just took!". ).  We maybe "bad" is the wrong word.  I don't think anyone is doing anything wrong.  It's just that we shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking that "sharing" in the social media sense is some kind of benevolent act akin to "sharing" in the traditional sense.  We might like to think ourselves as humble, but social media has really lowered the bar when it comes to what is considered "humble" behavior.  Social media has created a world in which we can humblebrag.

Now, I know some of you parents out there might be saying "How can you equate the the photos I send of my precious child to the photos Anthony Weiner sends of his penis?".  Well, I wouldn't necessarily equate those two things, but they are both examples of people showing off things they are proud of.

Because let's face it, if there's one thing we know, it's that Anthony Weiner is proud of his penis.  And hey, if you've taken the time to look at the penis photos he's sent, you can kinda understand why.  That thing is huge.  It's so big I bet there are stablehands all over New York who talk about how their horses are "hung like a Weiner".  Hell, if I was hung like that, I'd probably walk around all day with my pants off.

OK, well maybe not.  It's certainly not good for any guy to link his feeling of self-worth to his penis size, but Anthony Weiner is clearly one of those guys.  Perhaps it was because he was teased about his last name as a kids, perhaps it's because he was picked on for being relatively small in stature, but somewhere along the line, I think his penis became his pride and joy, and now he thinks he's too sexy for his pants.

I didn't mean for this post to be a defense of Anthony Weiner ( He's an egomaniac with extremely poor judgement who shouldn't be put in charge of a lemonade stand, let alone a city of 8 million people. ), but I just wanted to point out that we are not as different from Anthony Weiner as we'd like to believe.  Different enough that we ( hopefully ) don't have pictures of our private parts floating around the internet, but not so different that we don't something post things online that others don't care to see.

Rich

Harvey Day

Every 5 days, Mets fans celebrate "Harvey Day".  It's the day when the Mets go from a moribund 4th place squad to a baseball team that everyone loves to watch.  It's the day the Mets young ace Matt Harvey takes his turn in the rotation.

On Sunday, July 21st, we finally got out to a Mets game on "Harvey Day".  It was actually the first Mets game we've been to in 3 years.  It was great to finally get the taste of this out of my mouth.

By a stoke a luck, the Mets had won every game I'd every taken the boys to in previous years.  The Mets won the first game I ever took Michael to, and then the next 4 I took Michael and Peter too.  I wanted to keep their streak alive, so I wasn't going to leave anything to chance.  If we were going to watch the Mets play in person this year, it was going to be on "Harvey Day".

Harvey and the Mets didn't disappoint.  Harvey hit 99 mph on the gun routinely, struck out 10, walked none, and gave up no runs and 3 hits in 7 innings of work.  The Mets actually gave Harvey some run support for a change ( unlike yesterday ( 7/26/13 ) when Harvey gave up zero earned runs over 8 innings, but took a no-decision ( in a game the Mets ultimately lost ) because the Mets scored only 1 run and made an error which ruined Harvey's shutout attempt ( Stupid Mets!  Last night's loss might just make me grumpy all weekend.)  ), hitting 3 home runs in a 5-0 win.  So all went well in Flushing that day, and a fun time was had by all.  What follows is a photo essay documenting our day at the ballpark.

The boys hanging out before the game.

 In the Jackie Robinson Concourse.  The quote behind them reads "A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives."

With my Aunt Barbara ( my Mom's sister ) before the game.  My Aunt Barbara ( along with my Great Aunt Ginny ) took me to a bunch of Mets games at Shea Stadium during my childhood.

 On the Shea Bridge.

 The boys watching batting practice.

Family shot with Mr. and Mrs. Met!  I couldn't find a shot where we were all facing the same camera ( there were a lot of cameras ).

Before the game started we had lunch at Shake Shack ( Tied for the best ballpark food I've ever had with the Primanti Brothers sandwiches I had at PNC Park. ) and ...

... the boys had some fun at "Kiddie Field".  See the highlights below ...

In our seats before the game.

The view from our seats right before the start of the game.


Ruth wasn't too interested in watching the game, so she spent most of the time walking around the stadium and getting treats with the boys after they became bored ( Michael lasted 4 innings, which was enough to see the Mets score all 5 of their runs.  Harvey also gave up his first hit in the 4th inning.  Considering Harvey's already taken 3 no-hitters into the 7th inning this year, I wasn't going to let Michael leave his seat until Harvey gave up a hit. ).  While she was walking around the stadium, she did manage to do some pretty kick-ass sports photography of Matt Harvey dealing.

Of course, a bunch of Mets sports photos wouldn't be complete without at least one shot of 7-time All-Star David Wright.

While my Aunt and I watched the Mets finish off the Phillies, it was ice cream time for the boys.

 It's not every day you see a jelly bean Mr. Met.

 Ruth took this shot in the Mets Hall of Fame.  I'll have to drop by to see this plaque the next time I'm at Citi Field, because this plaque has some sentimental value to me.  Back in the late 90's and early 2000's, my brother and I would go to about 20 Mets games a year at Shea Stadium.  We would each head to the park straight from work and would meet at this plaque before the game.  When they tore Shea down after the 2008 season, I wondered if I'd ever see this plaque again.

 Thanks for coming!

Oh, one more bonus was that "Harvey Day", also happened to be "Dwight Gooden Bobble-head Day".  This seemed entirely appropriate, considering that Harvey is the best Mets pitcher since Gooden ( However, as great as Harvey is ( and he may be the best pitcher in baseball ), he wasn't half the pitcher Dwight Gooden was in 1985.  Dwight may have smoked a mountain of crack, but he's still my favorite ballplayer of all time. ).

Rich

Edward the Snowden

Edward the Snowden, was a coder in-the-know,
With his glasses square, and a stubbled face,
and a whistle that he'd blow.

Edward the Snowden, did work for the NSA.
Did for a while, 'til he stole some files,
and he had to run away.

There must have been some secrets in those files that he found,
For when they placed it on the web,
people's jaws dropped to the ground.

Edward the Snowden, was as smug as he could be,
And we heard him say, that the NSA,
liked to spy on you and me.

Edward the Snowden, had to hurry on his way,
So he waved goodbye, said "I gotta fly,
to stay out of Guantanamo Bay."

   My wife and I tend to agree with each other for the most part when it comes to politics, but we have different opinions regarding the Edward Snowden case.  Just be be clear, neither of us believes that he is a traitor or that he has compromised the security of the United States in any way ( After all, any terrorists smart enough to carry out successful plots would be careful enough to work under the assumption that United States could be listening in on any of their phone calls.  These guys are not discussing terrorists plots on their iPhones.  OK, well maybe that's not 100% true   ( After all, the head of the CIA thought he could keep an extra-marital affair secret via gmail. ).  There will always be small-time guys with small-time plots that don't even care that they might be caught ( being caught and killed would make them a martyr in their own eyes ), but the USA doesn't have the resources to track all the small-time guys, and frankly it would be a poor allocation of resources to track all the potential small-time terrorists.  For the amount of money that is spent on counter-terrorism you could save a lot more lives by allocating more police resources to inner-city neighborhoods plagued by gang violence.  White suburban "security moms" overly concerned about the dangers of terrorism should try raising a family in inner-city Baltimore for a week ( Oh and BTW, when I say more "police resources" would help save more lives, I mean police resources allocated to protecting people, rather than police resources being used to arrest people for smoking weed.  The amount of police and prison resources allocated towards drug possession crimes is ridiculous - but that's an issue for another blog post.  ).  The difference between my opinion and my wife's opinion is that I actually believe that Edward Snowden's actions have increased the security of the United States.

My wife doesn't have any problem with the NSA monitoring the phone calls of Americans.  She, like many Americans, says that she has "nothing to hide".  She's glad that the United States government can use this kind of surveillance to catch terrorists and criminals.  I, on the other hand, feel that such surveillance is a threat to our democracy, and thus a threat to our long-term freedom and security.

Let me make one thing clear, as far as I am concerned, this isn't about privacy.  I could give a rats' ass about privacy.  If the government secretly installed a camera in our bedroom to watch my wife and I have "private time", my attitude would be "Fine, if that's what gets you off, enjoy the show!".  I don't really care if the government finds out my secret information ( Have fun being bored-to-death Mr. Governement Agent! ), but I do care if the government can get compromising information about people who are frankly more important than me.

For example, consider a journalist who might be in midst of uncovering damning evidence of government corruption, evidence that might force a President to resign, or change the outcome of an election.  Let's say this journalist happens to a guy who is cheating on his wife.  Let's say he's made hundreds of phone calls to his mistress.  If the US government has access to the history of phones calls this journalist made ( which Snowden's revelations shows that they would ), they could use this information to blackmail the journalist into burying his story about the government corruption.  In an example like this one ( or case where a political opponent was involved in marital infidelity ) phone-call information collected by the NSA could be used to keep a corrupt administration in power.  In my opinion, a corrupt federal government is a bigger threat to our freedom and security than any terrorist.

If you want a real-world example, consider that case of Martin Luther King Jr. and the FBI.  It's a widely-held belief these days that MLK cheated on his wife ( If don't believe this, take a look the "Allegations of adultery" section of this link.  I think it is pretty damning that one of his closest allies  ( Ralph Abernathy ) wrote that MLK had a "weakness for women" and "all understood and believed in the biblical prohibition against sex outside of marriage.  It was just that he had a particularly difficult time with that temptation". ).  The FBI knew this, tapped MLK's phones in order to get evidence of this, and tried to used this evidence to destroy him.

Just imagine if the FBI had had more tools their disposal to use against MLK.  Just imagine if they could have discredited him while he was alive or driven him out of the fight for Civil Rights.  Just imagine how different the world might be today.  Would we be more "safe"?

Rich

I want a Total Refund ( or "My reaction to this movie was Total Recoil" )

I've written more than 200 of these posts, and I've rarely used this space to review movies ( with the exception of this Pixar post ).  However,  the Total Recall remake was so bad I just couldn't keep my opinion to myself ( and I think my wife might be getting tired of hearing me complain about it ).

Technically, I saw this movie for free ( As long as you don't count my cable TV bill, which I don't because I didn't purchase cable TV for the purpose of watching Total Recall ), so I guess I shouldn't really be asking for a "Total Refund".  However, I still wouldn't mind if the producers of the movie sent me a few bucks for wasting my limited free time.

Before I dive into my complaints, I should mention that the rest of this post will have plenty of SPOILERS about both the the original Total Recall and the remake.  If you've never seen the original, I suggest you stop reading right here.  If you've seen the original and have never seen the remake, go ahead and keep reading.  It would be impossible for me to "spoil" a movie as bad as the Total Recall remake.  Seriously, if you haven't seen the remake yet, you should consider yourself lucky.  Don't waste your time by subjecting yourself to this remake.

SPOILERS BELOW --- SPOILERS BELOW --- SPOILERS BELOW --- SPOILERS BELOW

Let me start by saying that the producers of the Total Recall remake squandered a great opportunity.  Philip K. Dick's books and short stories are the basis of a lot of great movies, and the plots of many of the best of these movies deviate significantly from the original Dick stories.  The original Total Recall was no exception.  Dick's short story "We Can Remember It for You Wholesale" is the basis of the plot of the original "Total Recall", but the movie's plot goes off in original directions that make it far more interesting than the short-story.  I don't say this a knock against Philip K. Dick.  On the contrary, his stories are full of such intriguing ideas that they serve as especially fertile ground for creative screenwriters.  The screenwriters for the original Total Recall took advantage of this fertile ground, but the screenwriters for the remake ( and the producers who approved the screenplay ) failed miserably.

They could have gone in so many interesting directions with this remake.  I was actually pretty excited to watch this movie.  I couldn't wait to see what they did with Dick's concept.  There were so many ways they could have explored ideas like the nature of memory and the meaning of reality.  The possibilities were endless.  I was expecting big differences between the plot of the remake of the plot of the original.  I didn't even care if the remake was as good as the first version ( which would have been a tall order ), I just wanted it to be original.  Instead, remake was just a dumbed down version of the original.

The dumbed down aspect of the remake's plot was what I found most disappointing.  The remake completely removed the most intriguing aspect of the original's plot, which I can only see an an attempt to dumb down the plot for today's audiences ( Personally, I don't think the audiences of today are dumber than audiences of 1990, but the producers of the remake clearly thought so. ). 

To explain how the remake was dumbed down, I'll need to review the plot of the original.  In the original, ordinary blue-collar Doug Quaid discovers he is really a secret agent named Hauser.  He learns much of this from Hauser himself via a video Hauser had recorded earlier.  In the video Hauser tells Quaid that he used to work for the evil Mars administrator Cohaagen, but that a few weeks earlier he had met a women who made him realize he had been "playing for the wrong team".   He indicates that he had started fighting against Cohaagen until he was captured by Cohhagen's people and had his memory erased and replaced by the artificial memories of Quaid.  Hausers tells Quaid that he has enough information is his head to stop Cohaggen, but the only way to get his memory back is to "Get your ass to Mars!"

( Embedding is disabled for this video, but you can see the entire Hauser/Quaid "Get your ass to Mars" clip here. )

We learn a few more things once he gets to Mars.  We discover that the woman's name is Melina.  She is a high ranking member of the Mars resistance, and it's clear that she and Hauser had become lovers.  One can also infer that Hauser must have been on a mission from Cohaagen to infiltrate the resistance when he met Melina and fell in love with her.  Quaid learns from Melina that the way to retrieve his memories is to arrange a meeting with the resistance leader Kuato ( Kuato has psychic  powers ).

Quaid eventually finds his way to Kuato, but when he does he discovers he has inadvertently led Cohaagen's gang to Kuato.  They kill Kuato and capture Quaid and Melina.

Up to this point, the plots of the original and the remake are practically identical.  I was disappointed by this, but I was still eager to watch the end of the remake, because the plot twist near the end of the original was the best part of the movie.

Unfortunately, the remake completely screwed up the twist ending.

The twist near the end of the original is the primary reason why the original Total Recall is one of 10 favorite science fiction movies ( might even be top 5 ).  In case you don't "recall" the plot twist in the original, here's the relevant part of the script ( sorry, I couldn't find a YouTube clip ):

Vilos Cohaagen: [after Cohaagen's team kills Kuato] So this is the great man. Hmph. No wonder he kept out of sight. Well, my friend...

[puts his hands on Quaid's shoulders]

Vilos Cohaagen: ...you're a hero.

Douglas Quaid: Fuck you!

Vilos Cohaagen: Don't be modest. Kuato is dead. The resistance has been completely wiped out and you were the key to the whole thing.

Douglas Quaid: [to Melina] He's lying.

Melina: [to Quaid] You two-faced bastard!

Vilos Cohaagen: You can't blame him, princess.

[His finger grazes Melina's face]

Vilos Cohaagen: He's innocent. You see, Quaid, none of my people could get close to Kuato. Fuckin' mutants could always sniff us out. So Hauser and I sat down and invented you: the perfect mole.

Douglas Quaid: You know you're lying. Hauser turned against you.

Vilos Cohaagen: Uh-uh. That's what we wanted you to think. Fact is, Hauser volunteered to become "Doug Quaid." It was the only way to fool the psychics.

Douglas Quaid: Get your story straight.

[Points to Richter]

Douglas Quaid: This idiot has been trying to kill me ever since I went to Rekall. You don't kill someone you're trying to plant.

Vilos Cohaagen: He wasn't in on it. You set him off by going to Rekall.

Douglas Quaid: So, why I am still alive?

Vilos Cohaagen: We gave you lots of help.

[points to Benny]

Vilos Cohaagen: Benny here...

Benny: [to Quaid] My pleasure, man.

Vilos Cohaagen: The guy with the suitcase, the mask, the money, the message from Hauser. All of that was set up by us.

Douglas Quaid: Sorry. Too perfect.

Vilos Cohaagen: Perfect, my ass! You pop your memory cap before we can activate you. Richter goes hog-wild screwing up everything that I spent a year planning. Frankly... I'm amazed it worked!

Douglas Quaid: Well, Cohaagen. I've got to hand it to you. It's the best mind-fuck yet.

Vilos Cohaagen: Oh, don't take my word for it. Someone you trust wants to talk to you.

Douglas Quaid: Who is it this time, my mother?

( Cohaagen turns on a video screen.  We see Hauser on it )

Hauser: Howdy, Quaid. If you're watching this, that means that Kuato is dead, and you led us to him. I knew that you wouldn't let me down. Sorry for all of the shit I've put you through, but hey, what are friends are for? All I want to do is wish you happiness and good living, old buddy, but unfortunately, that's not gonna happen. You see, that's "my" body you have there, and I want it back. Sorry for being an Indian giver, but I was here first. So, adios, amigo!

[the screen zooms out to reveal Cohaagen, who puts his hand on Hauser's shoulder]

Hauser: And thanks for not getting yourself killed. Maybe now, we will meet in dreams, you never know.

( Hauser and Cohaagen laugh in an especially evil way. )

---------------------
Woah!!!!

That's all I thought we I first saw this scene - Woah!!!

Honestly, my wind was so blown by this scene that I wouldn't have minded if the movie had ended right there.

Consider the implications of this scene ...

Quaid was Hauser's idea.  That means that Hauser was never actually part of the resistance.  That means he was never really in love with Melina.  He pretended to join the resistance to gain their trust, so that they would trust him when rejoined the resistance as Quaid.  He knew that he could never get close to the psychic Kuato as Hausser so he invented the good guy Quaid and then tricked him ( actually tricked himself !) into leading Cohaagen's men to Kuato.  That plan was so brilliant I honestly wouldn't have minded if Hauser had won in the end.  The guy deserved to win.  He may have been a "fucking asshole", but you've got to give him props for both his brilliant plan and the way he executed it.

While I could have done without the happy ending, it did have some remarkably intriguing implications.  In the end Quaid decides he'd rather be the made-up good guy Quaid than the real bad guy Hauser.  Just think about that.  Would you want to be somebody other than yourself?  Would you want to be an artificial person with fake memories inserted by your real self?  Perhaps you would if you knew your real self was a "fucking asshole", but it's still a fascinating concept.  Even 23 years later, the idea still makes my head spin.

So, as disappointed as I was by the first 80% of the remake, I was looking forward to reliving the mind-blowing plot twist.  After all, Colin Farrell is a far superior actor than Arnold, so there was some great potential there.  But instead of trying to blow the audience's mind, the producers of the remake decided to spoon-feed the audience a watered down version of the plot twist.

In the remake's version of the plot twist, we are given the strong impression that Hauser had nothing to do with Cohaagen's plan to create Doug Quaid.  We learn that Cohaagen did send Hauser to infiltrate the resistance, but Cohaagen tells Quaid he saved a copy of Hauser's memory before he "went soft" ( I believe that's the term he used.  However, I can't be sure, because I deleted this crappy movie from my DVR right after I watched it, and I can't seem to find any clip of quotes from that scene. ).  This strongly implies that Hauser actually did fall in love with Melina and joined the resistance before being captured by Cohaagen's men and implanted with the fake memories of Doug Quaid.

So, in this version of Total Recall, Hauser's not that bad a guy after all - and that's not good.  I want Hauser to be a "fucking asshole".  I want Hauser to be the brilliant evil character who manages to trick himself.  I don't want want him to be some sensitive piano-playing sap who finds his soul-mate in Melina.  In this version the Hausser who fell in love with Melina isn't all that different from Doug Quaid.  I can barely fathom why the writers/producers of the remake decided to abandon the awesome mind-bending plot twist of the original and replace it with a plain vanilla plot twist that was barely a plot twist at all.  I can only conclude that they thought that the plot twist from the original would have confused audiences too much.

On top of all that, the remake got lots of the little things wrong.  The movie consistently broke both the laws of physics and common sense.  Honestly, the most believable thing about this movie may have been the three-breasted woman ( Here's where I insert a gratuitous photo of the three-breasted woman in order to increase the number of hits to this blog. ).

The most egregious example of the move breaking the laws of physics was everything about "the Fall".  For those who didn't see the remake, "the Fall" was a gravity train ( see the link for details ) featured prominently in the film.  The idea of a gravity train isn't really new.  I remember my Dad mentioning the idea when I was a kid, and the idea has its origins in the 17th century.  I was excited when I realized gravity train was in the movie, but I was disappointed when I realized that the filmmakers were going to use the idea of "the Fall" to mock everything I know and love about physics and engineering.  Specifically ...

1) In the movie, "the Fall" passes right through the core of the Earth.  The temperature and pressure at the core of the Earth is so high, I cannot conceive of any technology that would allow you to build a shaft right through it.

2) Because "the Fall" is presumably a free-fall all the way through the earth, passengers would feel weightless ( like a passenger in a plunging amusement park ride, like the "Tower of Terror" at Disney ) all the way through the trip, not just at the center of the earth.

3) As the name implies, a gravity train ( or gravity elevator ) works by gravity only.  The trains falls and is accelerated by gravity until it reaches the low point of the trip, and then decelerates on the way up.  In theory, if you remove all friction from the shaft ( by removing all the air and making sure the train doesn't touch the walls of the shaft ), you should be able to get all the way to the other side of the shaft via gravity-power alone ( In practice, there would always be a tiny amount of friction ( even deep space is not a perfect vacuum ), but you could always use a power source on the train to give it a little boost at the end to reach its destination.).  In the movie, "the Fall" is supposed to take 17 minutes to go all the way across the earth.  A little bit of high school physics can prove this is utter nonsense.  We can prove this be using the classic equation s = 1/2 a( t squared ).  At the start of "the Fall", the acceleration will be 9.8 meters per second squared.  By the time you reach the center of the earth the acceleration will be zero.  So, the average acceleration for the first 4000 miles of the trip ( to the center of the earth ) would be somewhere behind 9.8 meters per second squared and 0.  Even if we assume an average acceleration of 9.8 ( which is certainly more than the actual average acceleration ), it would take about 19 minutes to cover those first 4000 miles, and thus 38 minutes for the entire trip.  The actual time ( with an average acceleration of less than 9.8 ) would be more than 38 minutes.  According to the "gravity train" link above, it would take 42 minutes, which is certainly a lot more than 17 minutes.

4) As we've established, a gravity train like "the Fall" really can't work properly unless you pump all the air out of the shaft.  That's why I was flabbergasted when Quaid and Melina climb on the outside of the moving train in the final action sequence.  Clearly there should not be any air out there.  However, if assume there is air in the shaft, things get even more ridiculous.

5) The amount of power that would be required to move a train through an 8000 mile shaft full of air is ridiculous.  While it is theoretically possible with advanced enough technology, any civilization that could develop such technology would be smart enough to pump the air out of the shaft.  However, if we do assume the train is moving 8000 miles though air in 17 minutes, things would not be pretty for Quaid and Melina on the outside of the train.  8000 miles in 17 minutes gives us an average speed of more than 28,000 miles per hour ( mph ).  However, Quaid and Melina headed to the outside of the train near the core of the earth.  Near the core of the earth, the velocity would be much higher than 28,000 mph.  If we assume constant acceleration to the center of the Earth and constant deceleration to the surface, high school physics tells us that the velocity at the center of the earth would be more than 56,000 mph.  I highly doubt than any material we could engineer could avoid burning up when passing through air at 56,000 mph, and any organic material out there would certainly be toast.  Quaid and Melina would have been burnt to a crisp ( probably vaporized ) as soon as they ventured outside that moving train ( I believe they actually ventured to the outside of the train a few minutes after the train passes the core, but even at a speed like 40,000 mph, they would instantly be toast ( The recent meteorite that burned up over Russia was traveling at about 34,000 mph ).

I could go on ( about the fall and the movie in general ), but I think I've made my point by now.  This movie failed in just about every way a movie could fail.

Hmm.  Having never written a full movie review before, I have no idea how you are supposed to gracefully end one of these things ( I think I now have even more admiration for out dear departed Mr. Ebert. ).

Screw it, I'm getting tired and the Mets are on ( going for 6 in a row after sweeping the Yanks! ).  Forget about ending this gracefully. Movie sucks.  Don't see it. Bye.

Rich