A few after-thoughts from this week’s election....

Thought I'd share some personal takeaways from the mid-term elections this week. Take them
as you will!  Mainly just wanted to get them off of my chest. You're more than welcome to leave feedback in the comments section after this blog if you'd like.

Governor Gav:  The folks who voted for him seemingly overlooked his sex life (he admitted to having an affair in 2007 while mayor of San Francisco) while not hesitating to bring Trump’s sex life front and center prior to the last election. Hmm. Newsome was a bit more remorseful than Trump, which is important. But still, if we’re going to bring up all aspects of a candidate's life, can we at least hold all of them to the same standard?  No double standards please!

In other words, two years from now I don't want to hear anything about Trump infidelity from the left. If it didn't matter to you now, it shouldn't matter to you then. Fair is fair!

Prop. 6:  I certainly don’t have an issue spending our dollars on road repairs, but only if I get a chance to decide, like we have in bond measures from past elections (almost all of them is seems like). This prop would have required a vote for any future state fuel or vehicle tax increase, while overturning a Governor Brown signed bill in which he and our legislators conveniently decided to spend our tax dollars for us. I personally don’t go for that, and am surprised the majority of voters evidently have no issue with it. Plus there’s nothing stopping them from doing it again. See next item for more.

Political Ads:  Although I can’t prove it, I get a hunch from talking with people that many voters base their vote on the political jargon they receive in the mail and see on TV. Sorry, but for those who do that:  that’s not enough! Needless to say, these ads are completely biased and one-sided. There are two sides to every story and each voter needs to understand both sides before deciding! I really wonder how many people actually sit down and spend a few minutes on the internet and do that before making an educated decision. Prop. 6 is a good example of this (I think). Way more anti-prop 6 ads on TV then pro, all using scare tactics threatening voters that our roads will fall apart if prop 6 passes. Big words for something that’s barely been around a year. And many people took it to heart without researching it themselves. Sure, road fixtures could be affected, but certainly nothing imminent, and nothing an appropriate ballot-based bill couldn’t fix. Again I can’t prove it, although I’m sure there’s data out there, but I bet that the politicians and prop supporters who get the most air and print time win most of the elections. They know people are visual, want quick information,  and many won’t spend the time doing actual research.

Voting for a name:  Ronald Reagan, Sonny Bono, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Clint Eastwood, Fred Grandy, Jerry Springer, Al Franken, Jesse “the body” Ventura, Donald Trump.  What do they all have in common? All initially elected to office with no political experience (half of them in California). Why? People recognize them, and for some reason, think in some odd way that they actually know them, and as a result can trust them. They are completely inexperienced, but people don’t seem to care.  It seems to me that a similar phenomenon may apply with veteran politicians as well. I can’t prove this either, but I believe there is a point when some voters see someone like Diane Feinstein on the ballot, they automatically vote for them because “they must be doing something good”, they know who they are, and take some sort of comfort in having them there. As a result, they don’t even bother to research them, or more importantly their opponent, who because of that, and the fact they can’t compete financially to promote themselves, have basically no chance of winning. And I bet if you ask a typical voter to name five accomplishments from the recent term of an incumbent's they are about to vote for, they couldn’t do it. Not all voters of course, but I suspect many. And I’ve certainly been guilty of that in the past.

Which brings me to my question. I wonder how many people took the time to research John Cox, Kevin de Leon and Lisa Remmer during this election? These are the folks the well known Newsom, Feinstein and Pelosi easily defeated yesterday. How many people voted for these three names simply because they knew who they were? I actually have no clue. But I do question that, particularly when it involves politicians who have held the same office for 15, 20+ years. Sure, it could be because they have actually done a lot of good things while in office. But I have a hunch it’s mostly out of comfort and content.

Pelosi:  Her winning, although not a surprise, is still very alarming to me. She’s made it very clear, even this week, that she wants to see the Republican party ruined. First, that will never happen. She is extraordinarily naive if she thinks otherwise. Neither party is going anywhere. And since that’s the case,  the best thing is to set up an environment where both parties can work together to help America and it’s citizens prosper. I like to think that most Americans actually want that. But with destructive attitudes like Nancy Pelosi’s, Hillary Clinton’s and others on both sides of the fence, this will never happen as long as they are in office. Yet people continue to vote for them. I don’t get it. Ugh!!

Movie Review: "The Avengers, Script Get Pummeled to Infinity"

If you’re idea of an enjoyable movie experience is watching the good guys get their butts kicked for 2 1/2 hours while the bad guy can literally do no wrong and is the center of the film, then you’ll love “The Avengers: Infinity War”. This extremely disappointing sequel in the Avengers film trilogy is a real head scratcher. I feel a rant coming on….

First off, one of the more likable “good guys”, although not technically an Avenger, gets brutally killed in the first 10 minutes of the movie. Talk about setting the tone!  And in the following two hours, two others (and possibly more) join him. During that time, one of the more popular Avengers, the Hulk, develops psychological issues during the first 10 minutes of the movie and is unable to become the Hulk for the rest of the show.  For 2/3rds of the movie Thor does not have his trademark hammer, nor does Captain America have his shield. Sure, towards the end, Thor does manage to round up an ax and Cap a miniature toy shield, but come on!  That’s like Superman without his cape or Abe Lincoln without his top hat, Head scratcher #1. Plus the days of superheroes wearing masks to hide their identity are evidently over. Spiderman, Ironman and the Cap were without masks for the majority of the movie. Ok, ok, that’s a little bit ticky-tack, I’ll admit it.

As I mentioned in previous reviews, I’m a traditionalist when it comes to something I grew up with and that entertained me every Saturday morning as a kid. I’ve actually talked to a couple of other people my age recently who felt the same way after watching the movie. Anyhow, if  you’re going to use the name of an entity like the Avengers, Captain America, Batman, Superman, etc. then you owe it to their creators and fans to at least show some resemblance to the original characters. For whatever reason, this movie did a terrible job in doing that.  And if you’re not going to do that, just create your own movie and develop your own characters! 

Alright, enough of that. Back to the movie. There are a boat load of superheroes in this movie. I counted 19, from the original Avengers (Captain America, Thor, Ironman, Hulk) to newer ones like Scarlet Witch, Vision, Spiderman, Falcon, Black Panther, and Dr. Strange, to the Guardians of the Galaxy crew.  The movie basically divided up these characters into different groups spread out on earth and in space. The best part of the movie by far was watching the interactions between all of them, particularly the ones involving the Guardians of the Galaxy bunch.  Watching Star-Lord and Ironman exchange wisecracks, and Thor and Groot team up was fun.

The big bad villain in this Avenger’s rendition is Thanos, a CGI-generated character, voiced by Josh Brolin, who appeared in the old comics and made brief appearances at the end of the second Avengers movie as well as both Guardians of the Galaxy films (Thanos, not Brolin).  Although the origin of Thanos is not made very clear, he’s a bad boy. His quest is to find the six “infinity stones” that would make him master of the universe and allow him to complete his plan of solving the galaxies population problem by randomly eliminating half of the inhabitants in it. Including those on earth. His problem? Three of the gems are in the possession of three of our heroes. And so the stage is set.

As he gathers gem by gem, it is evident that nothing can stop him. Literally. There was nothing any of the 19 superheroes in the film could do to make much of a dent in him. And they all tried! And often several of them at once.  The two times they did manage to inflict some damage, Thanos had the ability to turn back time and heal himself.  Talk about not fighting fair!   As ludicrous as it may sound, 19 Avengers and heroes could not take down this one dude. Funny thing is, he really doesn’t need any of these gems as he was kicking Avenger butt before he had any of them. Anyhow, this, evidently, is what the writers and director of the film have decided what moviegoers want to see. Head scratcher #2.

I read an interview with director Anthony Russo where he stated that in “Infinity War” he wanted to address the emotional side of the Avengers in order to remind everyone that they are indeed human and do have emotions. As a result, Russo decided to introduce several untimely emotional outbursts that completely sidetracked several of our heroes, in mid-battle nonetheless, on what they were there to do. Very un-superhero like, and very frustrating to watch. Head scratcher #3. Odd time to decide to explore your soft side, Mr. Russo! If you want to delve into character emotions, you might want to consider remaking “Love Story”!

Ok, as you can probably tell by now, I spent most of the movie pulling out whatever hair I had left on my head. Yes, I know. It’s only a movie and I’m taking it far too seriously.  But in addition to growing up with these characters, I was cursed with the Mr. Spock “if it’s not logical then it makes no sense” syndrome, which I also mentioned in previous reviews. And when something makes no sense, or is completely out of character, then you get frustrated a bit.

I should say at this point that “Infinity Wars” was filmed as a two-part movie, with part two airing in May, 2019. So that does explain some on why part 1 was presented the way it was. It’s obvious that the Avengers will re-group, somehow, and eliminate Thanos from his high horse. But from what we see in part 1, I can’t imagine how. The universe, and specifically earth, are literally left with no hope at the movie’s end. Accept for one thing. But to find out what that was, you would have had to stuck around for the post-credit teaser clip….which revealed the summoning of  superhero number 20. 

Yes, in the final act of the movie, Avengers head honcho Nick Fury makes a final, desperate call for help to one hero who has never appeared or even been mentioned in any of the past Marvel Studio movies:  Captain Marvel. We only know this because Captain Marvel’s logo appeared on Flury’s phone before the screen goes black. Unfortunately, only those familiar with the Captain Marvel logo will have any idea that’s who he was calling!  I didn’t, and had to look it up on good ole Google Images. So that scenario should be interesting. Evidently Captain Marvel will be able to do something the other 19 superheros haven’t, although I have a hunch that Dr. Strange and Thor will play key roles as well, based on earlier incidents. And in a clever marketing ploy by Marvel Studios, a “Captain Marvel” movie will be released in March 2019 that will supplement “Infinity Wars” part 2 two months later.

So there you go. I’m obviously in the minority in my view of this movie, seeing that it’s breaking box office records left in right in America and Europe.  But I’m still going to stick to my guns!  We’ll see if “Infinity Wars 2” will redeem the frustration of part 1. Have a feeling it will to a point. As much as I didn’t like part 1, I’m sure I’ll see part 2, as it almost certainly will be the final appearance of Ironman, Captain America and Thor in a Marvel film (contracts expire for the actors playing them). I just hope they don’t get the dumb notion to kill one or more of them off!  But nothing would surprise me with this head scratching bunch of film makers.

Amazon SN #1- "The Detectorists"

In the past I’ve posted seven Netflix Streaming Nuggets (Netflix SN), or somewhat obscure streaming videos on the service that I particularly enjoyed, and kind of ignored Amazon Prime, which we’ve been members of for about three years now. So no more! I recently came across a relatively new British comedy on Prime that I'd like to recommend.

This particular Amazon Stream Nugget (SN) falls into the category of TV. Which isn’t a coincidence, as Amazon has made a noticeable effort during the last two years to beef up their Prime TV content. And to my pleasure, their classic TV content (whereas Netflix, in general, has done the opposite).    

The Detectorists

The first show I’d like to highlight is “The Detectorists", a British comedy that started in 2014, and is the brainchild of 46 year-old actor Mackenzie Crook, best known for his work in the British version of “The Office” and a few of the Pirates of the Caribbean movies. In addition to creating the series, Crook also wrote, directed and co-starred in all 19 episodes to date. And in 2015 he won a BAFTA (British entertainment award) for best TV comedy for his efforts.

In a nutshell, the show primarily focuses on the lives of two eccentric metal detectorists, who spend their days plodding in open fields hoping to find a fortune of a lifetime. In a way, it borrows from the Seinfeld formula of “a show about nothing”, and simply follows the everyday lives of the show’s characters.

Andy and Becky

Crook’s metal-detecting partner is the superb British character actor Toby Jones, who’s been seen in various movies in recent years. The two belong to a detectorist society group, who meet at least once per show and itself consists of quite a cast of characters. The plot also focuses on the relationship between Crook’s character Andy and his wife Becky and their up and down, but deeply rooted marriage, as well as Jones’s character Lance and his relationship with his long lost daughter who has recently resurfaced. One of the more humorous aspects of the show is the rivalry Andy and Lance have with two other bumbling detectorists, who they sarcastically refer to as “Simon and Garfunkel” because of their striking resemblance to the popular singing duo. The four are constantly battling for the rights to survey highly desirable property.  Pretty funny stuff. The humor in general is dry, subtle, and sporadic.  But it’s there.  And a lot of it is understandably British.  So, like many British shows, you’re either going to like it or not. There’s no real middle ground here!

"Simon and Garfunkel"

“The Detectorists” features excellent writing and acting across the board, which in turn results in top notch character development. As a result, I think I primarily find myself watching just to see what happens to these people next. They actually kind of grow on you in a way. The soundtrack, and particularly the haunting theme song, perfectly fits the show's premise.

The show also brilliantly throws a hook into the water midway through the first season.  In one of the early shows, it is revealed that the property that they obtained exclusive rights to detect on may have been the home of an ancient castle and could contain some lost treasure that was buried somewhere on it prior to the castle being invaded and overtaken. But they, and we, don’t really know for sure.  Are our trusty detectorists on a wild goose chase or not? Then, towards the end of the first season, we are given insight that Andy and Lance don’t get the benefit of having.  A flashback confirms the events of the castle takeover and shows the treasure being buried in a section somewhere on the vast property, before returning us to the current day.  The camera, still focused on the treasure, now begins to pan upward, breaking through the ground surface, and showing the detectorists several hundred yards off into the distance.  So now we know what they don’t:  the treasure does exist and they are close.  But will they ever actually find it?  Ah, that’s the hook!  You have to continue watching to find out!  And no, I’m not going to tell you! 

The show just completed its third season last fall, and, according to Crook in one of the documentaries about the show, that it could be it. However, he said he won’t know for sure until he takes some time off to do other things. Regardless, you’ll have plenty of time to catch up with The Detectorists!