Smashing Pumpkins: Song for a Son

If you have not yet heard, Billy Corgan intends to release the next Smashing Pumpkins album called “Teargarden by Kaleidyscope“.  Apparently it will consist of 44 free tracks released on eleven ep’s.  The first track has been released and it’s called “Song for a Son”.  Give it a listen here if you want or download it since it’s free.

It certainly sounds like Billy Corgan but it doesn’t sound like something that should be released as Smashing Pumpkins. Then again since he’s the only member left, I guess you can’t differentiate between them anymore, which makes me pine that much more for the the whole band to get together again.  They won’t however so in the mean time what is the “new” Smashing Pumpkins like?

The new mascot for Smashing Pumpkins is ready to fire his lazer

Song for a Son apparently had it’s basics thrown together in about 15 minutes because Corgan felt inspired while writing it.  It pretty much sounds like crap, but I’m hoping this first song is more about the lyrics than the music. In particular when he sings “I am one of many, many more to come” I think he is referring to the next 43 songs he plans on releasing.  If that is the case I can forgive the song for it’s droning verses and annoying guitars, since it’s merely an introduction to the album and the (hopefully) good songs that follow.

Brothers in Arms

I must confess, remixing classic old “white” genres with a gangster-rap twist has always been a guilty pleasure of mine, which is why I jumped at the chance to rent Brothers in Arms, starring Kurupt and David Carradine. But much to my chagrin, I found out the hard way that this “colorful” gang of cowboys could more aptly be called  “Sisters in Arms”, in this estrogen-packed melodrama.

Yes, in spite its wonderful premise — a band of charismatic black cowboys rob a bank owned by David Carradine — this movie does its best to stomp all over the feel-good expectations that viewers will no doubt be having when they rent it, leaving us feeling tricked and disappointed early on. You’ll realize you’ve been the victim of a “bait-and-switch” the moment you listen to the dark-skinned protagonists seriously debate the appropriateness of using the word “nigger” with a black deputy who has come to arrest them. Mind-numbing political correctness ensues for the remaining 80% of the movie.

Blah blah blah, please die already.

In this re-imagining of the Wild West there is no systemic racial discrimination, nor is there sexism.  One gets the impression that colored people aren’t even minorities, since the town is apparently populated with an equal number of dark and light skins.  The Sheriff is a woman of course, the cowboys are all dark, but we are never given the sense that this is unusual; we must simply accept the fiction and carry on.  Why?  Who knows.  But before you get worried, rest assured that the richest and most evil men are still all white idiotic men.  I suppose it’s fine to pretend that blacks were well-spoken gentlemen of the prairies, but unreasonable to pretend that one of them would rise to power and become corrupt.  We wouldn’t want to reinforce negative stereotypes…?

Last Hour: Synopsis analysis

If you are like me and have become obsessed with every aspect of this movie, you may want to check out its official website for some more classic Last Hour quality.  I must give a spoiler warning though: if you decide to read the synopsis, it pretty much goes through the entire movie and tells you what happens.

Let’s look at the movie plot outline that it gives. [I suggest you either follow along on the official site or click to enlarge, so you can read it for yourself. -Mr. Wolfe]

Movie Plot according to official website

Here is a list of corrections/observations I would like to make:

1. Since the first sentence starts with the word “How” it seems to me like it is asking a question, and should have a question mark at the end of it.  Also, it should say “in THE middle of Hong Kong” not “in A middle of Hong Kong”, don’t you think?
2. “THIS five characters” should be “THESE five characters.”  Come on guys, let’s get this right and show these blokes some respect.
3. So the door is unexpectedly opened, and after a while they “notice” they are “locked up inside”?  It should mention something about them entering the house before they become locked in it.
4. “…the last hour is viewed live as a stopwatch appears in the corner of the screen.”  Huh? This is a blatant lie, and should be removed from this plot summary.
5. “The unbearable suspense combined to the hectic rhythm make you feel impressively distressed.”  This unbearable sentence combined to the horrible grammar make you feel intensely depressed! Holy cow guys, who writes this stuff?
6. Lastly there is no way to compare the losers in this movie to the characters in Usual Suspects.  As for being left breathless up to the last minute? I can only see that happening if you choke on some popcorn, or you have an allergic reaction to terrible movies.

The website also has a synopsis for the film that requires some attention:

Last Hour: The Hostage

Every now and then we come across something so comically bad that it not only causes us to laugh, but consumes our days, filling us with obsession. Here we take a closer look at one aspect of the previously reviewed movie Last Hour, in which a gang of six world-renowned criminals are tricked into wasting a bunch of time in a poorly designed mansion together. More specifically, we look at the hostage situation that unfolds about half way through the movie.

Last Hour has a lot of stupid things about it, and the hostage situation is one of them.  It happens like this: the head of the Hong Kong C.I.D., Agent Ron Stanax, finds out about Detective Stone’s sting operation and takes command of the situation, but quickly gets tired of waiting and has his men storm the building. One of them is captured by the criminals, and thus becomes a hostage.

The first thing to notice is that when he sends the men, most of them just run across the moat bridge, but there are two special guys who snorkel across the water with big bags in tow. They undress and put dry clothes on, and rejoin the others.  Question: why couldn’t they just run across like everyone else? Especially with the heavy cargo they were carrying, wouldn’t that make more sense? Everybody, including the criminals, approach from different angles without needing to go across the water, so why do these few agents bother to go through that unnecessary trouble?

Also, if they use snorkels, that tells us they weren’t supposed to be seen, right? But again I ask “why”? At this point the criminals are busy “finding candles, lighting ‘em up, and putting ‘em all over the house,” so there’s no particular danger of being seen. The others weren’t trying to be stealthy, and there’s certainly nothing too stealthy about this:

Two C.I.D. agents snorkel across the moat instead of just crossing the bridge like the others.

So what was the point? Presumably they are carrying their gear and dry clothes, so what the hell are these guys thinking? Or for that matter, what was writer/director/producer/actor  “Kobe” thinking?

More Last Hour to come

Stanax? Stranax? Whatever! You're a fff....