Movie Review: The Hangover (2009)

SCORE

-2/5-

CAST

• Bradley Cooper: Phil Wenneck.
• Ed Helms: Stu Price.
• Zach Galifanakis: Alan Garner.
• Justin Bartha: Doug Billings.
• Directed by Todd Phillips.
  

STORY

"A Las Vegas-set comedy centered around three groomsmen who lose their about-to-be-wed buddy during their drunken misadventures, then must retrace their steps in order to find him" (source: imdb.com).

REVIEW

Never before have I wanted more to give a movie 0/5 in score, but I have to admit that this film qualifies, on our objective scale (which you can read here), warrants a 2: "the movie has some value, but it fails to accomplish 1 or more of its goals."

The Hangover meets its basic goal of providing crude humor to those who appreciate it. Occasionally, it even provides a few brief moments of non-crass humor. I laughed at this movie, and, in restrospect, I am not proud of this.

The premise is clever enough: a bunch of groomsmen lose the groom following his bachelor party: they just can't seem to remember what happened the night before, and they have but mere hours in which to figure it out and get the groom to the altar. That might have been the start of a hilarious movie all can enjoy. Instead, the movie fell to a level of crassness and crude humor that degrades its audience more than it entertains. In this respect, the movie fails to offer a comedy that will entertain many members of its intended audience not deterred by the R-rating. This movie, by the way, should have been rated NC-17, which I found to be deceptive. Shame on the MPAA - it has lost all sense of morality and ethics.

PROS: Funny premise and clever dialogue, with competent performances by all actors. Well directed, technically speaking. The solution to the mystery of what happened to the groom is also unique and, in many ways, genuinely funny without being crass or crude.

CONS: Nudity, foul language, violence, pornographic content, drug use, glorification of prostitution, and a dark display of amorality that will leave you wishing you could forget having ever seen it.

FINAL THOUGHT: Do NOT take minors to see this film. Do NOT see this film if you are offended by any of the above. We do not make recommendations that people go see any given movie or refrain from going to see any given movie, but, trust me, as a Christian, you will be embarrassed and ashamed to have seen this piece of garbage. I know that I am. So, just short of telling you not to go see this movie, I encourage you to read this review and make the right decision on your own.

BOTTOM LINE: 2/5.

The self-righteous don't need a doctor...

What is the one greatest thing that I have going for me spiritually?

I know that I am a sinner. I confess that I have messed up each day of my life in some way and that, often, I am unaware of many more sins that I commit.

Like the allegation levied against the blind man by the Pharisees, I was steeped in sin from birth. Unlike the Pharisees, however, I admit it. I believe it, and I recognize that I need forgiveness. This confession is not a weakness but a strength. A sick man can get help only after admitting to himself that he needs to seek it.

"On hearing this, Jesus said, 'It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick'" (Matt 9:12, NIV) (emphasis supplied) .

The Pharisees could not understand why Jesus ate with tax-collectors and sinners because they were self-righteous, convinced in their mastery of the old law. They were so convinced of their own righteousness, attained through their own work and efforts, that they could not see the point in associating with anyone unlike themselves. They could not see the great commission because they were interested in ministering only to those like themselves.

The difference between the Pharisees and the sinners Jesus was eating with was that the sinners were not convinced of their own righteousness. For that reason alone, they could received treatment from the master physician.

How many reading this are proud or think that they know all the answers? How many are too quick to point a fingers at the faults of others rather than pointing a finger at their own sins? Will you point an accusing finger at yourself? If you cannot do that, then you are not prepared to receive all that Christ has to offer for your life.

Yes, we all mistakes. Yes, we all sin. The sooner we all accept this, the sooner Jesus can get to work performing his soul-saving medicine.

None of us are righteous by our own efforts. Only by the blood of Jesus are we made righteous.

"...not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith" (Phil 3:9, ESV).

White pride? Race & Politics revisited...

I recently was forwarded an email that made the point that only white people can be racists. That's right - whites have a monopoly on racism. The email, rather poorly, made a few points that have always seemed logical to me. Lets see if I cannot restate them coherently:


Point One

1. There are African Americans, Native Americans, Asian Americans, Latin Americans, Pacific Islander Americans, Latin Americans, and so on, but there are no white Americans.
2. Instead, white Americans are just plain "Americans."
3. Is this because white people are not allowed to acknowledge that they are part of the same race?
4. Is it racist just to be white?

Point Two

1. Whites are not permitted to use racial slurs, but racial slurs used against whites are permitted.
2. For example, a white person may not use the following words: spic; chink; nigger; towel-head; porch-monkey; camel-jockey; gook; or black (I was once personally dressed down for referring to African Americans as "blacks").
3. On the other hand, the following words are used almost daily in reference to whites without any fear of reprisal or even a reaction: whigger; honkey; cracker; whitey; caveman.
4. In law we have a term called "equity" implying that different people should be treated by the law and society equally, regardless of race, nationality, or ethnicity. Is this difference in standards equitable?
5. Speaking in terms of Christianity, "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal 3:28 NASB).
6. Yet how many Christians would berate a white person for using a racial slur? How many would be offended by a racial slur used against a white person?

Point Three

1. Black history month, Cesar Chavez day, and other holidays/days of national significance that focus on one or more people groups segregates those people groups from others and divides us.
2. Don't believe it? What would happen if a politician proposed a white history month?
3. Why is it we can't just teach history? You know - for all people groups.

Point Four

1. The National Association For the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), the Black Chamber of Commerce, Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, and other such organizations focusing on one people group and excluding others (I call that "voluntary segregation") are permissible in our society, assuming you do not create such an organization to promote the white race or culture.
2. Consider that the plain, ordinary Chamber of Commerce takes all races.
3. Now, why would we need a Hispanic Chamber of Commerce?
4. Assuming you can find a good reason to have a Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, why then can whites not have a white chamber of commerce?
5. Did you read that and think it was a racist idea?
6. What about a national association for the advancement of white people?
7. Is that racist too?

Point Five

1. If blacks can give out scholarships only to blacks, then can whites do the same?
2. What about a United Caucasian Scholarship Fund?
3. Is that racist?
4. Is it right for any one people group to "earn" a scholarship, even in part, because of the colour of his/her skin?
5. How many "black only" universities and colleges are in the U.S.?
6. How about a "white only" university or college - is that racist?
7. Is it not racist, or at least discriminatory, to treat one people group differently from the other?

Point Six

1. The Miss America pageant accepts women of all races, and a black woman can be Miss America.
2. No white woman can participate in the Miss Black America pageant or be Miss Black America.
3. A "Miss White America" pageant would, logically, ensure that both black and white women receive the same opportunities, but we'd label that racist too.
4. Would getting rid of pageants targeting specific people groups be racist?

Point Seven

1. Black pride is okay.
2. White pride is racist.
3. People can be proud to be black, yellow, red, or any colour they like (so long as that colour isn't white).
4. So, white people should be ashamed of their colour and heritage?

I did not come up with these points. I just put them together in one place for discussion. I did, however, omit a few points that I thought showed the author's own racial bias. This is the problem: people who go to great lengths to attack others' racism often fail to see their own. I believe the author of that email made some great points, but s/he also demonstrated the very same racial bias of which s/he complained.

People want to know why America cannot move beyond race and colour? It is because we live in a voluntarily segregated society where whites are increasingly portrayed as oppressors and "minorities" as beggars. I, however, have met both oppressive and distressed people from every people group. Visit a big enough city and, sooner or later, you'll see homeless people of every background. You could also find wealthy people from every background.

At the inauguration of our nation's first black president, the Rev. Joseph Lowery delivered what was surely one of the most racist benedictions ever made, and it was endorsed by the White House. You can read more about that here. He spoke of a day when "black will not be asked to give back," when "brown can stick around," when "yellow will be mellow," when "the red man can get ahead, man," and when "white will embrace what is right."

President Obama's landmark presidency began with those words, and they represent to me a sign of the times we live in. Rather than Jim Crow laws, we voluntarily segregate ourselves into different people groups in our mind. Our society blames the white race for its many problems instead of looking for realistic solutions to them.

My black friends did not choose to be black, and my Asian friends did not choose to be Asian any more than I chose to be white. God made me white, and he made my friends as they are. We don't need to waste time discussing which race is "right." Instead, I hope we focus on treating each other equally and fairly as brothers and sisters in Christ, focusing on Gal 3:28, not on skin colour. Until we have the mind of Christ, that all men truly are equal in the eyes of the Lord, the Rev. Lowery's unique brand of racism will continue to dominate our society and politics.

The Pirate Bay: Some Thoughts

There's a huge amount of context necessary to truly understand the story of The Pirate Bay. John has provided a good deal of it, but there are some other relevant facts that I know off the top of my head.

There's a strong component of corporate/governmental bullying to this. The RIAA and MPAA in the US have been pushing very hard to get the Swedes to convict the Pirate Bay folks for a long time. Trouble is, the Swedish government brought criminal charges once before -- and failed to convict. The fact is, Sweden is not the US, and the American government (which felt obligated to back up companies which had probably contributed to a lot of Congressional campaigns), which pushed very hard for this conviction, really has no right to demand that Sweden convict its citizens of something which before now wasn't actually a crime in Sweden. The operating theory seemed to be that "we (RIAA/MPAA/Sony/etc.) hate this behavior, therefore it must be illegal."

I'm not dead certain, but I'm not sure any laws changed between the first prosecution and this second one. If that's the case, as you point out it's hard to expect TPB to know that what was being done was illegal, since the court system itself rejected that argument previously (though presumably those charges were brought under a different law, assuming Sweden has double jeopardy rules) and one would expect them to have brought their strongest case first.

Finally, there's a technical aspect here. Any technology of this kind is inherently capable of piracy. TPB essentially provided addresses of providers, which you then had to go to yourself to get the content. It's important to remember that TPB hosted none of the pirated content whatsoever. What they provided was a free platform to index files. If John Doe wants to provide File X to the world, he would have to host it from his own internet connection, but he could make the file easily accessible to large numbers of people around the globe via TPB. This, along with a small forum to allow discussion of each file, was the only service provided by TPB.

That may still sound bad, until you recognize that this is exactly what Google does. It was pointed out more than once during the trial that if you're looking for a particular torrent, you'll get more hits with Google than with TPB. Does being more specialized really make TPB worse than Google, considering that both provide exactly the same service? If Google does everything TPB does and then some, then isn't Google even more guilty? How does lack of other services make the services which are provided illegal?

Another technical issue is with removing all copyrighted content. Let's say we want to really do this. Let's say we want to stop people from downloading "The Dark Knight." How can we possibly know that every file called "The Dark Knight" is actually the movie which is copyrighted? The phrase itself is not trademarked; anyone could make any work of art with his own ownership and call it "The Dark Knight." If it's a video file, then it may look exactly the same as the copyrighted motion picture. The file could also be called "asdfasdfasdf" and actually contain the movie "The Dark Knight." There is no way to correlate the name of a file/torrent with its content except to download it, which is illegal if it turns out to have been copyrighted. So legally, you can't download the torrent to determine its contents, but you also can't assume until you have downloaded it that you know what's in it to know whether it's copyrighted or not.

This is akin to demanding that Google not link to sites which plagiarize content. How could you do this, even if you tried? What database would you compare against? How could you keep it current? How could you know which was the original and which the copy? And so on.

All that being said, clearly The Pirate Bay was built for the purpose of allowing illegal file sharing. That's obvious from everything they've ever done. What I object to is the assumption that because it can be used for illegal means that it "must be" illegal, which often seems to be the working theory. This is as invalid as it has always been: other things which can be and often are used to aid in illegal activity include cars, guns, and computers. That capacity for illegal activity doesn't make manufacturing or selling these items illegal. That's at least in part because these items have many legitimate uses, as do TPB and BitTorrent itself (an exhaustive list of legitimate BitTorrent uses would be long, but one which immediately comes to mind is the update process for World of Warcraft). What has prompted this action on the part of the various corporate entities is that it's very hard to stop all the individuals committing individual acts of copyright infringement -- so in my view the legal argument against TPB is based entirely on convenience, rather than law. It's a lot easier to turn off the hose than to try to catch all the water. Thus, they'll do whatever then can to turn off that hose, regardless of how weak their legal arguments for doing so may be.

I also object to the dubious legal theories which are applied to this sort of technology which draw distinctions without a difference. I can't see how any law which can convict the founders of TPB would not apply to Google as well. The idea that being "primarily for the purpose of piracy" really means anything is hard to defend. If you make a large enough corporation angry, they will attempt to prove that any technology is used "primarily for piracy" (as the movie industry once did with VHS).

In the long run, of course, fighting sites like TPB is like trying to dump buckets of water out of a sinking boat. When one memorable major player went down in a fight like this, Napster's centralized architecture died and gave rise to decentralized, ad hoc networks of file sharing which have no one point that can be shut down. TPB was already working on this sort of technology for its file-sharing protocol, and it will no doubt be seen very soon. The fundamental problem is that consumers want services and products that the companies who make this content refuse to provide. As long as that's the case, more and more piracy will occur.

NEWS: The Pirate Bay sentenced to prison; fined millions.

Read the article for yourself here.

What is in a name?

So, four Swedes who setup a website that allows visitors to search, access, and download indexed torrent files, and they called it, "The Pirate Bay." Right or wrong, frankly they should have seen this coming a long time ago. Titling your website with the word "pirate" is like confessing to piracy before a court officials that so rarely understand fully the technology involved.

In fact, that is a much larger legal problem in today's world: courts are operated by judges, clerks, and attorneys, none of whom are required to hold degrees in science, tech, or engineering. The same is true of the police who investigate Internet-based crimes and the juries who so often render verdicts. So, how do courts determine whether net-based activity is criminal or merely novel?

Courts often are forced to rely on expert witnesses, whose services are financed by the parties involved, that are financially motivated to testify in favor of the party compensating them. The experts are supposed to provide opinions on the scientific issues involved, in spite of this bias, and also the grounds/bases for these "expert opinions." Being myself largely ignorant of Swedish legal procedure, I do not know whether experts were used in trying the Pirate Bay owners for criminal copyright infringement, but I have no idea how else they would do it. I also know, from experience, that experts can, and usually do, differ in their opinions.

Regardless, a court filled with people who think that words like "torrent" and "tracker" refer to storms and hunting, respectively, have sentenced 4 people to jail time and fined them millions of dollars. I have a limited background in computer engineering, and I am also an attorney. In spite of this, I cannot bring myself to say that what they have done is illegal, or even wrong.

Does posting to the net technology that is capable of being used to commit a crime constitute an illegal or immoral act? To the first, I cannot say, as I am not an expert in Swedish copyright law. However, to the second, I think it depends largely, in my view, on for what purpose those posting the technology intended it to be used.

Say I create a brand new device for use splitting rock. Let us call it dynamite. Suppose I intend it to be used by the highway department in mountainous regions to create safer roads. My intent was to enable the government to create safer roads. However, what if others use my dynamite to commit acts of terrorism and destruction? Is the inventor/developer of an explosive device or material responsible for how others use it? Most of us would say no, but what if we marketed and sold (or even gave) our explosives to terrorists that we knew would use it for immoral, reprehensible purposes? Most of us would say that is wrong.

The Pirate Bay could have been used for perfectly legal, moral purposes and file-sharing (swapping free, unrestricted material or material licensed for sharing). However, it was also susceptible to being used illegally. Did the Swedes intend for it to be used it illegally or immorally? I think so - after all, they named the site "The Pirate Bay."

They marketed their website and programs to those who would consider themselves "pirates." It is hard to believe that they intended anything good. Is the name conclusive evidence of their intent? Hardly. However, the name certainly serves as the best available evidence we possess of their intentions. Also, they failed to take measures to prevent or report illegal activity, suggesting that they were consenting to it. Rather, they dealt with illegal activity on a complaint-driven basis that could never be expected to be effective.

So, were they engaged in immoral activity? I think the name is telling of their mindset. Was it illegal? That is even more difficult, since file-sharing hasn't been the subject of much legalisation or judicial precedent, but why try to buy an ocean-based platform reputed to be an independent, sovereign nation, if you are not worried that you are breaking a few laws (check out the article if you think I am kidding)? I think the evidence demonstrates that they believed their activities were illegal, whether they were or not. Would it not be better to err on the side of obeying the law?

Do not think that I am coming out against file-sharing. There certainly are legitimate uses for the tech, and some artists actually permit their fans to swap files containing their work (e.g. Motley Crue). Also, I often ponder the legality of downloading television shows that you missed on TV, since they are broadcasted publicly at any rate. It seems silly to think that watching TV on the computer is less legal than watching it on the TV or recording it with a VCR then editing out the commercials. Certainly, however, there is an area where sharing copyrighted material not available for free is definitely illegal. At best, file-sharing is a grey area of the law and potentially dangerous activity.

My bottom line? Perhaps governments should establish legislation directly covering these areas rather than leaving their citizens to wonder if they are abiding by or breaking the law. It seems unfair for the state to leave people guessing until a judge or jury informs them that what they did was wrong. Nothing like finding out people broke a law that didn't really exist on paper then seeing them get thrown in jail for it to make people hate the government.

And, if the Pirate Bay folks have a reason to cry foul, then that is it. Did they have fair notice of the law and the potential punishments for breaking it in this fashion (if indeed they broke it at all)? If so, the I say they got a fair shake. Otherwise, regardless of what their intents were, it seems like they got a pretty raw deal.

Whatever happens, I will not lose any sleep at the punishment of people who had the audacity/stupidity to call themselves "The Pirate Bay." For all intents and purposes, they were begging to be sued. Still, a part of me wonders if they were really begging for jail?

Meaning and Music

As Christians, we say in our hymns and elsewhere that "God is glorious," or "glory to God in the highest." 1 Peter 4:11 says (in part) "To him be the glory and the power for ever and ever." But what does "glory" mean to us?

One of the first things I think of when I heard the word "glory" is a Renaissance painting with light engulfing the main figures. C.S. Lewis suggested that one of the primary purposes of nature is to give us a meaning for "glory" -- stunning, grand vistas can give us a small sense of the vastness of our God. But I think, when I really come down to it, what represents glory best for me is music.

To illustrate my point, the piece at this link is, to me, transcendentally beautiful. It's what I imagine Heaven sounds like.

What fascinates me is the thought that once, there was no such thing as music. It wasn't always there -- it was created. This, to me, is an example of God's glory that I can wrap my head around.

The most creative, fantastic musician in the world may invent a genre of music. But the thing about music is that it feels more like physics than painting -- it's as though the melodies and harmonies were there, we just had to discover them. So even the great musician who starts a new category of music is really just a trailblazing explorer, mapping out new territory which existed long before he did. By comparison, the musician is providing a drop in the bucket, while God provides the ocean the drop came from.

So many things about God are shown by the existence of music. He is unimaginably creative, because he invented the entirety of music from Himself -- salsa and classical, rock and R&B. He's fond of consistent rules, because music, though artistic, has many rules which govern it. Finally, it shows that He is merciful: Music serves no "practical" purpose in our lives. We don't need it to live. How great is our God, who gave us such a tremendous gift! Who chose to make something so beautiful, even though it wasn't strictly necessary. Who loved us enough to grant to us an ability to appreciate it, even though we didn't deserve it.

To me, this is the glory of God: all the music that ever was, every song that transported us, every melody which haunted us, is the tiniest drop in the ocean of His creative power. There was no such thing as music until He spoke, and saw that it was good. And through His great mercy, we were given ears to hear it.

Perhaps glory is perceived differently by everyone. Lewis saw it in the grandness and uniqueness of nature, and for me it's represented by the beauty of music. We should all work to try and understand God's glory in our own way.

NEWS: Barack Obama tries to silence God.

Check the news story out for yourself here.

" Georgetown University says it covered over the monogram 'IHS' --symbolizing the name of Jesus Christ—because it was inscribed on a pediment on the stage where President Obama spoke at the university on Tuesday and the White House had asked Georgetown to cover up all signs and symbols there. As of Wednesday afternoon, the “IHS” monogram that had previously adorned the stage at Georgetown’s Gaston Hall was still covered up--when the pediment where it had appeared was photographed by CNSNews.com."


So.... Barack Hussein Obama, President of the United States, asked Georgetown to cover up the name of God? He professes to be a Christian, so why would he do this?

Many good Christians voted for President Obama. Some did so because they believed, legitimately, that a black president was long overdue. Others voted for Mr. Obama because they believed his economic policies would end economic turmoil. Both were legitimate reasons to vote for a political leader. Also, this junior senator claimed to be a Christian.

Setting aside, for the moment, the issue of whether BHO truly qualifies as black and can, therefore, truly be our nation's first black president, setting aside the issue of whether BHO is even a true US citizen, and also setting aside whether the junior senator was qualified to accept the nation's most important office, what of his last promise? The one in which he claimed to believe in an all-powerful God that created all that exists?

How can a man, who claims to believe in God, be so bold as to actively conceal God from others? Why would a believer not want to be associated with God during a speech given at a university? Would his speech at Georgetown not provide a wonderful opportunity to affirm his association with Jesus Christ? Why did he feel this small reference to God was a threat to him? Even if he were an atheist, why would the mention of a deity he doesn't believe in be a threat?

As a believer, I fear angering God. I fear angering my Lord, because I know God is supreme and perfect. I am thankful that God is merciful, because I fear God's wrath. His power is unchallenged, both in this world and beyond. I cannot believe that anyone who really believes in God would seek to cover up God's name in a building. A true believer fears God, and this sort of active rebellion against the name of God should have been prevented by BHO's fear of the Lord.

President Obama does not fear God. He does not want to be affiliated with God. It is time that believers stopped and asked themselves, why is this? It is no secret that I am no fan of BHO's policies and political platform. However, I never dreamed he would make so public a contradiction of his own stated faith.

If our president does not believe in or fear God, then why has he lied about it? If he lied about this, then what else has he lied about? And, how many of you believers will excuse this lie as though it doesn't matter?

NEWS: Garden of Eden discovered?

This is an interesting article. It is all about a set of ruins believed to constitute a link to the Garden of Eden. What it is exactly, I don't know, but it is really fun to think about. Check out the article, and feel free to comment with your theories.