My Life - Part 3: Teething

As an infant, I realized that my father didn’t have a fingernail on his right index finger. I found this out because he would use that finger to feel around in my mouth in an attempt to discover if my teeth had started appearing. When I was older, he told me that his finger was lopped off in an accident when he was a kid. Even though the tip of his finger was reattached, the fingernail was lost. Of course, the missing fingernail gave his finger the appearance that the tip was never reattached.
So, my dad would stick that index finger in my mouth to feel for teeth. I really didn’t like it, but there wasn’t much I could do about it, being and infant and all. I still remember the rough and ridgy feeling of his short index finger rubber against my gums, tongue and the roof of my mouth. Yuk. So this one day, my parents were over me. My mother was telling my day, “I don’t think it’s a good idea to stick your finger in his mouth. He’s gonna bite cha,” or something along those lines. Yes, even as an infant I understood the meaning of her words. He sticks his finger in my mouth. I waited for the right moment to finally use my new teeth. For a split-second, hesitated out of conscience. Suddenly I bit as hard as I could! He howled in pain and he yanked his finger away. I remember enjoying my deed, and actually feeling a little proud at my plot’s success. My mom was I-told-you-so’ing as he went to nurse his finger.

I, Robot

It's been a long time since I've read I, Robot. In fact, I was in school. The stories didn't much interest me. Although I admired Isaac Asimov (the writer) for is contributions to literature and science (fiction), I always felt his writing style was too dry.
It's been a couple days since I've seen the movie I, Robot. It uses the original book as a setting, but not as the source of the story. This movie is good, so I'm not sure what movie the critics had been watching. It's not great, for sure. It does have one big plot hole. The movie implies the events were happening everywhere, yet only shows the events as they unfold in Chicago. Beyond that one problem, the story was pretty clean, blending action well with plot, storytelling and character development. Basically, this is an action movie with some intelligence.
Recommended.

very Very brief complaint about comparing Superman to Spider-man movies

I'm not sure what lunatic can say the Superman movies a superior to the Spider-man movies.  The Superman movies were deliberately campy and one-dimensional.  Spider-man makes a determined and successful effort to develop characters with depth and complexity.  The two sets of movies are in different classes. 
If special effects of Superman were put on par to the 2000's, then a modern equivalent to Superman would be X-Men, as both have average special effects for their time, and both are plot driven stories of similar depth. 
IMO, the Spider-man movies are easily the best comic book movies ever made.  They have excellent production quality, good to great acting, awesome action, well developed characters (the ones we care about), etc.  It's a refreshing reminder that movies (even an action-flicks) shouldn't be non-stop action when handling characters that the audience cares about; and that a balance can be reached between plot and character development. 
Superman, X-Men, first couple Bat Man movies are a tier lower.  They are still great movies, but they do lack the story telling of the Spider-man series.  Just watch the first two Superman movies again.  Although they have similar plots to Spider-man, they are pretty flat when held up to the two Spider-man movies.

"Bring me back something French!"

What is the origin of the line "bring me back something french"?  The line was used in `Home Alone`.  I heard it in a British sitcom from the late 70's called `Are You Being Served`, and in a couple of films since.  I have the impression it is a reference to an older film or book, but don't know where to look.   This is one of those rare cases where the Internet doesn't help.  Anyone have any idea?

Reviewing the Movie Reviewers

One thang I’ve been noticing about movie reviewers in widely distributed periodicals is that they happily show-off what little they happen to know.  The most recent example of this is the review by J.M. in the Wall Street Journal.  He reviewed the Borne Supremacy.  He starts off with glowing statements about the movie.  Then he starts comparing it to the director’s previous movie, Bloody Sunday.  Bloody Sunday is a political film about how British Soldiers started shooting N. Irelanders.  So, J.M. compares a political docu-drama with a big budget action flick, simply because both are directed by the same person.  Huh?  So, I’m guessing that J.M. did see that little non-Hollywood film?  Or maybe he did just five minutes of research on the internet, found some reviews that said it was good and then decided to make his review another big-budget-soul-movies-have-no-soul article.  Is something wrong with a film just because it has a high budget and is from Hollywood?  Review the damn movie you are talking about, J.M.!  If you must compare, then pick movies from the same genre, and compare apples to apples. 

I can just imagine if J.M. was around when 2001: A Space Odyssey came out.  J.M. might say something like “Although this is a wonderful, technically accurate film, I find it is missing the creepiness Kubrick so cleverly weaved into the classic Lolita.  This is what happens when talent like Kubrick gets a big Hollywood budget.  I sure wish they made more movies about perverts instead of science fiction.  Kubrick has failed his fans.”  I just have one thang to say to you, J.M, “Get real.”

Here's the truck after it rolled off the overpass and into the freeway exit.   Maybe the fire burned through the brake lines, sending this huge truck rolling off the road and through the trees and brush.  My coworkers had just finished passing through this exit when the truck started falling behind them.
Copyright © 2004 Matthew Lorono