Uberfluff

Hi there.  Today, in addition to the Daily Fluff, we have a new Fluff Five, featuring the 5 wussiest celebrities (male).  And if you're catching up, don't forget about the latest Poor Decisions, this week's Second Opinion, and the Daily Fluff Archive.  Have a good weekend.

Having watched most of Transporter 3 last night, I'm really in a mood about retarded evil masterminds.  (Though I didn't give up on it because of the dumb bad guy.  I gave up on it because of the obnoxious hot exotic chick, who spent the entire first half of the movie being a sullen, annoying twat.  Then, suddenly, she turns all seductive and vulnerable and our hero, instead of telling her to get bent, sleeps with her, then gets all protective of her.  This doesn't necessarily match up to my vision of hot, tough guys, who can generally get enough hot girls on their own, and are less likely to put up with crap from a random one who happens to be endangering his life.)

It has always annoyed me a little when movie villains shoot one of their henchmen on a whim.  I know that there's no better way to establish one's evilness than by killing one of your own, but it seems like a poor management decision.  It's hard enough to find good help without complicating matters by killing your employees based on your mood swings.  You know that can't help your retention rate.  And in Transporter, we have a guy who spends (what has to be) millions of dollars on an elaborate kidnapping scheme, including a highly sophisticated bomb system  meant to entrap the "best driver in the world" to take part in the plan--and all to coerce a government official into some toxic dumping contract.  Why not spend that money bribing some official in another country to do the same thing?  It would probably be cheaper, and have far fewer unpredictable variables.  Hell, for the cost of this scheme, you could probably have hired a scientist and figured out how to recycle the stuff into plastic lawn chairs.  And then you wouldn't have made the mistake of giving a James Bond clone hero a lasting grudge against you.

Good morning.  Today, in addition to the Daily Fluff, we have a new entry for Poor Decisions--a tattoo that really says it all.  And if you haven't already, be sure to check out the latest Second Opinion.  Enjoy!

So, er, has anyone out there seen Australia already?  Because I got it from Netflix about a week ago and still haven't managed to watch it.  Mostly because the damned thing is 3 hours long.  That's a huge commitment to make with my evening.  If it's awful, I've more or less blown an entire night for one movie.  I'm not sure why I requested it in the first place--Netflix greed, I think.  I was just drunk with the power and rush that comes from adding things to your queue, and it somehow snuck into a high position, vaulting over things like Volver, which has sat forlornly at number 8 for months while other things get moved around it.  (I want to have seen Volver, but I'm never actually in the mood to watch it.)

The reason I can't seem to pull the trigger on Australia is largely Nicole Kidman-related.  Though Hugh Jackman isn't helping things either.  I know he's supposed to be a nice guy and a good actor, etc., etc.  But he seems a little smirky to me.  Plus there's that Wolverine hair.  And it really, really bugs me that his name sounds like Huge Ackman.  As for Nicole Kidman, well, I respect her for the Tom Cruise divorce, but she just keeps getting skinnier and skinnier.  Watching her now is like watching a skeleton in a wig.

I know I could just return it without watching it, but that seems like admitting defeat.  Plus, then I'll probably find out that it's great or something and have to put it back on my queue.

Good morning.  Today, in addition to the Daily Fluff, we have a new Second Opinion--on the unexpected drama that seems to occur when the waitress doesn't give her name.  Enjoy.

So today's Daily Fluff explores Eddie Murphy's obvious deal with Satan.  (How else can one explain going from Beverly Hills Cop to Daddy Daycare?)  Which makes one ponder the other celebrities whose careers definitely raise thoughts of supernatural intervention.  Of course, there's the obvious ones like Paris Hilton or Carrot Top or Creed.  But the ones that really fascinate me are those (like Murphy) where something has gone very wrong on the road to fame and fortune.  Like Tom Cruise and his Scientology obssession.  Or Dane Cook and the fact that his success has been marred by allegations of stealing material.  Or Britney Spears.  Boy, did she neglect to read the fine print on her personal deal with the Devil.

I kind of love these sort of things anyway (and thanks to K for the link), but this is even above the average urban ninja-type fare.  No surprise that he's a stuntman.  (From the UK, in case you were wondering.)  Right now, he's apparently working on the new Wachowski brothers film, Cloud Atlas.  (In case it's on the tip of your tongue--the Wachowski bros are most famous for that plummeting descent into nonsense and pretension otherwise known as The Matrix Trilogy.  Also, on an unrelated note, but still included here because I enjoy a good piece of gossip, Larry Wachowski enjoys cross-dressing--which has caused some confusion as to whether he has had a sex change operation or not.)

Anyway, back to the video, which to me raises the important question of why foreigners don't do better at Ninja Warrior:

Good morning.  Today, in addition to the Daily Fluff, we have a new Fluff Five on the 5 skankiest celebrities.  And if you're catching up, don't forget to check out the latest Second Opinion, Why You Should Pity Cleveland Fans, and the newest Poor Decisions.  And there's always the Daily Fluff Archive too.  Have a good weekend.

Ok, so I'm a bit late today.  Sorry, it's been one of those days.  (On the plus side: I just got Beastie Boys tickets for their show in Baltimore next week!)  Anyway, if you haven't already see what's new for the day, I can tell you that in addition to the Daily Fluff, we have a new feature called Poor Decisions where this week we ponder what might be worse than a man thong.  And if you're catching up, don't forget to see Why You Should Pity Cleveland Fans.  Enjoy!

So, as anyone who isn't particularly concerned with how geeky they might appear will tell you, right now at E3, they're introducing what's coming next in gaming.  (Well, not everything that's coming up--I'm sure that the umpteenth crappily-thrown-together movie tie-in game isn't going to get a big roll-out.)  In fact, I believe that today is the day that they'll focus on music-based games, which is exciting for all of us Rock Band fans who have no problem griping in depth about the game that we play at length.

What I found most impressive, however, is the video for Project Natal, XBox 360's planned motion-based system.  If the video is even a little bit representative of the actual game play, then it makes the Wii look like the retarded stepkid of motion gaming.  Seriously, you have to see this video.  It's amazing--like one of those Tomorrowland Future movies.  Only Microsoft seems to intend this to come out within the next few years at least.  (Maybe sooner--it's a little unclear.)  There are no controllers.  It uses your body movements to control the play somehow.  Plus it includes both facial recognition and voice recognition.  Complain all you like about Microsoft being evil.  Evil geniuses always have much more technologically cool lairs anyway.  If we left it to the forces of purity and light to make our games, we'd all be playing "Convert the Sinner" in 8-bit graphics.