Valkyrie

I saw Valkyrie when it first came out, but not that I've seen it again on DVD, I can contrast first impressions with lasting ones.

To start, Valkyrie stands as one of my favorite WWII movies ever. I normally hate Tom Cruise, because I don't think he can act anything but angry young men, but in Valkyrie, he plays Von Stauffenberg in a way that I don't think anyone else could have. The intensity and passion he brings to the role is astonishing. Terrence Stamp, William Nye, Tom Wilkinson, Sir Kenneth Brannagh, and a host of other great British actors fill the other roles to bring the acting to a caliber not often seen in hollywood war movies. There have been some criticisms of the "Nazis" not having German accents, but I have no problem with that, as I can clearly understand everybody and what they're saying, something not true when actors use fake accents and mix the odd Russian or German phrase into what they're saying.

The action and suspense are also brilliantly executed. Even though we all know that Valkyrie failed, I found myself on the edge of myself as they were executing it, from the moment the explosive is placed to the point when Hitler reveals himself to be alive. The movie's pace serves to highlight the tension it creates, though the pace is slightly too fast to give the sense of the passage of time that happened in reality.

The true strength of Valkyrie, and what makes it such a phenomenal movie, are the characters. At the beginning of the movie, General Tresckow (Kenneth Brannagh) says "If we do nothing, this will always be Hitler's Germany. We have to show the world that we were not all like him." This is the entire point of the movie; it shows the men in Germany who didn't just sit with their thumbs up their ass, but who got up and decided to do something about it. It's a risky venture to show men affiliated with Nazi Germany to be human, let alone to be heroes. If the venture had been attempted with lesser actors or a lesser director than Bryan Singer, it would have failed. As it is, however, the characters of the movie are so realistic, so believable, that we overcome the fact that they wore Nazi uniforms and see them as heroes. My Grandmother, a staunchly liberal Jewess who will remain so until she dies, point blank refused to see the movie because "Nazis were all animals. I don't want to see anything that tries to tell me any different." And indeed, we do see the absolute animals who inhabited and thrived in the Nazi Party. Hitler (David Bamber) in the main scene we see him, talks about the Valkyries of legend. "Killing the weak and preserving the strong. One cannot be a National Socialist if one does not understand [valkyries]" showing the Darwinian viewpoint of Hitler. Stauffenberg, on the other hand, is shown, although never explicitly, to be a Christian, praying in church and always wearing his cross. It is this conflict that serves as the focal point of the movie; Stauffenberg's faith and believe that he is doing good versus Hitler's evil, borne out of a misguided desire to do the same.

The movie ends as we knew it would; Valkyrie fails, the plotters were executed or committed suicide. As Tom Cruise shouts his defiant cry "Long live Sacred Germany," after a list of the plotters and how they died, we are left wondering; would we have done the same? Would we, as the movie said, "put our principles above personal gain?" Stauffenberg had a wife and family, and I have been to a couple of their estates. Most of the men who plotted against Hitler had everything to lose, and yet they all, unashamedly, defied him. Movies ought to make the audience think, and Valkyrie certainly does that. If you're only going to watch one World War II movie, it ought to be Valkyrie.


"The whole world will vilify us now, but I am still totally convinced that we did the right thing. Hitler is the archenemy not only of Germany but of the world. When, in few hours' time, I go before God to account for what I have done and left undone, I know I will be able to justify what I did in the struggle against Hitler. God promised Abraham that He would not destroy Sodom if just ten righteous men could be found in the city, and so I hope that for our sake God will not destroy Germany. None of us can bewail his own death; those who consented to join our circle put on the Robe of Nessus. A human being's moral integrity begins when he is prepared to sacrifice his life for his convictions." -General Tresckow, instigator of the July 20 Plot
***** out of *****

Top Ten Worst US Presidents

As per the request of a friend of mine. In AP Government, I've been analyzing, in detail, the presidency as an office, and the individuals who have held it. Adding into this my AP History course, I've learned a lot about a lot of presidents and their actions in office. As such, here is a list of my worst US Presidents. It's not based on my politics, or on my religion, it's based on what they did in office. (If it was my politics, Obama would be number 1 on that first list.) I'll post a list of my top ten best US Presidents at a later date.

TOP TEN WORST US PRESIDENTS

1. FDR
Ok, this guy was the most scummy guy you can find. He flouted the Constitution and manipulated a good deal of the public into accepting his openly Socialist agenda. He didn't get us out of the Depression, his Federal intervention just made it worse. He also regulated the press and the radio to stop his opponents being able to make known any opposing opinions, so that history seems to tell us everyone liked him. He extended the scope of Presidential authority so far outside the Constitutional limits that he should have been impeached, except he had the full Democratic (IE, Progressive Democratic) party at his back and he wasn't afraid to use it as a club. He bullied the Supreme Court, even threatening a justice with arrest for "treason" because the justice didn't agree with his position. FDR was nothing short of an evil scumbag, and definitely deserves number 1 on this list.

2. Woodrow Wilson
Again, Wilson flouted the Constitution openly, with an "ends justify the means" mentality and the schizophrenic belief that "God has ordained me for this office. All that I do is the Lord's will." He censored the press, had people locked up for disagreeing with him, and flouted the will of the people. Under the Espionage and Sedition Act, and Act that makes the Patriot Act seem mild, he allowed Federal Investigators to raid, beat, and imprison anyone who was "treacherous" IE, who disagreed with him. Also, the way he intervened in Mexico made what Bush did in Iraq look absolutely brilliant and moral. Add into this the fact that, in a presidential speech, he endorsed the KKK, and you have it clinched.

3. Abraham Lincoln
Lincoln was one of America's first tyrants. As with the two I placed above him, Lincoln ignored the restrictions imposed on the Executive branch with the mentality that "The ends justify the means." While slavery was an issue that started the Civil War, Lincoln never freed the slaves in the North. Four northern slave states to whom the Emancipation Proclamation did not apply. Going against the will of the people (As the South was about 1/2 the population at the time) and the Supreme Court's verdicts, Lincoln forced the issue of slavery. I'm not defending Slavery, but nor will I defend Lincoln's atrocities in managing the war including; the institution of the draft, the suspension of Habeus Corpus, and the institution of Concentration Camps that resembled something out of Nazi Germany. He was a tyrant and a horrible president.

4. Theodore Roosevelt
Roosevelt was a nice guy as a person. Ok, yes, he was a little insane, but he wasn't a self obsessed maniac like his cousin. However, as a president, Teddy was atrocious. He was a war monger and an imperialist. The Panama Canal was paid for by us instigating a revolution against Colombia when they wouldn't sell us the land we wanted. Teddy also increased our imperialist regime in Haiti, Cuba, and the Phillipines to a level that resembled the British Empire.

5. Lyndon B. Johnson
Johnson was a castrated FDR. He wanted to implement socialist policies, he just didn't have the force of will to make people obey them. His "Great Society" utterly failed, and was nothing but more socialist policies paid in tax dollars and given to those who do didn't deserve them. It's not the taxpayer's job to pay for someone else's welfare. We're still paying for this schmuck's policies, and the backdoor deals he made, including the ones that kept us in Vietnam.

6. Ulysses S. Grant
Grant was, like Teddy Roosevelt, a decent man. Plagued by propaganda campaigns from the South (from which the idea that he was an alcoholic arose) he felt threatened from the very beginning of his presidency. Not made to be a politician, his foolish choices regarding his cabinet ended up screwing the South over big time in the Reconstruction. He was incredibly ineffectual, and so many atrocities happened both to the South and in the South, that I would consider him one of the worst US Presidents.

7. Jimmy Carter
If you want to talk about an ineffective President, look at Carter. Now, I could talk about what a major league pain in the ass he's been since his presidency, but seeing as technically he wasn't in office when he did that, I'll just review what the "baby-faced Baptist" did in office. For starters, he kissed the Palestinians' ass so much that he made the situation in Israel a powder keg. Carter just had no idea what to do regarding foreign policy, and it showed. He talked when he ought to have fought, and bowed when he ought to have resisted. His ass-kissing towards the Soviet Union was sickening, his domestic spending was atrocious. He was without a doubt the most ineffectual president we've had since US Grant.

8. Barack Obama
"It's too early?" Bull. His pushing for healthcare, the most blatantly unconstitutional bit of legislation since the New Deal, earns him a place on this list. He's doubled the government spending of Bush. Bush screwed up again and again in his presidency, there's no doubt, but at least Iraq was constitutionally acceptable by previous interpretation. After William McKinley's presidency, it became legal (although stupidly so) for the President as Commander in Chief to deploy troops, and Congress would have to approve within 60 days for it to be considered a war. Whatever your feelings on Iraq, it was handled Constitutionally (although not as constitutionally as I'd like.) Healthcare is SO anti-constitutional, blatantly anti-constitutional, that the Founders are probably spinning in their graves at such a velocity that we could use the motion as a source of power.

9. William McKinley
I don't think we've had a president, besides Jimmy Carter, who spewed out as much pseudo-Christian bollocks while justifying stupid actions while in office. McKinley's foreign policy was even worse than Carter, and he'd have Carter's place on the list if he hadn't been better at regulating domestic policy. The Spanish American war, and the subsequent occupations of Cuba and the Phillipines were McKinley's brilliant ideas. He felt that God wanted us (well, you, I'm half Jewish and thus subservient in the minds of such men) to extend a hand to the "racially inferior" and "disadvantaged" and show them the "light of Christianity" at rifle point. He bowed to the will of the people when they wanted the Spanish American war, had us interfere in foreign affairs that weren't ours, and basically made a complete ass of himself, earning him number 9 on this list.


10. Andrew Johnson
Lincoln at least was a powerful tyrant. Johnson was a putz. He was completely ineffectual, and simultaneously screwed over the Northern and the Southern states when Reconstruction began to be enacted. Adding into this his refusal to heed the will of Congress, and his shenanigans to get them to agree with him after they overrode his vetoes, has me place him as the 10th worse president.

A Blog to Follow

Here is a link to the blog I set up for Kylie's and my fanfiction project. I'm gonna take control of it because college and other things are taking a lot of her time, which is one reason I even agreed to do this. She wrote the first chapter, and we're working together on all subsequent ones. We'll probably do commentaries of some sort on the chapters as we go, I don't know how that will work out quite. So go check it out if you want.

Fan Fiction (the admission of shame)

Normally I hate fan fiction. I hate Star Wars fan fiction even worse. However, a friend on mine was working on a novel that she sent me and said she wanted my help on. When I found out it was Star Wars fan fiction, I was more than a little hesitant, especially when considering the writing style. However, her begging and pleading, and my needing a hobby atm to take my mind off of school and my non-relaxing extra curriculars lead me to decide to do it. So it is with great shame that I admit that I am....co-authoring a Star Wars fan fic.

In my defense, it's not a stupid slash fic or anything like that. My friend (who demanded that I not tell people her name so her girlfriend doesn't tease her) at least had some originality. She decided that it would be interesting to speculate as to what might have happened if, in Episode III, Palpatine had died. Due to my extensive knowledge of the expanded universe (I was quite the Star Wars dork when I was younger) she asked me to add the EU stuff in that she didn't know about and then complete the book. She was about 1/3 of the way through and wants to see it written but she hit a block in the writing process so now it's in my hands. I'm going to leave the material she's written basically untouched (though I might rewrite certain elements of it) and then I'm going to finish the book off. When it's down, we're going to post it on a blog of it's own, chapter by chapter, and see what people think.

*hangs head in shame*

Protestantism

Something that has irked me for years is the idea of the definition of Protestantism. Now, raised as I was (a Scots-Presbyterian home, attending a Lutheran church) I was exposed to both sides of Protestantism. When I moved to New Jersey, I found more of my friends coming from the Baptist sphere of Christianity. While I love them to death, and one of them is my best friend (she's a pentecostal, never let it be said I don't give :P) it always annoyed me when they demanded recognition as "Protestants." True enough, to the world at large, there are really only two types of Christians-Catholics and Non-Catholics. However, we, inside Christianity, define ourselves by denomination. I'm not someone who thinks that denominations necessarily detract from church Unity. After all, there is such thing as unity in the freedom of ideas. I think denominations are a very necessary evil in a world where there are hundreds of thousands of beliefs, and while denominations may cause problems, the problems that would arise without them are worse. Hence we have them for the sake of identification. Protestantism works the same way. To be a Protestant, one must be more than just not a Catholic. This is not for the sake of "Dividing Christianity," but rather for the sake of definition and identification. And as any debater or advocate will tell you; definitions matter.

So first up; what are Protestants? Simply put, Protestants are those who hold to the beliefs of the Protestant reformers. Seemingly easy enough. There is significant diversity within the reformers, from Zwingli, to Luther, to Calvin, all of whom held quite different beliefs yet all were reformers. Now, the reformers disagreed on many things; the real presence in communion, systems of church government, forms of worship, etc. But what they DID agree on were the five Solas; Sola Sciptora, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Solo Christo, and Soli Deo Gloria. Scripture alone, Faith alone, Grace alone, Through Christ alone, and all Glory to God alone. The other principle that all the reformers held in common was the idea of infant baptism. I'm not going to get into the defense of infant baptism, save to say that it has been the historic position of the church since the apostolic age. The reformers did not believe in Professor's Baptism (I refuse to call it Believer's Baptism, you have no idea if the recipient is REALLY saved or not) and out of this refusal to accept the idea of Professor's baptism came the Radical Reformation of the Anabaptists. I will not condemn the Anabaptists (though I admit, some of the "brutal torture'' that they received was deserved, see John of Leiden as an example of an 'anabaptist' who got what was coming to him) it cannot be denied that they were a quite different movement to the Reformation. Was there common ground between the two movements? Of course there was; both were Christian. However, they were separate and distinct movements, and remained so for hundreds of years.

Now, we arrive in the present day. Today, the Anabaptist movement is larger than that of the Protestant movement (of course, might does not make right, nor does size prove a movement's orthodoxy or non-orthodoxy) with the largest non-Catholic denomination being the Pentecostal (IE, radical Anabaptist) Assemblies of God. Protestants, on the other hand, are restricted to the Presbyterian, Episcopalian, and Lutheran denominations, all of which have only a few non-liberal denominations (and even then, the "non-liberals" such as the PCA are pretty darned liberal.) Both movements have significantly departed from many of the beliefs of their founeders. Luther and Knox would start cracking skulls if they saw the state of the modern Lutheran and Presbyterian churches today. I know that if Calvin saw the state of any church I've attended, he'd have a conniption. Similarly, most Anabaptist movements have moved on beyond the beliefs of the original radical reformers. However, the two main criteria for each movement still hold true. Now, there is overlap between each movement; I have met Calvinistic baptists (although a true Calvinist will hold to infant baptism) and I have met "Presbyterians" who would be more at home as baptists. The issue, however, is that of definition, and it is important to realize that Baptists are.not.protestants. They follow the teachings of a related, but still separate movement, and thus they fall under a different banner. This does not make them ANY less Christian, or somehow inferior to Protestants (the most evil man I've met is a conservative Presbyterian pastor), it is simply a matter of definition. Definition does not lead to division. Division is a separate force entirely. It doesn't matter if someone considers themself protestant or not. I may consider myself black, but trust me, I'm still white (actually, technically not, because I'm half-Jewish, but you get the point.)

As a matter of definition, then it is important that Christians realize their differences. Only through recognizing where we differ can we truly reach unity by finding common ground. Pretending we're all the same is not going to lead to unity. We must realize differences and work past them, and the way we do that is through definition. Also, we must all remember three very important things: The Church Invisible encompasses men and women of many different beliefs (within Christianity. Muslims and followers of Judaism still get to go to hell, despite what C.S. Lewis believed.) We must also remember that while the instruction in the Bible to seek unity applies to the WHOLE church, IE, the Church Invisible, unity doesn't mean just all shutting up and pretending we're the same. Finally, we should all rejoice because of one very important thing: We're not Catholic!! :P

Odd Music

People seem to be thinking that my musical tastes are completely restricted, especially to metal and punk. Now, because I don't let everyone see my iPod, and noone sees my iTunes, they don't really know what bullcrap that actually is. To the end of education, then, I hereby am posting twelve "odd" musical groups and artists that I listen to that I think everyone should check out. I'm going by alphabetical order, not by how I consider the artist in question.

1. The Adventures
Formed in 80s Ireland, Belfast, to be precise, they are early pop rock, with their lyrics generally focusing on love and romance and pain. That sounds emo, but it isn't. I think they effectively use mildly distorted guitar and blend it with acoustic, as well as a subtle but reasonably complex bassline.

click here for their song "Sea of Love"

2. Andy M. Stewart
Andy is of both Scottish and Irish ancestry, with a Scottish citizenship. Known for his previous work with the famous Scottish band Silly Wizard, on his own, Stewart worked less on popular ballads and more on writing his own music. His music often deals with themes regarding Scottish/Irish history, the struggles with the English, the in fighting, and the fleeing to America that is so prevalent in Scottish and Irish history, as well as composing many love ballads.

"Take Her in Your Arms"

3. Altan
Also an Irish band, they are an example of Irish folk that goes a little bit (being hyperbolic there. By a little bit, I mean a LOT) beyond the pub songs that everyone knows and loves. A good half of their music is in Gaelic and is left untranslated. You can read the lyrics, but if you can read Gaelic, more power to ya, I certainly can't. Even when singing in English, Mairead Ni Mhaonaigh's gentle yet thick Irish accent makes the English sound almost foreign.

Stor a Stor a Ghra

4. The Cult
Now we venture a little bit into the pop music sphere, but I still think a 17 year old who listens to the Cult counts as a little bit weird. The Cult are my alternative to Aerosmith, with me much preferring the sound of Ian Astbury to Steve Tyler (plus, Ian's antics on stage are more amusing to watch than Steve Tyler's horrifically large mouth terrorizing the camera. I also prefer the more aggressive sound of the Cult to Aerosmith.

Fire Woman

5. The Dead Milkmen
If you want just plain old friggin' hysterically bizarre, there is not a band out there that can beat the Dead Milkmen. Imagine Weird Al meets Frank Zappa, both on an acid trip and simultaneously getting drunk and you still haven't approached the level of bizarre that the Milkmen routinely enjoy. With classics like "Bitchin' Camaro," "Stuart (What the Queers are Doing to the Soil)" and "Cousin Earl," the Milkmen are less music and more comedic stream of consciousness musing.

Cousin Earl ( a must listen, if this is the only thing you listen to in this post, let it be this one)

6. Enya
I've admitted before that I listen to Enya, but I'll reconfirm it here. Talent goes far beyond genres, and it is often mis-attributed, such as to Nirvana. However, Enya's talent is vast, the woman has an absolutely amazing set of pipes on her, and for mellow music, I don't think you can get better than Enya.

Book of Days

7. Mike Oldfield
For someone like me, who generally LOATHES (I use the word because I can't think of a more emphatic one) progressive rock, liking Mike Oldfield isn't something I would like to admit. However, his Tubular Bells series (three albums) are absolutely amazing. Most people know the basic Tubular Bells motif as the themesong of The Exorcist, but there is so, so, so, so much more to the song than that little bit of it. The first album is over 45 minutes long, involving over 50 different instruments, and is one of the most complex non-vocal progressive pieces in history. It serves as evidence that "classical" music is not necessarily superior just because it is old.

Tubular Bells I track 1 part A

8. Socratic
I first started listening to Socratic when I accidentally met the lead singer/guitarist at a metal show and had no idea who they were or why they were there. I later learned that Socratic is a local (relatively) band from North Jersey, with a gentle piano rock/emo sound. Emo, by the way, was originally a musical genre and has nothing to do with fat whiney goth-wannabes. Mark Hoppus of Blink-182 produced their last album, and I heard more about them on his podcast, and I liked their song so much I downloaded it ASAP (Legally, mind you) and have been listening to Socratic ever since.

Boy in a Magazine

9. Thurston Moore
Formerly of Sonic Youth, I expected Thurston to have more of a punk sound about him, but when I listened to his album "Trees Outside the Academy" I was pleasantly surprised. While the lyrics are a little out there, the talent that is exhibited by Thurston more than makes up for my usual dislike of stream of consciousness. The gentle sound he exhibits also defied my expectations, but made it very endearing to me.

The Shape is in a Trance

10. The Ting Tings
This probably means I'm gay, but I like the Ting Tings a lot. I have no reasonable or rational explanation that anyone would want to hear, but I just like them. End of discussion. lol

"Shut up and let me go"

11. Voltaire
I.like.Goth. I do not mean I like slamming heavy metal (though sometimes I do) I mean I like real Goth music, Goth as a genre. The genre of Goth is generally a mixture of post-punk, New Wave, Pop-Rock, Electronica, and, surprisingly, Folk. Voltaire falls into the last category, sounding more like a mix of dark Cabaret and gypsy music. His lyrics are often wonderfully macabre, calling to mind Edgar Allen Poe, Flannery O'Connor, and similar writers. Always lighthearted, Voltaire's lyrics skirt the lines of society, sometimes crossing over, and are delightfully dark and bizarre.

"When You're Evil"

12. 1927
Aussie 80s Pop music ought to have its own musical category, imao. They got the good pop music where we were left with Madonna. 1927 deal with love, loss, pain...the usual. I just think they did it with more originality and talent than the Americans or British did.

"All The People"

Faded Glories-Inglorious Basterds

To start with, I generally hate Quentin Tarantino. While I applaud his skill as a filmmaker, and I enjoy a violent movie as much as the next bloke, I find his glorifying of the scum of society somewhat (and by somewhat, I mean very) annoying. I enjoyed Pulp Fiction as a movie, but disliked its themes. So when I heard that Tarantino was making a World War II movie, I was not a little apprehensive. When I heard it involved Hitler, my prophetic prediction was "He's gonna kill Hitler, isn't he?" Well, as I'm sure everyone knows now, he did. Inglorious Basterds stands as a well-done movie, and a great Tarantino film, but it still has some issues.

To start on a positive note, the caliber of the acting was superb. Even Brad Pitt (whose performances I have loathed for years) more than impresses with his drawling on about "Natsees." Christoph Walt's role as a Nazi Colonel is absolutely astonishing, as he plays an almost (and sometimes definitely) comically evil villain in such a fashion as to make the role bone-chilling. Not one role was badly cast, and each and every scene was brilliantly executed.

The story, alas, is less original. I have never thought Tarantino possessed much skill as a story teller, never have, never will. "Basterds" gives me absolutely no reason to change this belief. The plot can best be described as "Guns of Navarone" meets "Valkyrie"-infiltrate Germany, kill Hitler. Now, there are some interesting twists, such as Lt. Aldo Raine's (Brad Pitt) demand for the scalping of Nazis, or the Jewish girl escaping the Nazis and years later planning their downfall, but as a whole, I knew the whole time what was going to happen. I even guessed the famed "secret ending" before it was confirmed: I knew they'd kill Hitler. It was Tarantino, and that was the best "twist" he could pull. It was the only "original" part of the movie, and it was predictable.

Another downside of the movie was that it contained nothing thought-provoking. Valkyrie, the only Tom Cruise movie I like (Tropic Thunder is not a Tom Cruise movie) was thought provoking, as it showed a side of the Germans that many (including every single member of the Jewish side of my family save my Dad) deny could even be possible. Defiance (with Daniel Craig) was also thought provoking-what would you do in the Bielski's position? Downfall (A German movie on the last days in the Fuhrerbunker that I think is a must watch) was truly thought provoking as it showed the firsthand accounts of the true evil that was Hitler and his Reich, and how that evil lasted up to very end. Basterds has not a shred of a thought-provoking theme. This is the downfall of Tarantino-he doesn't like to make you think, he would sooner rely on violence. Which is fine, if you're in the mood for blood (And I ALWAYS love watching Nazis get killed. Bastards.) but not if you want anything more.

The final downfall I saw to the movie was it's lack of emotional attachment. In "Boondock Saints II" when the father dies, you feel something. In "The Punisher," you feel it when his family are murdered in front of him. I like movies where I connect with the characters, and I think it can be done in action flicks. Do I expect to be as emotionally moved by an action film as by a drama? No. Do I still expect some connection with the characters? Yes. I felt cheated, therefore, by Basterd's lack of any empathetic character. Aldo Raine is hysterical to watch (I was dying when I him speak Italian believing "Germans are bad with Italian accents) but difficult to empathize with. Yes, I absolutely love that he kills Nazis and scars the survivors, but there is a difference between approval and empathy. The one character that I feel the audience definitely should have empathized with was Shoshanna Dreyfuss. The character had every trait that could lead one to empathize with a character, but somehow, we don't. We sympathize, yes, and we want her to succeed, but when she is shot, neither I or any of my friends who watched it with me felt anything. It was just "She's dead. That blows." I WANTED to empathize with Shoshanna, but the character's emotional deadness just ended irritating the hell out of me. When Hannibal Lecter is more of an empathetic character than you, there is a problem.

All in all, the movie was a fun watch, and I'd definitely see it again. However, I would not classify it as anything but a fun movie, and think that Basterds must bow to Valkyrie, Downfall, and Defiance as the much better war movies, and Basterds must simply rest as an action movie.

*** out of ***** (With apologies to Chris Boyajian, I'm using your star thing now :P)

Top Ten Albums

Seeing as everyone else is doing these, why the heck not? They're just my opinions, btw, no need to whine about them if you don't like 'em

1. Dragontown-Alice Cooper











2. Social Distortion-Social Distortion











3. Fire in the Glen-Andy M. Stewart











4. Enema of the State-Blink-182












5. Man of Colours-Icehouse











6. Rocket to Russia-The Ramones













7. The Last Temptation-Alice Cooper











8. Sex, Love, and Rock n' Roll-Social Distortion










9. In My Tribe-10,000 Maniacs











10. Let it Enfold You-Senses Fail