People try to judge me when they're not in my shoes (Part 9)...

Got two reviews this time.  First, the movie: John Carter Of Mars.  I saw this last night with the ParisPekings.  And I mentioned it a lil bit in a post below.  But my review of it is....its okay.  It's a pleasant piece of entertaining fluff and little else.  It's not horrible by any stretch, but not great either.

The special effects are pretty damn good.  The way the aliens, I think called Tharks, are done is really incredible.  I didn't feel like I was looking at computer generations at all.  The airships were stylish, yet very steam-punkish, I like them. The action scenes kept me riveted.  The ending was a surprise to me as well.  And of course, you just can't go wrong with a movie that has as it's main character a hot guy with sexy pecs, nibblable nipples, washboard abs AND a pretty decent hairthing.  See below.

Even if the movie would have sucked, which it didn't, there was plenty to keep the eyes engaged: specail effects and eye candy.
**************************
Next I have a book I just finished: Almost President, The Men Who Lost The Race But Changed The Nation. 

As a presidential junkie, I was looking forward to reading this and finding out about some also rans that I knew little about.  And the early ones he covered, Henry Clay, William Jennings Bryan, Al Smith, I got what I expected.  But as I read on, the political bias of the author became apparent and lessened by enjoyment of it.  THe suthor has worked on politcal campaigns and adminstrations, notable some in Wyoming, and that's the reason for the Republican bias.  Like in the 1948 campaign, apparently Dewey was a step down from a saint but while Truman's upset win was thrilling "some of his methods were appalling".  Right.  Plus he said the 2008 campaign was "not particularly vitriolic".  HUH?  My dictionary defines vitriolic as "savagely caustic criticism".  What else WAS the 2008 campaign, with all the lies thrown about about Obama, if not vitriolic?

But Mr. Farris is clearly a bit delusional, shown especially clear when he writes the following: "Nixon's was the last liberal administration of the 20th century".  WTF???? No seriously, that sentence is in there, I am NOT making this up. Nixon was MANY things, but liberal is NOT among them.  Anyone who thinks that probably thinks that Santorum is too liberal and that Romney is a Communist.

The best part of the book was the appendix, where he included a short few paragraphs about all the other losing candidates he didn't have a big writeup on. These were much more concise, to the point, and non-partisan.  And truly, that's what he should have stuck to for them all.

If you can stomach the Republican propganda, distortions and outright lies in some of the latter chapters, go ahead and read it.  It's interesting in general, and the last parts are good for a few laughs, if nothing else.

POLT