Douglas Ernst Blog

Hollywood on ‘Son of God’ and ‘The Passion of the Christ’: If it has Jesus, we’ll find an excuse to hate it

March 2, 2014September 2, 2015by Douglas Ernst19 Comments

‘Son of God’ came out in theaters this past weekend, and you’ll be shocked (not really) to find out that critics hated it while most audiences walked away happy. The movie raked in well over $26 million dollars, coming in second to Liam Neeson’s ‘Non-stop,’ where the bad guy is a veteran who loves the Constitution. I saw ‘Son of God’ this weekend and am baffled (not really) how it could have possibly scored a “26% rotten” on Rotten Tomatoes. While it’s obvious that the movie was made by believers for believers (and those who may want to dip their toes into the pool of Christianity), it’s certainly not a “bad” film.

Perhaps critics were simply harsh because they feel it belongs on television instead of the big screen. That seems plausible. Given that, I decided to revisit another movie about Jesus, Mel Gibson’s ‘The Passion of the Christ.’ It turns out the critics didn’t like that one too much either.

Here is what I found: Rotten Tomatoes doled out a 49% “rotten” score for ‘The Passion of the Christ,’ while audiences overwhelmingly liked what they saw. Maybe if it made an extra $100 million over its already-impressive global haul it would have matched Rotten Tomatoes’ score for Neeson’s evil constitution-loving veterans flick…

‘The Passion of the Christ’ was a “film” by a “filmmaker.” Whether you like Mel Gibson as a person or not, the guy has talent. Audiences recognized it as well, and rewarded ‘The Passion of the Christ’ to the tune of $370 million at the box office in 2004. If I take my “Catholic hat” off and look at both movies from the point of view of someone who doesn’t particularly care for Christians, ‘Son of God’ would get the 49% “rotten” score and ‘Passion of the Christ’ would get a 65% “fresh” rating — but I’d shake my fist at Mel as I did it. There is really no way to read some of the critic’s reviews without coming to the conclusion that they simply don’t want Jesus on the big screen.

Probably one of the best reviews I’ve seen on the movie comes from YouTube critic Jeremy Jahns:

I was really skeptical about this movie. Going into it I was like: “All right, it’s part of a mini-series. It’s going to feel like it’s made for TV.” And it does for the most part, but there there were a couple of things about this movie that I did like what they did with it. Going into this movie first and foremost I was hoping they would touch on the fact as to why people felt this Jesus had to die. Seriously, a lot of these Jesus movies gloss over that. They’re like “Hey it was Jesus and he died because he had to, it’s salvation and stuff. It’s magic.”

But I’m always left with that feeling, “No, like politically speaking why did they feel they had to kill this guy and why was it just such a big deal and what went into it? And this movie — actually to my surprise — touched on that very thing. …

This movie is one of two things: it’s either a really impressive made-for-TV movie or it’s a not-as-impressive theatrically released movie. … ‘Son of God’ engaged me where I wanted to be engaged. And it played the angle I was actually hoping it would play that I didn’t think it would play. It still feels like a made-for-TV movie for sure, especially in some scenes. However, I’ll still say ‘Son of God’ is a good time…”

There’s more to it, but you get the point. It’s a fair review. Head on over to Rotten Tomatoes if you want to see a slew of people who seemed to be looking for things to criticize from the first moment Diogo Morgado — who did a commendable job as Jesus — appeared on screen.

The other thing that ‘Son of God’ did a good job with was showing the relationship Jesus had with his disciples. Think about it: Peter, the “rock” of the Church, denied Christ three times. Matthew was a tax collector. Judas betrayed him for 30 pieces of silver. Jesus called imperfect people to Him. He took in misfits. He loved the unloved and forgave those who society said were unforgivable. While ‘Son of God’ does skip a lot of important parts of the Bible, those it did show were handled with care. It’s a solid movie to watch if there is someone in your life who has ever essentially asked, “What’s the big deal with this guy? Tell me about Him.”

With that said, for those who already believe in Christ I’d have to go with Gibson’s ‘The Passion of the Christ’ as a must-see Jesus film. If you watched ten movies with Jesus in them and someone asked “Which one was directed by a Catholic?” there would be no question (which to this Irish-Catholic is a good thing).

While ‘Son of God’ says, “Hey, there’s this guy and his name was Jesus and you should look into him,” Gibson’s ‘The Passion of the Christ’ says: “Listen buddy, this guy went through some serious s**t — grueling gut-wrenching pain that you can not even fathom as you curl into bed at night with your XBox in 2014 — so check it out and appreciate what this man did for you.”

When I read reviews by critics who obviously have a thing against religious people I can’t help but think of the Romans laughing, kicking, spitting and punching Christ as he carried his own cross to the place of his execution. Whether one believes Jesus was the Son of God or not, no serious person argues that He wasn’t a real man who was put to a gruesome death for what He preached. That is why guys like Jeremy Jahns ask: “Why was it just such a big deal [to kill Him] and what went into it?” Most people do not know the story aside from the watered-down version they might get as a kid, or (sadly) the jokes that are told about Christ on television sitcoms.

In short, if you’re curious about Christianity, then check out ‘Son of God.’ If you want to get a taste of the very real pain Jesus went through before his death, check out Mel Gibson’s ‘Passion of the Christ.’ In both cases, if you go into each movie with an open mind, then you’ll walk away and realize that the critics at Rotten Tomatoes hold openly Christian films to an unfair standard.

Thank God for George Washington, the ‘indispensable man,’ on Feb. 22

February 20, 2014February 20, 2014by Douglas Ernst11 Comments

George Washington was born on February 22, 1732, in Westmoreland County, Virginia. He was one of the greatest men to ever have walked the earth, which is why I suggest saying a prayer of thanks this Saturday.

During one battle of the Revolution, at Monmouth in New Jersey, the American troops were in confused flight and on the verge of destruction when General Washington appeared on the field. Soldiers stopped in their tacks and stared as the tall, blue-coated figure spurred his horse up and down the line, halting the retreat. The young Marquis de Lafayette remembered the sight for the rest of his life, how Washington rode “all along the lines amid the shouts of the soldiers, cheering them by his voice and example and restoring to our standard the fortunes of the fight. I thought then, as now, that never had I beheld so superb a man.”

The General turned his army around. The fighting raged until sundown, and that night the British took the chance to slip away. Washington’s very presence had stopped a rout and turned the tide of battle.

It was not the only time. Again and again, Americans turned to Washington. He was, as biographer James Flexner called him, the “indispensable man” of the American founding. Without George Washington, there may never have been a United States. (Bennett, William and Cribb, John. The American Patriot’s Almanac. p.59)

The more I’ve learned about Washington over the years, the more I have come to love him. It’s hard not wonder what it would be like to serve under his command. Whenever I read of the pivotal role Washington played in helping our nation to survive such a fragile moment in its history, I can’t help but think, “There is a man who I would follow into any battle. I would die for that man.”

Think of all the men in your life. How many of them would you follow into battle without question? How many would it be an honor to serve? You could probably count them on one hand.

One day the fate of the nation will hang in the balance, and we will only be able to pray that a man of Washington’s caliber is available to guide us through the ordeal. Until then, take a moment every so often to given thanks for the “indispensable man.”

Editor’s note to regular readers: As some of you may have noticed, I have written less blog posts on contemporary politics as of late. There are quite a few reasons for that, which I’m more than willing to elaborate on in the comments section. However, the long story short is that over the next few months I will probably lean more often on the readily-available wisdom of greater men than I to keep the blog fresh. I will still write on political stories that are front and center in the news cycle, but with less regularly. I’m still trying to find the proper balance, but I think that it this point in history it might be better to reacquaint as many people as possible with our founding fathers instead of the ramblings of modern career politicians.

Dan Slott thinks he’s ‘Slott Bakula’ in Quantum Leap as he defends Superior Spider-Man

February 19, 2014February 15, 2015by Douglas Ernst44 Comments

The history of Dan Slott trolling the Internet in search of wrongs to right is well known. He scours comic websites, Twitter feeds, Facebook groups and YouTube accounts looking to play “Slott Bakula” in his own version of Quantum Leap — even as he whines about tight deadlines. The funny thing is, when it comes to douglasernstblog.com, he has always chosen to try and slime me from a distance. Doing so allows him to sling all sorts of ad hominem attacks, knowing that the vast majority of the people will not fact check him. Oddly enough, he now talks about me on YouTube.

Dan Slott’s Twitter buddies wrote about me on Newsarama, and when I started to make him look bad I was suddenly banned. When users defended me, the entire thread was locked. (The url to “The Inferior Online Debate” is now dead.) Dan Slott also took to Twitter to insult me and sic his followers on me. He couldn’t resist talking about me over at Comic Vine, and the moderator had to chide him for his behavior. He couldn’t resist douglasernstblog.com talk over at Comic Book Resources and turned to the moderator to shut down the thread when he couldn’t goad me into saying something worthy of a ban. He even resorted to making weirdly-veiled legal threats over at Comic Vine at one point. To top it all off, there are the Orwellian Marvel boards at his disposal, which I also fell victim to over the years.

Here’s how I found out Dan Slott decided to take his attacks on me to yet another social media platform: a reader pinged me to let me know that in Dan Slott’s world, when you disagree with him it means that you must have fallen victim to the Douglas Ernst Jedi Mind Trick.

Note: A college student who disagrees with my politics and much of what I say just so happened to agree with a good portion my analysis regarding Superior Spider-Man. The comic is so bad that it transcends ideologies. Dan Slott’s reaction? The guy must be an idiot who can’t think for himself.

Even though this student disagrees with much of what is said on this blog, because he’s roughly on the same page as me regarding Superior Spider-Man, Dan Slott labels him a mindless automaton spewing “talking points.” Insulting. Dan Slott is all about winning over hearts and minds over at Marvel.

As usual, when I came in to defend myself Dan Slott starting hurling bizarre attacks in an attempt to derail the discussion or possibly predispose certain readers to outright dismiss anything I said. While most people want to talk about Superior Spider-Man on a YouTube video about Superior Spider-Man, Dan Slott wants you focused on Trayvon Martin, Global Warming and a post I did Doctor Octopus’ desire to “transcend” the evils perpetrated upon the world by Hitler, Pol Pot and Ghenghis Khan “combined” (not to be confused with Bleeding Cool’s article, which described Superior Spider-Man’s “Nazi-like” torture practices).

I deny Global Warming, according to Dan Slott. (I thought it was “Climate Change” these days, Dan. Which is it?) Here’s what I actually said on the matter, so the world can see how intellectually dishonest you are, Mr. Slott:

There is no doubt that the climate “changes.” The question is: How big of a role does man play? Is it big enough to warrant the redistribution of wealth — to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars — from the private sector to a bureaucratic Leviathan? Answer: No. Is shaving a few degrees off computer models that even the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change now admits are flawed worth the price in individual liberty? Of course not.

And then there was Trayvon Martin:

Here’s what I actually said, to show how intellectually dishonest Dan Slott is:

I don’t know if Zimmerman is “guilty.” Guilty of what? Murder 2?

An act is “imminently dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind” if it is an act or series of acts that: a person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another, and is done from ill will, hatred, spite, or an evil intent, and is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human life.

I would say there is plenty of reasonable doubt. You? You apparently think that Zimmerman hunted this guy down in cold blood in “Rambo” fashion and deserves to go to prison. You also seem to have an endless list of excuses for a high school kid punching a man in the face. I can honestly say that if I was walking through a neighborhood late at night and an adult asked me what the heck I was doing I would not punch him in the face.

And finally, my post: ‘Is Dan Slott’s ‘Superior Spider-Man’ really a Superior anti-Semite?’ Read it. Read the whole thing and make your own decision if Dan Slott is being intellectually honest. If you’re busy, here’s the takeaway line:

The guy who “just” came within inches of an extinction level event because he hated all of humanity is now housed in Peter Parker’s body. And fans “love” the story. It’s what brought them back to the book. Congrats Mr. Slott, those are the kinds of winners I want giving me high fives and pats on the back at comic conventions…

Poor Slott Bakula — he can never reunite with Al in the future because every time he tries to right wrongs…he’s the one who is wrong.

Abraham Lincoln on liberty: Are you the shepherd or the wolf?

February 18, 2014February 18, 2014by Douglas Ernst15 Comments

Abraham Lincoln was a smart guy. The problem smart guys have is that they say a lot of memorable things, but for whatever reason people latch on to their most famous lines while allowing the rest to fall by the wayside. With Lincoln, there’s The Gettysburg Address, his “House Divided” speech, The Emancipation Proclamation, and then his Inaugural addresses to pull from. While they are all important, I think his Lecture on Liberty at the Sanitary Fair in Baltimore should be added to the list of “do not forget” speeches.

Lincoln understood in 1864 what so many liberty-loving Americans do not: the definition of the word ‘liberty’ for many Americans is incompatible with the country’s founding.

The world has never had a good definition of the word liberty, and the American people, just now, are much in want of one. We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others the same word may mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name — liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names — liberty and tyranny.

The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep’s throat, for which the sheep thanks the shepherd as a liberator, while the wolf denounces him for the same act, as the destroyer of liberty, especially as the sheep was a black one. Plainly the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition of the word liberty; and precisely the same difference prevails today among us human creatures … all professing to love liberty.” — Abraham Lincoln, April 18, 1864. Lecture on Liberty at the Sanitary Fair in Baltimore.

Are you the shepherd or the wolf? There are hundreds of wolves populating the halls of Congress, and all of them are trying to convince you they are a shepherd.

Editor’s note for regular readers: This passage will also play a role in the book I am writing.

‘Justice League: War’: DC delivers action that may leave some viewers with battle fatigue

February 16, 2014February 16, 2014by Douglas Ernst8 Comments

Is it possible to have too many explosions in a superhero movie? DC’s latest, ‘Justice League: War’ is 79 minutes long, and almost the entire run time is filled with things going “boom.” In theory that sounds great, but there are only so many hordes of Parademons a guy can watch get sliced in half, bashed and vaporized before one asks: “Is this all there is to it?”

For those who are unfamiliar with the tale, Batman, Cyborg, Flash, Green Lantern, Shazam, Superman and Wonder Woman find themselves together for the very first time, fighting the forces of Darkseid in a battle that will determine the fate of the earth (of course). The movie was adapted from the 2011 reboot by writer Geoff Johns and artist Jim Lee (although the animated movie replaces Aquaman with Shazam).

In short, ‘Justice League: War’ is great if you like endless strings of carnage and destruction, but less so if you expect at least a few scenes with emotional depth. Only Cyborg gets dealt a decent hand in the characterization department, and even that is rushed though as quickly as possible to get back to the front lines. While the final battle with Darkseid is impressive, the ease with which Superman, Wonder Woman and the rest dispose of Darkseid’s minions becomes tiresome after 30 minutes.

Perhaps the worst aspect of ‘Justice League: War’ is writing that directly undercuts the heroes’ complains that they’re irrationally feared by the general population. For instance, Wonder Woman acts somewhat incredulous that a group of angry protesters outside the White House are wary of super-powered beings, and then later in the movie she forces a street vendor to feed her and a child ice cream, free of charge, at sword point.

Could it be, Wonder Woman (i.e., writers at DC), that people “fear” you because of your “might makes right” mentality? Just wondering. It’s hard to root for a hero when her idea of “justice” is whatever she decides from moment to moment.

‘Justice League: War’ also is diminished by gratuitous use of foul language. What could have easily been an animated movie for adults and kids to enjoy was squandered by the random interjection of “shit,” “ass,” “whore” and a joke about cross-dressing that seemed to serve no other purpose than to push the rating to PG-13. Does anyone ever watch a DC movie packed with action and say, “I would have given it an ‘A’ but Green Lantern didn’t swear enough for my taste,”? Of course not. Watch some old episodes of ‘Batman: The Animated Series’ to see how top notch DC entertainment is done.

Speaking of Batman, ‘War’ actually does get an ‘A’ for its treatment of him this time around. True, I was disappointed that Kevin Conroy wasn’t voicing the Dark Knight, but Jason O’Mara did a decent job. DC nailed Batman’s interactions with Green Lantern — they were quite humorous — and there is a scene between Batman and Superman that captures the dynamic between the two of them almost flawlessly.

How many mortal men can hold up their hand to Supes like a traffic cop and get him to come to comply? Not many, but Batman is one of them. DC deserves kudos for writing the scene so it all transpires believably.

While ‘Justice League: War’ does tend to drag on at times due to the never-ending stream of Darkseid’s minions populating the earth, the final battle is rather satisfying. It truly takes the team to take down Darkseid, and each hero has their moment to shine. Nobody’s power is underutilized and nobody is treated as if they don’t belong. While all of them essentially know deep down that Superman is in a “league” of his own, they also treat each other as equals on the battlefield. In fact, it is a collection of inferiority complexes — not pride — that often threatens to derail victory. It is only when the warriors begin to feel comfortable in their own skin — and trust the hero next to them — that victory is sealed.

Check out ‘Justice League: War’ if you get a chance, but don’t go in expecting some of the weightier issues tackled by, say, ‘Batman: Under the Red Hood.’ If you do that, you probably won’t go away disappointed.

Dan Slott: I treated Peter Parker like a ‘meat puppet,’ but ‘Learning to Crawl’ will respect his history

February 14, 2014February 14, 2014by Douglas Ernst67 Comments

Dan Slott has spoken to the Associated Press about the return of Peter Parker, and the news service has dutifully played its role as Marvel’s mouthpiece — the perfect interview for a guy who prefers Orwellian message boards for critics of his work. Strangely enough, the guy who gleefully treated Peter Parker like a “meat puppet” for over a year now wants to assure fans that as he messes with the character’s earliest history he will do so in a way that “lovingly respects” the canon.

The Associated Press reports:

Dan Slott, who has been writing Spider-Man for Marvel since 2008, said the new story not only pays homage to the first 1962 appearance of the Stan Lee and Steve Ditko-created character, but peels back more layers of what was going on in the first volume of the 700-issue “The Amazing Spider-Man,” which began in March 1963.

“When you’re looking at things in those issues, you’re going: ‘Wait a minute! How did this happen? How did he get this? Where did this come from? Why didn’t Aunt May ever wonder about that?'” he said.

The five-part story titled “Learning To Crawl” starts May 7 with “Amazing Spider-Man” 1.1 and concludes in September with issue 1.5. Slott is writing the interlude with art by Ramón Pérez. Artist Alex Ross has painted each of the story’s five covers. …

“You start looking at it closer and closer and you go, ‘There’s a story here that we’re not seeing,'” he said. “A very pivotal and crucial story that lovingly respects everything that went on but tells you more, so much more about Spider-Man and so much more about Peter Parker.”

Do you remember when Dan Slott’s Superior Spider-Frankenstein went exactly where critics said it would — “Nazi-like” torture, I believe Bleeding Cool called it? Do you remember when Dan Slott’s body-snatching rapist was confirmed in issue #22 of Superior Spider-Man, and the type of person who crawled out of the woodwork to defend it was of the “it’s not rape if the perpetrator doesn’t climax” persuasion?

“I’m wondering if all the Ock- is-a-rapist whiners ever even read the issue? It’s clear two pages later Otto is berating his minions for “interrupting him at the worst possible time” which implies the deed wasn’t completed.” — Rick

Marvel has itself a brand new fan base on its hands. I suppose these days they probably let guys get Spider-Man subscriptions behind prison bars, so what does it matter to them? (When sales are all you’re after, who cares if Mr. “the deed wasn’t completed” is touting the book.)

Over the past few years the “brain trust” at Marvel:

Destroyed Peter’s marriage.
Had the deal with the devil (for all intents and purposes) go down.
Had him treated like a meat puppet when a megalomaniac took over his body.
Lowered the IQ of the supporting cast by about 30 points in order to appease people who like their Spider-Man fresh off a quest to kill six billion people.

Now ask yourself: Do you really expect Dan Slott to “lovingly” respect Peter Parker’s past? If you need help answering, look to his Twitter feed:

“If you write serialized stories, it’s not your job to make the reader happy. Your job is to captivate & entertain them. You’re Scheherazade” — Dan Slott

Let’s run with that, shall we? If Dan Slott believes his job is not to “make people happy,” wouldn’t it stand to reason that his job is also not to make people angry? If so, why were his stories pitched as creative endeavors that would “get you angrier than you were after Spidey #700!”? He’s just fine with making long-time readers angry if it will fuel sales, but making them “happy”? What kind of fool does that?

Dan Slott and Marvel decided they would fuel sales by tapping into fan anger, which is rather sad.

In truth, Dan Slott has nothing in common with a character from ‘Arabian Nights.’ He’s much closer to Celia Gimenez:

Dan Slott’s work on Spider-Man is reminiscent of the woman who tried to restore a 19th-century fresco of Jesus and turned it into an abomination. The finished product isn’t popular because it is beautiful, but because it is so incredibly weird and bizarre.

Impressed? Dan Slott’s fresco will also include a new villain:

“He’s got his first villain who is his own age, someone that he’s inspired. … He’s a troubled teen hero fighting a troubled teen villain!” Slott said.

Let’s hope that Marvel can do better than “Freak” this time.

Dan Slott has shown that he only respects the history of Peter Parker that he likes, and furthermore his”loving” affection is for his interpretation of that history. Unfortunately, that interpretation is steeped in moral relativism.

If you are a betting man, I would not put money on “Learning To Crawl” to remotely come close to returning Peter Parker’s respectability.

At 70, bodybuilder Sam ‘Sonny’ Bryant, Jr. stays young with the right mindset

February 13, 2014February 14, 2014by Douglas Ernst2 Comments

Sam “Sonny” Bryant Jr. is 70 years old and he looks better than men half his age. That’s because he realizes the importance the mind plays in every aspect of life. Whether you succeed or fail, age gracefully or become “old” at 50, how you think about the things you think about plays a crucial role. It sounds like common sense, but most people never realize the sheer power their thoughts possess. Our thoughts, very much like wind or rain or the natural elements acting on a rock face, can bend reality with applied pressure and time.

Here is what Mr. Bryant Jr. told the Augusta Chronicle:

People ask me when I’m going to retire. I say “never.” I say “most people die retired than they do on the job working.” I love to work. I love to work out. …

I’m 70 years old if that means anything. I’ve been doing this for 27 years. I started out when I was 44. I was in a bad marriage. And so to relieve stress I went to the gym. …

I didn’t know anything about working out, nothing about lifting weights — nothing. But I went there and stayed and stayed. Eleven months later a guy told me “Sonny, you ought to go to a contest and complete.” I said “you think so?” He said, “Yeah. You look like you’re ready.” So I went to Columbus, Ga. It was my first contest. … I won third in the novice and forth in the masters, and I was just like a crack addict. I was hooked. I had two trophies — never won anything before — and I couldn’t wait to get back to the gym and start body building. I was just working out before. …

People have the misconception that age makes you old, but I realized that it’s a state of mind that makes you old. Age is just a number. In a year most people — the majority of people — give a reason not to do anything, you know? I hear a lot of people telling me to wait until I get their age, and then I tell them how old I am and then it’s kind of embarrassing. I tell them to make a point — that the inactivity and the thought process is what makes them old. … Your subconscious mind reads your conscious mind. If you start thinking you’re old, subconsciously your conscious mind is going to grab hold of that. Then you’re body is going feel that it’s old. Then you’re going to start acting old, feeling old — and you’re old. …

Honestly, I never feel like I aged since I started body building at 44. I don’t feel no different. I just want people to recognize me for what I am and what I’m doing and realize that it can be done. They could do it. I just want to be some kind of model for them, for people to see … I’ve seen a lot of young guys “older” than me because their lifestyle — that’s what they chose to do. Go home, sit around watching TV all weekend…sit around doing nothing. I can’t do that. I can not sit in the house that long.

Sam Bryant Jr. demonstrates quite nicely that “a rolling stone gathers no moss,” but it’s his understanding of how our thoughts can directly impact our reality that is truly impressive. The saying goes that whether you think you can or you can’t, you’re right. It’s true.

Mr. Bryant’s philosophy has implications that extend far beyond the world of weightlifting. He essentially says that we make a conscious decision about how we view age, and then the reality in our mind manifests itself into the physical world. Another wise man touched on this debate, and his name was Ben Franklin. You may have heard of him.

“There are two sorts of people in the world, who with equal degrees of health and wealth and the other comforts of life, become the one happy, the other unhappy. Those who are to be happy fix their attention on the pleasant parts of the conversation, and enjoy all with cheerfulness. Those who are to be unhappy think and speak only of the contraries. Hence they are continually discontented themselves, and by their remarks sour the pleasures of society, offend personally many people, and make themselves disagreeable. If these people will not change this bad habit, and condescend to be pleased with what is pleasing, it is good for others to avoid an acquaintance with them, which is always disagreeable, and sometimes very inconvenient, particularly when one finds one’s self entangled in their quarrels.” — Benjamin Franklin

Every day you can consciously decide to look at the bright side of things, or to focus on faults. Every day gives you the opportunity to choose to be a positive or negative person. Every day you can either be the light or the darkness in the world around you. What do you choose? I choose to cast my lot with Sam “Sonny” Bryant Jr.

Elliott Hulse’s great advice for older men in the weight room: Stop trying to slay dragons that don’t exist

January 28, 2014January 28, 2014by Douglas Ernst23 Comments

I was talking to an old friend the other day and she asked if I was still doing “crazy weightlifting challenges.” The answer: No. Not really. The conversation got me thinking of just how much my mentality has changed over the years in regards to exercise, the goals I set for myself and how I treat my body. As I close in on 35, my approach to the weight room is not what it once was. For older men who plan on staying active I highly suggest checking out Elliott from the YouTube Strength Camp videos. He puts it perfectly: Stop trying to slay dragons that no longer exist.

From Elliott’s “The Truth about Muscle Building for Older Guys”:

When you’re young and you’re in full warrior mode and you’ve got that sword in your hand and you’re slaying dragons — as you should be — look, if you haven’t slayed your dragons at this point, you’re 40 years old and you haven’t slain the right dragons yet, you’re going to live your life in a constant state of sympathetic overload, stressed out trying to slay dragons that don’t exist.

The only dragons left are the dragons inside us at that point. … What are you going to do? What do you have to prove anymore? There comes a point where if you haven’t proved yourself to yourself — because that’s all that really matters — (young guys, write that one down) the only one you have to prove yourself to is yourself. But I get it. You have to prove yourself to daddy and the world. Okay. I did it. I understand. But you need to get to a point where you’re done proving yourself.

You [need to get to a point where you] can just relax and breath. Just take your time. Enjoy life. You’ve got to become a lot more Yin in your behaviors and attitudes. That place of low stress, high integrity about of the choices you make about your nutrition and the rest that you give your body will … preserve the foundation of vitality that was there when you were young … that allows you to do that you to do a select amount of physical activity that you deem important to you and your self development.

Don’t do things you feel you “have to” do. You don’t have to gain 50 pounds of muscle when you’re 40. Again, you have nothing to prove. And if you still have something to prove at that point then you’ve got deeper issues than building muscle. Engage in things that you enjoy that will support your health.

Boom. Amazing advice. And it doesn’t just apply to the weight room. Living and working in the nation’s capital, I can’t tell you how many people I’ve met over the years who are searching for dragons that no longer exist. They drive themselves crazy trying to prove themselves to their mom, their dad, their brothers and sisters, fellow industry professionals and God knows who else when the only one you ever need to prove yourself to is you.

Elliott continues:

“What kind of story are you telling yourself? [T]he most resourceful stories that I tell myself and that I see in the older men that I train tell themselves is: ‘I’m not necessarily getting older and that means I lack vitality. What’s happening is that I’m becoming more sensitive and my body requires requires that much more attention to detail.’ This is what begins happening: When you’re young you can beat the fuck out of yourself. You can eat whatever you want to eat. You can be nasty. You can stay up all night … [When you’re older] you have to make better choices. You can’t eat double-cheeseburgers dipped in gravy after you’re hungover and play football the next day. …

… Structural integrity means more to me than squatting 1,000 pounds. … Structural integrity should be a word that you brand into your brain. … Consider what that means. Consider what it means when [I say] ‘instantaneous access of rotation of all joints.” That basically means that you’ve got balance throughout all of your joints, namely those around your hips and shoulders. You’ve got to stretch.

Forced to pick between brute strength and flexibility, I’d pick flexibility every time.

Look at your friends and family and loved ones who allow themselves to go into a state of disrepair well before it has to be that way. When you lose the ability to squat down and pick up those keys that fell off the dresser … when your can no longer reach that high shelf to grab a good book … when you can no longer bend and twist with those sheers to trim the bushes on a perfect summer afternoon, you lose independence. As humans, we are addicted to freedom and when we lose it — when we really begin to lose it — our spirit starts to yearn for greener pastures.

I wasn’t sure what to make of Elliott when I first ran across his videos, but over time he’s grown on me. He’s got a wealth of information at his disposal and he dispenses it to anyone who wants to listen — for free. He’s always positive and he gives it to his audience straight. If you want to build a better you, Elliott’s videos are worth your time.

‘Lone Survivor’: A part of Marcus Luttrell died so that we can see how to live

January 12, 2014January 12, 2014by Douglas Ernst28 Comments

“Winning here is a conscious decision. Make up your mind whether you want to pass — or choose to fail.” … “Just prove to your bodies through your mind that you can push yourself further than you thought possible.” … “Whatever you have to do — just find an excuse to win. Keep going.”

And so begins ‘Lone Survivor,’ the true story of former Navy SEAL Marcus Luttrell’s fight to survive in the mountains of Afghanistan with his band of brothers of Seal Team 10. Director Peter Berg wisely uses real footage of potential SEALs undergoing Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL training (BUD/S) during the opening credits to set the stage. These are men who believe winning — on the battlefield, in the business world or life in general — is a conscious decision. Men who willingly submit themselves to instructors of the “I’m going to introduce you to something called ‘not being able to breath,'” variety are, quite obviously, of a different breed. They are special on many levels. From a cinematic point of view, it also lets the audience know that death is about the only thing that can prevent a SEAL from his quest to “keep going.”

By this time in history, most people know the general details of Operation Redwing. In 2005, Luttrell and his team were sent to the Afghanistan-Pakistan border to take out a high-value target who was responsible for killing scores of Marines. Their mission was compromised, and they were put in an impossible situation: Do you kill a small group of people who you believe are likely allied with the enemy — even though they are unarmed and could end up being innocent civilians — or do you let them go, knowing that if you are wrong it will unleash endless waves of Taliban soldiers on your position? The SEALs chose to let their captives go. The rest is history.

Given that so many people know how the story ends, it really comes down to whether or not Peter Berg, Mark Wahlberg and the cast and crew did it justice. Without reservation, the answer is “yes.” Peter Berg seemingly moved mountains in Hollywood to get the film made, Wahlbeg and the cast immersed themselves in their roles, and the realism of the violence is both gut-wrenching and satisfying — “satisfying” in the sense that viewers know it could have been given the “Hollywood” treatment, replete with unbelievable explosions that break the laws of physics.

Perhaps Berg’s greatest feat is his treatment of the mountain. As a “character,” the mountain is paradoxically vast and expansive while being claustrophobic and limiting. When you run out of real estate on a mountain from which to fight there’s only one way to go — down. And that’s exactly what happens. Fate dealt the SEALs the worst hand possible on that mission; even the mountain terrain seemed to be against them. It was chilling to watch it mete out punishment on their bodies as they attempted to find cover and concealment.

“There’s a storm inside of us. I’ve heard many team guys speak of this. A burning. A river. A drive. An unrelenting driver to push yourself further than anyone could ever think possible. Pushing ourselves into those cold dark corners where the bad things live. Where the bad things fight. We wanted that fight at the highest volume. A loud fight. The loudest, coldest, darkest, most unpleasant of the unpleasant fights.” — Mark Wahlberg as former Navy SEAL Marcus Luttrell, ‘Lone Survivor.’

Critics of the film will respond to the SEAL desire for a fight with the “live by the sword, die by the sword” rejoinder, which is a fair argument. However, fans of the film are also spot-on by acknowledging a.) that evil exists, and b.) there is something truly special about a man who will go to the “coldest, darkest, most unpleasant” corners of the earth to stamp it out. In service to their nation these men say “Send me. Send me to the dangerous places that no one else wants to go to so that I may ensure that they never need to.” For that, we should be eternally grateful. For the cast and crew’s efforts to bring ‘Lone Survivor’ to the big screen, we should also give thanks.

“Brave men fought and died building a proud tradition and fear of reputation that I am bound to uphold. I died up on that mountain. There is no question that a part of me will forever be upon that mountain dead as my brothers died. There is a part of me that lived because of my brothers. Because of them I am still alive, and I can never forget that no matter how much it hurts, how dark it gets or how far you fall — you are never out of the fight.” — Mark Wahlberg as former Navy SEAL Marcus Luttrell, ‘Lone Survivor.’

Why did Marcus Luttrell live while his brothers died? Perhaps so he could tell the tale. Perhaps so one day someone in a life-or-death situation will think back upon Marcus’ survival and remember that they too are “never out of the fight.” How many young kids will see ‘Lone Survivor’ and begin a path that will end with them in position to save others? Probably quite a few.

If you get a chance to see ‘Lone Survivor,’ do so. It’s an important film that is educational as well as entertaining.

Kevin Smith: I’ll make ‘Christzilla’ — but my courage ends at Muhammad vs. Mothra

December 31, 2013December 22, 2018by Douglas Ernst18 Comments

Remember when Kevin Smith’s Westboro Baptist Church-inspired horror flick ‘Red State’ barely cracked $1 million dollars? Since portraying roughly half the nation as potential religious whack jobs worked out so well for him, he’s decided to up the ante by pitting humanity and Satan against a giant raging “Christzilla” figure. As usual, the “daring” filmmaker failed to disclose any plans to ridicule Islam.

From The Hollywood Reporter:

Smith shared details about that project and updates on other movies in the works, and also revealed how he’s going to approach his film career going forward, in an extensive Facebook post on Monday.

The filmmaker wrote that he’ll soon start writing a movie about mankind teaming up with Hell to fight a rapturing giant Jesus.

Here’s what Smith said on his Facebook page:

“[R]ight now, the aim is to shoot CLERKS III this May — so this HELENA HANDBAG picture would still be a ways off anyway. But why sit around commenting on other people’s lives and art on the internet when I can try to make some NEW art instead? As for the title: If you heard the podcast, you know Scott suggested CHRISTZILLA in place of HOLY CHRIST! – the title of the fake movie in the original podcast. I asked the audience to offer up their suggestions at #BeatChristzilla and they were all really fun! But I’m going with the title HELENA HANDBAG – which comes directly from the plot of the flick (it’s kind of a nod to David Lynch’s unproduced ONE SALIVA BUBBLE screenplay, too — which was also about the end of the world and also carried a title that didn’t really prepare you for what the movie was about). So I’m off to write HELENA HANDBAG.

“Clerks III” followed by another attempt to get under the skin of religious folks? Perhaps in a few years “Clerks IV: Dante’s Inferno” can fuse Kevin Smith’s two primary go-to career options. Jay and Silent Bob can travel to the depths of Hell to save Brian O’Halloran.

For younger moviegoers, it is hard to explain how time has exposed Smith’s incredibly limited range as a writer and director. 1994’s “Clerks” was a truly inspired effort, and “Chasing Amy” solidified his reputation at the time as a witty guy with his finger firmly planted on the pulse of American pop-culture. People started copying his style, and instead of searching out new intellectual landscapes to explore he stayed in the same arena of thought with the usual creative teams. With each iteration, the “Kevin Smith” brand became more stale. Smith, however, doesn’t quite see it that way:

JERSEY GIRL, ZACK & MIRI, COP OUT – while I love them all, these are movies anybody could make. Like ’em or hate ’em, nobody else but me could’ve (or would’ve) ever made CLERKS. Or CHASING AMY. Or DOGMA. Or RED STATE. Or CLERKS II. Or MALLRATS. Or JAY & SILENT BOB STRIKE BACK.

Mall Rats — a funny movie about slackers. No one but Smith would have done that? The 90s would disagree.
Chasing Amy — a sharply written romantic comedy involving Lesbians? No one but Smith would make that? The growing Netflix section on gay and lesbian movies says otherwise.
Dogma — a critique on the Catholic Church. No one but Smith would make that? Okay.
Red State — a horror flick that blasts fundamentalist Christians. No one but Smith would make that? Gotcha.

Does Kevin Smith use the caps lock button to convince himself that his assertions are true, or does he think that talking loudly convinces the rest of us of the veracity of his claims? Will the sequel to “Helena Handbag” be called “Islamabad Burka”? Don’t count on it.

If Kevin Smith wants a movie that no one else would make, perhaps he could write a film that pits Giant Muhammed against Mothra. Giant Muhammed could also have a harem of topless women the size of The Sacred Mosque Al-Masjid Al-Haram. But Smith won’t go there because it’s easier to needle Christians with “Christzilla” than it is to make a film that lands on the radar of the world’s nuttiest Islamic clerics. Just ask Mark Basseley Youssef (formerly Nakoula Basseley Nakoula), the director of “Innocence of Muslims.” He’s the guy the Obama administration couldn’t act fast enough to pull out of his home for a perp walk. Crime? Daring to criticize Islam.

Kevin Smith is an intelligent guy with some good instincts. He was way ahead of the game when it came to podcasting and the format plays to his strengths. However, his role as screenwriter and filmmaker has suffered from years of staying inside his comfort zone. Worse, he still thinks that making jokes at the expense of devout followers of Jesus is edgy. It’s not. It’s just sad and, on some level, cowardly considering many of the real threats to the creative freedoms he enjoys as a citizen of the United States.

Kevin Smith doesn't want to end up like Mark Basseley Youssef (Nakoula Basseley Nakoula), the director of "Innocence of Muslims," so he sticks to mocking Christians. — Kevin Smith doesn’t want to end up like Mark Basseley Youssef (Nakoula Basseley Nakoula), the director of “Innocence of Muslims,” so he sticks to mocking Christians.