I am just me

So. I start every post I write with "I . . . " followed by some action verb. Rob has indicated that this at times grates on his nerves, and asks me why I do it. Now I think this question answers itself, but I wanted to give a public defense of my habit because it says something about me and about how I blog. Here goes. 

Josh Gibbs' The Cedar Room influenced how I think about blogging more than I can really say (thus Rob's jab about copycat-etry). It was the first real blog I ever read, and I read it for nearly three years. It was cool, smart, well-written, and only rarely got above itself. Yet Josh always started his posts with the phrase "We are." At least, after he was married. Before that it was "I am." In a post I've long since lost track of, Josh talked about why he did this, and said that it reminded him of what he was supposed to be doing while typing away on the internets. 

I think this is very wise, and so I copied him. See, when I say "I ..." what I'm trying to do is make the reader realize that this is not some sort of encyclopedia, some vault of knowledge, some authority sitting in cyberspace. It's not even as trustworthy as Wikipedia isn't. It's just me, a very, very white freshman in college sitting in a two-bedroom apartment typing away just for the heck of it. My words are more often than not rash, foolish, and startlingly ill-informed. They're just that: my words.

Why is it "I" and not "We?" Well, like I said, when Josh used it it was because he got hitched, so I just avoided it cause that's not me. A friend of ours  already introduces us as "Rob and his partner Kaleb," so I get skittish around these sorts of things. And besides, if I make some absurd claim that Rob doesn't agree with, you can't expect him to go to the stake defending it. I've probably said or will say at some point that I believe that the death penalty should be used in America pretty much exactly like the Old Testament says it should be in Israel (yes, rebellious kids, witches, adulterers, and homosexuals all come under that). Rob doesn't agree with this, so I'd title the post "I call for blood" or something, because it's not "We call for blood." It's just little old me. But if this habit is indeed bugging everyone, I'll shut-up already and move on. What thinkest thee? 

I name the Top 10 Weapons in Movies

Alright, time for another top something list of somethings. This round, it's the top 10 list of weapons in film. That's right, the 10 most famous and infamous instruments of destruction in cinema. Now, this list is open to critique and change, even addition should the need be there, because I don't pretend to have extensive movie experience. Just enough to make me dangerous - or at least annoying. Anyhow, here goes. 

Top 10 Most Famous Weapons in Cinema

10. John McClane's Beretta 9mil + 7 Inches Duct Tape

Bruce Willis' performance in Die Hard revolutionized the action movie genre. That last scene -every guy wants that. Save your girl with a pistol that's duct-taped to your back? That's the definition of manliness.  

 

9. The Italian Stallion's Fists

Rocky wasn't just a great boxing movie. It is the boxing movie. Rocky took over boxing films like Kleenax took over tissues. It defined an era and started a genre.

 

8. Bond's Walther PPK

This weapon had to make the list. James' favorite field piece, outdated and painful to use though it is, is an indispensable part of the 007 persona. Besides, this weapon has saved the world so many times it's ridiculous. 

7. Rambo's M60

The quintessential man's philosophy: little bit good, lotta bit better. Especially when it comes to guns. If a sword is decent, a pistol good, and an assault rifle better, let's give a ticked off Nam veteran the biggest machine gun we can find, and have him dismantle a town with it. Sheer genius. 

6. King Arthur's Sword Excalibur 

I know what you're thinking - surely, Clive Owen fan though he may be, Trotter hasn't just put that two-bit tripe-fest King Arthur in a top ten list of anything?! Sigh with relief, as this is the sword from Monty Python's Search for the Holy Grail. Come now, any sword that bestows supreme executive power when thrown by some watery tart, as well as being able to take off arms of black knights at the lightest touch, well, that's my kind of sword. 

5. Robin Hood's Bow (as carried by Errol Flynn)

Robin Hood is arguably the ultimate folk hero. Flynn's portrayal is timeless, and set the standard for future adaptations of the tale, as well as for future heros in film. Although the arrows never seemed to draw blood, they were still enough to woo Marian. 

4.  Indiana Jones' Whip

Utterly original, completely unexpected, absolutely brilliant. Indiana Jones was the first real hero to use a whip since Zorro. How successful was it? Suffice it to say that nobody thinks Zorro when they see a whip anymore. They think fedora. 

3. Harry Callahan's .44 Magnum

Whether or not the magnum is the most powerful handgun in the world, or can blow a man's head off, or is even a decent gun, it doesn't really matter. Clint's immortal words cemented forever the place of the .44 in the annals of film. 

2. Any Gun Held by John Wayne

I'm thinking specifically of the Winchester rifles of True Grit, but anything the Duke uses will do. Wayne, like him or not, was the cinematic icon, the Elvis of film. Any weapon he held was made awesome by his touch. Especially those swinging rifles -- reins in his teeth, galloping at the villains, the Duke was the man. 

1. Luke Skywalker's Lightsaber

This is like putting the Beetles at the top of any music list - you just know it's gotta be there. The lightsaber made everything old new again, and proved the timeless elegance and beauty of the swordfight. The grace and visceral energy of Skywalker as he deflects imperial lasers and fights Darth Vader has captivated generation after generation. 

That Hideous "X"

In my attic in Florida across from the air-hockey/ping-pong table, in front of the TV, to the side of my dad’s music studio, lies a box so hideous that it is only referred to as “X” (along with some random numbers used primarily by snowboarders.) Under those dull attic lights, along with other initiates I have sacrificed many of my precious neurons, to the great god of entertainment.

Now look, I don’t really think there’s anything sinister about playing video games. On the other hand, I don’t think there’s anything beneficial either. An occasional Halo party can be fun; but I disagree with Mr. Truax’s overblown claim that it sponsors lasting friendships. It is quite easy to point at two good friends who get together to play video games, and claim that the video games are responsible for their friendship. In fact, it’s so easy that it’s referred to (for convenience’s sake) as the “ad hoc” fallacy.

I agree with those in the reformed community who claim that video games can be addictive (generally, anything that offers instant gratification has this potential). It appears that Mr. Truax was on a hot-streak of fallacious reasoning when he dismissed this claim because our reformed community likes its alcohol and tobacco. This is called the fallacy of origin, little boys and girls, criticizing a position because of where it originated. The reformed community rightly treats alcohol and tobacco as substances to be used in moderation. We should do the same with video games.

I am probably being immature, but . . .

The stock market makes me laugh. 

The Dow Jones over the last few days:

Friday: -200 pts. 

Monday: +400 pts. 

Tuesday: -275 pts.

So far today (by 11:30 AM EST): -297 pts. 

Can anybody give me a reason not to laugh at this? I'm kind of looking for one because nobody seems to be laughing. But honestly. 

I open the dam on Top 10 lists

Last night our good friend Jeremy Soder purchased a 1950's era portable turntable record player with built in sound system from the Salvation Army. It's amazing. We immediately went to Bookpeoples in downtown Moscow and purchased the following LPs: "Flight of the Valkyrie," "Beethoven's 9th," some 80s pop music which is really cool, "Eagles: Their Greatest Hits 1971-1975," and "Saturday Night Fever - The Soundtrack." Yes, we listened to Stayin Alive on vinyl. It was amazing, and we discoed in their apartment. I also found a copy of the original Orson Welles broadcast of War of the Worlds on two LPs. For 8 of the hardest earned. It was phenomenal. Anyhow, here's my top 10 list of records that will sound better on vinyl than on CD. I'll be following this up with a post on why I think vinyl is coming back because of the sterility of digital music, but that'll be later. After my rhetoric final. So, here goes.

Top 10: Albums That Will Sound Better On Vinyl Than On CD

10. The Way It Is, Bruce Hornsby and the Range

Why:
The classic, mellow sound of this album has always moved me to tears, and the turntable sound accentuates the soulful. Hornsby's piano is among the greatest in modern rock (Elton John and Stevie Wonder being obvious contenders) and the echoes of records will complement his sound.

Key Tracks: On The Western Skyline - "I'm staring into the twilight" enough said. Every Little Kiss - The chips of vinyl on top of those haunting melodies? Perfect.

9. Come On Feel The Illinoise!, Sufjan Stevens

Why:
Sufjan's so ridiculously indie that the grit of the turntable can't help but add character to an album already exploding with it.

Key Track: Casimir Pulaski Day - Turntable grit/static combined with "And He takes and He takes and He takes . . . "



8. In Rainbows, Radiohead

Why:
When I first downloaded this album, I had it in 192 kbps MP3, which if you know, is not great quality. Then I burned it onto an old blank CD I had lying around, and the next morning at 5 am I played it on an old walkman which then went through a banged up FM transmitter to an already static-filled frequency. The result - magic.

Key Track: Reckoner

7. Narrow Stairs, Death Cab for Cutie

Why: This album is definitely not my favorite Death Cab. Plans took them a long way from the genius of their indie selves, but this is a step in the right direction. You can tell because it will sound better on vinyl. Plans is to poppy, too crisp to work on record, but songs like Bigsby Canyon Bridge and I Will Possess Your Heart beg for the care of the needle.

Key Tracks: No Sunlight, Grapevine Fires

6. Give Up, The Postal Service

Why:
Despite the inclusion of yet another Gibbard project on the list, there's a reason he releases on Barsuk LPs. The echoes and subtle beats of such classics as Nothing Better, Clark Gable, and District Sleeps Alone Tonight promise great things on the turntable.

Key Track: We Will Become Silhouettes - the echoes and chips of a record on this already haunting track? This track was created for vinyl.

5. Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots, The Flaming Lips

Why:
My main reason for the presence of this album, which I've listened to very little of, is also the key track. Do You Realize?? is an amazing song for its life, exuberance, and existential contrast. Throw it on the table and let the magic happen.

Key Track: Do You Realize??



4. Speak for Yourself, Imogen Heap

Why:
I mainly want to hear the purist sounds of Imogen Heap, so painstakingly produced with various random "instruments;" beer bottles, cardboard tubes, etc., put through a record player. Just to see what the chimes of Say Goodnight and Go sound like after the vinyl rebirth.

Key Track: Just For Now - in case that song didn't have enough awesomeness going on already, let's add yet another dimension to the sound.

3. Viva La Vida, Coldplay

Why:
Surely the most existential album of Coldplay's history, Viva La Vida was, the dust jacket tells us, recorded in such places as a church, a bakery, and a monastery. The beat of Lost, and the soaring life that is the guitar solo in the second half of Yes, these are things that need a needle to give them life.

Key Tracks: Strawberry Swing - the beginning of this song already sounds like it's coming out of an old jukebox, so let's go all the way and see what happens! Death and All His Friends - "No I don't want a battle from beginning to end. . . " to the fade back into Life in Technicolor's theme, this will blow our minds. I can't wait.

2. Takk, Sigur Ros

Why:
An Icelandic guy singing to us in a language which sounds like that of the angels while someone behind him plays an electric guitar with a cello bow. Throw in soaring, heart-rending melodies, drops in tempo that explode again in renewed life, and you've found yourself one heck of an artist. Welcome to the wonderful world of Sigur Ros.

Key Track: Hoppipolla - When I think about the glorious shift in this song near the middle into that exuberant crash, I think of the resurrection of Christ. Listening to it on vinyl would be the difference between listening to your 3rd grade sunday school teacher tell you the story and reading the Scripture. We may never feel the same about Sigur Ros on digital again.

1. Transatlanticism, Death Cab for Cutie

Why:
This is probably my favorite album of all time, so it's a shoe-in for number one on any list. But I fought this urge until, 10 seconds later, I realized how perfect it is. Transatlanticism is an album about distance. It's the story of two lovers seperated by the Atlantic and the effect this has on their love. From the first time you hear the clacking of rails in New Year to the final note of Lack of Color, Transatlanticism is a triumphant, Kierkegaardian treatise on distance in a relationship. Vinyl has the unique quality of adding a different level of distance. Digital music puts the sound right on us, in our ears, rather than removing it to the appropriate place. This record will be amazing.

Key Tracks: We Looked Like Giants, New Year - "God bless the day light, the sugary smell of springtime" and "explosions off in the distance, in the distance" under the needle. Sublime.

A whole new meaning to "deadly"

By popular demand (sort of, not really), I am now going to write a post dealing with the issues raised by the movie "Seven". This is not a movie I would recommend to the weak of heart, and this is not a post I'd recommend to anyone avoiding spoilers. In other words, don't watch the movie if you don't like gory stuff, and don't read this post if you would be mad if I gave away the ending. This being said, let's just dive right into it shall we?

Actually, there's too much plot for me to adaquately explain it all. Therefore, you can disregard what I said earlier because I'm just going to assume that you've already watched the thing. What's that you say? Why not go back and delete what I wrote earlier? That's a stupid question. I'm not even going to answer that.

I thought the movie was well thought out, excellently shot, and masterfully acted. The contrast between the characters of Somerset and Mills is perfect. We know astonishingly little about their biography so we learn about them through their reactions to the events of the movie. Somerset (Morgan Freeman) is a calm character, an experienced detective who wishes to retire because he no longer wishes to view the filth of humanity under a microscope. Mills (Brad Pitt) is a young and cocky detective who is very quick to annoyance and anger. The story moves quickly through the murders and the movie leaves very little time for character development. I think this is, however, a device that is intentionally employed by Fincher and Walker. They force their audience to make the same kind of assumptions about the detectives that "John Doe" (the murderer) makes about his victims. Our knowledge of the characters is shallow in almost the same way as our knowledge of the victims and their sins. I think it's partly a critique of the narrow mindedness of people who appoint themselves as judges of other people's sins. Perhaps, the director is trying to make the point that judgment is not that simple.

The director leaves the audience in an awkward position when he ends the story with Mills killing John Doe, as Doe himself urged him to do. "Become Wrath." And Mills did exactly what Doe told him to do, he became sinfully wrathful and killed Doe himself, rather than let him be justly punished for his wrongs. So, the audience must fill in the aftermath themselves, and give a verdict upon the outcome of the movie.

Were the "ritual killings" just, based upon the victim's deadly sins? Was John Doe justly punished for his crimes and sin of "Envy"?

My answers would be no, and no. John Doe went wrong when he thought that he could act as God, it was not his job to punish the wicked. And I don't think that's what the Roman Catholic church means by "Deadly Sins."

I am Rob's questions of "what did I just watch"?

I watched a very interesting movie the other day. I needed to unwind after a day of studying so Kaleb and I rented and watched "Fight Club." This is, by far, the strangest movie I've ever seen and my thoughts on it are not solidified yet. As a result, I'm going to treat you to my thoughts on the matter and I simply ask you to bear with me.

I am going to summarize the movie's themes a little for those of you who haven't yet had the pleasure of subjecting yourselves to "Fight Club."

The movie seems to be about the shaky personal identity of modern consumers. The modern media and the ethics of consumerism have trivialized life to such a degree that no one truly knows who they are anymore. A name is not good enough, a name is simply an identifier; it's not an identity. My parents could have named me something different and it is conceivable that I would still be the same person overall. Even if I can trace my family name to two or three hundred years back, I have not truly learned anything about me. There most be something else, something more basic that defines me as a person.

It seems to me that people tend to define themselves by their religion. If someone asked me "What are you?" I could answer in a number of ways but I would probably answer with "I am a Christian. I am a child of God, born in sin but redeemed by God's grace - the blood of Christ." My identity as a Christian is the most meaningful and the most identifiable thing that I can point to illustrate to others what I am.

Consumerism is essentially a religion in disguise. For quite some time people have been inadvertently turning Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness into a very redundant list. This is, perhaps, a strange way of saying that people are slowly equating these three terms. And sadly, many people equate "the pursuit of happiness" with "getting as much stuff as we can." Therefore, these people believe that life (and the job of the government) is about being free to acquire as many possessions as possible.

Since, consumerism is a sort of religion it follows that people would tend to define themselves using its terms. However, consumerism only manifests itself in people's material possessions. So, in the same way that I identify myself as a Christian many people inadvertently identify themselves with their possessions. But because this identity is hard to illustrate to others they simply decorate their lives with a myriad of possessions and people will slowly start to figure out what kind of people they are. So the movie asks: "What if you lose everything?"

Spoiler warning: I might not be able to resist telling you the ending

The movie is a psychological drama. The film makers invite the audience to enter into the mind of a man who goes for days without sleeping. He is a recall coordinator who has to travel all over the country doing inspections. He describes himself as being a compulsive buyer of household items. He tries to solve his problems of identity with the kinds of things he uses to decorate his house. After trying to solve his problem of identity with his possessions he tries going to numerous support groups to get a high off of sympathy and crying. This fails when he realizes that there is a woman attending all of his support groups that obviously does not have the diseases the support groups are for. He ends up going four days again without sleep and this is when some part of him rebels. He begins to develop an alter-ego named "Tyler Durden" who personifies rebellion against established consumerism, radical existentialism, and charisma. Since we are seeing everthing through his eyes, the film makers very successfully make the audience think that Tyler Durden is a real person. Tyler Durden blows up our hero's condo and forces him to redefine his life. He has imaginary fights with this person (while really simply beating himself up) and sets up clubs all around the country called "Fight Club." This is where all the men who are sick and tired of their normal consumerish lives go to beat themselves up. Eventually, these clubs form into a terrorist organization called "project mayhem." Project Mayhem's main goal is to destroy everything that makes a modern consumer's life possible. Although, our hero remains involved with "Fight Club" project mayhem evolves without the knowledge of the first personality (the one who imagines Tyler Durden) and thus his alter-ego does things which he cannot control. He rigs up all the buildings of credit-card companies with demolition explosives and manages to get all civilians out of the buildings through the extensive "Project Mayhem" network.

As the story progresses, our hero becomes more and more like Tyler Durden (as personified by Brad Pitt). Even though the two characters stay separate (in a mix between Multiple-personality Disorder and schizophrenia) he begins to act more like his alter-ego, the man he wants to be. When he no longer needs his alter-ego, he shoots his alter-ego through the head (don't ask me how this works) and becomes an authentic human being, defined only through his actions - the marks he made on the world.


That's just what I think about it. This by no means exhausts the subject. I could be completely wrong and I'd be interested to hear your thoughts about it (especially the part where he shoots himself in the head and he manages to survive, but Tyler Durden disappears; that was weird).

I almost screamed "What just happened?!"

So on the fourth, being the extremely patriotic family that we are, the Trotter family spent the day organizing, scrubbing, eating, reading, and painting that closet in my room a very un-American earthy brown. The most patriotic thing we did, other than light a grand total of 6 sparklers and say the first 10 or so words of the Constitution, was to watch the Boston Pops on TV for a grand total of 3 minutes.

All of this aside, we watched Mr Magorium's Wonder Emporium. I saw the disc and said to myself, "Oh. Crap." And then it began.

The first two acts of this movie blew my freaking socks off. Dustin Hoffman, people, deserved an Oscar for that role. I don't care who they gave it to . . . dangit, they did give it to Daniel Day-Lewis. And he did deserve it. But they should have given two! Anyhow, he was incredible, the cinematography was brilliant, the storyline was imaginative, fun, and absolutely childish. I've never seen such a frank, beautiful, endearing portrait of magic in film. The score left a little something to be desired, but I'm no stickler on such matters. Point being, the story was set. Even Natalie Portman gave the best performance of her life, even though that says nothing. She actually did better than in The Professional.

Then the third act came. The final chapter in the story. And the whole thing goes to pot. In one single line, the whole movie comes crashing down from profound Chestertonian, Christ-centered truth to soul-crushing new age zen-ism. "You are the block of wood!" made me think that the original director must have been fired on the last day of filming and they stuck Timur Bekmambetov behind the camera and told him to film without letting him look at the rest of the movie. That's how bad it was. I almost cried.

As a unit, Emporium is nothing. A trivial, man-centered, zen-riddled waste of time. As the first two acts with the third forgotten, it is amazing. Hoffman embodies the words of Lewis: "When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness." From calling his accountant "mutant" to having his friend smuggle a tuba into his hospital room, Hoffman shines. That scene where he weaves in and out of the barrels. Brilliant.

Overall rating: 8.0 out of 10
Watch for: Nothing. Cleanest movie I've seen in several long whiles.

I was like, freakin' blown away, what do you think?

Last night Justin, Pounder and myself watched Napoleon Dynamite. It was the first time Pounder or me had seen it, and I was rather unsure of what to expect. I wanted to like it, I expected I would like it, but there's always this reserve I feel about any film, particularly a comedy, which is either praised to heaven or given the bird.

I freaking loved this movie. The entire thing was wonderful. Jon Heder was brilliant. He deserved an award for that role. Jamie Foxx got the Oscar for Ray that year, and that is an injustice. If I were president of the AFI for a day, I'd knock Jamie Foxx's double-exed self so hard when he came to he would be blind, and then I'd grab that Oscar and hand it to Jon Heder and he will say, "Dude, did you get this from Jamie Foxx?" to which I will respond, "Heck yes I did!"

The wonderful thing about Napoleon Dynamite was that it scrupulously avoided having a point at all. A few times Uncle Rico borders on hitting profundity, and once even Pedro endangers the delicate balance of this piece. He asks Napoleon why the school won't let him hang a pinata of the resident cheerleader/social queen Summer for his supporters to beat on. You feel like the next words out of his mouth are about to be, "because they all beat on me, why can't I beat back?" and then the whole thing would have a point. Which would be a disaster. People criticize this movie for having no plot. Justin says that the more he watches it, the more of a plot he sees. I'm not buying. I think the movie can't have a plot and do what it does. It captures an average high school in Swillwater, USA. The life of a teenager isn't always fraught with complications that are bigger than how to get a girl to look at you. I watch movies about high school and you wonder if any of these people on screen have ever been there. I felt like these directors had. They know the whole thing made absolutely no sense. And so Napoleon Dynamite, like a Chaim Potok novel, really has no beginning and no end. There's a progression in the life of the people you meet, but you never really accomplish anything in the movie. It's the journey there that is so gosh-darned funny.

Overall: 9.2 out of 10
Watch for: Sparse foul language, rude humor, a fair bit of suggestive dialogue - including conversations about bust expansion on women, complete with visual demonstration, and Uncle Rico's advances on both his clients and Napoleon's love interest.

I was entertained after I realized that it was, in fact, crystal.

So this afternoon the fam and I went to see Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. I walked in expecting, nay, desiring to hate this movie. It had all the characteristics of a movie I should hate: it was a long-awaited and totally unnecessary sequel, it was a 4th, it had Shia LaBeouf, it was totally unrealistic, it involved swordfights on moving vehicles, and it was about aliens although it claimed they weren't aliens. All in all, it should have been utterly insufferable and I should have given it Josh Gibbs' ultimate insult (that is, walking out 10 minutes before the end). But it wasn't. I was entertained. No, more, I enjoyed it. Harrison Ford is convincing as an old man. I don't think any actor of this day other than Sean Connery can so effortlessly pull this off. We all know Bruce Willis can't, Samuel L. Jackson can't, and I can't stand to watch Pierce Brosnan try. For the first time, I didn't just respect Indy, I loved that dude. When Shia's character said, "You're a teacher!?" I was like, "Dude, I was thinking the exact same thing!" But I had to get past the nuclear blast survival, the constantly missing KGB machine gun fire, the fact that aliens landed with the Incas and yet they were beaten by a few freaking Spaniards, etc. When they first see the crystal skull (which turns out to be the actual skull of an actual alien or, as one of Indy's colleagues says, 'a trans-dimensional being'), we are told by the man himself that it is quartz crystal, cut across the grain, which is apparently impossible by human methods. It would have been all to easy for me to hear, "it looks like crystal but it . . . just isn't." But it was crystal. Once you realized that these beings who were all-powerful, all-knowing, and were stinkin architectural geniuses using stone age tools, had bones made out of quartz, just like what's under our feet, you had the movie in your grasp. And after that, army ants devouring a guy in 3 seconds flat is icing on the cake. And did I mention Cate Blanchett has a black bob haircut? Anytime I can see Elizabeth I dressed up like some twisted sort of archetypal Gestapo torturess, complete with knee-high leather boots, it's worth 6 of the coldest.

Overall rating: 7.5 out of 10
Watch for: A scattered bad word or two, lots of bloodless violence (typical Indy style: fists and . . . well, fists), and the realization on a younger person's face that Indy had a child before he was married.

I was ticked.

So Monday night I stayed up till 2:30 watching The Fifth Element. It's not that I just can't figure this movie out. It's that neither I nor Bruce Willis can figure it out, either. You can just see him getting more and more fed up throughout the movie. By the second to last scene, he's just disgusted. This from the guy who made Die Hard IV. His look said: "I didn't read the script, I just looked at all the zeros."
Seriously, though, that movie cannot figure out whether it's an action or a spoof. It would be a great spoof, but it takes itself way to seriously at all the wrong times. And it could be a decent sci-fi action movie (although there's too much Bladerunner in there), but the cinematography alone makes you laugh, much less the dialogue. MJov does do an excellent acting job (somehow), and everything else, all the casting, the costumes, the cinematography, even the plot, are geared for spoof. And then it was like the director changed his mind about 30 minutes into filming.
I turned off the TV and wondered that timeless question: "where can I go to get the last two hours of my life back?"