Nik Gomez

Google’s counter to SiCKO

Google, in a suprizing and dissappointing PR move, has decided to come out against Michael Moore and offer to place HMO ads directly across from search results that include SiCKO. Why? Because Google believes that:

Moore attacks health insurers, health providers, and pharmaceutical companies by connecting them to isolated and emotional stories of the system at its worst.

Like many people, I have already seen Michael Moore’s SiCKO, the film about the sad state of the health care system in the United States. I saw the movie before it came out in theaters because Moore let it known that he wants people to torrent it, and that he didn’t mind at all that it was ripped to YouTube (although later taken off). But that’s beside the point.

I am fairly confused at Google’s reaction to the movie. Is this Google’s first overt move to reject it’s public user-base, turning instead to the big business ad customers? Of course, Google has more money to make by doing what it has done, but is it really worth it? SiCKO has received near universal praise for its criticisms, and I agree with the New York Times when they say that it is a “cinematic indictment of the American health care system.”

Apart from the purely capitalistic point of view (which is that Google is doing the right thing), today’s market relies on more than just your big money customer base. Companies must look out for the public, and I find this especially true for Google. While we, the average searchers, aren’t the ones directly paying Google, we are the ones looking at the ads. We don’t hold the large wallets, but in our massive numbers, we hold far more power than the businesses Google is trying to cater to.

This move by Google confuses me. I really hope that this does not become a trend in Google’s business tactics; it could lead to the gradual diminishment of one of the largest internet companies we know.

Update: Google has retracted the statements of their employee.

Why is Blockbuster’s influence so huge all of a sudden?

Last time I checked, everyone had crossed Blockbuster off of their list of companies that matter. I thought that it’s recent attempts to make a showing in the online movie rental sector was a joke. As of late, it seems that my assumptions were wrong because every tech blog has been pronouncing the victory of BluRay over HD-DVD as a result of Blockbuster’s recent announcement that it would be adoption BluRay over HD-DVD.

Don’t get me wrong, I was BluRay to win this standards war. I believe that Sony’s PS3, while the most expensive, is the best “next-gen” console. I believe that it is years ahead of the Wii and of the Xbox360. But that argument needs to be saved for another day. Apart from the console wars being waged right now, BluRay is just the better format.

Has everyone forgot about Netflix? The one company that has risen above just being a “geek’s only” secret you shared with only your best friends. It’s public and normal people use it without a problem. Just for a second, think about what would happen if Netflix adopted HD-DVD. Obviously, Blockbuster is the larger of the two companies, but it is also falling much faster than Netflix is rising. If there was a coalition of sorts made of up every movie rental company/organization against Blockbuster’s adoption of the format, it could mean the end of both BluRay and Blockbuster. Of course, this won’t happen, but the Netflix situation certainly could.

Just playing Devil’s Advocate here, but just think for a second about the contradiction of your past words and current assumptions. As usual, only time will tell…

Spiderman 3: A laughing matter

Talk about a letdown of massive proportions. Yesterday I went to go see Spiderman 3 with fairly high expectations. I figured that they were justified seeing as this currently rumored to be the highest costing movie ever (around $500 million). Boy was I wrong.

As the theater experience began, I had nothing to complain about; the previews were sweet! Pirate of the Caribbean 3, Shrek 3, and other great movies had me in a good mood. The beginning of the actual movie wasn’t bad either. A nice love scene and success for MJ opened very nicely. Then the depression hit. She was fired, Peter was being just stupid, and Harry was screwing everything up.

It was around this time that the writing (screenplay) went to hell. Parker got “emo”, and my friends and I couldn’t suppress our laughter at the absurdity of what we were seeing. Died black hair? Eyeliner? On the world’s best superhero? I don’t think so. Everything just seemed so very cliché; there was nothing new or unique to be seen. The whole idea of a villain coming back to life was overdone, and the “other worldly poison” moved too much like a high-tech Hexxus from Fern Gully (one of my favorite 90′s kids movies).

The abundance of Spiderman-swinging-around-the-city scenes were overbearing. The fight scenes, while sometimes cool, were either too short, long, or unrealistic. I understand that saying that a movie is “unrealistic” is fairly ridiculous to say, but to have someone’s face ground against the side of a moving train and be unscathed is even more ridiculous. While one might argue that Sony was trying to stay true to it’s key demographic (young boys), why the PG-13 rating?

While Spiderman 3 gave me a good laugh, lines like “wicked cool” made it impossible for me to take it seriously. My verdict? $500 million wasted.

The Knife + a Trannie: Pass This On

Usually I prefer to watch music videos before I read reviews for them, but that’s just what I prefer. It usually happens that the reason why I watch a video in the first place is because of a review I read. So if you want, go ahead and watch the video above before you read this… Oh, in case you care, what you are watching is Pass This On by The Knife released in 2006.

OK. That is one of my favorite music videos for many reasons. Reason #1: It’s dead simple. There is nothing here that isn’t essential to getting the video’s mood/feeling/perspective across; no wasted time.

Reason #2: It’s fun and awkward at the same time. With a transvestite trying to swoon the random audience the whole time, and with everyone ending up doing their own variation of a dance in the end, can it get much odder? (The answer is yes, just watch some of their other videos.) It’s odd because teenage boys are dancing, but it’s fun because they seem to be really into the music. It isn’t some contrived choreographed routine; it’s what they are feeling, their movements.

Reason #3: There’s a trannie. Come on, who doesn’t love a trannie? Especially when he/she is used in place of the original artist. Rickard Engfors, the transvestite in the video, does a great job of making you believe that he is really singing the song (just as he does in the live performance.) His extremely bony body sort of freaks me out, but that’s partially the point.

Reason #4: It stays true to its artists vision. The Knife, which is comprised of siblings Karin and Olof Dreijer, does not reveal the faces of its artists. They are always seen with strange masks on; currently they are on the crow’s beak idea. The fact that they are not in the video sticks with their hidden identity persona.

This video just makes me smile. Oh, and I haven’t really mentioned the song. I think it’s amazing as well. But then again, this is a review of the video, not the music. Take away what you will, just try to appreciate it at least. Be ready to hear more about The Knife in the coming weeks.

Being John Malkovich

the movie's poster

Anybody looking for a stoner movie even better than The Wall? Because if you are, Being John Malkovich will definitely sooth you for a while. The basic premise of the movie is that Craig Schwartz (John Cusack), a failing puppeteer, finds a door that allows its entrant access to the world as seen through John Malkovich’s own eyes.

Sounds pretty cool, huh? Let’s go farther. The door is located at Schwartz’ work behind a filing cabinet. The floor the offices are located on is #7 1/2; it has ceilings about 4 feet above the floor. Schwartz’ wife (Cameron Diaz) discovers her lesbian tendencies after her first “trip” into Malkovich and later uses the door to have sex with Schwartz’ love interest at work. Those are the basics without giving away anything important relevant to the ending.

Nearly everything about this movie makes you realize that your imagination isn’t as cool as you think it is. One very strong and interesting aspect of this movie is the lack of special effects. The view of people sliding into Malkovich’s mind is the only sequence I can think of. Another small weird observance of the movie is the number of cameos it has. Randomly, we see Brad Pitt, Andy Dick, Sean Penn, Winona Ryder, Charlie Sheen, and all three of the Hansen boys (yes, those Hansens). If only we could have seen Keanu Reaves, it would have been complete.

Time for my final opinion. I give it a B+. If I did drugs, I would definitely give it an A+, but alas, I do not smoke pot or do anything of the kind. This movie is by far the most original, creative piece of work I have seen in quite a while.