What I wanted to call this post was "Attack of the Clones." If you've seen the movie, then you know why. But let's face it, putting that in the title would have given too much away. Moon raises a lot of interesting questions to think about. The biggest one of course is, "What does it mean to be human?" After coming to terms with the fact that the two Sams are indeed clones (at first, I thought they were hallucinations), we are left to contemplate the idea of which Sam is real? Gerty says it best when he says that both of these Sams are the real Sam Bell. But are they though? The first Sam we meet (here on out called "Sam A") is a patient and laid back individual. However the new Sam ("Sam B") is a rash and proactive person.

At this point it is clear to see that we are examining the fine points of character growth. Sam A is forced to see the person that he was in the incarnation of Sam B. But the question this raises is if every iteration of Sam has seen the same growth over the course of their three individual year stints? For instance, Sam B is unlike any Sam that has come before him in that he was able to escape from the moon. It's true the circumstances Sam B faced were unlike any of the previous Sams, but he was still able to do something different.

What I'm proposing is a mixture of alternate universe theory and cloning. What I mean is that this is how Sam would have turned out in these different scenarios. Given the extreme different situations between Sam A and Sam B, we see two completely different Sams. The only thing that separates them is time and circumstances. But are both these Sams the real Sam? Absolutely. They've just been dealt a different set of cards. Moon is a collision of what happens if two alternate universes were to collide. What's makes the situation even more complex is that Sam A influences Sam B. But Sam B would not be the person he has become without the impact that Sam A had, which is unique to the circumstances Sam A faced. Damn. Confused yet?

While there are many major ideas to discuss, I think Moon is trying to get at the heart of what it mean to be alive. No matter where we came from, we are always a product of the circumstances that life presents to us. We don't have control over these circumstances, but it is the way that we react that shapes the people we become. In life, it doesn't matter what decision you make. What matters is being able to discern how life would be different if you had made other choices and learn from these non-existent parallel universes. How will you let your Sam A influence you?

This is what I got out of Moon. I know there are others that have seen other things from this movie. Feel free to leave your ideas on what you think about Moon below.

Oh, and I think it goes without saying. 5 out of 5.

The variables and constants defined, then explanation.

• d = Probability of the chance of destruction via solar flares
• l = The latitude of your location
• g = The longitude of your location
• c = Current temperature in Celsius
• r = Tone's random/constant: A random number between 1-10
• s = The speed of light: 299,792,458 m/s

By calculating this formula, you will arrive at a probability of how likely it is that you will be destroyed by solar flares, otherwise known as d.

First, we take the absolute value of the latitude (l) plus the longitude (g) of your current location. The reason for this is because one's location has a direction impact on your position to the sun, thus increasing your chances of being engulfed in a solar flare. Obviously.

Then you multiply this value by the current temperature of where you are. It is very important that you use the current temperature, otherwise you will not get accurate results. Simple logic follows that the hotter it is, the more likely that the sun will kill you.

The next step is to multiply by r, Tone's random constant. Because a lot of catastrophic projections involve wild speculation, it is only appropriate to include your own wild speculation. Thus, feel free to choose any number between 1 and 10. It makes for the best science. Look it up.

Finally you take this value and divide it by s, the speed of light. This is because the chance of destruction is directly impacted by how quickly the solar flares will advance towards the earth. You can't argue with science. I encourage you to try this equation to see your chance of imminent destruction by solar flares.

For example. the absolute value of my latitude and longitude is 67.767. I then multiply that by 8.889 (for the temperature) and then multiply that by 7 (a good lucky number). This results in 4,216.667. Divide this by the speed of light, and you get .000014. This means that I have a .0014% chance of dying from a solar flare at this moment. 

You're welcome. Use this information wisely. Tell your mom you love her.

Because of the new video format, Top 3 Video will take the place of Wednesday posts starting next week. There's only so much one man can do! Thanks for taking the time to watch, your comments are always appreciated.

Top 3 Video: March 9th

My predictions are in italics and actual winners are in bold.

Best Supporting Actor:

• Matt Damon in "Invictus" 
• Woody Harrelson in "The Messenger" 
• Christopher Plummer in "The Last Station"
• Stanley Tucci in "The Lovely Bones" 
• Christoph Waltz in "Inglourious Basterds" 

Best Supporting Actress:

• Penélope Cruz in "Nine"
• Vera Farmiga in "Up in the Air"
• Maggie Gyllenhaal in "Crazy Heart"
• Anna Kendrick in "Up in the Air" 
• Mo'Nique in "Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire"

Best Adapted Screenplay: 

• "District 9"
• "An Education"
• "In the Loop"
• "Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire"
• "Up in the Air"

Best Original Screenplay: 

• "The Hurt Locker"
• "Inglourious Basterds"
• "The Messenger"
• "A Serious Man"
• "Up"

Best Animated Film:

• "Coraline"
• "Fantastic Mr. Fox"
• "The Princess and the Frog"
• "The Secret of Kells"
• "Up"

Best Actor:

• Jeff Bridges in "Crazy Heart"
• George Clooney in "Up in the Air"
• Coin Firth in "A Single Man"
• Morgan Freeman in "Invictus"
• Jeremy Renner in "The Hurt Locker"

Best Actress:

• Sandra Bullock in "The Blind Side"
• Helen Mirren in "The Last Station"
• Carey Mulligan in "An Education"
• Gabourey Sidibe in "Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire"
• Meryl Streep in "Julie & Julia"

Best Director:

• James Cameron- "Avatar"
• Kathryn Bigelow- "The Hurt Locker"
• Quentin Tarantino- "Inglourious Basterds"
• Lee Daniels- "Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire"
• Jason Reitman- "Up in the Air"

Best Picture:

• "Avatar"
• "The Blind Side"
• "District 9"
• "An Education"
• "The Hurt Locker"
• "Inglourious Basterds"
• "Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire"
• "A Serious Man"
• "Up"
• "Up in the Air"  

Let's start with the positives. This is a very pretty movie. The fights are all well choreographed, the shots stunning, and art direction wonderful. Yeah... that's about it. Okay, I should probably stick up for Jude Law and Robert Downey Jr. because they do a fantastic job with what they've got to work with. As much as I make fun, the best part of the movie is watching the growing relationship between Holmes and Watson.

Okay... now for the bad part. Let's start with Rachel McAdams. For some reason she sticks out of this movie like a sore thumb. None of her performances are that convincing and she drags down every scene, especially when the scene contains Watson and Holmes. It's like Law and Downey are giving it their all and McAdams is barely trying. You can tell that these are actors on different levels.

The biggest problem with this movie is that it seems to be confused about what it is. It wants to have a unique and quirky style, but in trying to achieve that effect it mixes a bunch of things together. You walk away from the film going, "meh," not being impressed with what you saw but at the same time not hating it either. So what are you "Sherlock Holmes?" Funny, quippy mystery? Stylized artistic drama? Anything with definition? That's the issue. If I had to describe the style of this film to someone, I wouldn't really know how. Sometimes it's groundbreaking, in this case, it's not a good thing.

Another problem is with the script and the dialogue. The way that it is written it seems like every line is supposed to zip by (think "Better Off Ted" or "Pushing Daisies"). Unfortunately, it doesn't quite reach the speed that it needs to to be funny or quick. Instead it just feels rushed. Every line sounds like it was written with the intent to sound smart or funny instead of being actual dialogue. Mix that with the fact that almost every other line is Holmes explaining one thing or another and it gets tiresome very quickly.

Like I said, this isn't a bad movie. It's unfortunate that there are so many things holding it back from being truly great. When it boils down to it, I have a hard time recommending it. Maybe watch it on a rainy day? 3 out of 5.

I can think of two major examples that made me think of this, one serious and one not so serious. I recently watched Food, Inc. which is a great documentary that discusses the problems with the modern food industry. As they talked more and more about the way that the government and corporations have control over the way we work with and produce food, I couldn't help but think how oppressive and tight that grip of control actually is. I mean seriously, these guys are producing food that can harm American people while being fully aware of it so that they can make a quick buck. I was moved after watching that movie, but what can one person do against billion dollar corporations? The documentary even depicts farmers who are trying to fight against "the man," and end up getting beaten down. It's a major problem that needs fixing, but what can I do besides tell other people?

The second issue that makes me think of this is all of the copyright issues happening with the Olympics. If you've been following any coverage of how locked down Olympics coverage is, then you know it is absolutely ludicrous. For a quick primer, I suggest reading this post by Molly Wood of CNET. But in essence, the IOC is threatening legal action against people who use their copyrighted names during the Olympics. This includes the names of any Olympic athlete competing in the games. How nuts is that? It's completely crazy, but what can we do about it? There's nothing that one person can do in the fight for rights against the IOC. It feels like the only thing I can do is rant and rave about it to people who will listen.

And maybe that's the very action that we are expected to take. One person alone can't take down giant monolithic organizations. But one person can let other people know about the ridiculous things happening across the world everyday. And perhaps when enough people care, it will hit a critical mass that can cause true and lasting change.

If you've been listening to Top 3cast, we've been talking about the power of Twitter to spread the word about social movements and causes. While it may seem like one person can't do a whole lot, they can do their part to spread the news to others so that as a group, we can do something about it. Change is in the power of the mob, we've just got to learn how to mobilize.

1. Either stuff like this has been happening all the time, but we are just starting to hear about it.
2. More and more crazy shit is going down.

I'm more inclined to think that we are facing option 1. I mean, let's face it. There are terrible things that are happening all across the world everyday, yet the only reason I'm hearing about it now is because of Twitter and CNN breaking news. Or maybe the only reason that we are hearing about it now is because there are more people being affected by these disasters and thus, more people are talking about it.

Who knows. The moral of the story is that mother nature is going to destroy you. I heard the best way to fight against it is to spray a whole can of hairspray in your front yard. Al Gore tells me it works wonders.

So is "Shutter Island" the latest movie to be added to his collection of greats or does it fall completely flat? It all has to do with the payoff. Listening to people walk out of the theatre, it sounded like people either loved it or hated it. Honestly, I think the reason for this disparity has to do with the payoff. If it worked for you, then you loved it and if you didn't, then you hated it.

It's hard to review a movie like this without talking about the twist that basically defines the movie. But I will give it a shot before wading into spoiler territory. "Shutter Island" is a psychological drama about a man investigating the disappearance of a missing inmate on Shutter Island, an insane asylum. The film has a very dark feel to it from the beginning to end but is not as terrifying as many of the trailers make it seem to be.

I don't want to keep talking about plot twists and payoffs, but this is what makes this movie what it is. It's a risky thing to make your whole movie dependent on one moment. Think of the gamble! If it works, it's be best movie of all time and if it doesn't, it just ends up sucking. You've got to carefully craft that moment, to build up to it in an appropriate way that doesn't make your audience feel like they just wasted their time up until that point. I regret to say that I think that the payoff doesn't work in the end. It's not that it doesn't make sense, but I don't know if it justifies the first 2/3rds of the movie. But you should really see it for yourself to make your own opinion. You might love it. I know plenty of people that did. For that reason, I'm giving it a 3 out of 5. 

But now, spoilers.

The biggest question coming out of this film is is he crazy or is he sane? I'm sure that was the goal of Scorsese all along. It's not a bad goal, it gets people to talk about your movie for the rest of the night, trying to deconstruct what they saw on the screen. Personally, I fall into the "crazy" camp. My reasoning has nothing to do with the story itself, but with the editing.

The first 2/3rds of the this film is a train wreck technically. The music doesn't fit most of the time and is exaggerated. The editing is seriously awful. It looks like I edited this film. Cuts are not coherent and choppy at best. Take for example a scene at the beginning where Teddy's partner lights a cigarette and puts it in his mouth and then in the next scene is lighting it again and putting it in his mouth... again. There are inconsistencies like this littered throughout the film.

I know Scorsese is not a bad director, he has made a lot of awesome films. It makes sense to me that the only way to justify the terribleness of the first 2/3rds of this movie was that it was an intentional decision to help accent the fact that he is indeed crazy. But even if that is the case, that is no excuse to make your audience sit through 2 hours of terrible movie. It's just not fair to the audience.

But then again, there are others out there who are totally into the plot twist. If you did, I can understanding loving it and wanting to go back and analyze the whole thing. But for me, I felt like it lacked a sort of emotional genuineness and believability. Thus, my lackluster review. But like I said before, the best thing to do with this movie is to watch it and make the call for yourself.