I knew it! Salt is absolute rubbish.

I can't believe it... they conned me into watching Salt (2010). I knew nothing good could come from this in advance, even though my best buddy and father both swore it was good movie. Never the less, I allowed them to con me into it, and now I am going to make the producers and director pay the price for it.

Get ready for a turbo fed fuel-injected blast of Virgo ultra-criticism.

Folks, Salt is a wretched narrative quagmire. I am talking about an all-out cinematic disaster based on an utterly preposterous premise, unbelievable plot moves, flat acting, and a horrid ending. Not only this, but it is incredibly out-dated and out-modded, being both set and made at least 20 years to late in the history of the world for any success at all.

I am horrified that the critics recorded a 61% tomato meter for Salt on RottenTomatoes.com. This is a disgrace. That is not just a failure on the part of the critical community, it is an indictment. You guys fucked up completely.

What is wrong with this movie? Let me just give you a couple of key points. Believe me, I could write 100 pages slicing and dicing this one.

What's wrong with the plot?

The plot is an old fashioned cold-war sleeper agent one, in which the old KGB master spies raised changeling children in the old USSR to infiltrate the U.S. Government in one capacity or another.

We are asked to believe that--in our present historical moment--former KGB bosses (who presumably no longer have any official authority) have decided to activate this network of sleeper agents to:

1. Assassinate the current Russian President.
2. Assassinate the current U.S. President.
3. Launch U.S. nuclear weapons at Iran and Saudi Arabia.
4. And that this will all lead to the restoration and glorification of the former Soviet paradise.
5. We are asked to believe that sleeper agents of the former Soviet KGB would be unquestioning in their support for such a move... with the sole exception of agent Evelyn Salt.
6. More over, we are asked to believe that they get astoundingly close to their objectives, even assassinating the President of the United States (inside his super-secure war room no less) and then issuing the launch codes, which are... somehow... countermanded in one of the most pitifully unbelievable and predictable twists in this plot..

Let me ask you a question: how can a launch code be 99% approved, and how do you revoke an authentic launch code by pulling the plug on a laptop? I have never heard of a progress meter for security authorization codes which roll from 0% to 100%. That's a funny thing too, because I write secure business software for living.

God damn it, that was intensely stupid! I groaned and then I cried laughing... at the writer.

Do you sense any problem here? Is there anything that lacks street cred in this sequence of points? Perhaps at the very height of the cold war when tensions were at their highest, you might have been able to sell this plot line to some thinking men, but not now. The whole thing, as stated, was completely unbelievable. I never bought in at any point. I was laughing out-loud at some of the ludicrous plot points.

What's wrong with the star of the show?

We are asked to watch the emaciated and now middle-aged Angelina Jollie do stunts neither Jason Borne nor James Bond did... except in their worst movies. I tell you, this woman gives John McClane of Die Hard fame a serious run for his money. The only problem is that not one stunt of it is believable.

To make matters worse, this movie is allegedly and purportedly an A-Lister vehicle. Accordingly, there is no other reason to make this movie except to put Angelina in front of her adoring fans. Accordingly, she is supposed to be a very likable and winsome character we are to cheer for. What do you think of woman who rescues her dog in an amazing get away, and then later cold-heatedly watches her beloved husband drown? How 'bout dem apples?

The only explanation we have for these rancid plot moves is utterly poor taste on the part of the story craftsmen themselves. These guys simply don't know how to write a good movie and create a compelling character that is believable. As such, we must call this movie dramatic and narrative failure. In the vernacular, it is a stinker.

Doubt creeps in...

Man has this movie caused me to doubt my friends and relatives. Both Colin and my Dad have had spine problems in the past, but never so bad as this. Specifically, they both have difficulty going against the prevailing opinion on a movie, especially when it contains a so-called A-Lister, because this would put them up against the majority.

NOW HERE THIS: FUCK THAT SHIT!

If the majority says 2+2=6 the majority is wrong, period. If I am the only one who says they are wrong, I am correct, no matter how they abuse me.

Salt is a piece of stinking, stenching, wet, runny, steamy cat poo-pooh, and no Angelina fan will ever convince me of the contrary. It would be a stinker even if it had featured an absolute favorite of mine, such as Paz Vega. The script simply does not pass muster. Better stated, the script gets an F-, with two middle fingers high in the air.

Salt is one of the worst movies of this or any other year. Don't get fooled. Don't waste a piece of your life watching this drivel.

Salt got busted at the box office

Just a quick little note here about Angelina Jolie's Salt. As you all know, I am the self-proclaimed Worlds Worst Angelina Jolie fan. I know this makes me a heretic, an apostate and an antichrist in the world of Hollywood, but I don't give a bloody damn about that.

At the moment I am rejoicing; gloating really. Mr. Nolan's Inception retained it's #1 status at the box office. Frankly, it wasn't all that close. The score was 42.7 to 36. Salt will burn out much faster than Inception. You watch, bitches. Inception will continue to crank out big bucks for at least two more weeks.

So why do I gloat? Several reasons really. I have heard enough about Inception to understand that this is a serious Sci-Fi movie. How fortunate we are to get two excellent sci-fi movies, in close proximity. That makes the summer of 2010 a remarkable one. For the record, the other great Sci-Fi movie was Splice. Without having seen it, my only fear about Inception is that it might be too much of a rip-off of a Japanese Anime called Paprika, a movie I greatly admire.

Anytime a serious Sci-Fi movie squashes a so-called "A-Lister Vehicle" we have reason to hold a formal celebration. Let's get together and hold a party. Second of all, the dastardly Jolie has been formally defeated at the box office. We have another excellent reason to have a formal celebration. Let's get together and party. I am doing the BBQ.

Frankly, it absolutely shocks me that Hollywood continues to make A-Lister Vehicles, at all, in any regard, for anyone. The entire concept of an A-Lister Vehicle is outdated, outmoded and obsolete. It belongs to a bygone era of Hollywood, and has little bearing on the present moment.

Right now, I can imagine an uninformed Hollywood moguel shocked out of his mind, screaming at the top of his lungs "What the fuck are you talking about?"

What am I talking about? What am I talking about? Have you not read the results of the research that you paid for? Do you not keep tabs on the market research your own corporations commission and pay for? Are you ignorant of the facts in this case?

Back in 2003-2004, things were not going well at all for the movie industry. It was a brier patch in the history of the box office. The internet was getting powerful. Hollywood was not prepared to play there. DVD had already peaked, and was now illegally copy-able. Profits were down. A number of unexpected and disconcerting flops had occurred at the box office.

The five major studios had reason to believe were living at an inflexion point in the movie-tastes of the United States and the world. They commissioned a massive study of box office numbers for the entire run of recorded history. All five major studios transmitted their data to Ernst and Young, one of the legendary accounting firms of this world, and asked for a report. They wanted to know what sells tickets and why.

Ernest & Young did a pretty incredible study. They climbed all over that data with sophisticated data mining tools. Experts performed thousands of ANOVA and ANCOVAR studies with this data. They came up with some good generalizations that fit the data well, and make a hell of a lot of sense. The findings were published in early 2005.

Ernst & Young discovered that there were two basic models for selling a lot of tickets:

1. The classic Hollywood A-List model. In this approach, a casting director attempts to get a bunch of biggest names in Hollywood to sign-on for a movie. The presence of several attractive A-Listers sells massive numbers of tickets. Incidentally, an A-Lister is an individual who has been theoretically proven to draw large numbers of people to the box office. It doesn't mean you are sexy, and it doesn't mean you can act, but you bring people to the box office.
2. The big visual effects bonanza model. In this approach, producers spend tens of millions of dollars on 3d visual effects, and other animations, to produce a ton of Hollywood movie magic. You create vistas, environments and battles so epic, everyone wants to see. No A-List talent is required. Indeed, you can make such movies with complete unknowns.

Ernst & Young discovered that the classic A-List model had been operational and effective between 1910 and 1977. The A-List model was the most effective strategy for making money during that epoch in film history.

However, things changed in 1977. A little movie called Star Wars came out, and played at the box office for almost 2.5 years before it closed. Star Wars had no A-List talent. With the exception of Alec Guinness, Peter Cushing, and James Earl Jones, no one in the movie was even known by Hollywood. Whilst all three of those actors were very respected, none of them were A-List box office magnets. Still, Star Wars shot the lights out of the score board.

After that moment, the Holywood A-List scheme became increasing unreliable, sketchy, and risky. The big effects movie continued to grow and grow in terms of power and reliability. Ernst & Young concluded that A-Listers ain't worth the millions you pay them. You are better off financially casting nobody-actors, and spending a ton of money on visual effects.

Like the earlier conclusion which stated that most money was made through DVD, not theater ticket sales, this finding touched off a ferocious debate. Producers didn't like the notion that DVD made most of the money. They loved the Silver Screen. Likewise, many in Hollywood hated the finding that effects rule and A-Listers drool. This flies in the face of the glamor and fame culture that utterly dominates Hollywood.

This is an example of artist think. You will have to pardon my Virgo-ass, all of you artistic types, but there is a serious distinction between fact, and value. There is a distinction between what is and what aught to be. What is is factual, what aught to be is subjective opinion. Emotional types are unable to deal in matters of fact. They are only interested in how they feel about a subject.

Ernst & Young made a statement of fact. Effects make the money. Just look at Avatar. Just look at Inception. A-Listers don't necessarily make that sort of money. Just look at Knight and Day. Just look at Benjamin Button. Just look at Salt.

In football, you still see outmoded and unemployed former head coaches decrying the Spread Offense, declaring that it can never be an NFL offense for one reason or another. Maybe it's hash marks this week, and quarterback durability the next. This is inspite of the fact that the Spread is one of the most effective and feared offensive schemes in the NFL right now, and has been for some three years.

You still hear these outdated romantics crying out, "Bring back the days of smash-mouth running, let offensive linemen play again, and let the elephants dominate the game". That is a romantic idea, it has nothing to do with serious military strategy. Whilst they decry the forward pass, it is the forward pass that wins Super Bowls, full stop, period. The run doesn't win it anymore.

A similar thing is happing in Hollywood right now. It involves the outdated and outmoded A-List model of movie making. Big Hollywood types cry and scream and wail over the loss of big Hollywood stars, and say things like "I don't want to play in universe without big Hollywood stars."

Then don't play! The facts remain the facts. Effects make the money. A-Listers don't necessarily make the money. It should be pointed out that in 2005, the very year the report was published, the top-5 grossing box office movies were all visual effects bonanzas. Only The War of the Worlds contained an A-Lister. That was Tom Cruise. It finished third in money for that year. Believe me, it would have done as well or better without him.

The idea of making A-Lister vehicle is no better founded than the NFL Draft philosophy that you should take a franchise QB with the #1 overall-pick. That theory is also fallacious, according to the empirical statistics. Still, like fools, we all keep trying.

Now for the thesis point: The notion of creating an vehicle for Angelina Jolie is preposterous. I am sorry the notion ever occurred in your brain. You may make your money back, but this will not be the bonanza that several visual effects movies will be. Salt will soon be forgotten, just like a pile of other A-List vehicles have been forgotten.

If a movie's only claim to fame is that it has a so-called A-Lister, that movie is a waste of money and film. A-Listers do not make a movie worth seeing. You should terminate this approach to film making.

Oh-no! Not another Angelina Jolie movie!?!?!

I know you guys are really not going to believe this, but guess what? I am the world's worst Angelina Jolie fan. I don't like the chick at all. I don't find her attractive, and I damn sure don't want to fuck her.

There is a cult of Angelina Jolie out there in the world, and I cannot even fathom the existence of such a thing. Angelina Jolie's stardom is one of the most baffling things I have ever encountered in my nearly 44 years of life. The fact that so many are mad for this woman is one of the strangest phenomenon I have ever seen.

My cousin, Ana Julia, once told me she thought Angelina Jolie was the most beautiful woman in the world. I was non-pulsed when I heard that. That was an utterly baffling and bizarre statement. I was buffaloed, and I don't mean maybe. She is an Ecuadorian and from Quito, specifically. How the Hell could she say such a thing when there are women like Paz Vega running around the Latin world?

I want to go on the record, and make this perfectly clear: Paz Vega absolutely crushes Angelina Jolie. It's not even close. That's not even a subjective value judgement. This is concrete empirical fact. Were this an NFL footall game, the score would be 95-0.

Just to be a little naughty, and execute a back-handed compliment, I told Ana Julia that she was better looking than Angelina Jolie. I was telling the truth, but it was also a backhanded compliment. This is damning with faint praise. Ana Julia utterly freaked out. She was absolutely certain that I was trying to bone her from that point forward. If I had known that this girl could not conceive of any man not wanting Angelina, I would have understood that this was a dangerous joke I should have kept sheathed in my scabbard.

I am told that the French voted Angelina the sexist woman of all time. I find that stunning as hell given the fact that every third French woman walking to the bus in Paris is far, far more attractive than Angelina Jolie. We shouldn't even bring the French Canadian women of Montreal into the conversation. That is where an all-out route would begin. Anytime the French might want to talk trade, we Americans should be more than willing to make deal. If the Canadians call, we need to invite them to the State Diner immediately.

If you were to ask me what I would like better: Angelina Jolie or a Montreal French Canadian girl picked at random, there would be no contest. I wouldn't need two seconds to make that decision. Pick me a Montreal girl and send her to me. I will be glad you did.

I am told that Angelina is every woman's lesbian fantasy girl. Is that so? I guess that is because she has a masculine bull-dyke face. A better explanation is that she is her father's daughter. She looks just like a slightly-feminine version of John Voight, the man who is her father. I guess the chicks also liked John Voight at one point in his career.

I don't know about you gents, but I never wanted to have sex with John Voight. In fact, the thought never even occurred to me. By the same token, I am not exactly enthusiastic about the idea of having sex with his daughter. So strong is the resemblance, in my opinion, that I knew she was his daughter before this fact was public knowledge. I can make a list of a hundred women I would rather have first, before Angelina.

So why did Brad Pitt want her? I haven't got the slightest idea. This another baffling fact. The dude was so much better off before... I know he really, really wanted to have a family, and I totally understand that, but still... Brad, you could have picked any woman in Montreal at random and done better. There are no shortage of women looking for a sample from your loins. You could have gotten just about any woman to carry you baby.

Awe but DAVE! SHE'S SO HOT! Okay, let's deal with this subject. Some men and women are dogs. They respond exclusively to the pheromone signals that indicate the female is in heat and prepared for sex. Nothing else matters. The bitch in heat might have only one leg and two teeth, but if she is giving off the "fuck me" stank, it's time to get aroused. This is a chemical call to action, you know?

Some brutally honest people in Hollywood say Angelina has one unique star quality: She is able to transmit the chemical heat signal through film and video. So what? Hillary Scott and hundred other women in the porn business can do that. Am I supposed to be impressed by the fact that she can cocotte like a porn chick? Why does that matter to you in this case?

We need to make a serious distinction at this point: beauty is one thing, heat is another. There are extremely beautiful women who are cold. They call them Ice Princesses. There are ugly women who are very sultry. They are known by many names. I call them skanks or skeazers. I could finish this paragraph, but you already know...

Perhaps it is just because of really bad Synastry or something, but I just don't feel it for this girl at all. She is very Gemini and I am very Virgo. This is always a bad combo. These two brain signs of Mercury are like Lead and Gold. They may be only one slot away from each other on the periodic chart, but they are very different critters entirely. Our Moon signs conjunct, but the Venus thing is totally off. Her Venus is in Cancer. Mine is in Leo. This is just a bad, bad matchup.

The Synastry experts have declared that the ultimate woman for Dave would have all of the following:

• Sun at 8 degrees Cancer or 8 degrees Scorpio. This forms a Sextile (60 degree angle) with my Sun at 8 degrees Virgo
• Moon at 07 Aquarius, forming a sextile with my Moon at 07 Aries
• Venus at 05 degrees Leo, conjunct my Mars at 05 degrees Leo.
• Mars at 22 degrees Leo, conjunct my Venus at 22 degrees Leo.

Incidentally, Paz Vega does not quite match this criteria. She is extremely Capricorn in her make-up. That is a high-quality match for a very Virgo dude, according to what I have been told. It's just no quite as ideal as Scorpio or Cancer.

You Synastry experts better reconsider that one. Paz Vega seems pretty damn ideal to me.

According to the Synastry bullshit, the list of criteria above would be the overwhelming combo of dynamic forces. The firestorm resulting from first meeting between me and female like that would be so great, it just might destroy the entire universe as we know it.

I would add to that that she would need to be half Spaniard and half Italian. She could also be French Canadian. Old-World Latin women drive me out of my frickin' mind.

Incidentally, if you happen to be a woman having these criteria, don't hesitate to contact me.

So we have two killer movies to see in the theater this weekened

All week long I have been monitoring RottenTomatoes.com. A very interesting phenomenon has been in progress there all week. Specifically, two of the highest rated movies of the year were setting in the blocks for launch today... Highest rated by professional movie critics, that is. We'll see how the crowd likes them.

Specifically, I speaking of Pixar's new movie UP and Sam Rami's new movie Drag Me to Hell. It is no surprise that Pixar is getting this kind of reception. Sometimes I think that all the great artists and story tellers have clustered in one spot in this historical epoch. That is Pixar headquarters in Oakland/Emeryville. I wonder if these guys ever go to the Blackhole to watch a Raider game? Seems like a damn unlikely place for the greatest art studio of this epoch. On the other hand, I am astounded by Sam Rami's critical reception.

By a score of 87-2 Pixar's new movie is scoring a killer 98% on the T-Meter. Although this is a 3d comedy, they say this is actually Pixar's most serious subject ever. It is based on a Dutch proverb which say that "We grow old far too soon, and wise far too late." It is unbelievable that this movie is outscoring both The Incredibles and Wall-e

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/up/

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/incredibles/

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/wall_e/

Much more surprising than this is the score Sam Rami is hauling down with his new horror movie called "Drag me to Hell". By a score of 69-4 this flick tallies a massive 95%, and is tied with Star Trek for the #2 score of the year. Un-goddamn-believable. I don't remember the last time I saw a horror movie score this kind of critical praise. The Descent only got 85%. 28 Days Later only scored 88%

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/drag_me_to_hell/

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/descent/

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/28_days_later/

Gotta see them both!

My greatest concern is that Pixar is going to suffer another unexpected spoiler-launch this year.

Last year Wall-e went head-to-head with Wanted, a movie that nobody expected to do as well as it did. Wanted damn near split the box-office with Wall-e, despite that fact that it was absolute crap on film. I am talking about bullshit rubbish of the most obnoxious and pompous variety. It was a Frankenhooker movie that stole it's first 20 minutes from the Fight Club, the next 20 minutes from The Matrix, the next half-hour from Star Wars. It crapped out in the final quarter. A Frankenhooker is movie that stitches together dead body parts from successful classic movies. You can identify the original owner's body parts clearly. The surgical stitches are visible and ugly. The result is bad laughs... if you are lucky. Wanted had one nude scene with Angelina Jolie, perhaps the most overrated Heroin Skeezer in the history of film, and therefore it made tons of money. I was completely horrified. The poor taste of the American public is often astounding. Lamentably, the critical press mostly went along with the bandwagon.

The consequence of this was Wall-E had a much smaller box office than it should have had. Fuck Slumdog Millionaire. Wall-E was the best movie of 2008. It should have won Best Picture at every event. It also should have made a lot more money.

2009 is just like Deja Vu all over again. Everybody knew Sam Rami was making a horror film. Nobody cared until recently. Everybody thought this would be a very small recreational project for Sam. He's just taking a break between Spider-Man movies, that's all. Now he has stunned the critics, and we are going to see a stamped at the box office.

You see, horror movies are big business. Good, bad, or indifferent, they almost always make money. The lowest risk investment you can make in Hollywood is to invest in a cheap horror movie. LIONSGATE has almost achieved major studio status by producing a ton of these movies. When you get a preferred director with a reputation with the people, and combine that with massive critical praise, all teens will head to the theater.

Why does this happen? It is a documented fact that horror movies make the best date flicks. If your a teen guy, and you are trying hard to fuck your teen girl for the first time, take her to a horror movie. She'll pop wide-open. She will need the comfort of a strong male presence during the most intense sequences. She will bury her nose in your armpit for the very first time. There, she will acquire a fairly good dose of your pheromones. Don't use too much soap on your pits, and don't put on any deodorant. It will obfuscate the scent she needs to acquire. If she gets a shot of those pheromones, her hypothalamus will light up visibly on a CT scan. Neuro-Endocrinologists have proven this beyond a shadow of a doubt. This is the moment when she discovers that she loves you, and can't live without you. She needs your comfort. She's going to start fantasizing about having children with you. She has been chemically activated and turned on.

Another interesting theory is that death seems to stimulate the female reproductive instincts. Men kill each other. Women have to replace them quickly. The tribe would die out quickly otherwise. This seems to be a deep unconscious genetic biological motive that we do not perceive or comprehend at the rational level. Still, it is real and powerful and effective.

A lot of guys score after horror films.

So what is the consequence of all this? It is likely that Pixar is going to be severely challenged at the box office again in 2009. It is conceivable that UP might even loose this #1 spot this week. If that happens it will be the first time in recent history that Pixar has failed to acquire this spot on launch week.

Although I am glad that we have two good prospects for this weekend, I grimace at the thought of a superior art work loosing the box office to a teenage fuck-fest horror movie. I regret that a movie which promises to be Pixar's greatest achievement yet may be spoiled by teen sperm-pressure, and a misinterpretation of the current banking real estate market.