a few internet finds

• This is a sorta fun game, the first time I tried I got in the 200s, but then, I'm not very smart at those kinds of things- give it a whirl, see how you do. Gotta love google. Here is the link- click on "Lauch Project"
• Next theres two photo rater sites. Landscapes. and Cute pictures. worth a look, you can also go to a different page and vote for a while if you want, you'll find some good pictures there (some of the Landscape pictures are CGI- don't vote for them, they're fake).
  

film: States of Grace

Jerman's rating: 4 steps forward, 1 steps back. Just so you know I seriously considered giving this film the elusive 5 steps. It goes places other films don't go, and teaches amazing things that are rare in film. Films often teach really good things, but usually stay away from Christ, I may change this rating in the future to a 5, for now, it remains a highly moral film.

I've included two links to other reviews that are very thorough, and worth the read. My job is just to report on the morality of the film with brief notes on artistry and content. They go into morals too, I suggest you read theirs, they say much of what I would have said, they bring up many new things to think about.

This film is an experience in and of itself, its not something you can watch and then lightly pass off. All the characters are real and don't fit the molds that you want to fit them into. The trunky elder doesn't fit, the uber-righteous elder doesn't fit his. There will be some characters in the film that you'll latch onto and identify with. The experience is intense because Dutcher brings up topics that are normally taboo. Real people with real experiences and real problems, they have always existed, but not usually talked about, even though we all experience it. We can see that no one is innocent, everyone has dirt and has a crappy life, everyone is in need of salvation, and grace.

You can tell Dutcher put a lot of work into the plot, interaction, and script. You usually feel what the characters are feeling, whether it be anger, sadness, jarred, confused, hopeless, remorse. The film is very well crafted, the way it flows in atypical of most films, there are multiple climaxes, conclusions, lessons learned, twists, it matches real life closer than most films, things don't ever come to an end, there is always tomorrow, and things could get better or worse.

Two of the main characters are missionaries, you can expect a conversion story to be told. You don't know that there's going to be so many of them, all happening at different paces, everyone at a different part in their own journey. You can see clearly the different stages of change and repentance. You can see how significant change is, from what is being left behind, and compared to the possible future.

I have to add one small note that I especially liked the multi-religious tones. Other religions are accepted and glorified, just as Mormonism is. This is a theme I would like to see more of. Mormons sometimes think that they are the only good church along with being the only true church.

I've been saving the best for last. There are veins all through the movie. The veins are great, they taste good, but you don't know they lead anywhere until the very last scene. You find out what the whole movie was about, you reflect on everything you just watched and see how it ties together. Everything is led back to Christ. The scene is beautifully shot, symbolic and meaningful. Christ is the central theme of the film. This sets this film above most. Narnia symbolically taught about Christ, it was beautiful how it was done, but it was subtle. States of Grace is very blatant and unabashed that Christ is the center, and He is what's important. Its not that the film simply teaches good things and teaches about Christ, but it does it all very powerfully. This is really the most inspiring, uplifting, good film I've seen in a very very long time. (I usually don't like the connotations attached to 'uplifting' but I couldn't think of another word) I can't think of another film that is on par with it in terms of how plain and powerful the Christ theme is taught.

Despite being so moral and upstanding etc. you may hate the film, you may like the film. All I can tell you is that it teaches incredible things, I can't predict if you'll like it. It does have gang violence in it, a few people die (more blood during rescue and healing, not so much during the violence), the film is gritty, not that much is shown on screen, but you know what's happening, or what has happened. You may not like the depiction of the missionaries, I haven't ever seen a film that depicts them correctly, its impossible in my mind. You might not like the mission president or other authority figures, the rules; it was a part of these people's lives, and were very important to them, just as the characters portray. You also might not like how Mormonism has a darker side, a shadow; you may ignore it, but that doesn't make it go away and it doesn't solve the problem, accepting there is a problem is the first step to correcting it. There are plenty of things to not like. There are plenty of things to love. I regret two things: first that I waited this long to see the film, and second that it only made back 7.5% of its budget.


For those who have not seen the movie and would like more to read there is an excellent review by Eric D. Snyder that can be found here. Another good review can be found on imdb's website here.

film: Rat Race

Jerman's rating: 1 step forward, 3 steps back. My first negative rating. I've been waiting.

The film sports a good cast, interesting premise, and is an easy comedy. It ought to be very popular and highly viewed, which from what I tell it was.

The film first discusses money, and how people love it, then its about gambling. The characters ask themselves, as you might ask yourself while watching "How far are you (they/ am I) willing to go for money?" How much money? What kind of things? Its a valid question. Its not handled very well in this film.

This film almost writes the definition for 1 step forward films. The good morals are unimportant and have the same effect as an afterthought. Spoiler ** The money goes to a good cause at the end, but it feels awkward in the situation, out of place, like it belonged in a different story. The good thing wasn't done for good's sake, but because it was the "cool", "fad" thing to do, because of girl friend /boy friend, because of pressure and wanting to 'look good'.

Things to pick up: Gambling is cool, especially the more innovative and expensive it is. Everybody is in it(life) for the money, its really all thats important, sure it runs the world, but its so much more important than that. There's a good amount of violence (treated as crazy but ok), stealing (you gotta do what you gotta do), and there is definite objectionable sexual content. I found a few things just ridiculous- like two people deciding on getting married and living together because of $2 mil that they don't even have but will supposedly bring them together, a very good way to start a marriage: "We'll both be rich, we ought to get married!"

Overall it could be an enjoyable entertaining movie, not the greatest morals though. It does have good laughs.

note: One thing I've noticed is that the more moral the film is the more there is to write about, you could write novels on a good movie, for this one though- even though I've left out some things, there isn't much else to say.

Jerman Rating System Reviewed

ok, so I need to a lot of practice with this rating system, which is why I've practiced with just about every movie I've seen in the last month. I have a few concerns.

First- and this is important. This rating system rates only the morality of the film. It doesn't, it can't have anything to do with how "good" or "likable" the movie is. There are three different criteria people use when choosing a movie to watch

• 1)How professional is the Movie? Lord of the Rings near the top of the chain, old Japanese Godzilla movie would be unprofessional.
• 2)How moral is the movie is.
• 3)How well the movie clicks or clashes with you personally.

Every movie in the world is categorized by you in this way. Usually your favorite movies pass all three questions. Then your next favorites fail one question, and so on. The bad movies that you hate fail all three.

One quick example: I love the movie Good Will Hunting. Yes it teaches some very good things, its also very dirty and unabashed about it. I still love it though. Artificial Intelligence - very professionally done, good film making, most people hate it though- out of personal preference (I'm undecided).

Onto my Second concern. How am I supposed to apply the JMPA rating to my life? Is there supposed to be a line to draw? There probably should be...The Prophet told us not to watch immoral movies...I'm finding the rating system less useful than I had hoped. The Transporter - I haven't seen it in a while, but it'd probably be a +1 and -3. It still like the movie. Is that bad of me? I know what the 13^th Article of Faith says, I know watching immoral movies is bad and dangerous. But there has to be a way to apply the rating to my movie selections, just as there is a way to rate the movie itself. Perhaps its a personal thing. Everyone has to decide and come up with it on their own. I'm still bouncing around a few ideas. There has to be a good method.

Currently in Mormon-dom the R rating is like the kiss of death- the reason Saints and Soldiers was edited down, it was primarily for Mormon audiences, it wouldn't do well with the "evil R" rating. If I dictated and drew the line (as I am about to do)- I would be re-inventing the kiss of death. The Rater would still have the power to include or exclude movies that are bordering on the 'kiss of death' border out of personal preference- which is not the way its supposed to happen.

So far this is my watchable list: +5 or +4(any amount of steps back), +3(must be -3 or less), +2 or +1 (-2 or less).

I'm looking for feedback as well, which I haven't received a whole lot of. Please tell me your thoughts- whatever they are- I want to know them. As long as they aren't "You're the best I love you" or "you're the worse , I hate you." I'm looking for some real advice or feedback. The entire JMPA has only happened because I've surveyed hundreds of people, and is constantly being refined as more people are surveyed.

Daily Universe says something good??

I found a piece, not an opinion piece, a full opinion column written by an employee, I don't really know the position of the writer, but it wasn't in with the other whiny opinion letters.

Her name is Julie Espinosa and she wrote something fantastic! Here is the link. I highly encourage you all to take 2 minutes and read it, it won't even take two minutes. She lightly or heavily criticizes BYUSA and the administration, and Mormon culture in general (depending on how you look at it).

The middle part when she quotes Brigham Young and Orson Scott Card is amazing. You can make up your own mind, I certainly don't agree with every sentence, but it was a breath of fresh air to read it.

For all you nerds. . .

I made my first flash game. It was supposed to be a kids game where the kid can match the colored circle (red, green blue) to match the words. I thought that was boring, so I made the names be hexadecimal, and the colors all get randomized. different every time you play. Lets see how well YOU know your hex codes!
Heres the link
Disclaimer- I don't know flash very well, and used dynamic text fields, so you have to drop the circles in the area around the hex codes, not right on top.
EDIT: I fixed the game- it now works properly as it is supposed to work, try out the new HexGame v1.02!

Caffeine, the mormon 'drug'

A few of you can attest to the fact that I'm slow with the up-take. I just recently found out that caffeine doesn't affect me. I was tired while driving, and decided to get a mountain dew from a place we stopped at. I drank the Dew, and was still as tired as I ever was. The sugar affected me like normal- awake for a while, then a sugar low that puts me right to sleep. I've heard from reputable sources that Mountain Dew has more caffeine than coffee. Yet as I was doing history reading, I was asleep the whole time, almost slept through my class.

I had this problem in High School too. I'm not a very good test taker, I hated the ACT. Even though I got good sleep and everything, I fell asleep every time I took it. So the last time I bought 2 Mountain Dews, one I drank before it all, and I drank the other during the break. Yeah- I still fell asleep, nothing different.

Which brings me to asking other questions. If I'm not affected by it can I still get addicted? because I've sure found out that Coke, Dr.Pepper, and Mountain Dew are a lot better than most the other drinks (except European Fanta- thats the best stuff in the world!).

Its also going to suck when I'm up late and have to drive home, and have nothing that'll keep me awake.

film: Garden State

Jerman's Rating: 3 steps forward and 3 steps back. If these steps canceled each other out (which they don't) it would be morally neutral, but it is actually a phenomenal movie. I know I loved it, and would recommend it, except for the heavy usage of certain 4 letter words, and an unnecessary sexual scene. If this keeps you from not watching the film- this isn't the movie for you. However this doesn't bother everyone on the planet- you all will enjoy the movie a.k.a. get stuff out of it.

This film has a unique style and pace. It didn't bother me, but I can see it bothering some people. If you don't know whats going on- don't be bothered by it, its on purpose- you'll be caught up. The story is told in a slow, random weird way. But, the characters aren't boring. You'll be intrigued by the weirdness and get caught up in it. There's a magical, endearing, realistic quality to the characters. The dialog fits them all, and is very telling. The words were carefully chosen. I'd say the plot falls between loose and non-existent. Its first a finding yourself journey which connects with a love story. Perhaps not very intricate of a plot, but that doesn't mean its less good. Onto thematic things.

I'm a romantic, perhaps thats why I liked this movie. Romanticism is this film's doctrine. What exactly constitutes being alive? Can you be alive without living? Whats the difference between having no emotions, no feelings, and being dead? We are shown that emotions, passions, love, pain all make you alive. Yes, love is put on a pedestal, but so is pain, and hurting- there is glory in all feelings, not just the good ones. That's what romanticism is all about.


There is a discovering yourself theme, which would appeal to teenagers and young adults. "Exploring the endless Abyss" There's a kind of weird randomness climb, crescendo, and climax (when finding yourself is referenced), and slow down.

Strong cuss words are used freely, used as a means to express yourself. A weird thing happens which is sexual (main characters not involved). Its treated as being weird, with much annoyance from the main characters, but is not condemned. Acceptable as long as other people do it, is what's taught. There is a good amount of drugs. They are shown to be white trash, but aren't discouraged either. Except prescription anti-depressants- these are shown in a strong negative light, and dependence on them is bad.

Here is one quote which I'll end with, its a good indicator of the language. These lines jumped out at me.
"f-- this hurts so much" "I know it hurts. but its life. and its real. and sometimes it f-- hurts, but its life. and its pretty much all we got"

film: the Sixth Sense

Since starting the blog, This has been the first movie I wanted to review, but felt intimidated and kept putting it off. I don't think any review I do could do justice.

Jerman's Rating: 4 steps forward, 1 step back. This film teaches very pure, very good things. The step back is only for scariness factor, which I'll get to in a second.

Bruce Willis is the star, but Haley Osment is the main character. The previews showed it was about seeing ghosts and how both our worlds interact, its actually about something better, deeper, the 'stuff life is made of.' People think the re-watch value is to 'catch' the twist ending throughout the movie, that really isn't important. This film has just as much replay value as any other solid movie. I've probably seen this movie as many times as I've seen Star Wars.

Film elements first. The scripting is one of the first things that sets Shyamalan apart. Its natural and very expressive. Same goes for the story, plot, and editing- natural and expressive. Long camera shots, interesting angles and framing, and reflected shots.

After watching bonus material on the DVD people get excited about the color 'red' rewatch it, think its cool and never get it. This is good for you first time watchers too: the color red serves as a visual poke. Shyamalan can't sit next to you and poke you to get your attention or direct you to things, so he uses the color red. Its like saying: "This is significant, pay attention or take a note of it" Red things are absent in the film except when its needed.

Onto thematic things. First the scariness factor. I get upset when this film is put in the horror section in stores. Its not a horror- far from it. It is scary, but for one very important reason- so you can put yourself in Cole Sear's shoes. The kid's life sucks, he thinks he's cursed, the thing he wants most is to not be scared- you have to understand his life, thus there are a few jump scenes and disturbing images. They are not there just to be there and make a gory movie. You'd be freaked out and scared out of your mind too.

One theme I enjoy every time is the way Mothers are shown. Toni Collette plays the best mother I've seen in any fiction. She loves her son a lot and the way that's shown is beautiful. Then there is the other mother, the one in red. In one boring shot, with bad resolution of a video tape I get more disturbed than anything else in the movie. That one shot makes me sick to my stomach, the shot isn't very amazing, there's nothing special about it, but its the context, the naturalness that gives it the effect.

The film discusses prioritizing family and work. The difference between life curses and life talents/strengths. Hidden talents and gifts people have, and how they are different. One of the film's taglines is: Not every gift is a blessing. Think about that- and how the idea changes. Its also about: Making single parent homes work. Telling people close to you things about yourself. and Trust. Most of all its about the 6th Sense, not the extra sensory itself, but how its used and affects your life. Does it use you, or do you use it? Which has ownership over the other one? Curse owns person? or Person owns gift?

This film is very cathartic. If you're a crier you'll probably cry in some parts. The best way I could describe the movie immediately after watching it is 'beautiful.'

Photograph post 2: strikes back

These were scanned in, not that great of pictures, but felt like posting them anyway. Some of them are really old, just a warning.

This one is maybe the oldest, as you can see we are a big skinny family, everybody is, which we sometimes laugh at, just we are sometimes laughed at. Thats my brothr in the BYU garb, come from that stock as well, it was how I was raised. Notice the shoes I'm wearing? no coincidence.



Here our family is in Itally somewhere, I'm not sure exactly where. We traveled a bit, we all had dorky haircuts, but so did you in the mid 90's so I don't care.




These are some of the best people I know, back from freshman year. That was a good year. Unfortunately the person that took the picture wasn't in it, he's uber-cool as well.




We're starting to catch up, everyone is looking a little bit older. We're back to the fam, this picture was taken in Utah.




Here we are hanging out at Emily's tiny house in Provo, Her first house. I'm wearing the Superfan shirt, yes I was one of those, too bad I still don't have the shirt. . .




Here is the last picture, one of my favorites. Too bad it didn't scan well. Everybody is here looking good, there are a few more kids that exist now that didn't exist then- 4 actually. Emily is getting married, the guy with the beard is Matt- Karen's husband. Isaac liked Emily a lot, probably why he is standing right up against her dress. This was taken at the Salt Lake Temple. I really hate wedding photos, but I like this picture.

just a quick post, a shout out to a few people. After getting a call from Burley, EgyptianQueen, and MissPiggy, I realize I really like to talk with them. Thanks for calling, and welcome!

The Biggest Picture Post Ever!

**right click and select "View Image" so see it full size**

I'm going to start going from oldest to youngest, introducing to you all my family. Any anonymity I have will shortly be destroyed.

First there is Karen born in 76, she married Matt Martin and now has three kids.

This is the oldest. Isaac. He likes Star Wars a LOT. He recently started reading Harry Potter and is quite addicted.


This is MaKenna. She is a girly-girl. Loves playing damsel in distress or mom. She use to have to go everywhere wearing a dress, she's doing better now.


This is Jessica. She was born when I was on a mission, when I came home we bonded, I'm still one of her favorites, She's the cutest relative I have.


picture from Isaac's birthday, cameos from Grandma and Grandpa (his, not mine):


Jess was born on New Years, and always has a NewYears themed birthday, she didn't like it the first year.


One more of the girls together:





The next is David born in 78 I think.
I couldn't find very many of just him, Brian took this one. Don't worry, David comes back in other pictures too. He's the family member I play video games with.




Next is Emily. born in 80, she married Justin Allen, now has three kids.


This is Kate, she's little but very grown up, speaking early, reading early, writing early, whenever I talk to her it seems that she is 5 or 6 years older than she actually is.


There aren't too many pictures of Hyrum or Lucy, but you will be seeing them in other pictures as well.



Then there is me, born in 83, the odd year, the only one in the family. No pictures of me



After me comes Brian, born in 86. He's in Spain right now, but generally he's the coolest person I know. You can visit his blog here. He's kinda vain and takes lots of pictures of himself, his blog is where most of my pictures came from.


Last comes Kimberly. She comes from 88 She is pretty cool too, and is coming to Utah next year to hang out with me.
This is Brian and Kim when we went on some trip to Holland (thus the windmills behind them). Kim hasn't changed much.

Here's one of the youngest three:


This one is me, mom, and Kim visiting Hungary for a few days. It was freezing, thats the Duna behind us.



My Dad doesn't get a lot of pictures taken of him, we have gotten a few of our mom though. Here she is in Gyor.



I have a few more pictures to post, but they are hard copy, and I don't have a scanner available right now. I'll post this and soon there will be a follow up "The Biggest Picture Post Ever 2- the remix"

a first for me.

This last week I did something that I haven't ever done before. I bought artwork. Churchy art work too. I generally hate church art. Paintings by Greg Olson and the like just aren't my cup of tea. But there are several artists who are not Mormon, and I do enjoy their art. Behold: A detail of the painting I bought. The real one has birds and the boat also in the painting. I wasn't sure how legal it would be to put online, (probably not at all) so I added the nasty watermark, hopefully that makes it more legal...

I'm really glad I bought it, it my favorite. Other art I like is the Carl Bloc paintings, and that one big one in the MOA, but I think that might be Carl Bloc too...

Jerman's Rating Explained

The MPAA is broken, the rating system most of America uses. It doesn’t work how we want it to work. The reason we use it, and the purpose in creating it are two different things. The MPAA isn’t a scale of morality, which is what we need- the answer? We make our own.

I’ve been working of this for a long time. Is almost impossibly hard. I’ve recently dubbed this the JMPA or MPAJ, I haven’t decided which is better (‘J’ for Jerman…I know, How vain of me…

Lets start. Does each film start bad (F, 0%) and earns righteous points (raising the grade)? Does it start good (A+) and accumulates wicked points? Does it start neutral, a C (75%) on the grade scale, or a 50%(F) on the point scale? Is a number system good (1 dimensional)? Is 2 dimensions better, or 7? What kind of rubric do you use, or is using a rubric even possible? After bouncing around a few ideas, I’ve decided to use this system. Each film starts at zero, and earns points in both directions (moral, and immoral) at the same time The two vectors don’t cancel each other out. The highest and lowest is a 5, something you will rarely or never see. It’d probably be bell-curve-ish. I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a +5 film. +4 would be Chronicles of Narnia. Lord of the Rings- possibly, M. Night Shyamalan- probably.

It gets more difficult when looking at the rubric you are forced to use, intentionally or otherwise. You have to use some sort of criteria to say how many steps forward, and backward. Example: Girl wears immodest skirt (please forgive me for using such a lame example, its just for illustration). However the filmmakers are using the Girl to explain how immodesty is bad. Do I still give points in both directions? Don’t worry about content because only morals matter? I don’t have an answer yet. For right now- content does have a place, maybe small, but it does have influence on the whole rating.

We love generalities so much, so here is a general rule. If it is glorified, it is encouraged (fighting and kung-fu in Matrix), if it is demonized it is discouraged (Killing people- just about every movie). If a liked character does something, that action is encouraged (James Bond drinks Martinis , drives nice cars, and has sex), if a disliked character does something it is discouraged (cutting down trees is bad, because Saruman did it).

At this point in time, I and I alone, have the power of discretion to say what things are good and what is bad. I’m working on a way to make it more objective and less based on me, but this is the way it is now, until it gets fixed. Still- its better than the MPAA, which really is broken. To everyone who has read through this (which looking at the numbers of people visiting this blog, is a heck of a lot of people) I would encourage you to decide on making your own rating system. Your own XMPA replacing X with your nickname. Tailor it how you want it, set it up as perfect as you can.

• +5 Teaches many many things, that are essential, rarely taught, and would elevate mankind to a higher plane. Don’t expect to ever see any of these films.
• +4 Teaches variety of and quality morals. Film this moral is rare.
• +3 Not as wide a variety, or less stressed than 4, yet retains a strong message which is generally outstanding. High class morals
• +2 Bulk of movies. Think low class Disney films.
• +1 Token morals, almost an afterthought
• +0 Only exists on paper, not in real film. Well…Maybe a Burger King training video would have nonexistent morality.

AND (not or)

• -0 Same as above
• -1 Things aren’t quite right, there is token immorality thrown in, almost as an after thought.
• -2 Glorify that which is bad, Demonize good things, This is a lot more common. Watch out, be sure to notice when this is happening.
• -3 Sex, Violence, Drugs, Language, all glorified. These movies defiantly are being made, they are more rare than 1 or 2, not usually popular by the common people, but you can find them without much trouble.
• -4 Super bad things taught, If the whole world followed these things, we’d be living in a very evil world. If a –4 movie has been made, it’d be really rare.
• -5 As bad as possible, If a +5 is teaching about Jesus, and becoming better, this would be the opposite, I highly doubt a –5 movie has ever been created.