You played it for her, you can play it for me.
Despite the fact that I own both the VHS and DVD version of the film, I am compelled to buy the just-released Two-Disc Special Edition of Casablanca. Of the impressive list of features, the one that I am most interested in seeing is the commentary by Roger Ebert (his commentary on Dark City and Pulp Fiction were great).

As for my remaining copies, I'm not sure what yet to do. The list is growing of movies I own on both VHS and DVD, but it's hardly worth the price to sell them (the VHS tapes, of course) online. Maybe I'll make a nice fort. Or, I could give them away. Or have a contest. Or have a contest in which I promise to give them away, but instead have my goons show up at the 'winner's' front door to deliver a fish-slap. Hmm...

Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life.
Well, perhaps not drunk, but certainly the other two apply to this woman.

If you can't trust your friends, well, what then? What then?
Recent developments in my household situation have sparked a renewed interest in a classic British thriller. One of our roommates is moving out after August, so the remaining three are getting ready to have a little 'open house' to interview some applicants. We share a house with a big yard in Georgetown, and the rent is very cheap, so this makes the room available very desirable.

This means we can be pretty discriminating when it comes to who gets the room (we've had over three dozen inquiries in about three days of posting). While contemplating some silly questions to ask (e.g., "Please name at least three applications of A1 sauce."), I was reminded of a great little flick called Shallow Grave. The film was the first film from Danny Boyle and John Hodge (who went on to do the landmark Trainspotting), and the movie that put Ewan McGregor on the map. The relevance is in the first quarter of the movie, three flatmates ruthlessly interview potential candidates for a room in a posh apartment. The questions are as funny as they are meant to make you cringe for the applicants:

• OK, I'm going to play you just a few seconds of this tape -- I'd like you to name the song, the lead singer and the three hit singles subsequently recorded by him with another band.
  
• With which of the following figures do you most closely identify: Joan of Arc, Eva Braun or Marilyn Monroe?
  
• Turning very briefly to the subject of corporate finance -- no, this is important. Leveraged buy-outs -- a good thing or a bad thing?
  
• And what if I told you that I was the antichrist?

However, the most scathingly funny diatribe comes from, naturally, Alex (McGregor) when he decides to skip the pretense and verbally dress down a hapless applicant:

So tell me, Cameron, what on earth -- just tell me, because I want to know -- what on earth could make you think that we would want to share a flat like this with someone like you? I mean, my first impression, and they're rarely wrong, is that you have none of the qualities that we would normally seek in a prospective flatmate. I'm talking here about things like presence, charisma, style and charm, and I don't think we're being unreasonable.

I'm looking forward to this week's interviews. Oh yes.

Craptacular Update
Not one to disappoint, my boy Walter Chaw gives his delicious review of Gigli, as one would have predicted from last week's observations.

Enjoy, Bridget.

UPDATE: Looking like everyone else gave it the kiss of death, too.

Blame it on science
Although the tagline of the article suggests a 'free pass' for any guy naive enough to use it as justifications, Is infidelity ‘natural’ for men? is an interesting piece on evolutionary psychology, although it says really nothing new for those of us who are able to think logically. However, it's always handy to have a scientific study handy to debunk or explain away the stereotypes of 'gold-diggers' or 'cradle-robbers':

Many evolutionary psychologists say these divergent sexual strategies also explain two corollary findings of modern studies. One says men seem more disturbed by sexual infidelity and women seem more disturbed by emotional infidelity. The other says heterosexual men seek women who are young and beautiful because these are viewed as signs of fertility, while heterosexual women seek men who are rich because that helps in raising children.

I looked for the reason why it is impossible (for heterosexual men) to look at a pair of breasts and remain focused on... whatever you are doing (I lost my train of thought there for a second visualising)... but that will perhaps have to wait for the next study. There were more interesting results about the honesty, to self and others, that women have about sexuality:

In the study[she asked men and women to report whether they masturbated, watched soft-core pornography or hard-core pornography. Each “yes” got a point], both men and women had been told to hand their questionnaires to a researcher. But when women were told to deposit their answers in a locked box supervised by a researcher, their average score jumped to 1.53. And when the women took the test alone in a locked room and then deposited their answers in a locked box — ensuring privacy and anonymity — their score shot up further, to 2.04. The men’s answers did not change significantly, indicating they were less concerned about their opinions being discovered.

Ah, the old double-standard is still alive and well. It's fascinating to see it at work in the social setting, and self-reinforcing; I have observed that women are the ones who (for the most part) use words like "slut" and "whore" to describe other girls. It's a vicious and yet fun circle! Free your mind... slut!

New Movie Reviews
I didn't think it was possible, but so far Gigli has the record (I believe) for lowest rating ever from the collective reviews over at Rotten Tomatoes.

American Wedding is mid-level, but then that's about par for the course in light of its predecessors. I didn't bother to see the sequel because, while I thought American Pie was good, it wasn't as funny as a lot of people indicated.

I doubt I'll see either; only Alyson might be the "x" factor.

This is Sportscenter
If you missed it, all I can say is TOO BAD. On Tuesday night, ESPN's SportsCenter showed a fascinating behind-the-scenes look at what goes into making a show work. For the first hour, you get to see just how many people work hard to get one episode in the works. Then, the following hour, they showed a live behind-the-scenes of the current show, airing on ESPN2 simultaneously. The sheer amount of chaos that occurs during the breaks and behind the cameras as the anchors are talking (a cacophony of direction is going on) was incredibly impressive and riveting. Some highlights included Kenny Mayne taking a spill as he ran the latest scores to the anchors on set and Dan Patrick (THE talent) ad-libbing a breaking story without teleprompter or notes on about 2 minutes notice. This stuff apparently happens all the time, and the producers said the show was one of the smoothest they'd had. It was revolutionary television, and it gave me newfound respect for these guys.

One of the other features was showing bloopers from their award-winning SportsCenter ad shorts. In light of that, I delved into the video archives of This Is SportsCenter. Here are my favorites from that list:

1. Melrose Place trade -- ESPN pulls off blockbuster trade with Melrose Place involving Andrew Shue and Charley Steiner.
   
2. Coming out early -- SportsCenter takes a chance with a youngster ... and it backfires.
   
3. Sent to Minors -- Even sportscasters can be sent down.
   
4. Promotions II -- Anyone who crosses ESPN's upward movers, pays the price -- even if it means "slumming" at Comedy Central (a funny dig on Craig Kilborn, my favorite all time anchor).
   
5. Y2K Test -- ESPN's Y2K test didn't go quite the way it was planned. Great shot of a 'mad' Mark McGwire going berzerk on a hapless computer.
   
6. Seriously, man -- Jerry Stackhouse ribs ESPN's Trey Wingo in the newsroom. Simple. Elegant. And everyone was thinking it.

College Football is at hand
The NCAA Division I college football preseason ESPN top 25 coaches' poll has been released, thus marking the beginning of the trash talking. My Nittany Lions have squeaked in at No. 25, despite losing Larry Johnson and most of the defense in our best showing ever in the NFL draft. Still we've got a solid offense and Zack Mills, and I hope that will be enough against this dreaded team when we show up in Memorial Stadium on September 13th, 8pm on ABC. Be assured after last year's game, which I was gleefully present at ("the greatest game EVER"), that our opponents will be out for blood. And then likely cheer us off the field. Really.

Four Nines. Four Jacks.
As you all know there is a dearth of quality television programming during the summer; for those of us not particularly into baseball, the upcoming 2003-4 NFL football season can't come fast enough (for some reason, I feel this pull moreso this year).

In that light, I have suddenly and unexpectedly become a fan of ESPN's coverage of the 2003 World Series of Poker, which runs two hours tonight. Seeing as how I'm stuck in a hotel room in NJ, and I've spent most of the day reading/writing/working out/sitting by the pool, I'm ready for some table drama.

There are championships for all kinds of poker, like 7-card stud and Omaha, but ever since 1972 the game used in the World Series is Texas Hold 'em with a No-Limit variation (basically meaning you can raise as often and as much as you like). It's a pretty simple format:

In hold’em, players receive two downcards as their personal hand (holecards), after which there is a round of betting. Three boardcards are turned simultaneously (called the “flop”) and another round of betting occurs. The next two boardcards are turned one at a time, with a round of betting after each card. The boardcards are community cards, and a player may use any five-card combination from among the board and personal cards.

Of course, there are several betting rounds involved, and that's where the real action starts. ESPN has cameras in front of the players' cards, so you get to watch the masters of the game try to out fox, out bid, and out bluff each other. There is psychological table talk, all-or-nothing "all-in" bets done on a shoestring, and players just plain intimidated out of a hand because of an intense glare from The Professor.

Of course, I'll be watching intermittently after 9pm, for during that hour is an excellent episode from last season of Buffy. Now there's a gal I miss.

PS. The two quotes are kinda obscure, but not from an obscure movie.
PPS. Yes, I know the event took place in May. Here are the final results. I didn't peek so don't tell me!

Where were you, say, 10 years ago?
My noble yet jobless minion (he's had better days of minioning, so I've had his position re-minioned) is wondering what the weight of delivery method is for resumes, the choices being hand-delivery, regular (snail) mail, online, or email. I had originally planned to post a comment on his page, but as my thoughts grew lengthy (as you see), I needed a larger format.

First, I'll point out to the few that don't know, I work in an IT department. Although I still do programming (to serve my needs), I don't do the grunt work of IT (infrastructure and desktop implementation and troubleshooting) as much as make sure OUR vendors (all telecom, for instance) are doing their part, things get done on time, track and create project schedules, resourcing, procurement, all expenditures and tracking (getting tired yet?), etc., etc. ad nauseum. And I've had to do the first phase of resume-sifting.

Having been on the other side of the unemployment fence two years ago, I don't envy anyone in that position, especially if you are in a transitory phase. From my own experience, I was able to get two temporary jobs (one was supposed to be long term, but it didn't work out (thankfully)) that were entirely due to online filing, and the third and current from networking (i.e., I knew someone and was given a shot). Obviously, the latter is the most desirable, but in lieu of that happening, here's how I see the other four.

As you know unemployment is extremely high these days, so a lot of candidates will vie for every position. For instance, we got about 300 resumes for the latest IT position we are trying to fill. While this is certainly a boon for the employer to have so many persons to choose from, one must also remember that a high employment rate means people will be applying for most any related job, which in turn means MOST (my experience) of the candidates will be under or even over-qualified. This coupled with the sheer number of resumes to review (we all have other work to do, of course) makes the 'Sifting Process' (I will collect royalties hencefore) rather cutthroat.

First, a prologue about cover letters. While a cover letter may be important for other fields, such as marketing where creativity and writing skills are more essential, it is quite unnecessary in IT, except to say that you are indeed applying for the position we advertised. Some people apply to the wrong email address (e.g. Job151@company.com vs. Job152@company.com) and end up in our pile, when they really should have gone to accounting. However, despite the fact that WE know where this resume should go, the candidate does not, is incompetent, or is sloppy, and therefore in the trash can according to Rule 1 of the Sifting Process. However, before that happens, we apply Rule 1a (there is always an 'a' after an integer), which is to scrutinize the cover letter for mistakes, and when invariably found, laugh about them with your colleagues. We enjoy this type of time-suckage (I posted the worst cover letter ever, which still is pasted on my wall at work). Lesson here: If you are including a cover letter, make sure you are sending it to the correct address, and you and a friend (being your own editor is difficult) have proofread it many times.

And now to business (AOTC reference -- can't help it!)... snail mail. Being from IT, 99% of our resumes are from online or email application (as instructed), so it just isn't done. In light of that, the impression it gives makes fodder for Rule 2: That (1) you are unable to follow simple directions, (2) you are UNWILLING to follow simple instructions, (3) you may not have access to a computer or, worst, (4) you are so unskilled with computers that this would have been your death-knell. Rules 1 and 1a may also apply here. Although this is more of an IT criteria, not following the rules of the employer from the get-go can't be good.

Online applicaton. The employer has gone to the trouble of setting up and online application system (e.g., the one at monster.com), with specific fields linked to a database from which the employer will be able to conglomerate all candidates into one spreadsheet (presumably) and, at a glance, look at the key areas of your resume and be able to sift with both the least amount of pain and the greatest efficiency. Failing to fit into the system that Big Brother has set up... well, read 1984. You are a troublemaker and iconoclast and this, again, part of Rule 2 (and 2a -- don't deny us our fun!).

Email application. It has become the cornerstone of efficient application as well as opening the gates for those who are able to effortlessly apply to a dozen positions in a day (I've done this) and thus flood your resume queue. The employer will print out ALL resumes and sift through them one-by-one, looking to apply Rules 1(spelling, grammar, inconsistent font, silly or ergonomically painful formatting) and 2 (under or over qualification -- applying to the wrong job), at the slightest indiscretion. There is no Rule 3 (other than we automatically reject any anagrams resultant from Jaquandor's true name, which I will reveal for a small fee), and it is not needed; surprisingly, this process weeds out about 85-90% of applicants (Perhaps not given the "90% Rule" I employ -- that is, 90% of all people are idiots). For those of you who may think this is a trivial way to sort out a potentially excellent candidate, I have many responses, but the most efficient is: If you don't have time to prepare a proper resume, why should I take the time to read it (or, again, take the chance that all your projects are not so slipshod)?

Now to the question of hand-delivery. I can think of nothing more irritating than a candidate begging to deliver their application in person. This contituties time-suckage from my already loaded day-to-day procedures (which do include the occasional blog when I have some spare time -- but that's MY time). However, I will also say that I would definitely note a resume that was dropped off at the office and put (by receptionist) on my desk or in-box, if only for curiosity sake. That to me says that the person obviously made the effort AND was conscious enough to realize we are all busy. That coupled with a duplicate resume sent by our REQUESTED method (and NOTED in the cover letter so as not to invoke Rule 2), will ensure that I give it its due attention.

So, from my little nitch in the world, I think you know what to do. Now go do it (and learn another skill in your spare time, dammit!).

PS: Bonus point to whomever can identify the relevance of the title of this blog (my Malaysian friends have guaranteed delivery!).

You've Got Mail!
Over the years we've all received various forms of chain email, from petitions to prayers that really work, to my favorite, Bill Gates will send you money! And though most automatons can figure out that this is just an electronic version of an old scheme, you don't want to be the one to miss out on ol' Bill's free $1000 bucks, do you?

Well, chain email has become urban legend, but knowing about it and it's many examples is the best way to combat it.

Or, at the very least, get a really good laugh out of it.

Walter Shaw Strikes Again
If it wasn't for such (alleged -- haven't seen it!) movie goo as The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, I might not have been afforded such a good laugh as reading Walter Shaw's scathing review a few weeks back.

Now, thanks to Bad Boys II, he's done it again.

BONUS REVIEW: I just snarfed on my drink after reading his review of Lara Croft: Tomb Raider. Now I'm looking forward to Cradle of Life with a new kind of interest.