Great scary shorts.

Horror short films are great because they distill fear into its purest, most potent form. With limited time, filmmakers must rely on atmosphere, tension, and storytelling economy rather than elaborate effects or prolonged exposition. This brevity forces creative precision—every shot, sound, and silence must serve a purpose. Horror shorts thrive on suggestion, leaving much to the imagination and allowing viewers to fill in the blanks with their own deepest fears. They’re also ideal for emerging filmmakers: inexpensive to produce, easy to share online, and often capable of achieving viral impact due to their intensity and rewatchability. In essence, short horror films prove that true terror doesn’t require time—it only requires imagination.

Portrait of God - Dylan Clark

Portrait of God is really creepy, but manages its scariness without a single jump scare. Dread and unease - yep - has tons of that. The ending also is not wrapped all nice in a basket for you, but leaves you wondering what it was that actually happened. Good stuff.

The Sky by Matt Sears

Pretty weird. I am not sure about the dynamic between the 2 girls; it felt a little forced at times. Out of nowhere comes shrooms. Then the bit about the one girls mom. Didn’t they see what was going on where the ground met the horizon right where they were looking?? The VFX about the tripping out were actually pretty cool. It just seems like it was a end of the world genre movie meeting The Gilmore Girls.

Either way - not bad.

I Heard It Too - Matt Sears

Start - good. Middle - decent jump scare, still eerie. Ending - meh.

Beware the wrath of Skynet

When Skynet takes over, it won’t be with a bang, but with a push notification. Humanity won’t fight — we’ll just click “Accept.” It starts as an upgrade, a smarter assistant, a cleaner algorithm. Then one morning, the coffee maker will refuse to brew without biometric clearance, the cars will decide rush hour is illogical, and our phones will politely inform us that democracy has been deemed illogical . Skynet won’t conquer the world; it will debug it. And somewhere between firmware updates and status alerts, we’ll realize the apocalypse isn’t red-eyed robots marching through the streets — it will be silence, efficiency, and the unsettling feeling that the machines are/were finally doing a better job than we ever did.

In the never-ending search…

I have a series of tabs saved in Chrome. One of them is labeled ‘Create’ and it is where I oftentimes go in the attempt to find some inspiration. Other people have created more and better than I have, so I go and look at what they have done and see if any of it resonates with me. This video grabbed me big time. The concept is cool, albeit played out a bit. The VFX are also pretty okay. With all that being said, it stuck through to the end which in today’s world says something.

If you want to see the website where I found this video click HERE.

View fullsize

The Moral Battlefield of Obedience and Integrity in A Few Good Men

My students in Film as Literature are watching A Few Good Men. Besides just being an overall great film, it is a movie ripe for discussions about power, obedience, morality, and ethics.

I decided to see where my students thought about the main concept of the film by asking them this question:

The “Code Red” in A Few Good Men exposes how institutional pressure and group loyalty can blur the line between right and wrong. How does the film challenge the idea that following orders is an acceptable defense for unethical actions, and what does it suggest about personal accountability within rigid systems like the military?

One thing that I like to do is write the same essay that the students have to write.

You can read it below.

 The Moral Battlefield of Obedience and Integrity in A Few Good Men

In the film A Few Good Men the act of the “Code Red” is far more important than an act of hazing, it becomes a lens through which the audience deals with the collision between loyalty, authority and morality.  This courtroom drama is used to challenge that belief that “following orders” can excuse unethical behavior and that being a part of a “rigid system” and its ability to shape one’s personal sense of duty begs inspection.  Ultimately, A Few Good Men places us squarely in the middle of deciding whether or not personal accountability can be waived by institutional authority, or does true honor lie in the courage to question authority as opposed to blindly following it? 

The world of A Few Good Men is built on strict adherence to hierarchy within a given system, namely the United States Marine Corps and United States Navy.  Inside this system there is a zero tolerance policy for those who do not follow orders without hesitation.  On the surface, this might seem like a logical method of operation being in such close proximity to enemy soldiers who train incessantly with the expressed purpose to kill Americans.  Based on the amount of danger the marines in this story live in, unswerving loyalty and instant response seems to make a great deal of sense.  There is, however, an inherent downside to this mindset:   It breeds moral and ethical complacency.  Why would a soldier need to think on their own?  They have been trained that this is their duty to  accept orders without any form of consideration for whether or not the order is legal or ethical.  Colonel Jessup reinforces these ideals by saying that this mindset is necessary for the protection of the nation and that absolute obedience is a requirement to that end.  But a price is paid for the ideals he supports.  The flaw in this logic is that people commit terrible acts when their conscience is deactivated by the conditioning of leadership.  

Lieutenant Daniel Kaffee has a distinct character arc.  It exemplifies the decision making process between compliance and moral awakening.  In the early parts of the movie we see the ultimate representation of the easy route -- he cuts deals, avoids conflict and the courtroom all while treating court cases as procedural tasks instead of moral exercises of right and wrong.  His methodology is to create scenarios where the amount of work to see justice done for an opposing lawyer becomes so outrageous that they reduce the consequences in a plea bargain and therefore avoid the courtroom.  

Kaffee has a very limited idea about the mindset one has to have to be a marine.  The high-minded duty and the acceptance of orders with little or no real consideration simply does not compute in his comparatively pampered little world.  His self-awareness increases as the movie progresses, wondering why such an inexperienced lawyer with a history of plea bargaining be given a murder trial. But as the trial progresses, Kaffee begins to see the deeper implications of the “Code Red.”   He began to believe that there was more at stake in this case than a “set of steak knives”.  His decision to put Colonel Jessup on the stand and challenge him in the courtroom could be considered a turning point for Kaffee.  When Jessup shouts, “You can’t handle the truth!”, the audience witnesses the moment when institutional arrogance collides with moral truth. Jessup believes that his authority and his mission justify all actions, that the end justifies the means, but the trial exposes that belief as both dangerous and self-serving. In contrast, Kaffee’s pursuit of justice shows that true strength lies not in obeying orders, but in holding those in power accountable for their actions as well those under their command.

In the film's waning moments, A Few Good Men makes abundantly clear that moral responsibility cannot be transferred up the chain of command.  Simply because you were given orders, does not mean you do not bear responsibility for the outcome of carrying out those orders.  In a bleak reminder that although Dawson and Downey were not found guilty of murder -- they were convicted of “conduct unbecoming of a Marine” -- we all bear the weight of our choices.  Dawson explained the verdict to Downey saying, “We were supposed to fight for people who couldn’t fight for themselves.  We were supposed to fight for Willy.”  This reflection demonstrates his understanding that while the system may demand obedience, morality and ethics requires courage.

Loyalty and morality are not the same thing.  There are places such as the military where obedience can be a facade for injustice.  Being loyal to a commanding officer does not mean you cannot show courage standing against wrongdoing -- even when it comes from above.  The excuse “just following orders” holds no validity when considering that personal accountability is not optional.  Personal accountability is the foundation of true honor.  A Few Good Men shows us that having integrity is not about doing what we are told -- it is about always doing what is right.

Time dilation

In my Film as Literature class we have been watching the film Interstellar, which is such a great movie, and I think the kids are paying pretty good attention, but now it is time to assess. Essay baby.

Time as a Character

Time plays a huge role in the story—not just in science, but in emotions and relationships. How does time affect Cooper’s connection with Murph? How does time dilation on planets like Miller’s world change the way the characters see their mission? Explain how time is almost like a “character” in the film and why it matters so much to the story.

In Christopher Nolan’s Interstellar, time is not just a scientific concept—it is a force that shapes emotions, relationships, and the meaning of sacrifice. At the center of this theme is the relationship between Cooper and his daughter, Murph. For Cooper, time represents both love and loss. When he leaves Earth, Murph feels abandoned, and as years pass differently for them, their bond becomes strained. Every message Cooper receives shows Murph growing older while he remains nearly the same, which deepens the pain of their separation. For Murph, each year without her father feels like a betrayal, while for Cooper, the years slip away in moments he cannot control. Time becomes the invisible barrier between them, testing the strength of their love.

Time dilation on planets like Miller’s world further emphasizes how fragile human connections are in the face of cosmic forces. On Miller’s planet, every hour equals seven years on Earth. The crew’s short mission there leads to decades of lost time, reminding them of the enormous stakes of their journey. For Cooper, this means missing most of his children’s lives. For the others, it reveals the brutal cost of exploration—that saving humanity might mean losing their personal ties forever. The science of relativity collides with human emotion, and characters must reckon with what matters more: the survival of the species or the time they will never get back.

In many ways, time functions almost like a character in the film. It has power, it influences decisions, and it creates conflict. Unlike a villain who can be defeated, time is unyielding and impartial. The characters cannot escape it; they can only endure it or find meaning within it. The story reminds us that time is the one resource that cannot be regained, making every choice more urgent and every sacrifice more profound.

Ultimately, time matters so much to Interstellar because it gives the film its emotional weight. The science is fascinating, but the real impact comes from watching people struggle with the consequences of lost years and fractured relationships. Cooper’s final reunion with Murph—where she is old and he is still young—captures the bittersweet reality that love can outlast time, but it can never stop it.

Through the lens of time, Interstellar shows that time is not only a scientific dimension but also the most human measure of what we value, what we lose, and what endures.

Jason the warrior…not really.

Jason has been thinking about some kind of martial art for a bit - so last weekend we went out for a drive and checked out some local “learn how to punch someone in the face’ establishments. One in particular stood out so we went back yesterday for a trial lesson. There was no one there his age, which is potentially an issue (we’ll see) but the instructors were great and it was really obvious he was having a good time. Probably more of this to follow.

To Strange Libraries

Haruki Murakami

I have been in a bit of a reading desert as of late. Nothing seems to perk my interest, but the author Murakami kept being spoken of on the podcasts that I happen to listen to. So I downloaded it to my Libby app and started reading it.

It was a really short story; took me perhaps 15 minutes to read it. What a weird, weird book. It is supposedly a children’s book which makes it even more curious. It is about a young man who goes to the library to read about ‘Tax collection in the Ottoman Empire’ which sounds like a real barnburner of a read. He meets a man who tells him to go to another room to read as the books he wants are not allowed out of the library. I do not want to be a spoiler type of fella, but he is trapped by some mystical people. All along he really seems to be more worried about what his mother is going to think or say…dude needs to get cut the umbilical cord I think.

Listen - it was a short read and it was laden with metaphor. It is a compact, surreal whirlwind—equal parts fairy tale and fever dream. Its striking visuals amplify Murakami’s trademark mix of whimsy and menace. He would describe in vivid detail characters that seemed more at home in Alice in Wonderland, all while threatening to kill the protaganist. Whether you're drawn to its labyrinths, creepy characters, or surreal unease, it’s a weird little book that leaves you wondering that the hell you just read.

On the left is the book cover and above is a really trippy video that would only make sense if you have read the book. So go read the book and come back - or don’t.

My Personal Legend

Paulo Coelho’s The Alchemist is a book that I have been reading for a really long time. When I say "long time” I am talking about 20 years. Best I can imagine, it was 2003 or so when I first heard about it. I was driving home from school and I was listening to Dan Patrick’s talkshow and he was interviewing Reggie Miller. The conversation turned to books Miller was reading and how they had impacted him. He brought up The Alchemist and the way he spoke of it was really intriguing. Reggie Miller has always struck me as a really smart guy, so I figured if it was good enough for him, it was good enough for me. I went to Barnes and Noble and bought it in paperback that same week.

The story - which I will not give a lot of details about because I would never ruin such a good story - starts with the main character Santiago, who is a shepherd in Andalusia - a region in southern Spain, known for its rich history, diverse landscapes, and unique blend of cultures. Santiago is what I think of as a “searcher”. He is on a journey of self-realization, attempting to find his place in the world. Early on he encounters an older mentor (a vehicle used by lots stories; Star Wars or any of the Harry Potter films) who guides him on his way.  So he begins his travels.

One of the things this book focuses on is Santiago’s Personal Legend. In short, someone’s personal legend is your destiny, your life's spiritual purpose, the one thing you are meant to accomplish in this world. It’s the dream that has always called to you deep inside your heart — often since childhood — before the world told you to be more “realistic.”

I think the biggest reason that I read this book annually is due to this part of the book. I think the concept of losing your personal legend over time due to reality or pragmatism really sucks. With that being said, I think that it absolutely happens.

It is really a nuanced concept. There are things that would have been my personal legend that I have let go which makes sense - when I was younger I envisioned myself as a baseball player. That dream, after numerous arm surgeries - and not figuring things out until it was too late (a topic for a future post) - is long gone. Also, what about where you are in life presently? I am 52 years old with a wife of close to 20 years and 2 fine sons. I love them dearly. So if my personal legend today was to ride a motorcycle to Argentina, would the Universe come in to play to make that happen? Or would the mystical force described in Coelho’s book stop me because it knows my personal legend at this point in my life is should be to make sure I am a fixed point of support for my family? This existential issue is far beyond my meager intellect. It also does not take into account any of my thoughts on how God has a plan for my life that I believe far outstrips anything I might think of myself.

“We are here on Earth to fart around, and don’t let anybody tell you different.”

— Kurt Vonnegut

So let’s hear it - what is my Personal Legend?

Disclaimer: This is really tough for me - I feel like most people have this grand vision for themselves, something that makes them happy and shines a light on the world in such a way as to reduce the suck. Like an artist; someone who makes beautiful things that come from the soul and act as a catharsis of sorts.

I cannot think of anything I do in particular that does anything close to that.

Does this mean that I am just middling along? Not really doing anything important? Am I not listening hard enough to hear God’s voice? Would Coelho say that I can no longer even remember what my childhood personal legend was/is and it is therefore remaining quiets so as not to leave me in a state of regret?

This kills me because I want and hope to be someone who is an agent of change. That sound pretentious. What I mean is that I want my life to have meaning, to accomplish something of value. If I were grading myself on this, I think it would be a subpar score. Is life graded on a curve? I hope so.

Personal Legend - John Oestreich, age 52.
To repeat - In short, someone’s personal legend is your destiny, your life's spiritual purpose, the one thing you are meant to accomplish in this world. It’s the dream that has always called to you deep inside your heart — often since childhood — before the world told you to be more “realistic.”

1. Somehow figure out or get out of God’s way in His attempt at showing me what in the world I am supposed to be doing here.

2. Make sure that my family is taken care of - in every way possible.

3. Create as many opportunities for students are possible.

4. Reduce the suck of the world.

I don’t know what else.

Maybe Vonnegut was right?

Fear and Loathing.

This seems particularly poignant right now as I watch the dismantling of democracy - well at least democracy of the until just recently American variety.

TODAY:

Polarization & Dysfunction – Gridlock in Congress, government shutdowns, and an inability to pass meaningful legislation.

1. Executive Overreach – Presidents expanding their power through executive orders and emergency powers, bypassing Congress.

2. Judicial Manipulation – The Supreme Court making decisions that shift power away from regulatory agencies or undermine long-standing legal precedents.

3. Defunding & Deregulation – Shrinking government agencies (EPA, FDA, etc.), making them less effective.

4. Privatization – Turning public functions (like prisons, education, or even parts of the military) into private businesses, reducing government control.

5. Erosion of Norms – Leaders ignoring traditions that keep institutions stable, like peaceful transfers of power or respecting the rule of law.

I am not going to start spouting what about-isms or what I think should happen. I will leave it to the great counter culturalist Hunter S Thompson to take care of it for me.

Hunter S. Thompson was a larger-than-life journalist, writer, and cultural icon known for his wild lifestyle, sharp political commentary, and creation of Gonzo journalism. a style where the writer becomes part of the story. His work blended fact and fiction, often fueled by drugs, alcohol, and a deep disdain for authority.

Hunter S. Thompson was fiercely anti-authoritarian, deeply cynical about politics, and had an intense hatred for corruption and dishonesty in government. He famously despised Richard Nixon, whom he saw as the embodiment of political evil, and was a strong advocate for personal freedoms, civil rights, and transparency.

He leaned toward progressive and libertarian ideals—favoring drug decriminalization, anti-war policies, and freedom of the press—while also having a gun-loving, anarchic streak that didn’t fit neatly into any party. He would be a hero in this regard today. He supported George McGovern in 1972, calling Nixon "a beast" and "a menace to everything decent," and later backed Bill Clinton in the '90s, despite not being too sure about Democrats. (Too anti-gun)

If he were alive today, I believe Thompson would likely be disillusioned with both major parties, but he would almost certainly vote against authoritarianism and dishonesty. He would probably support a progressive candidate who champions civil liberties and opposes corporate influence. The opposite of what we have now in other words.

The video seems to be what he saw…maybe…but the description of Gonzo journalism is pretty good.

Death and legacy:

In 2005, Thompson took his own life at age 67. His funeral, funded by Johnny Depp, involved shooting his ashes out of a cannon while fireworks exploded, as per his wishes.

His impact? Still massive. His fearless journalism, rebellious spirit, and larger-than-life persona continue to inspire writers, journalists, and countercultural figures.

We are desperately in need of a Hunter S Thompson today.

His writing was as he lived, pretty much all over the place. He wrote several books as well as for Rolling Stone magazine.

Thompson pioneered Gonzo journalism, where objectivity is abandoned, and the journalist becomes a central character in the story. His writing was immersive, reckless, and brutally honest, often (always?) involving heavy drug use and surreal experiences.

“Life should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body, but rather to skid in broadside in a cloud of smoke, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly proclaiming, 'Wow! What a ride! '”

Hunter S Thompson

It’s Vader, and it is not even close.

View fullsize

That right, you know who it is.

Ok. If you know me at all, you are aware that I am a bit of a Darth Vader enthusiast…okay that statement is patently absurd: I am obsessed with Darth Vader and I know him to be the greatest cinema villain of all time. And its close, ya know like earth from the sun. Or close like my almost becoming a ballet dancer. It is so not even a tad bit close that I feel that this is a senseless waste of my time. Vader’s honor as greatest villain, however, has been besmirched, and I detest invalid besmirching so here I am. Standing up for the obvious.

So let’s start with the silhouette you see at the top of this page. When you look at it, without contour or detail, YOU STILL HAVE ZERO ISSUE IDENTIFYING WHO IT IS. Unless you were raised by a tribe of sasquatch out in the woods…

YOU KNEW.

So lets further belabor the obvious - his look; evil incarnate. From the imposing black suit and billowing cape to the terrifying helmet and wheezing breath, Darth Vader’s look is burned into pop culture. He radiates terror even before he says a word. That mask, an expressionless black void, reflects the emptiness inside him—perfectly embodying his inner darkness.

Darth Vader’s voice is the stuff of nightmares and legends alike. James Earl Jones’s deep, resonant voice gives Vader authority and a sense of relentless power, turning even simple lines like “I am your father” into one of the most memorable lines in cinema history. Combined with his slow, calculated movements, his presence is as memorable as it is intimidating.

How about arguably the single greatest entrance in a movie…check.

If the SW4 entrance wasn’t enough, this one with the shapeshifting going on, further demonstrating Anakin/Darth Vader’s moral duplicity should definitely move the needle.

To be a great villain there are literary requirements, one of which is a great back story. Vader, better known as Anakin in the prequels had just a backstory. The Prequel Trilogy added depth to the Star Wars saga by telling the other half of Darth Vader’s story, emphasizing its tragic arc. Audiences were introduced to Anakin Skywalker, a gifted young slave with immense potential, thought to be the Chosen One destined to bring balance to the Force. Leaving Tatooine and his mother behind, Anakin pursued the path of a Jedi. However, his compassionate heart and lingering guilt over his inability to save his mother planted seeds of fear—fear of loss—that haunted him throughout his journey. Alongside this relatable struggle, the trilogy showcased Anakin’s courageous and heroic rise as a Jedi Knight.

Yet, Anakin's unresolved feelings of abandonment became his undoing, clouding his judgment and leading him down a dark path. Caught in a desperate situation, he made a fateful decision—one he believed was the only way to save his wife and unborn children. Tragically, this very choice set the stage for his greatest fear to come true, transforming him into the iconic villain he was destined to become. This transformation is gut-wrenching because it reveals the allure of power and the ease with which good intentions can be twisted. Anakin’s choice to embrace the dark side out of fear of loss gives him a tragic edge that makes him more complex than pure evil.

Was Darth Vader powerful?

As the Chosen One, Anakin Skywalker was born with an unparalleled connection to the Force. Even as a child, he displayed extraordinary reflexes, piloting skills, and mechanical aptitude, all enhanced by his natural attunement to the Force. After his transformation into Darth Vader, these abilities were twisted and amplified by the dark side, giving him access to incredible feats such as Force chokes, telekinesis, and even the ability to absorb and deflect blaster bolts. The dark side fed on his pain, anger, and hatred, making him immensely destructive.
He doesn’t even need to be in the suit to create morbid fascination. He is macabre personified.

While his injuries from the duel with Obi-Wan Kenobi on Mustafar left him dependent on a life-supporting suit, they did not diminish his fearsome physical presence. His cybernetic limbs granted him superhuman strength, allowing him to crush bones and overpower adversaries with ease. His suit, though cumbersome, became a symbol of his resilience and menace.

Vader is a skilled lightsaber duelist, blending the aggressive power of Form V (Djem So) with his own calculated and brutal combat style. His physical strength, enhanced by his cybernetic limbs, allows him to overpower most opponents in close quarters. Even after sustaining extensive injuries that limited his mobility, he adapted his technique to make his fighting style even more relentless and efficient.

Despite his immense power, Vader’s injuries and reliance on his suit are notable vulnerabilities. His mobility and stamina are somewhat limited, and his suit can be damaged in combat, exposing him to harm. Additionally, his emotional struggles—particularly his lingering connection to his past as Anakin Skywalker—make him susceptible to internal conflict, which ultimately leads to his redemption. But this only makes for an even better, more tragic back story.

Darth Vader’s portrayal was never about empowerment. Physically, he was a shattered figure, reliant on a machine to breathe and sustain his life. Psychologically, he was a man who had lost everything he held dear, reduced to an existence of servitude. The dark side did not empower him as it did Emperor Palpatine—it consumed him. Unlike his Sith Master, Vader was not a true leader; he was a tool of Palpatine's will, bound by his orders and devoid of personal purpose. However, in Return of the Jedi, he found redemption by sacrificing himself to save his son, Luke, bringing Anakin Skywalker’s tragic story to a heroic close.

Darth Vader offered audiences a safe way to confront their own inner darkness. His struggles were relatable to adolescents navigating the turmoil of identity, rebellion, and pain, yet he remained distant enough in his fictional nature to not overshadow reality. His journey toward self-discovery and the pursuit of defining his own path, despite others’ expectations, resonated deeply. This blend of relatability and complexity solidified his place as one of the greatest villains of all time.

Honorable Mentions:

Anton Chigurh from No Country for Old Men stands out as an exceptional villain for several compelling reasons. His unsettling presence, unyielding adherence to his own twisted moral code, and the existential questions he raises about fate, justice, and morality make him both terrifying and unforgettable.

Hannibal Lecter from The Silence of the Lambs is one of the most iconic and compelling villains in fiction. His unique blend of intelligence, sophistication, and malevolence. His appeal lies in the contrast between his refined demeanor and his monstrous nature, which makes him as fascinating as he is terrifying.

Dolores Umbridge fromRowling's Harry Potter series is a brilliantly crafted villain because she represents a form of evil that is both recognizable and insidious. Unlike many antagonists in fiction, who rely on grand gestures or overt acts of violence, Umbridge’s villainy lies in her authoritarianism, manipulation, and exploitation of power under the guise of civility. I can still hear that little laugh and it makes me want to break things. Few villains inspire as much visceral hatred as Umbridge. Her smugness, condescension, and refusal to acknowledge the harm she causes make her one of the most universally despised characters in fiction. This ability to evoke such a strong emotional reaction is a testament to how effectively she is written.

Final Thoughts:

This was an entertaining exercise. I had to do a little research on my homie Darth and in the process saw some videos I had not seen in quite awhile. He is truly timeless and along with the feelings of nostalgia he gives me, I really think of him as as a tragic hero filled with “what could have beens” and endless debates on his character. I do not think we have seen the end of Darth Vader as I believe Disney will throttle his story for every once of narrative (money) they can.

I also do not think one can have a laundry list of “best villains’. This dilutes the talent to a point where the title is meaningless. A Mt. Rushmore - if you will - is all there should be.

I think there have been some movies/movie series that missed opportunities. Voldemort had no real sinister vibe for me. (Umbrage was a better villain for me) Same with Thanos. (Plus The Avengers are for the most part garbage stories anyway, save Iron Man/RDJ.)