Underrated Films: Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo

Yes, the movie that got a 4.4 on IMDB, 23% on Metacritic and a 9% on Rotten Tomatoes happens to be one of my favorite movies. I believe I've seen this movie about ten times. It's pretty much a slapstick comedy and a sequel that improved upon the original in my opinion.


It has a bunch of really great scenes in it.

Norm MacDonald has a phenomenal performance as MacManus.

There is this odd innuendo joke about Canadians, it's hilarious. 

The "your mama is in here" part is my favorite scene in the whole movie.

There are these constant references of sex moves throughout the whole movie. Many of which I never heard of before.

Other sex moves are the Belgian Steamer, Portuguese Breakfast, Turkish Snow Cone and the list goes on and on.

My reasons for it being better than the original is that it introduces a whole fictitious world of "man whoring" that creates many more funnier jokes. Also it's setting in Amsterdam opens many nationality jokes concerning Europeans and Americans. The man-whore "union" is for sure my favorite aspect of the movie. The comedy doesn't stop and the film is full of endless material for not just male prostitution, but nationality, stereotypes, cultures and many other worldly matters that you might not know about. A truly underrated comedy and definitely one of my favorites to watch over and over again.

Underrated Films: Only God Forgives

Intro
I have watched a lot of garbage and at the same time I have watched a lot of good garbage. So I know what "real" garbage looks like when I see it. It's usually a film that delivers nothing of substance whatsoever and fails to entertain. I believe there are a lot films that get thrown out of the critic bandwagon because they don't please the general consumer audience. If a movie entertains the four quadrants then it is generally regarded as a "good" film in the critic's circuit. If a film doesn't hit the four quadrants...such as Only God Forgives then the majority of critics will regard it as garbage. Critics are now trained to praise films that function like a popular television show. Coincidently we are in the television series age. The most popular consumer is one who does not want to think for themselves but rather to be entertained by old morals and fabrics. If the popular consumer is left in confusion, then that is a bad product. This means that the "salesmen" also known as the critic cannot recommend a product that people don't understand. For this reason I have started my new series of writing called Underrated Films. This first film I will write about is the before mentioned Only God Forgives. I couldn't ask for a more perfect example of a greatly underrated film that speaks multiple languages and thoughts.

What is Art House?
It's hard to say actually. In the most common sense there really is no true definition other than a film that drives towards an artistic value rather than a commercial one. The definition cannot get more simple than that. In Only God Forgives there is no "one" meaning to it but instead multiple meanings. This is the clear cut reason why the film is a quintessential art house experience. The plot speaks in different ways leaving very many interpretations. When describing why the movie is not pretentious to so many literal thinkers I compared it to a Jackson Pollack painting only much more practical. My example is "you don't go to a Jackson Pollock painting and try to explain the precise meaning of it." Art is much more subtle than that. If art is the study of aesthetics or beauty then it is a very subtle field. For example it is hard to say why you enjoy certain facial features over others. There is not much room for logic when you discuss the beauty of imagery. Only God Forgives uses very little dialogue and rides strongly on the perfection of every shot composed in it's ninety minute time frame. However, every scene is meaningful. For any film can be pretty to look at, but without substance to the imagery it becomes less artistic.

It is a Philosophical Film
The hands play a big part in the central theme of the story. It has to do with God and forgiveness if that wasn't already given away by its title. I argue that it also has as much to do with humanity and forgiveness as well. The central character is tormented by the sins he committed with his own hands. Therefore he looks for punishment from an authoritative figure or in some interpretations "god" to forgive himself. This is the central theme throughout. There is also the unwillingness to forgive by all humans and even the most authoritative figures have malice in their heart. We see those who do wrong have others do wrong to them and that is the eternal cycle that cannot be broken in life. The mother's sins over her sons, the son sins over his father and so on and so forth. Humanities biggest challenge is not to restrain from sinning but to actually forgive. Personal forgiveness is so difficult that societies appoints authority figures to punish for us. Our civilizations have constructed systems built around punishing since we have the inability to forgive. In this the title Only God Forgives is brilliant.

It is Also About Our Expectations
When I watched Only God Forgives in the cinema I caught myself too many times having to put my western and hollywood bias in check. In Drive Ryan Gosling did everything we would not only expect a hero to do, but what we actually desire him to do; get vengeance and kill the sleazy bad guys. The consumer always wants to know what to expect, they go to a McDonald's to eat a big mac because they know what it will taste like. Drive delivers what we expect from hollywood but in a more patient artistic manner. The average consumer likes a happy ending, although the ending of Drive could be left to interpretation it is fair to assume that the "good guy" won and killed the bad guys. That is the hollywood formula we know very well. Our expectations for Only God Forgives are shattered almost completely. We want to see a movie-star like Gosling kill bad guys, but instead we got a film about humans rather than characters. In Only God Forgives we are all sinners and there is no real clear cut good guys or bad guys. Instead of watching the white blonde movie-star punish the sinners we get an aging uncharismatic thai man, hence completely contrary to our expectations. This unsettled me at first but then I realized the story was about much more than revenge. Lastly there is an underlying message about how easterners might view the westerner. The white characters in here are quite villainous throughout the movie and the presumed arch-villain dresses like Miami trash. As comical as it sounds; it is a brilliant switch of roles that an American audience would not be used to. The westerners are the villains with the ugly culture of monopolizing and are bloodthirsty for revenge no matter the reasoning. As an American viewer myself I found this change-up quite clever. It is clear at least to me that the director Nicolas Winding Refn set out to make this piece with very rebellious tendencies.

Last Word 
Other than the countless meanings, undertones and metaphors that make for a profoundly interesting film; the production is marvelous. The cinematography is gorgeous as Larry Smith continues to play with colors in the most effective of ways. The soundtrack by Cliff Martinez is ground-breaking and climaxes in one of the most anti-climatic scenes I've ever seen in cinema. This experience was by far the best time I had in the movie theatre all summer. If you like to follow the political status quo of movie making or like to be spoon-fed what to think then Only God Forgives is not for you. If you want to have the freedom of interpretation and think your own thoughts upon brilliantly laid frames then I certainly recommend this movie.

Mexico National Football Team and Their Problems

I have watched almost all the World Cup Qualifying games and pretty much every important tournament the national team of Mexico has participated in the last five years. Heck, I've even seen most of their friendly matches just for the hell of it. I grew up watching this team since World Cup 94. I remember the old days and I became excited for what was now supposed to be the golden age of the Mexican selection. You can say that my passion for "the beautiful game" first sprouted from the Mexican national team and the World Cup fever that the team participated in. So for that reason I have developed my own ideas of why they have performed so poorly this whole year. For the first time in my life Mexico might not make it to the World Cup. This has me worried therefore I have developed concerns and an ideal blueprint to success. This is of course my opinion so don't take it so seriously and please most of all don't try to sarcastically belittle me with "I'm sure you know more than real coaches" because that argument could shut down anyone's opinion to just about anything. So those open minded individuals who are willing to hear a different approach to a failing team then go ahead and read on.

First I will address five biggest problems.

Problem 1.

Long Ball Strategy 

Because it doesn't work with short player teams, especially with the Mexican selection. In the last couple of games Mexico struggled tremendously because of their offensive strategy. The offense sits so far into the box that the defense and midfielders cannot get a descent play going. Instead they get trapped and are forced to deliver these countless long balls straight into the opposing side's defense. The opposition is all too content to sit back and wait for these long balls. It allows them to stand and wait rather than force them to come out and run back, hence a good strategy to tire them out. Instead the opposing defense gets to sit back and wait for long balls all day. I've seen it numerous times where Mexico wants to get a quick counter-attack but the forwards are so far down that the defensive midfielders have to literally launch a ball far straight into the hands of the opposing team. This faulty strategy has not been fixed, even recently with the change of coach de La Torre to Tena. The same strategy was used vs the US in Ohio, therefore the same results. We need the offense to drop back and help the midfield get some ball movement. This will draw out the famous "parking the bus" blueprint that so many teams are now using to beat Mexico. 

Problem 2.
Carlos Salcido

Now listen I know this guys "was" once really good. I remember him from the World Cup 2006 in Germany. That was seven years ago and he's still on the team. I remember him playing with the likes of Omar Bravo and Nery Castillo and those guys are now a distant memory. The point is that he's ways past his prime and it shows. Not only does it show but the whole team suffers for it. In the recent Confederations Cup  I had Salcido as the flop of the match two games in a row. Why you ask? He's a turnover machine, a momentum killer and he lost practically most of his ability to deliver a descent long ball. Torrado struggles too and has become ineffective. However I have actually seen Torrado sit out some important matches. Salcido on the other hand has unlimited immunity and for some reason plays in all the important matches even after performing miserably time and time again.

Problems 3.
The Defensive Line Keeps Changing
 We need a settled defensive line. Sure we have Moreno and now Reyes as permanent starters. But why keep changing the left back and the right back all the time? We suffered because of this many times including the World Cup 2010 where Osorio all the sudden took the centre back position. This erratic change of position lead to one of the turnover goals against Argentina. In my opinion Jorge Torres Nilo should be the lead left back and Miguel Layun should be the lead right back. We only saw one game with them playing together and that was a victory over the Ivory Coast. They were explosive on the crosses and are consistent on defense.













Problem 4. 
The Midfield is Relatively Mediocre
 I find it mind boggling why Marco Fabian (who is one of the best offensive players) has not cracked the first team lineup. Even more so, I don't understand why he's not being used as a creative midfielder; a position not filled in a long time. Pavel Pardo was our last real playmaker and his moment was sort of short lived. Fabian has the ability to exceed Pardo's style of playmaking and really crack the midfield problem. Instead we have guys shifting back and forth from the midfield to the bench. Guys like Arce, Herrera, Salcido, Zavala and Reyna are taking turns being confused on their actual role in the team. Having that many confused players makes for a terrible midfield and the whole team suffers. In my opinion Hector Herrera and Hiram Mier should be the two defensive midfielders because they're young and relentless. I know having Mier go into the midfield is experimental but just think of it this way, with Layun and Nilo going up to help with crosses we need a guy to drop back and cover that right and center back position. Mier is very well-rounded in those positions. Plus we need somebody of good size to help cover those corner balls.

Problem 5. 
Why is an all-star team never assembled?
 Now I know that Vela doesn't want to play for reasons being that he's a chicken and wuss. But there are other players who have done really well for the team who have gotten unjustly overlooked. Exhibit 1, Aldo De Nigris. A lot of people remember the Gold Cup 2011 for it's final 4-2 victory over the US, but nobody bothers recounting their dominant road to the final game. De Nigris made four goals in the tournament including one game winning goal against Honduras that got Mexico into the final. Last game Mexico won in the hexagonal was vs Jamaica and because of a De Nigris goal. He is also the most consistent aerial striker as of recent because he is the tallest one Mexico has. Well besides Jimenez (6 '4") who has only scored once so far. But none the less why is De Nigris not playing? Another question is why is Ochoa constantly overlooked. I remember the 2009 Gold Cup where Mexico was dominant and they destroyed the USA 5-0. It was Ochoa's stunning blocks in the semi final versus Costa Rica that got Mexico to the final. What did Ochoa do wrong to be replaced by the mediocre Corona all year? Why is Fabian not a starter? The questions are still not answered.

Remember what this felt like? It's called winning three points.

So this is what my starting lineup would look like. There are two different versions.

Standard Formation 
                       
                           Ochoa
Layun    Reyes or (Masa)   Moreno   Nilo

                 Mier              Herrera
                           Fabian
    Dos Santos                         Guardado
                           Chicharito

Double Striker Formation 

                           Ochoa
Layun     Reyes or (Masa)  Moreno   Nilo

                   Mier               Herrera
Dos Santos                              Guardado
         
             Chicharito    Vela or (De Nigris or whoever can make goals)



There are other variations of a solid lineup but the possibilities are endless considering who can actually play or not. I would like to see these two formations tested with these players first and foremost. Let me know what you think.

Magna Carta Holy Grail: Album Review

Jay-Z - Magna Carta Holy Grail

I'm going to review this album a bit differently than what you might be used to. I will list the songs that I think are good and explain why I like them. Then I will make a quick list of the songs I probably won't bump anytime soon.

Introduction
This is my first album review and this is also my first hip hop review ever, so I feel like I must explain some things right away. First off, I must explain that this is my opinion and I don't care to be objective about this album in particular. After all I only like a certain type of hip hop. The hip hop that actually has bounce to it and a hard beat to groove to. I don't like that shit that has an r&b singer takeover and rappers trying to be singers all the sudden and vice versa etc. So that should prepare you for my humorous constructive criticism.


Likes

1. Heaven: It has a heavy beat and lyrics are ambiguously vague but they sound really cool "Question religion, question it all. Question existence until them questions are solved. Meanwhile this heretic I be out in Marrakesh.." What is clear in this song is that Jay is secular but I always thought that was obvious since most of his career he has seemed apathetic to any deep theological talk. He also barely even addresses the illuminati conspiracy, but seriously do we even care?  I myself always assumed that he was just a rich egotistical capitalist. The chorus is actually pretty good "Have you ever been to Heaven?" It actually resonates really well in the head. The second verse is full of even more confusing lyrics that jump around everywhere which I believe is Jay's way of poking fun at the conspiracy theorists. It's very much in the same spirit of John Lennon's "Glass Onion" which Lennon later explained was a written to drive the conspiracy theorists crazy. Although the second verse is a hot mess I admire it's random creativity. To me it's evident that Jay is having fun with it.

2. Picasso Baby: Now I know what most of you are thinking "How can you like such a materialistic song?" I know it's materialistic as hell and the whole album for that matter is one big corporate commercial of Jay-Z talking about what he has. In this song I argue that he actually talks about what he "wants" and how his hunger is insatiable. It really dives into the faust ideology of man never being satisfied and always wanting more "I'm never satisfied, can't knock my hustle. I wanna Rothko, no I wanna brothel. No, I want a wife that fuck me like a prostitute." Can a man stop wanting more or making more records? Jay-Z's response is "I could if I would but I'm hot." One of the most direct answers one could give especially with the realization that it's true. Where the song fails is his inability to flow with the beat transition in where he blows it on annoying orgasm spasms. Eventually he picks up and recovers with the repercussions of being "hot" as he calls it. It's a common pop artist technique of firing back at their haters as if to say "if you don't like me then why do you give me so much attention?" Which holds some grain of truth to it. The lyrics are pretty good but the flow was mediocre. Why I hold this song as one of the best is because it has the best beat on the album. I prefer nasty grimy beats with little to no chorus and more rapping than singing. This is how I like my hip hop.

3. F.U.T.W: Another magnificent beat and some of the better lyrics on the album. The only problem is the lazy chorus. It just came off as too lazy for me and the flow of the music comes to a screeching halt. The chorus is effective in giving strength to the return of the verse but I think it sacrifices the groove and really tests my patience. Other than that the lyrics were solid because he is actually being a little bit motivational to those who want to make it "I'm from the bottom I know you can relate" This is typically a technique of selling the american capitalist dream. He continues to persuade his fans that he came from the same world and is nothing more than a success story therefore not an oppressor. In other words he's a rich man for and from the people trying to indeed "fuck up the world" of oppressors and status quo. This is what Jay-Z does best and he has done it so well throughout his career.

4. Versus: This reminds me a lot of old school Jay-Z. In particular it reminds me of "Friend of Foe '98" which is a short but sweet classic. But even that song exceeded the one minute mark. I can safely say that Jay-Z unjustly deprived one of the best beats on the album. Especially with the ending dis "your metaphors are about what your net worth is...hahaha" which just comes off as an elementary snobby shit line. Jay-Z swears he's wearing a wig with ruffles all the sudden.

Mediocre List 

Tom Ford: The beat is pretty solid but his chorus is garbage and too much of it sounds like a contrived club banger.

Somewhere In America: The beat has promise but it's inability to really bang is where it falls into mediocrity.

Disappointments

Holy Grail: Justine Timberlake takes over the song so it pretty much turns into an R&B jam and as I explained that's 'the shit I don't like." At a certain point Justin's melody pretty much sounds like that Christina Perri "Jar of Hearts" song mixed in with a little bit of Travie Mccoy "I Want to Be a Billionaire" and that is certainly some "shit I don't like." I need to seriously thank Chief Keef for coming up with that line. It makes things so much easier.

Part II (One the Run): Seriously do I have to explain why I don't like this. The beginning introduction should already explain why I don't like shit like this.

Crown, FuckWithMeYouKnowlGotlt and pretty much the rest of the album: Because the rest of the album kind of sounds the same. These songs sound like they're trying to be club bangers more than anything else. Nas is wasted on a terribly gimmicky song. The Rick Ross song deserves to be on the disappointment list simply for me having to write that stupid ass title in the first place -- the beat is okay in the beginning but eventually becomes boring and the song becomes repetitive with very little rapping throughout. The rest of the album plays out with a lot of horsing around. "Nickels and Dimes" is not bad but the beat is so extremely boring and light that I don't really care what Jay is saying. The chorus sounds pretty lazy and repetitive as well. "Oceans" was one of the songs that I was looking forward to because of the prolific Frank Ocean being featured on it. But in all honesty Ocean doesn't really shine thru in this one for me. In the Yeezus album Ocean has one of the greatest moments but I can't say the same thing about this appearance. Every other song I kind of slept on... even after hearing them about three times.

Last Word

I think it's a descent album. The production of glossy beats are it's biggest strength. But it's biggest downfall is Jay-Z's lyrical content. He just doesn't have the flow anymore, nor the delivery (which is pretty much the same thing) or the actual material to really keep me interested. He sounds lazy throughout most of it. It's like as if rushing the production to be finished on the day of it's Samsung release really forced Jay-Z to submit spontaneous ad lib lyrics. It seems that maybe he does need to think about retirement now. I mean it would be logical since he is the richest rap star in the world and owns a sports team now. He really doesn't need to rap anymore if you ask me. Maybe he should concentrate on giving all these crisp Timbaland productions to someone like J. Cole who has shown us that he does indeed have sharp delivery in comparison to Kanye or Jay-Z now. If he would have lent some of these bangers to J. Cole we might have actually received a great album this summer. Point being Jay's peak is clearly over and he needs to pave the way for the new talent he has under his label. After all he is a business man. A "Watch the Throne Part 2" will most likely be made and make him more millions, but after that he needs to use that money for his retirement.

I give this a 3 out of 5 stars.

The Problem with Time Travel: A Spoiler Analysis of Looper and Timecrimes

Before you read on, this is a big spoiler for two films that live through the element of surprise. So if you haven't seen them, please do not read on. Okay, so we have these two sleek stories that have time travel; they both have a lot in common. For one they play with the idea of using time travel to get away with crime. I particularly want to dig into the loopholes of their time travel logic, which are one in the same.

Looper is great in many ways, but very unbelievable in its action sequences. Bruce Willis as old Joe turns into "The Terminator" at some point and there are various idiotic schemes on the "bad guy's" behalf of convoluting the task of murder which is illegal anyway. But that is not how I like to criticize movies. I don't like to jump into the nit picky technical band wagon of criticizing films. As that is what happened to films like Prometheus, where everybody decided to play the logical card on a movie about aliens, futuristic space travel and the science fictional creation of man (REALLY!? We are going to get super technical on this one?). Point being, I like fantasy and science fiction because we could really just let our imagination carry us. I really don't see the point in falsifying futuristic abortion or surgical procedures of space ship doctors of the future. It's like as if you only suspend your disbelief of space-traveling through galaxies but then everything else from that point is applied to our real world. In other words, it's a bit of injustice to something that isn't at all real in the first place. It's called science FICTION for a reason. That is why I actually enjoyed Looper and Timecrimes. The two films let me explore the "what if" notion of time travel. Conclusively, I ask myself "do they make me believe that time traveling to the past can some day be real?" and my answer is absolutely not. On the contrary, they make me realize why time travel is most probably impossible.

Timecrimes is the easier film to dissect in its time travel causality paradox. The protagonist is a middle aged man named Hector who is provoked to accidentally run into a time machine by the actions of his future self. If there was no "original" way Hector went into the time machine then how is it possible that his future self went into the time machine? This goes into a dimensional idea, that there are multiple selves and multiple worlds. But as for the linear time travel logic it doesn't add up. That is if you respect the actual concept of time. You have to get into the time machine first before your future self can affect what you do in the past, right? I mean, your future self would never go back in time if it wasn't for their future self provoking them. That all together does not make any logical sense. For example, it would only make sense that you found the time machine first because you were provoked by someone else, not your actual future self. There wouldn't be a discovery of the time machine in the first place, so there would be no future self. It sounds like a headache, I know.

The Timecrimes loop could only be justified if the writers have already perceived that time is not linear but rather space that infinite selves can move through. Take for example the space between rooms; when somebody is time traveling they are breaking into a room in which they do not belong and either try to cause havoc in that room or fix things. Usually the protagonist tries to fix things in time-travel movies.

Now let's dissect Looper, a much more grand film yet still drastically more flawed. In this film there are more unexplained things and plot holes than you can count, but I can care less about those details to be honest. The main focus is the concept. Bruce Willis plays old Joe who comes back in time to prevent his wife from being murdered by the goons of the rainmaker. The rainmaker is a telekinetic menace who is closing all the loops because he blames his mom's death on the loopers. Loopers are guys who kill people from the future sent by the mob of the future and eventually kill themselves to retire for thirty years. That brings us to the film's present time young-Joe played by Joseph Gorden-Levitt. Young Joe fails to kill a bulletproofed old Joe who manages to escape and hunt down three leads that might be the rainmaker as a child. For some reason during the escape of old Joe (Willis) the young Joe finds the "nearest" lead to be the rainmaker. Old Joe inexplicably runs off to "farther" distances to murder two children, one of them being his x-lover's child. This is where the action first starts losing its consistency in my opinion. We learn early that young Joe creates new memories with everything that he does differently from old Joe's life. The old Joe says it's painful, therefore it's conveniently selective to give enough time for the writers to develop the rainmaker child and his mother played by Emily Blunt. To jump forward old Joe finds them and accidentally kills the mother of the rainmaker. In this instant young Joe foresees the eternal loop as the rainmaker uses his power to close down all loops out of hate because they killed his mom. Young Joe also foresees himself infinitely looping to the past to prevent his own wife's death. So then, young Joe decides the only solution is to kill himself. Therefore the rainmaker and his mom live happily ever after and the loops are no longer shut down. Now once again there is the same causality problem as in Timecrimes. If young Joe (Levitt) kills himself as a young man then that would mean that time would actually erase everything that old Joe did. The rainmaker and his mother would not be united in the field in the first place. They would be back to square one where young Joe first meets them except that they didn't meet him because his purpose being there was provoked by his future self, which now would have never happened. Once again the writers understand time as a space to move around in, instead of the actual linear timeline we follow. This goes to show that time travel into the past itself is practically a looney impossible idea. Especially the notion that when you do go back in time you will see your past self there. After all we're going back in time, not making clones of ourselves right?

In Hot Tube Time Machine it is a different more simple approach. When you go back in time you are only your young self again, meaning only one. In this case however you have the knowledge of your future and can change it. This would make more logical sense if it wasn't for the ending. So in the end they go "back to the future" as one guy stays behind in the past to change the future for the better. If everybody else left wouldn't they be gone through that whole gap, therefore have no future? Once again the writers confuse time with space dimension (to move form room to room). To make time-travel  to the past even logically comprehensible, which it isn't; I would suggest that once you go back you only really erase time. Therefore future time travel is only erasing your existence from the point you went forward. Traveling to the past means you already erased everything that happened up until the point of time in which you arrive.

In the end of both Timecrimes and Looper, the loop was closed and fixed with the idea that sacrificing a life or human body is the solution. It's like as if you go into a room and kill the problematic person, leave the room; problem solved. In Timecrimes the protagonist saves his wife from being killed by sacrificing the life of another who looks like his wife. Therefore the third Hector fools the two other Hectors who presumably will be stuck in one eternal loop? Only the third Hector moves on? This is all left to assumption and interpretation, but once again it goes against the logic of a linear timeline and rather treats it as a dimensional hacking of multiple selves....... or something of that sort. In the end of Looper he sacrifices his own life to save millions and presumably the loop of Joe is closed forever? But then if he killed himself at that age wouldn't everything old Joe did be completely erased including his actual time travel to the past which means he wouldn't kill himself as a young man in the first place? Where does his actual body go? Does his past existence disappear from time all together? Once again time is treated as space we can move through in a room. Materialistically or I would rather say tangibly time does not actually exist. Not in the sense that matter does. Time is not the decaying of the body either, even though that is one of the common ways in which we measure it. It is not air nor water nor is it matter. One of the ways time exists or is actually measured is through speed. As Stephen Hawkings points out time travel into the future is really only possible with tremendous speed. It would also take mass amounts of improbable earth orbiting construction to reach the speeds to reach a leap into the future. With that almost impossible task, time traveling to the past is even more improbable. So there is no use in logically thinking about time traveling to the past for it is a circular problem that will inevitably have a paradox. For that reason, time traveling movies should be looked at as a fantastic voyage of the imagination. Time traveling into our pasts is like opening up our guilty pleasure of encountering moments we wish we can change, that is without disrupting the universal laws of cause and effect. It is like a private wish for our psyche. To change those things that we wish we had never done or to see an alternate life you might have lived instead. So for that reason time traveling into the past is a great fantasy we can all  sit back and enjoy. There is no use for my analogies of the paradoxes. The paradoxes will always be there once we travel to the past, since the concept is illogical from the very start.