Dupery!

Kitsch Bitsch Citizens!

It would be unconscionable - not to mention downright rude - not to include you in public service announcements when you're part of the general public ... right? (I mean ... you guys are part of the general public ... right ... ?!?) And The Unbelievables are all about sharing the love (Hello, Ladies!) to the best of our abilities.  

In that vein, something serious has come to our attention we thought you ought to be aware of! 

See the above photo? I purchased this just the other day in the name of research and to disperse my findings to you fine folks pending the results of such research. It appears White Rain has a product that "claims" it's a "3 in 1" shampoo / conditioner / body wash. The truth of the matter? They're duping the public with their own brand of dupery!

Come on! There's no such thing as a shampoo / conditioner / body wash! Frankly, there's no possible way the "conditioner" would work in such context! And men (of which we Unbelievables are) know this automatically.

We males are pretty "in tune" with this sort of thing, you know. When it comes to hygiene we may be a little Cro-Magnon in our ways, but we know there's no possible way a conditioner included within a shampoo and body wash product could possibly work. Think about it: How is it a conditioner could condition when the shampoo is shampooing and the body wash is body washing? 

Look: Men have known for decades there's no difference between shampoo and body wash. They're interchangeable to a fault. Ask a man if he's ever washed his hair with a bar of Dial and he'll look at you like you're goofy; of course we've washed our hair with soap! What difference does it make? 

By the same token, if a container says "body wash," men naturally know it can be used as a shampoo, too. In other words, you're being duped as to what you're getting ... but that's of little consequence. No real harm, no real foul. It's just marketing.

But ... throw the word "conditioner" in the mix and we automatically know there are shenanigans going on. A conditioner would wash out automatically in such a situation. No possibility of it working its conditioning magic, you understand.  

Bottom Line: The public is being duped! It can't work! It won't work! Don't buy this, or any, product claiming to be a "3 in 1" shampoo / conditioner / body wash thinking it's going to function in all those capacities!

Folks? You're welcome ... courtesy of your very own stylish gents ... The Unbelievables. (You can thank us in any way you see fit.)

Talk about "Unbelievable"!

I'm glad Michael brought this subject up because there's been something bothering me for about 30 years: the universe of Rocky Balboa.

The original "Rocky", released in 1976, is a great movie. Okay, maybe "Taxi Driver" should have won the Oscar but it didn't. "Rocky" still stands up as an exceptionally good film. The fact that Sylvester Stallone and Hollywood decided to turn it into a franchise that resulted in a series of formulaic cartoons, as evidenced by the character of Paulie, a pathos-infused shadowy vision of Rocky's potential future (for which Burt Young won the best supporting actor Oscar in 1976) devolving into an adorably racist curmudgeon with an icky robot fetish, doesn't diminish the original film's depth and emotional impact.

Ew.

Besides, Rocky isn't the only beloved fictional character that was taken off into weird and ultimately terrible directions by creative people who didn't seem to know (or care) when to stop.

"I survive a nuclear blast how?!?"

So they could have stopped with one "Rocky" but they didn't. Okay. We're supposed to believe that barely-five-foot-tall Sylvester Stallone could be a heavyweight boxer. Okay. We're supposed to be believe that every punch that lands sounds like a bomb going off. Okay. But would it kill them to maintain a slightly believable universe of continuity in terms of how boxing works? Specifically, that boxers don't cease to exist when they lose. They're not video game bosses. Yet, in every instance besides Apollo Creed, because, I don't know, Rocky had to have one age-appropriate, non-alcoholic friend, everybody he fights simply disappears into thin air.

"We beat each other to a pulp. Twice. Now we're besties."

In "Rocky 4" (I refuse to use Roman numerals; these aren't the Olympics), Apollo comes out of retirement (again) to fight Drago, who is basically a terminator. Where the hell is Clubber Lang, Rocky's nemesis in "Rocky 3"? He should have easily regained the undisputed heavyweight title with only one loss on his record, the fight where now-retired Rocky beat him. Why does Apollo feel obligated to get himself killed? After "Rocky 4" Drago is never mentioned again. Was he sent to Siberia for embarrassing the Soviet Union by losing to Rocky? Unlikely after Rocky's passionate speech ends the Cold War by convincing the Russians that they're a bunch of dicks (riiiiight). Same with Tommy Gunn, the young up-and-coming fighter Rocky trains before he betrays Rocky in "Rocky 5". Rocky beats him up - in a street fight, not even in the ring -and poof! Career, and existence on earth, apparently over. None of these characters are factors in "Rocky Balboa" aka "Rocky 6", the back-to-the-roots, seeming (hopefully) conclusion to the whole saga.
Wait! I almost forgot that Spider Rico, who head-butts Rocky in the opening scene of "Rocky", is in "Rocky Balboa", as an addled kitchen helper in the little neighborhood Italian restaurant that slightly-less-addled Rocky owns, the last vestige of the empire he reigned over in "Rocky 3".
Never mind.

It's Fast ... It's Furious ... And It's Freakin' Farcical

Hi, guys! 

Michael here. *enthusiastically waves to everyone reading*

I'm going off on a tangent (no comments from the peanut gallery) and rant about something I'm not really certain is an aside to life and our little likes and dislikes ... or a genuine problem The Unbelievables need to look into. I'm hoping you, John and Jane Q. Public, can navigate me in the right direction ... and, of course, we'll get "weigh ins" from fellow Unbelievables Jeff and Clark as to their thoughts on the subject as to whether or not there's any viability to what I have to say. (Again: No comments from the peanut gallery.)

I was given invitation coerced shamed obligated-to-exercise-good manners forced into viewing The Fast And The Furious 6 this past Sunday. It was the only thing I hadn't seen playing in the theater my acquaintance and I found ourselves at. And besides - it was a lot cooler to sit in an air conditioned theater than brave triple digit temperatures on a day off from work. Additionally, I'd heard (reasonably) good things about the film from "reliable" sources. So ... what harm could there be in taking in a little afternoon flick?

Now ... I'd seen the first of the franchise back in the first year of the millennium and it was an okay popcorn movie. So, again: What harm could befall me?

Let's put it this way: There was so much shameless gratuitousness and setting aside of common sense in this vehicle it was downright comical. Matter'n fact, the majority of the flick was a comedy, as it turned out. Who knew?

Example: When Toretto (Vin Diesel) took a jump to save Letty (Michelle Rodriguez) from that wrong-way-going tank driven by bad guy Shaw (Luke Evans), their mid-air collision should have collapsed at least one of their heads like an over-ripe melon instead of the two of them falling to safety (and with nary a scratch, mind you) on some convenient car that just happened to break their fall. 

Wait ... wait ... let's back up just a tad: 

There's this tank, see, driven by a bad guy, barreling along against opposing traffic on a three-lane highway. You can buy that, I'm sure. But ... we see drivers abandoning their vehicles in the middle of the road while this tank is coming at them and, for all intents and purposes, well before they know the tank is coming. Get the picture? No? How 'bout I put it this way: If a tank was driving the wrong way on a freeway, when would you know that was actually happening? Right ... when it was practically on top of you. Now ... realistically: Think you'd have time to screech to a stop, unbuckle your seatbelt, open your car door, leap out and run away to the point you're two or three car lengths away before said tank pulverized your Toyota Highlander? No. I don't think so, Tim.

But things were head-shaking at the opening of the film, way before we we're ever at the obviously traffic-challenged armored vehicle. Toretto and Walker (Brian O'Conner) are zipping through a barely-car-breadth-and-completely-impossible-to-navigate entryway with flowers and shrubs on either side ... at an unrealistic 65 miles an hour. (And I'm being extremely conservative with that speed, believe you me.) Was there any residual damage to the flora in the process? Hell no. They zipped along at such a clip as if they were threading a needle a couple lanes wide, not a care in the world. *sigh*

If you've seen the film, you know there's a sequence in the second half where a transport plane is cruising along while Shaw and Company attempt to board the transport (with their vehicles) while it's moving. All I have to say about this particular scenario? How freakin' long is that damned runway? Because - given the time everyone had to board the cargo hold, let alone get off the plane as it was about to crash - it had to be a good 7-8 miles in length. And, again ... I'm being conservative with that estimate.

Now ... I've only touched on what's going on within the film. There's plenty more monkey business where what I've mentioned above comes from. So what am I leading to? The public's suspension of belief, that's what.

Come on. The Fast And The Furious 6 is supposed to be better than the 4 sequels that preceded it?!? Really?

The with Diesel and Rodriguez colliding in mid-air? In a theater full of people, I was the only person to guffaw out loud. And when I say "out loud" I mean I literally turned heads. Folks looked right at me wondering what my outburst was about. 

Where am I going with this? After all, it's a simple popcorn movie ... 

But is the paying public supposed to swallow this guff? I mean ... it's not a superhero movie where stuff like this happens and, you know, we're meant to relate to it in comic book terms. It's not fantasy like Willie Wonka And The Chocolate Factory. It doesn't resemble Pan's Labyrinth. This is supposed to contain real people put in a realistic situation.

The populace is being duped, I tell you. They're being force-fed fantacism which can't possibly take place in the real world ... and they're loving it. Feeding the producers moolah up the wazoo to make additional chode such as this. (Remember: This is the sixth - 6th! - film in the franchise.)

Is this something The Unbelievables need to look into? Is there some evil force out there (beside Hollywood) that we should be concerned with? Some nefarious plan or ulterior motive which needs quashing?

I don't know. Maybe it's just me. I need Jeff and Clark to voice their opinions on the matter ... because I'd be willing to bet dollars to donuts they have history with this very subject.

And of course you, John and Jane Doe, got opinions as well.

Let's look for my fellow compatriots' views and your comments before we come to any sort of conclusion. 

Take it away, boys ...