Mindless Acts of Random Intellect

The Dictator Of The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel

2012-05-21T16:05:00.002-04:00

Another weekend has brought with it another trek to the movie theater. Friday night I got a chance to check out Sacha Baron Cohen's latest movie--The Dictator.

Cohen is this generation's version of Robin Williams with respect to the way he handles his own PR. He'll often appear as a character on a talk show and not stray from that persona the entire time. Most people I know despise this type of approach and yet people just keep doing it so I assume they have some metric that tells them it works. For me it means I had to be sold on his efforts with a bit of extra effort to get past the shtick.

After delaying forever in seeing Borat--which looked like one of his talk show endeavors but for nearly two straight hours--I finally gave in and went to see it. I found it brilliant, hilarious and memorable. Then came Bruno which was a complete disaster for me. It was everything I feared Borat would be. I then tuned out for a bit but came back to his frequency after his wonderful turn as the bad buy-turned good security officer in Hugo. The guy clearly has deep reserves of talent. I then recalled the history of both Robin Williams and Steve Martin. Both started out early with cartoonish characterizations in very campy films only to emerge as extremely talented serious actors. Maybe the same is in store for Cohen.

It's that mindset that I entered The Dictator with.

From the first moments of the film it felt overly campy. Much has been said about this being his first "complete" film with regard to story line but, frankly, I didn't see it. Yeah, it has a story but it bounces all over the spectrum.

When it's funny it's outright, rip-roaring, hilarious. There are several memorable comments and scenes that only Cohen could attempt. There's one that involves a gynecological scene that has to be experienced to be believed. I loved it.

In the end I found the film quirky, funny, but mainly lacking. It simply isn't up to the level of Borat and I expect it'll be quickly forgotten.

Thankfully I got a chance on Saturday to catch the art house film (more on that in a moment) The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel. Here's a film that boasts a bevvy of European and Asian heavyweights that seemed too good to be true.

The story involves several retiring Brits who, due to varied circumstances, are either drawn-to, or driven to retire in a run-down hotel somewhere in India run by a well-meaning, energetic and endlessly glass-half-full young manager played by Dev Patel of Slumdog Millionaire fame.

The retirees are played by Judi Dench, Tom Wilkinson, Bill Nighy, Maggie Smith, Penelope Wilton, Celia Imrie and Ronald Pickup. Each brings their own baggage and quirks to the story and it's a story that grabs you from the very start.

I kept waiting for the air to sneak out and in the few cases where it seemed imminent suddenly the story jumped right back into high gear to erase that concern.

This was, without question, one of the best films I've seen this year and quite possibly the best film I've seen this year. The story is a beautiful ride through every major emotion and that just keeps on winning you over time and time again. I was glad to be the first one at its conclusion to start off the hearty round of applause. I laughed more often and deeper here than I did with The Diplomat and then also shed quite a few tears and my mouth was sore from all the endlessly smiling. A mid-20's friend of mine emerged from the experience stating, "It took seeing a movie about seniors to re-invigorate my hopes for dating. I want to get out there again and find that person."

I am, simply put, in awe of this film. Every character will make an impact and everyone one is flawlessly portrayed. The astonishing thing I asked upon its conclusion was how this film is so widely ignored. The answer, I'm quite sure, has everything to do with Americans and their complete lack of interest in anything that looks even remotely foreign (a point the movie plays up quite a bit actually). It's sad that more people won't see this amazing movie.

I couldn't help but to check out the negative reviews and there are a number of them from top critics. Upon reading them first impulse was that it's time for these reviewers to join the fictional cast in retirement. They've clearly seen too many movies to be relevant any longer. A few noted only older viewers will enjoy it. Wrong (as noted and as clearly seen by the response of the breadth of the audience I saw it with).

Nearly Forgotten Oddities Of The Past

2012-05-18T12:48:00.003-04:00

During the last few months I've had some interactions where a specific person from the past would come to mind and, in each case, I realized those around me (younger in most cases) had no idea who this person was.

I thought I should mention this person simply to shake loose a memory for those who were around then and to hopefully create a new memory for some younger people.

The person who's name kept cropping up was Jim Fixx. Even his Wikipedia entry lacks proper perspective and includes contradictions of fact.

Jim Fixx was a marathon runner through the 1970's and into the 80's. His story was meteoric in every sense. He shot onto the national scene in 1977 with the publication of, The Complete Book of Running. This book dominated book stores for several years and made Fixx a mainstay on all the various talk shows of the day. By the 1980's it was nearly impossible to avoid references to him. He'd written several books, had videos out and had just started to revolutionize the fledgling software market with several popular products.

Jim Fixx was the face of fitness and how you can transform yourself at any point. He ran 10 miles every day--unheard of then. He didn't start running until his mid-30's, was overweight and smoked heavily and yet here was this guy who turned it all upside-down to go from total obscurity to national superstar. Jim Fixx created the fitness revolution. Before him there were people like Jack LaLanne and others but no one that reached so many, so deeply, so quickly. After his success people all started re-thinking their lives. Gym's started popping up all over and, unlike today, virtually none existed before that point. A gym was a place where you'd find old-time boxers hanging out in a run-down area of a city. Just look at the first Rocky film for a typical example of what I'm talking about.

Suddenly everyone wanted to be in shape and to share in Jim Fixx's dream. We all wanted to get "Fixxed". People all over America started running. No one ran before that unless you were some kind of athlete. Then, out of nowhere, people were running everywhere. Fashions changed. Gym clothes became popular. Nike skyrocketed to success as a direct result. Being fit was in.

Then, on July 20th, 1984, everything changed in an instant. The news headlines read, Jim Fixx Dead From Heart Attack. Worse, Fixx died just after his morning run--at age 52! Everyone everywhere stopped to ask if all this fitness craze was a good thing. If Jim Fixx could drop dead from a heart attack given his conditioning and experience what about them?

Stories flooded the press about the perils of fitness. His book sales dried up. The software products were literally pulled from the shelves out of fear of litigation. People stopped running. Gym memberships plummeted and gyms started failing.

Over time we learned that Fixx had several factors against him. He had a family history of heart trouble, had an enlarged heart himself, a stressful life and a really poor health history prior to his running. Jim Fixx could have died long before he did and could have done other things to prolong his life but didn't. It took years for the impact to wear off.

What surprises me about his story is how quickly Jim Fixx appeared, how fully he changed the world and then how quickly he's been lost to time.

The Avengers Leap Of Faith

2012-05-18T12:07:00.001-04:00

This past weekend I owed a friend a favor after having drug him to several independent films that he found a bit challenging to sit through. He's very much a more mainstream type of movie guy. He wanted to see Marvel's The Avengers and given its stellar reviews I figured I didn't have much choice but to say yes.

Do you sense that I'd have preferred not to see it? If so, you sense correctly, but why would I want to pass on it? Well, I'm one of those who seem to be starting a notable trend. I'm not a comic book fan but I tend to enjoy the first entry of most of the comic book films. They have detailed back stories. They tend to involve ordinary people who are transformed into something above and beyond. That's what I find so fascinating. The rest is just a bunch of effects and action sequences for me and much of it is, in my view, overdone.

This isn't a first chapter but is, in fact, a culmination film tying together several characters into one story. Most of the main characters have had their own films (or even film franchises) before this one. There have been films for Iron Man, Captain America, The Incredible Hulk and Thor with other characters appearing prominently in some of these.

The main problem is I'd only seen Iron Man and Iron Man 2 (and not surprisingly only liked the former). The big concern was if this film would almost require one to have seen the other films. Thankfully, I can say that wasn't the case though it certainly would have helped.

Before I forget, we ended up seeing the film in 3D but I must say it seemed pretty unnecessary and the effect was minimal throughout. I'm fairly certain seeing it in 2D would suffice.

The first thing I found interesting were the characters of Thor and Loki. Both are from Norse mythology and are brothers. Thor is the "good" one and Loki is the bad one. Loki is the main antagonist of the film. However, they don't seem to fit the story like the others. They just seem entirely out of place and distracting in nearly every scene. I wonder about the origins of their inclusion in this tale.

The story itself is rather nicely done and keeps the viewer engaged. The action sequences are, quite impressively, not overdone. That doesn't mean there aren't a lot of them because there are. It just means that they don't feel ridiculous or done as if they're being viewed on fast-forward (like what you find with The Transformers films). What was most surprising was the well-scripted humor. The film manages to fit in some really effective comedy at perfectly-timed points. This too is handled with a sense of balance. This doesn't become a parody of itself but still finds time to be very funny.

I also found the soundtrack noteworthy in many places. It added to the experience just as it should have moved out of the background only when it should have.

On a down note, the women of the film seemed pretty pasted in. There isn't much here for Scarlett Johansson's character to do and, as a result, she just sort of skids through the film. Gweneth Paltrow is here but seemed added only to get a bit more star power on the menu. In fact, she was also a bit distracting because she looked very, very gaunt on old in almost all her scenes. She's at the stage of life where a little more weight would make her look much better.

For me the star of the show was Robert Downey, Jr. as Tony Stark, aka Iron Man. He steals virtually every scene he's in and just seems head-and-shoulders above everyone else around him. This film just loves everything about the guy.

In the end it was an enjoyable experience but nothing all that special. It's fun, entertaining and not a waste of a ticket but I doubt it'll be listed as one of the top films of the year.

The Wonder Of Timeless Rock

2012-05-14T13:14:00.004-04:00

I grew up during the 60's, 70's and 80's and really became aware of "current" music in the mid-to-late 70's. That put me on a direct collision course with some of the very biggest bands in rock history and it clearly had an influence on my tastes in music.

The differences between the music my parents listened to and the music we were listening to were pretty obvious. As we all aged some similarities in the variables started to emerge and I began to formulate a working theory for how music impacts the vast majority of listeners (excepting those on both extremes who just don't like music and those who are fanatics about it).

The theory went something like this: From the time you really start to connect to music, to the point where you want to know more about it and become aware of the options open to you, there's essentially a decade-long timer that starts ticking. For most people this starts around the age of 15. Thus, from age 15 to age 25 (again, for the average person), you're forming your connections to music and that decade will stay with you as your pinnacle of the medium. Your favorite bands tend to come from that period. If you come to music later then just slide everything later.

This theory held for quite some time and then, around 2005 I noticed that it started to fail. What struck me most wasn't that people weren't interested in music or weren't all becoming fanatics but that the decade window had suddenly been smashed and the breadth of connectivity seemed nearly boundless. Younger listeners would often mention bands of my day as favorites. The Beatles were almost always mentioned. Many lamented boredom with more current offerings but I tend to think that was mainly anecdotal.

I started thinking about how this came about and a number of thoughts came to mind. The first was, not surprisingly, the impact of technology. In my youth the main access to music was radio. You listened to what was offered up. If a band fell out of the limelight you didn't hear anything from them anymore. If they seemed like yesterday's news that was what they became. There really wasn't much you could do about it but to invest in a cassette (and later a CD) and that was that. As technology moved into the digital realm suddenly listeners could listen to any era they desired all on impulse. The idea of radio as the driving force dramatically fell off--though it didn't disappear.

However, I also then started leaning towards another factor that may be the main thrust behind this shift and it's one that I want to be the answer for an obvious reason. I started wondering if it just so happened that my era--and the periods around it--produced the best of rock and that this might not be the reason that the music endures so vibrantly today.

One thing was clear. Things have changed dramatically. It's now 2012. The Beatles are still being played all over radio and all over streaming services everywhere along with many other bastions of rock of the 1960's. That's a 52-year window at work. In the 1960's I know there was absolutely nothing on the radio from the 1910's. The same could be said all the way up to the 1950's. You might find a single station playing songs from the 1940's but even that pretty much vanished early in the 1970's. If you find Big Band music being played it's often only during a specific late-night hour on some small AM station somewhere.

Rock really came on the scene in the 1950's with Elvis and countless other acts but their style of rock was quite distinct from what came just a decade later and you now don't hear much of anything of that era anywhere. When's the last time you heard Elvis or The Shirelles on the radio? I wonder if it's still referred to using the same term we used; "Golden Oldies", or is that now applied to my area of music? I don't think so as my era seems to be dubbed "Classic Rock", but the fact remains, a major change in styles and acceptance came in the 1960's.

The biggest evidence of my point is that even though the Baby Boomers are still dominating, their music isn't. There's usually a single Frank Sinatra station around (and it's often just a short show for that one day) and there's not much in the way of Golden Oldies. However, looking at the top radio and streaming stations you'll find rock from the 1960's on up all over the place. Adding support for my bias is that much of those options focus on Classic Rock. There's no shortage of The Eagles, Led Zepplin, The Who, Foreigner, Queen, ELO, Santana and more. So, while TV ads continue to saturate us with Viagra commercials and stars of old hawking reverse mortgages, music for the same demographic has been relegated to just what they have on hand more or less.

So is it just that I grew up in the best era of music since Classical music or is it just the technology and the changing rules of access? For now I prefer to believe Classic Rock is just that good.

It's The Ulterior Motives Stupid

2012-04-25T13:10:00.000-04:00

The huge chasm between the right and left of politics in America isn't going to abate until both sides can admit that reason is being trumped by ulterior motives.

A case in point was had on the local conservative radio station here that I checked in on while at the gym (the bike I chose had a TV that was out and any distraction from exercise is better than none). During the evening hours there's a host on by the name of Gary R'Nel. I'm not sure he's ever said much of anything that I've agreed with in its entirety. Usually it's the opposite.

Anyway, last night he got to talking about a couple of issues that speak to what I'm getting at. The first is about the voter ID issue.

Reason dictates that it makes complete sense for people to provide some form of ID when voting. Forget everything else you know. Leave the politics at the door. Showing ID when you vote just makes common, reasonable, sense. You show ID for just about everything else in the country. Heck, if you try to claim a student movie ticket there's a good chance the theater will ask for a student ID. I've had to go get my son a few times when trying to do this.

However, the bias comes through as soon as the arguments appear. The right will tell you it's all about fraud but yet they cannot find any widespread examples (or any examples) of voter fraud as a result of this. Oh, they'll mention vague things they heard from someone else but nothing that actually stands up to any scrutiny. Instead, the pundits play the ever-popular fear card. It's about the fear that Democrats are the type of people who will steal elections sooner or later--if only they were bright enough to coordinate their efforts to do so en masse.

Reason doesn't have a play in this game and it's all due to ulterior motives. The left--I believe--would be entirely fine with the idea of voter ID if they didn't clearly understand that this has virtually nothing to do with voter fraud on the right. The sheer gall of such people is absolutely insulting to the intelligence of everyone involved. This movement has everything to do with voter suppression. They know the realities and know, through mass media, that such laws would have a big enough impact on voting from the left as to swing the election in their direction. Once that cat got out of the bag there was no getting it back. Conservatives everywhere jumped immediately--seemingly out of nowhere--to the clear, reasonable position but in a completely transparent way.

How can I say it's transparent? Well, there's a pretty simple reason for that. There's that word again--reason. Ask anyone, who tells you that voter ID is all about preventing fraud, how they feel about absentee ballots. You'll get a blank stare, some clearing of the throat, some skyward glances, a curled lip or two and maybe, if you're lucky, a mention that any reduction in the possibility of voter fraud is better than none. They don't have an answer for this because--in their hearts--their position is paper-thin. It's not about voter fraud, it's about voter suppression and they haven't thought it through fully. Plus, there's a feeling that Republicans vote absentee more than Democrats so they wouldn't want to risk losing that.

Again, it's about the ulterior motive beneath the reasonable position. If you're going to present a solution to a potential problem then your reasoning needs to be sound across the board and free of ulterior motives. Few people are really that dumb as to not see right through such antics.

The second issue involved President Obama appearing on late night TV. Comments included a heavy dose of his lowering the status of the title and that he thinks he's a celebrity and needs to get back to doing the job we elected him to do. This is, of course, all nonsense. Any reasonable analysis of the situation underscores the changing times we live in.

I'm sure if I search around I'll find a cadre of people who think he's lowering the status of the office by texting.

Franklin Roosevelt understood the power radio used it to political advantage changing the messaging approach forever--just as radio changed the world forever. John F. Kennedy grasped the power of TV before Richard Nixon and changed the messaging approach forever. Guess what people--technology changes all of the world forever--including the way the President reaches all the people and his supporters. You used to be able to walk right into the White House and see the President. Taking that away changed the role forever but in a good way and as a result of the ever-changing times we live in.

The President is--like it or not--running for re-election. Going on Late Night TV to connect with your base isn't a big surprise. The President also went on The Daily Show. There were very few stories the next day about this lowering the status of the President. In fact, I don't recall any. Suddenly, in the heat of an election it's not a big deal. If it's about his not doing his job then where was the indignation at President Bush for all the vacation time? Again, it's the ulterior motive beneath the position.

The fact is that times have changed. Candidates--and that's what the President is--need to be all over the spectrum to raise funds and energize their base. If you're not happy with that complaining about it irrationally isn't going to change anything. Vote to change the way the system works. Do something other than to keep your bias pasted clearly on your forehead for everyone to see.

Google Drive. The New Dropbox?

2012-04-24T13:20:00.001-04:00

Google is releasing a new product called Google Drive. It's going to be their take on the phenomenon that is Dropbox. Yes, there are other competitors as well--including Microsoft's SkyDrive--but none of them matter other than Dropbox. If you haven't gotten into Dropbox yet then you're not very techie and don't know what you're missing. Believe me, at first I thought it was another unnecessary distraction myself and I stayed away.

Then I gave it a shot and now I can't imagine not having it or something like it. The concept is pretty simple--store your key files online where you've got access to them anywhere, anytime, as long as you have Internet access. The implementation is critical here. What makes Dropbox so great is that it's supported virtually everywhere on every device. It works great on my PC and on my Android Phone along with many other options. If you don't have those handy then just log into your account on their website. On your PC you install it and it creates a Dropbox folder. This folder works just like any other folder except that the files in it are both local and kept in sync online.

About the only issue I have with it is that it could do a better job of allowing for collaborative editing and such.

What's more to like is that it's free and comes with 2GB of space. If you want more you have two options--You can buy more space or you can get more via some free options to get more space (recommending it to friends or trying beta features). Currently I'm still free and have just over 7GB of space. I'm using very little of it as I just keep some very specific documents and handy files on it.

In fact, I also use Carbonite for my backup solution and got to wondering why Carbonite wasn't offering a solution like this. They already have much of my data. Now if they could just make it as accessible as Dropbox does then they'd really have something. I recent release attempts to borrow somewhat from Dropbox but not enough to really make a dent.

Now we have Google getting in on the game shortly and upping the ante by giving everyone 5GB of free space. The first thought I had was, "How long before Dropbox responds by matching that or exceeding it?" You can also buy 25GB for "less than $2.50 a month". I assume that means $29.95 a year.

I don't think they should wait. Google has some huge advantages here and can tie Drive into so many of its other tools. In fact, they're already tying it into Google Docs to allow for the collaborative elements I was looking for. I just don't want to be limited to just using Google Docs.

They could blow away Dropbox without so much as a sneeze if they really deliver with this but then again, it's Google. Google loves to do things amazingly for 80% of the journey and then vanish into the ether. The entire company reminds me of a young child and their fascination for toys on Christmas morning only to have entirely forgotten about 90% of them by dinner. Will Drive fall into the same hole or will this one force Dropbox down the hole first? I'm not sure but I do know I like the idea of the competition. Let the battle begin.

....Well, okay, not so fast. While all the press is reporting that Drive launched today apparently no one thought to actually check with Google. The site still says, as of this writing, that it's not quite ready yet. So, let the battle begin .....soon-ish.

I Visit The Cabin In The Woods

2012-04-24T12:59:00.001-04:00

I wasn't going to see The Cabin In The Woods. Its marketing efforts somehow managed to totally fail with respect to garnering any of my interest. I saw a preview a while back and it looked like another campy, quirky horror/slasher film that would be quickly forgotten.

Then a friend of mine from Penn Gamers, who never sees mainstream films, noted he went out of his way to see this one because of the people behind it. Hmm? Oh, hey, this film is from Joss Whedon and Drew Goddard who are very well known in the sci-fi world. Joss is the creator of Buffy The Vampire Slayer and Drew was one of its most respected writers. I loved Buffy, much to my own surprise.

Then I saw the reviews. It got a 91 on Rotten Tomatoes and almost that many viewers liked it as well. All that combined drove me to give it a try.

Oh, if only I stuck to my original plan.

This film was a mess and I cannot begin to fathom how anyone can say they really liked it let alone all those stellar reviews. It's about five young friends who head out to a remote cabin for a fun-filled trip and end up dealing with something entirely beyond their comprehension--and frankly, beyond the viewers capacity for belief. Yes, I understand that it's supposed to be somewhat of a parody of the horror genre but it just didn't work. Plus the reviews didn't prepare me for what to expect and coming into this blind really doesn't work.

In the old days you had simple things that annoyed you with bad horror films. "He's not dead. Stop standing next to his body!" Here, almost nothing is believable. Everything is explained in a short sentence as if it's the most natural thing in the world. For example (spoiler alert--but you shouldn't care), they claim to have drugged one of the friends by providing her with blonde hair dye that has a chemical makeup that literally turns her into a dumb blonde as it slowly (but with perfect timing) works its way into her scalp. Really? Seriously? In the scene where we find out she dyed her hair she makes it clear it was done on a whim. How'd they know know this was going to happen or what brand of hair dye she was going to use or when she'd actually do it so that the timing would be "right"? I know. I know. Now I'm asking ridiculously complex questions.... Come on.

I like horror films--even bad ones--as some friends and family won't let me forget but this was something else. The entire first half of the film is just flat-out disturbing and not in a good way. There's clearly something unique about the story and its approach, but contrary to what others clearly seem to believe, that doesn't make it a good effort on its own.

The viewer is teased with so little explanation of what the hell is going on that you just get frustrated and wish the movie would pick a side and stick with it. Instead we're left to just be played on and on. When the pay-off finally comes it's so bizarre that it can't possibly make up for the rest of the journey.

If it's supposed to be funny, it wasn't. If it was supposed to be scary, it wasn't. If it was supposed to be a parody, it wasn't. It is creepy. It is haunting. It's funny once in a while. It is, for a time, compelling. However, in the end it's just not very entertaining. Roger Ebert said, in his review (he gave it 3 stars), "This is not a perfect movie; it's so ragged, it's practically constructed of loose ends. But it's exciting because it ventures so far off the map." I agree with all but the last part. For me it simply ventured too far off the map right from the opening scenes.

Back To Titanic

2012-04-16T15:50:00.001-04:00

The news is filled with lots of stories about the 100-year anniversary of the loss of the Titanic. I've been a Titanic buff for many years now absorbing most everything available surrounding the tragic story. Of course that includes seeing the 1997 film.

For many of those interested in the historical aspects the film represented something different than that of most viewers. It represented an opportunity to "see" the events done, more or less, accurately in full color with cutting-edge effects and excellent characterizations.

While the film's success at the box office is unquestionable there are many who ridicule the film as sappy, ridiculous, historically flawed and worse.

I, for one, am a devotee of what director James Cameron accomplished with the effort and it's an effort that shows. Within reason Cameron recreated the events of that fateful voyage with much care and a level of detail not previously possible and with a dignity none of us knew Cameron was capable of given his other projects. Also, don't forget that the film was widely regarded--before its release--as one of the biggest disasters since, well, the Titanic itself.

Is it a perfect film? Far from it. As a romance it's a bit sappy but I'm okay with a sappy love story now and again if it's able to win me over and the casting made that possible. Kate Winslet as Rose was a great choice. She's radiant in nearly every scene. The camera simply loves her in this film. Leonardo DiCaprio is much-maligned but he pulls off the character of Jack in ways I don't feel others could. There are just so many different images that resonate as few romances do (consummation in the back of the car, the "flying" scene, the tender looks and heat of the drawing scene and even the spitting sequence).

In casting there are also some missteps. Billy Zane as Rose's fiance never seemed right to me nor that of the actor playing his valet. Both just take me out of the story as rude interlopers in an otherwise effective vehicle. The entire gun-wielding chase scene is, in my view, a disaster that should have been left on the cutting room floor. It just doesn't belong in this film and is one of the chief scenes referenced by those critical of the film.

As for historical accuracy this is where my main interest was focused and here the film delivers. Remember that for many the concept of a movie is to be immersed in its story--to have it transport you there and surround you in its effect. I've seen the other movie efforts and, sadly, the technical and financial limitations of the day and those films simply cannot deliver a true escape. So much imagination is required to suspend disbelief that you might as well just stick to books. The 1997 film has a huge leg up there and Cameron did a commendable job taking a Hollywood film and keeping it grounded in enough historical fact to impress.

There are some who demand 100% accuracy and, failing that, call the entire project into question. USA Today recently covered one such site that found countless errors in the film. The reference was so popular that the site is now down due to running over its bandwidth limit. Nearly all the entries were extremely trivial in nature. The site creator points out that a scene where we see the propellers spinning up is wrong because the main propeller (of 3) would have trailed the other two instead of all three starting at once. He takes issue with the recreated Titanic set for not being a perfect match to that of the original ship (should Cameron have literally re-built the entire ship?) He laments wrong shadows, lighting, cloud cover, the size of a bed and such. Only rarely is there something in his list where you think more care should have been taken. For example, the true-life character of "Molly" Brown played by Kathy Bates is introduced to us by the older Rose as "Margaret Brown, but we all just called her Molly." That's not correct as the nickname Molly only came about in the 1960's as part of a famous Broadway musical called, The Unsinkable Molly Brown. I think they just liked the sound of Molly more than Maggie, which is what friends actually called her.

All of those things miss the bigger point--the film's ability to drive home the enormity of the events in every way. Almost no one else will miss the power and emotional draw because one propeller started up incorrectly on film. No other film has succeeded in drenching the viewer with the aura of the time, the ship, the politics, the impact. Seeing the stern rise out of the water in full 3D (which is how we saw this latest release) is just jaw-dropping. Seeing it again crash down upon countless souls beneath it makes everyone wince. The 3D here was not as evident as I expected but it was subtle and effective.

Even in the less technical areas the film is noteworthy. "Minor" background scenes shot to match known history (like a boy spinning a top on deck much like the last known deck photo) and the cinematography, the stars, the coldness of the water, the dolphins swimming ahead of the boat. They're all just small details that add up into a larger success and that's why I spent the time to see Titanic yet again. If you cannot enjoy all these achievements because you don't like the love story or because the wallpaper is the wrong pattern then I'm not sure movie-going is your thing.

Movie Weekend

2012-04-05T13:07:00.001-04:00

Caught a couple movies a week ago or so and nearly forgot to comment on them which, as can be easily guessed, doesn't bode too well for them. Both films were compromised based on a busy schedule and limited options at accessible theaters. That said, I expected more.

The first one up was yet another in a long line of homages to previous TV shows. Apparently that well is beginning to run a bit dry as we're now down to parodying 21 Jump Street. For those who may not remember the show it's most famous for being the vehicle that launched Johnny Depp's career. I never saw the show so I only vaguely was aware of the plot. Basically it involved sending some baby-faced cops undercover as teens to help break up youth crime.

The movie version stars Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum with a nice assist from Ice Cube. Tatum is a fairly new face that I'd not seen before but I also couldn't believe his name was genuine as it sounds like a name someone would pick that doesn't remember the 70's and popular Hollywood celebrities Stockard Channing and Tatum O'Neal. Turns out it is his real name. Go figure. No matter as he's pretty forgettable here but with a name like that you're bound to keep thinking you know him every time he does pop up.

I must also mention that one of my favorite parts of the movie involves a bit of an homage within an homage as the high school where much of the action takes place is called Sagan High--clearly in support of late astronomer Carl Sagan of whom I've been a life-long fan.

The oddest thing about the film is that I laughed out loud often and reliably and yet, despite the fun, I didn't walk away with a positive feeling about it. This is mainly due to a horrendous script. It just isn't interesting or believable. You don't care about anyone in it and the supporting roles feel entirely pasted on.

Several of the original cast members, including Depp, return again playing the same characters except 25 years older of course. Seems none of them have gotten very far in their careers. I'm left to wonder if perhaps the same fate might befall the people most responsible for this mess.

The second film is one I had high hopes for based on the previews. It's the film Jeff, Who Lives At Home starring Jason Segel, Ed Helms and Susan Sarandon. There are also two solid supporting efforts from Judy Greer and Rae Dawn Chong. Chong's an old favorite of mind from the 80's that we haven't seen very much of in quite some time. It's nice to see her again.

The major issue with the film is that it's woefully predictable. It's one of those "finding yourself" movies where you're first introduced to the main character--Jeff--who's clearly a mess and then we meet the rest of the so-called healthier cast. Of course they're are suffering from their own major issues and, in the end--surprise, surprise--it's Jeff who's the one with all the answers.

The film isn't horrible it just isn't very interesting. Sarandon is essentially wasted and seems far too big a talent for her meager role as Jeff's mom. It also dawned on me that 99% of her on-screen time is spent away from the main characters. Only in the last sequence does she appear with them. The rest of the time she's just required to basically work out of her cubicle at work calling home now and again.

Chong's character isn't around long enough to really draw much from but what's there is interesting and she does a good job with it. Also squandered is the talent of Judy Greer who plays Jeff's sister-in-law. She's been great in every role I've seen her but here it's just a cookie-cutter character that we really can't get very attached to either. Her subplot could have been one of the more interesting ones but it just never evolves effectively.

I also really enjoy Ed Helms but he too feels out of place as the older brother. It just didn't fit for me. Segel has been good in virtually everything he's done to date and he's clearly the driving force of this film in every way but it's all just too much to overcome. I suspect this appealed to him as a vehicle to show he's not just a comedic actor and, while I think that's possibly true, it's just not the right film for him to prove it. I expect we'll be seeing similar attempts from him before too long but I hope they're of a better caliber than this one.

This Right Is Left

2012-03-23T14:49:00.001-04:00

I'm continually astounded by the sheer number of areas where Republicans claim to be supporters of the Constitution and the concept of capitalism along with being dead-set against concepts like socialism or nationalism only to then go down a path that clearly stands in sharp contrast to all those stated concerns.

During the administration of George W. Bush the party was mainly responsible for giving up several key protections that were once untouchable. It was done in typical fashion by playing the fear card. Fear of terrorism got the right to toss away freedoms like they were rotting produce. Rampant wire tapping, renditions, acceptance of torture, willingness to jail citizens without due process, etc. Oh, yes, all of these back-pedals came with an explanation but that's not the point. The point is that you cannot claim to be for something while proactive working to disassemble it at the same time.

The latest example of this is in the rhetoric involving gas prices and how to fight them. As has been pointed out, the right has done a complete about-face on this entire issue for the sake of the common goal of hating everything that comes out of President Obama's mouth. When Bush was in office everyone on the right made it clear that the President really can't do much of anything to impact gas prices. Those prices, they said almost in complete unity, were dictated by global market issues and the impact of speculators. Now that Obama's in office suddenly they've forgotten they ever said any of that and now it's all Obama's fault that prices have gone up. One losing candidate from 2008, George Allen of Virginia (he of Macaca slur fame), has released a "gas calculator" to show you how much you'd have paid for the gas you just bought under Bush.

Bill O'Reilly went on record in 2008 to remind the right that the President really can't do anything about gas prices. In his Talking Points Memo segment he said, "So the next time you hear a politician say he or she will bring down oil prices real quick understand it's complete B.S." In a telling prediction that shows no one pays attention to such things Bill went on to tell people to sell their SUV's and claimed that if we all used less gas prices would drop. Where's the fault there? We just finished one of the warmest winters on record and used less gas but look where prices are. And it's not because of Obama. It's because of globalization. Our oil industry sold the excess gas overseas (which is, by the way, a position he now agrees with).

Last night on Fox's Hannity show, Sean Hannity interviewed the aforementioned George Allen and showed the gas calculator but then launched into another entirely faux attack on President Obama. By the way, here's another example of the dishonesty of Sean Hannity. Take a look at the transcript. In it Obama states, "We have been drilling. We are drilling right now. Under my administration, America is producing more oil today than at any time in the last eight years."

Hannity's response to this was, "Now, there was a study, Congressional research service, which by the way is nonpartisan. They came out. He is bragging about we increased drilling. No, 96 percent of the total increase of domestic production has occurred on nonfederal land. The number of leases and permits have been cut in half and more. So, he is being dishonest there."

No, he's not being dishonest there. Only Hannity is. What the President said is entirely, 100% correct and the very study Hannity sites points that out. The President speaks for America. He's not saying he and Joe Biden are out there drilling. He's not saying the Federal government is doing more drilling. He's saying that, now, while he's in office, America is drilling more than in the last 8 years and that's borne out by the study. It doesn't matter that 96 percent of the increase comes from the private market. The fact doesn't change because of this. Is Obama trying to take credit? Maybe, but that's another issue and not one being debated by Hannity in this piece.

In his next segment Hannity had Stuart Varney on to talk about oil and and the effect of speculation. They talked about a very interesting bill being put forth by Senator Bernie Sanders. That bill would limit speculation to serious speculators and, it's believed, would reduce prices. Varney at least suggested that he felt the bill would stabilize pricing and reduce the spikes which would be a huge improvement. However, it was the next part of their discussion that I found most interesting and it's something I've seen repeated by Republican pundits for weeks now. The refrain is that American oil companies are taking our oil and selling it overseas because that's where they can get a better price for it. The thought is to force oil companies to keep the oil here for our consumption.

I get that. We love consuming everything we can. It's what we, as Americans, do best quite frankly. However, think about this. What Republicans are suggesting now is that we essentially nationalize American oil companies and force them to only sell their product here because, well, because we want it. Capitalism be damned.

These people scare me. At least I know where the left stands. The right doesn't seem to have a clue about anything they claim to stand for.

Video Streaming The Roku Way.

2012-03-21T15:41:00.000-04:00

I just picked up a Roku 2 XS. For those of you that have no idea what this is, it's a little squarish box that streams content to your TV. I've been looking at products from this company for quite some time. Roku has been developing similar devices for years now and the "2" is a bit of a misnomer as there have been more than one previous predecessor. Currently Roku offers four different models that range from $49.99 to $99.99. The models, in order of price from lowest to highest are the LT, the HD, XD and the XS (the one I bought). I should point out that the XS is also a basic gaming platform and comes with a special version of the extremely popular Angry Birds game (though I have no idea why that game is so popular). However, I mainly want the device for streaming TV and movies so any gaming is just an added feature for me that I'm very unlikely to use. I have other more formidable game platforms.

The most striking thing about these devices is the power they pack into such a small device. It's just 3.3 inches by 3.3 inches and not even an inch tall. Yet this device can fill your TV with loads of shows and movies including those freely available and also via "channels" including pay services like Netflix, Hulu Plus and many others.

I'm a big fan of Netflix streaming content and that experience can be heavily impacted by the device providing you the access to it. For example, I bought a Sony Blu-ray player some time ago that supports streaming and includes much of what Roku provides--including Netflix. However, the actual implementation of much of it left a lot to be desired. In Netflix it originally only supported playing from your Instant Queue which meant that you needed to use another device to place shows into that queue and the playback controls are terrible. If you fast-forward or rewind you can't see anything expect the time bar so you really have no means to know when to stop--at least not visual means. A later update gave Sony users the ability to control their queues from the player and to watch things instantly but the searching mechanism is a classic example of how not to design a search feature.

I then experienced Netflix on a Sony PlayStation 3 and it's easily the pinnacle of Netflix ease of use and features. Ironic given that their Blu-ray experience is so poorly done but that has much to do with the limitations of those players mainly because streaming was pretty much an afterthought for those devices. The PS3 turns Netflix into a powerhouse application and a simple one. I then read that two other companies out there apply the same type of approach and that included Panasonic (in their Blu-ray players) and Roku.

One of the most appealing things about a Roku is its low price. I didn't want to have to buy another Blu-ray player and also realized that it's been over a year since I actually put a disk in my own player. Thus I figured I could just get a Roku and go without the disc player part.

Opening The Box

The Roku comes in a small box (not surprising given its small size) and inside you'll find the unit, an RF remote (the XS unit features and RF motion-sensing remote while the other units come with an IR remote), batteries for the remote, a unique audio/video cable and some short documentation.

I noticed several things immediately. First, the remote is interesting but clearly needs to be used in tandem with another remote or remotes as it lacks volume buttons, channel buttons, number buttons and more. Second, there's not much to the back. There's an HDMI input, a power connector input, and ethernet port (one of the major features of the XS model as other models rely on slower WiFi for data), a reset button and a small jack for the audio/video cable input. I also wondered why the unit comes with a small purple fabric flap hanging off the left side (see the picture above). It serves no purpose and looks odd.

The Remote

The remote is smallish and feels comfortable in your hand. It's a pretty basic affair using two AA batteries. The buttons include (in order from top-to-bottom) a back button, home button, arrow controls (for traversing the user interface menus), a replay button, OK button, Options button (an asterisk), Rewind, Play/Pause, Fast-Forward and then two other buttons labeled A and B sideways. These last two are for game use during which the remote is used turned on its side.

I planned to teach my own universal remote its commands so this wasn't a concern. However, I then realized my universal remote doesn't use RF (radio frequency) and thus I'd have to jump through some hoops to teach my IR-based remote commands. Thankfully all Roku players support both RF and IR commands.

Setup

The installation of a Roku is a breeze especially if you're technical at all. I should mention that I've read a number of reviews complaining that the Roku is hard to set up if you don't understand routers or basic networking but it's no harder to setup than getting your phone, laptop or iPad connected to your network. For me it required plugging it in, connecting an ethernet cable from my router and connecting the HDMI cable. That was it.

Once you do that the hardware portion is complete. For the other models (or if you prefer to use wireless with your XS) you'll need to connect to your WiFi connection and that means you'll need to know its name and password. That might explain the confusion for some. With ethernet (wired) it's even simpler.

After you power on the device you'll see a Roku logo for a bit and then it looks for an update and applies it if found. In my case it did both. The next step involves taking an on-screen activation code and logging into the provided web address to type in that code. The code is valid for 30 minutes which should be plenty of time to finish the step.

One caveat is that you'll need more of the 30 minutes than you might think as, once you get to the Roku site, you'll be asked if you already have an account and, if not, to create one. Much to my dismay this account process requires credit card information. You're assured they're not going to use it except where purchases are made from the "Channel Store". However, I firmly believe this is a major drawback. This "feature" should be something you can do later after setup. I suspect many new buyers won't be comfortable with this and will just box up the unit and return it. Not good.

Once you complete that process you'll stay on the website for a moment or two longer as it'll ask you to set up some starting "Channels" (Netflix, Hulu and the like are all considered channels in Roku-speak). After that it's time to head back to the TV.

Interface

The main Roku home screen is basic and intuitive. You scroll horizontally through your chosen channels including three special entries. One is the setup screen where you can set various options (be sure to change the resolution from 720p to 1080p if your TV supports it). The second is a Featured Channel that changes over time. Lastly, there's a Channel Store entry where you go to add or remove new channels. You simply scroll to the channel or entry you want and click OK on the remote to enter that service. Also on the home screen at the bottom is, sadly, an ad for other value-added content. It's not a major negative but I'm no fan of ads of this type.

Once you enter a specific channel the interface then can vary greatly as each channel can have very specific coding. Netflix is one of the more robust examples. As I mentioned at the start, one of my main goals was to find a better Netflix experience than what I'd been getting from my Blu-ray player. The goal was to get the same experience as can be found on the PS3. The Roku Netflix app blows away my past experience but doesn't quite reach the level of the PS3 interface. It does some nice things like automatically jump to the next episode of a series when you finish a previous episode and keeps track of your progress in every show (which it shows visually with a red bar). It also has a great drill-down menu for searching. As you type it shows you the remaining available matching programs. This alone will keep my sanity intact. Where does it differ? First and foremost is with the transport controls (FF/REW). On a PS3 when you fast-forward it shows you thumbnails of the video including several before and after the one you're currently on. For some reason we're not quite at the point where you can fast-forward streaming content like you do on a DVD. The same approach is used with the Roku with one major exception. As soon as you move to a faster speed then the multiple thumbnails drops to a single thumbnail. On a PS3, this never happens.

Also, the PS3 does a much better job of showing all the episodes in series including multiple seasons. On the PS3 you see a long, easily, scrolled vertical list of every episode for the entire series along with your viewing progress for each one. It's easy to jump full seasons which comes in use in shared-viewer situations. I might be in season 3 while my son might be in season 7. With the Roku much of the same information is here but you have to scroll through one episode at a time.

When you're done with a channel you can click the Home button or the Back button to go back to where you want.

Channels

The heart of the Roku experience is the concept of Channels and this is where Roku shines. There are channels for many different types of shows and movies. You've got all the typical ones including Netflix, Hulu Plus, Amazon, Crackle, Pandora and many more. Some are better than others. The Facebook channel is pretty useless in my view as it supports just a tiny subset of Facebook features. You certainly won't be using this to manage your Facebook use.

There's also some live TV here though mainly a bit limited. Much of what's here requires additional subscriptions as well but then again there's also a lot that doesn't. The free things are, of course, a bit hit and miss. There's CNN but don't expect to watch a live feed of the regular CNN or watch, say, Piers Morgan's show (there is an audio podcast of it available though).

Then there's the wildcard known as Private Channels. Private Channels are channels that either you create or are created by others and can be shared. You get a unique code and by inputting that code on your PC your Roku suddenly has access to that private feed. This is where you'll find a lot more content. One popular stop for such content is NowhereTV which is run by a fan and user who helps create a wide variety of channels based on any source that can be found. For example, one of his private channels is a full, live feed of CNN International. It also includes dozens of local affiliate programming--mainly your local news.

The quality of all channels depends heavily on the source materials. Netflix viewing is as good here as it is on any other device I've seen including 5.1 audio support (though currently there's a lip-sync bug that appears to be fixed in an upcoming update). I was concerned initially as sometimes there are some initial video compression issues but those disappear after a few seconds when present. If the source material is good then it looks good here. If not, well, then of course it doesn't look so great here.

In Conclusion

The Roku experience, so far, is a solid one for me. It dramatically improves on what I've been dealing with all in a comparatively inexpensive product. It's also so small that you can virtually hide it anywhere especially if this is your only service and you have the RF remote.

My biggest remaining hurdle is the lack of an audio output. With other solutions I run one audio connection (in this case the audio that comes in as part of the HDMI cable) to the TV and a digital audio connection out to my receiver for full 5.1 audio. Sometimes I like just TV audio (especially late at night) and other times I like full surround sound (movies and such). I don't want to have to have the receiver on all the time. This turns out to be a major deal-breaker for some. My research now tells me that Netflix now insists on what's known as Dolby Digital Plus (or DD+). That process can only be used via HDMI. Since my receiver, which is a good one but pre-dates HDMI, I will never be able to get 5.1 audio from my Roku on Netflix programs that support 5.1 without buying an entirely new receiver. Thus, for me, this means this change now necessitates spending several hundred dollars more for a new receiver. Not good.

On the plus side is that the Roku uses almost no power so it's always on. That means I'm watching what I want much faster than before.

So far, I'm quite impressed and it seems that the box is ready to grow as the content grows. I suspect I'll be using this for quite some time even if it means having to get a new receiver to really enjoy it.

Game Change Won't Change The Game....But...

2012-03-14T00:08:00.000-04:00

The conservative media is up in arms about the HBO movie about Sarah Palin and the 2008 bid for the White House. The attacks are all extremely predictable: HBO is a bastion of liberal Hollywood elitists bent on the destruction of traditional American values and the indoctrination of easily-led would-be socialists.

Of course 95% of what's being said is being said by pundits who either haven't seen or refuse to see Game Change and that's a real shame. The facts are pretty hard to refute. The accounts contained in it were mainly provided and vetted by the very Republican operatives involved in the day-to-day events of the campaign. A major source for the material is former John McCain Senior Strategist Steve Schmidt (played in the film brilliantly by Woody Harrelson). Another major source, Nicole Wallace (a chief Palin aid) is portrayed wonderfully by Sarah Paulson. Both have been ostracized by the conservative media for their having been so open about the problems during the campaign and Schmidt specifically is discounted now as a traitor since signing on a consultant with MSNBC. Both of these sources have been very supportive of the information presented in the film and have said it captures the events accurately.

The sad part about all of this is that it's actually a very good piece of film making. First and foremost is the work done by Julianne Moore as Palin. I would have never guessed she could even remotely pull off looking like Palin but eerily does so not only in look but in mannerisms and speech.

The right simply wants to dismiss anything produced at any time that ever says anything even remotely negative about anyone in their party. When's the last time either said ever said anything positive about a movie or show put out about their side? I can't recall such a time. In this case it's a really terrible oversight. Why?

I make no bones about my dislike for Sarah Palin. However, my comments on her are available, preserved for posterity sake for all to see in this very blog. I said at the time of her being announced that it represented "a totally shocking move with all the right thinking behind it if she has the right stuff." It was my take pretty soon thereafter than she simply didn't. Over time I really grew to dislike the woman. The right has tried to make her out as far more than she is simply because it feels that's the only way the game can ever be played and as long as this sort of ridiculousness continues then we have little chance of fixing anything in this country. If we cannot be completely honest about the people running, or looking to run, the country then we're really in big trouble.

Anyway, the point is that this film has made me feel far more sympathetic toward Palin and all in a good way. Nothing that I saw came as a shocking surprise and I mean that from a realistic standpoint. The film portrays Palin as a real person with real issues that virtually any of us, thrust into this type of maelstrom, would be hard-pressed to improve upon. The entire first half of the film is complementary towards her and everyone else portrayed. Once the trouble begins (and we all can agree that trouble certainly had to have occurred) we then get to the point where the political landscape today prevents us from seeing eye-to-eye.

For me what I saw was a politician from a "smaller" state thrust into a world she was entirely unprepared to navigate. The world before that he been something she could always manage personally but this sort of stage was beyond her direct control and that's going to frustrate anyone used to having things done a certain way--their way. None of the outbursts portrayed strike me as unrealistic or out-of-character from what I've seen of the woman. Again, most of us would have had similar difficulties and that's simply because we're not playing in those leagues and I don't find it insulting to suggest that Palin wasn't either. She's a quick study and I give her credit for knowing a good thing when she sees it. Her choice to join the ticket changed her family's fortunes forever. Running for office again would be a huge mistake that she and her family simply don't need and, so far, she hasn't taken the bait. There's nothing wrong with that and there's nothing wrong with a film showing her in that light especially when it's fairly obvious to most everyone that views it objectively that these things most likely happened very closely to what's portrayed.

The naysayers will always be there and I had my own run in with them when I commented about HBO while reading up on a conservative site I mentioned a few posts ago. Their comments were all entirely ridiculous and, of course, wrong. None of those posting thought anyone would bother to watch this. Instead, for it's debut, it was seen by 2.1 million people giving it the highest ratings for an HBO original film since 2004.

Hannity Plays The Blind Follower Card Again

2012-03-13T22:42:00.001-04:00

In the Republican stratosphere no one plays to a bunch of blind followers more than Sean Hannity. The man will say and do anything with zero regard for any sense of irony or hypocrisy what-so-ever.

Tonight, while at the gym, I caught just a few minutes of his show during coverage of the primaries in Alabama and Mississippi. I happened to come in just as he was trying to make the case that liberals and the liberal media are using unfair and insulting tactics to paint the south and Republicans as backwards people. As his first piece of evidence he played a segment from Bill Maher's most recent HBO show that focused on a video segment done by the daughter of Nancy Pelosi where she went around and chose, supposedly random, people to talk to from Mississippi. To no one's surprise the people she interviewed came off very poorly both intellectually and socially. One even had a patch on his jacket that said something to the effect of "Proud to be White" and he told her he doesn't like black people--"just don't." Another called President Obama a half-breed and a Muslim who doesn't belong in office.

After the piece ran Hannity was, of course, shocked--shocked, I tell you, that someone would do something so low as to go around and cherry-pick interview subjects in an attempt to make those in his party look bad. Note that Maher made it quite clear that the raw footage shows them just walking up to random people but I don't expect anyone to believe that of course.

The main problem with this objection from Hannity is one that none of his non-fans would know anything about. You see, Sean Hannity has been using this exact same tactic for years. He has someone with a mic or a camera out and about and clearly has them carefully choose exactly the right people he wants to then grill about various topics regarding the country. He, of course, only chooses people who claim to be Democrats. He also quite obviously has his minions skip over anyone that sounds even remotely connected making various excuses along the way. I've heard him do it countless times. He then ridicules less informed people (often kids, and sometimes homeless people whom he clearly tries to suggest are all Democrats) with complete sarcastic commentary and then ties it all up by telling his audience that this is what liberalism is all about. He'll say, with a straight face, that liberals simply have no concept of what's going on in the country no matter where you find them.

How this man looks himself in the mirror each day is beyond me. It's disgusting for someone to use the same tactic he's been using for years? I give up.

By the way, another interesting item happened while watching the show, which is typical of trying to change the message. In response to the comment about the President being Muslim Tucker Carlson, a guest tonight, asked why it was a problem to be called a Muslim. He was suggesting that Democrats clearly have a problem with Muslim's because, otherwise, if they believed what they claimed, they'd be just fine with him being called a Muslim since, according to Democrats, there's nothing wrong with being Muslim.

Democratic Strategist Joe Trippi was there for the left and followed up but missed the most obvious response. I would have said to Carlson, "Well, that's not surprising coming from a Mormon." I have zero doubt that Carlson would have immediately corrected Trippi saying, "I'm not a Mormon." Of course then the right response would have been to say, "I don't understand. What's wrong with being a Mormon? What do Republicans have against Mormons?"

Carlson clearly knows that it's not right to call anyone something they're not. He also knows darn right well that a huge segment of Republicans view anything Muslim with complete disdain and to call anyone that is, from them, an insult. Now he's suggesting people should just be okay with being insulted. Well, Tucker Carlson is a jackass and that should be okay with him because there's nothing wrong with jackasses, right?

The Continued "Have My Cake" Problem

2012-03-12T17:26:00.003-04:00

When I first heard about the Rush Limbaugh comments I started to wonder how it was the radio host managed to come to the conclusion that his position on this was on any sort of solid footing. Don't get me wrong: Limbaugh, as I noted, has a history of insulting comments but this was different. This was right up there with thinking it's okay to start defending Hitler, start throwing around the "N"-word or publicly proclaiming your lust for animals. Something didn't connect.

I went back to the quotes and the one thing that I noticed was a reference to where he saw the initial story about Sandra Fluke. He mentioned a site I wasn't familiar with called cnsnews.com. Their motto is, "The Right News. Right Now", lest there be any confusion as to their perceptual take on the world.

One look at the site and you start to understand how Limbaugh painted himself into this corner. Reading the comments to virtually any story makes for some great reading--and some scary reading as well. The rhetoric is flat-out disgusting. Typical are comments about having to fumigate the White House when Obama leaves. His middle name is, of course, used to excess. Racism is rampant. Hypocrisy is not only prominent but seems lauded. The nuts are clearly running the asylum.

That got me thinking about the old story I've mentioned before about a famous case in New York City involving a guy by the name of Bernie Getz. Getz, in response to some kids who were intent on robbing him, shot several of them in a manner that clearly showed more than just self-defense being involved. hen asked why he bought a gun and felt so aggressive towards the kids he said that when you live in a rat hole you start to feel like a rat. That comment has been studied in great depth and has found many supporters. I believe it's very much at the heart of the disconnect we're seeing all across the country today.

We live in a country where you feel as if you can no longer trust anyone you don't know well (and might best be wary of even those you think you know well). My point on this site is that if this is the type of place that a noted, supposedly bright pundit, gets his news perhaps it bears taking a look around. If you see this group as a peer group is it any wonder your arguments are going to devolve into biased rhetoric of the worst kind? Limbaugh, emboldened by those who frequent this sort of site, felt perfectly at ease with the language he chose because it's all par for the course in these parts.

I decided to check in on the site for a bit and the experience has been eye-opening. The degree of hypocrisy has been simply amazing. Today there's a top headline saying, "British Government: Christians Have No Right To Wear Visible Cross Or Crucifix". Of course that isn't the entire story and that's even pointed out in the story on the site. What's being discussed is that Britain is arguing that employers have the right to ban employees from wearing crosses and such at work because it's not a requirement of the Christian faith. Do you see where I'm going with this already?

The Limbaugh story, and their support of it, is arguing that employers should have the right to not have to pay for birth control when they find it morally objectionable. Yet here we have a story arguing nearly the exact opposite. Employers should not have the ability to prohibit their own employees from wearing visible crosses at work (even where uniforms are concerned). I have little doubt that this same site would have no problem running a story about how employers should be able to prohibit an employee from having a copy of the Quran on their desk or wearing a turban.

We're continuing to surround ourselves only with like-minded thinkers. People are now afraid to post anything to blogs, forums or anywhere (like here) for fear that they'll be judged and lose out on a job. This is not good for us in the long run in any way. The melting pot does not work when all the ingredients are segregated and then we have the best comment of all on this from the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, "A House Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand."

I Experience A Separation

2012-03-11T19:51:00.001-04:00

Here we go again. I caught another film now in March that, officially, is a film from last year even though we didn't really get to see it in America until this year. I hate when that happens as then, like both of my last two best films "of the year" they're not actually "of the year". I just tend to hate asterisks.

Anyway, A Separation comes with a pedigree as it already won the Oscar for the best foreign film. There's also some newsworthiness to it as it's an Iranian film that the country made a big deal about as it was up against an Israeli film. Some day, after aliens show up to take us on we'll all find a way to get along, until then we have to put up with these sorts of odd chiding.

First and foremost I will tell you that during the entire initial 90 minutes of the film I was concerned that almost nothing of any real substance had happened or seemed likely to happen. It reminded me very much of my worst film of last year--Poetry--a film where it felt like someone just turned on a camcorder and filmed whatever fell in front of it. It really managed to test my resolve with respect to patience.

Then, thankfully, like a late flower it bloomed into full brilliance and the reason for the Oscar nod made itself quite clear. The film is an exquisitely complex affair that peels away like the layers of an onion--layer after layer after layer. You think you've got it and then there's another variable to consider over and over and it's all done incredibly well.

There are some problems. The main one is that the film is clearly meant for a Middle-Eastern viewer. For an American audience there are plot points that are less than clear and that you're aware just aren't packing the same punch they would for, say, an Iranian. I suspect that if I had a conversation with a local about this film we'd be reacting much as if we saw two entirely different films.

There's also a high degree of confusion on exactly who is who through much of the first half of the film and there were one or two spots where the subtitles flew by when I really wish I could have hit Pause to discuss a finer point that just dawned on me and thus distracted me from reading for a moment.

The acting is absolutely first-rate from every single character. Not one of them feels as if they could be improved upon. Each plays their role to the hilt and the script gives them every opportunity to do so. What stays with you of all is how real it all felt. Unlike a typical Hollywood movie where things are kept fairly simple, here you have a story where just about everyone has a level of culpability in the experiences being portrayed. There's a directness and connection with the audience here that's different from other films and that's a very good thing. There's a series of scenes involving an Iranian judge that should be fascinating to virtually any Westerner. If you can ignore the bias in news and ignore the Iranian rhetoric (on both sides) and remember that this is a nation of millions of people with most of them looking to do the right thing--just like anywhere else--then perhaps its magic can work for you as well.

I still wish they could have done something a bit more interesting in the first 90 minutes as that's the other things that's staying with me and will likely keep this from being in my top five for the year.

Limbaugh Apology Misses Target

2012-03-05T13:32:00.000-05:00

I will state right off that I'm not a Rush Limbaugh fan in any way other than to credit him for becoming so successful. I've been aware of Limbaugh since the late 80's. His approach has never wavered. It's always political shock value of the highest order. For many years I believed that's all it was--a ploy to draw ratings and nothing else. On the radio his voice has a way of suggesting sarcasm. Then came his failed TV show in the early 90's. That's when I decided it wasn't a ploy--that most everything the man says is what he believes. You could see the earnestness in his body language with every utterance.

The argument many fans make for him when he gets into hot water is that we all just don't get his unique sense of humor. Where have you heard that excuse before? It's been used forever to try to explain away bad choices and lack of empathy. Believe me, I know from personal experience here of what I speak.

The latest self-induced dilemma he finds himself in has followed a similar path as before. He says something entirely unacceptable. People complain. He doubles-down on his comments. People complain some more. He continues to not only deny any wrong-doing but ridicules his accusers. He starts to lose advertisers which, in turn, risks the only things he cares about--money and attention and thus he then feels compelled to apologize (or is forced to apologize given the torrent of pressure against him).

We've been down this path before--when he suggested, quite emphatically, that Michael J. Fox was exaggerating his Parkinson's symptoms, his "Barack the Magic Negro" song, calling soldiers who criticized war "phony soldiers" as well as his racist comments against Philadelphia Eagles quarterback Donvan McNabb.

In this case his apology is the worst kind of apology. Even before you hear it know this--that even radio icon Don Imus (who himself was similarly disgraced for comments a few years back) called it "lame" and referred to him as an "insincere pig". That's saying something.

How do we know this latest apology is sincere and heartfelt? Well, because Rush tells us so in his very apology. He also said, “I always tried to maintain a very high degree of integrity and independence on this program. Nevertheless, those two words were inappropriate, they were uncalled for, they distracted from the point that I was actually trying to make, and I again sincerely apologize to Miss Fluke for using those two words to describe her. I do not think she is either of those two words.”

In response to the apology it's target, Sandra Fluke said, “I don’t think that a statement like this issued saying that his choice of words was not the best changes anything, especially when that statement was issued when he was under significant pressure from his sponsors who have begun to pull their support from the show. This was not someone who made one accidental statement. This was three days of significant portions of his three-hour show. He insulted me and the women of Georgetown who have received no apology. He insulted us over 53 times.”

On Saturday he posted the following to his website:

“For over 20 years, I have illustrated the absurd with absurdity, three hours a day, five days a week. In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation. I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke.

I think it is absolutely absurd that during these very serious political times, we are discussing personal sexual recreational activities before members of Congress. I personally do not agree that American citizens should pay for these social activities. What happened to personal responsibility and accountability? Where do we draw the line? If this is accepted as the norm, what will follow? Will we be debating if taxpayers should pay for new sneakers for all students that are interested in running to keep fit?In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone’s bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a Presidential level.

My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices."

First of all, I don't see, at all, how you can call someone a slut and a prostitute and directly refer to them while ridiculing how much sex you think they're having and call for them to post those activities on YouTube and not mean it to be a personal attack. That's simply ludicrous. This was not just a personal attack. This was three days of all-out assault. Second, he again shows how little he listens to anything but his own head on these things by re-stating a totally erroneous comment about taxpayers paying for this when this is about employer-based health plans that have nothing to do with our tax payments. Lastly, he suggested that he claimed it isn't our business "whatsoever" to know what people do in their bedroom. How does he reconcile that with his calls to post such things on YouTube? It just doesn't add up.

My problem with his apologies is that, like before, they miss the bigger point. It's not his so-called wrong choice of words that are in question here. It's his core values and what he believes deep down about the issue that remains the bigger problem and for this he has no apology what-so-ever. These comments were wrong on so many levels that it's simply unacceptable thinking no matter how you try to spin it. Was it okay to call someone a slut and a prostitute because they advocate the use of birth control? No. Would it be okay to equate someone with these traits to attack someone else's perceived political agenda? No. Would it be acceptable to do so in the name of generating higher ratings? Maybe, just maybe, in a comedy show but this is a serious political show so, no.

It, like his apology, fails every measure of explanation. Rush Limbaugh seems to have forgotten what world he lives in and believes that there's a process to be followed when he does these things. The bigger question is how many times we're going to let him get away with this approach. It doesn't matter if he says what a lot of the country believes. That doesn't make it any more right. I'm hoping, like Glenn Beck before him, that his advertisers have finally realized what a hateful neanderthal this man is and takes away what he loves most--the money and the attention.

Thin Ice In Darkness

2012-03-04T21:43:00.001-05:00

This past week I managed to catch two films which keeps me on schedule for a decent count this year though it's still quite early in the year of course.

The first film was Thin Ice. It stars Greg Kinnear as Mickey Prohaska, a small town insurance salesman who clearly has long since passed his prime and is now existing primarily on the fumes of his past. Then, one day at an insurance convention, things seem to give him back that old spark when he's befriended by a somewhat dim, but nice enough, trainee. When his arch-nemesis in the industry offers the trainee a job Mickey lies through his teeth to steal the trainee away.

The trainee then tells Mickey about his first big potential client and Mickey decides to go with him to show him the ropes. The client is an old man named Gorvy who seems only partially still aware of his surroundings played wonderfully by Alan Arkin. Gorvy doesn't really need insurance but that doesn't stop Kinnear especially when he stumbles upon the information that among Gorvy's endless array of junk is a renowned violin worth a small fortune that Gorvy picks unknowingly for his pet dog. Mickey decides this is one sheep worth a full sheer.

It's at this point that we meet the security system installer--yet another nutcase--played by Billy Crudup. As the story progresses Mickey quickly gets in well over his head and to say more would be in bad taste to expose any more of the plot.

There are also two solid performances by Bob Balaban and, quite to my surprise, Lea Thompson whom I haven't seen in anything in years.

On the whole this is one very quirky but oddly campy film experience. It's bland in several areas and sadly I found it highly predictable. However, the two other people I saw it with didn't find it anywhere near as predictable so perhaps I just got lucky. Roger Ebert went so far as to call it "devilishly ingenious" which I think is a bit overstating it. It's a pretty forgettable film but strangely manages to be so while also not being a bad experience.

The second film this week was In Darkness. Much to my surprise I found it necessary to see yet another holocaust film. I find that even among my Jewish friends that holocaust films are pushing the limits of saturation for just about everyone. Very few people can bear to sit through yet another gut punch that pretty much has to be the by-product of such films. I also notice that even while this film maintained a 91 rating on Rotten Tomatoes that the negative reviews often touch on this very issue. They wonder how many more times we can treat Nazi atrocities with the emotion they deserve? Does saturation bring a cold numbing of our senses to the whole idea?

Regardless I found this film fascinating and powerful. It's not an easy ride. As the title suggests much of it takes place is near-total darkness. The main plot involves a group of Polish Jews who escape capture below the streets of the Warsaw ghetto with the help of a Polish sewer inspector. We're told this is a true story finally written-out in 2008 in the memoirs of one of the children portrayed.

The main complication of the story deals with typical stereotypes of the day. The Polish sewer inspector has been raised to think the worst of Jews while the Jews are extremely hesitant to put their faith (and quickly vanishing funds) in a Pole that they're not so sure won't turn them in for cash as soon as he bleeds them dry first. It's a key part of the story and it's played to perfection here. We're let in on the evolution a bit before the characters themselves as we're, of course, able to experience their individual time apart from one another to see this maturation take place.

This is no Schindler's List but it doesn't need to be and, in fact, this seems more powerful in several key ways. It's much more of a common man's story from both sides. As mentioned, we're dealing with a different dynamic than most other holocaust films. Typically you have the victimized Jew, who clearly deserves everyone's sympathy and pity, saved by the seemingly rare good German. Here we get a story of two far from perfect factions that bring their own baggage to the film and that's something rare in these efforts. The would-be hero is constantly battling his own conscience. At any moment he might just turn them all in or simply leave them to their own demise. The victims are continually their own worst enemies, making noise where they shouldn't, continually trying to pretend they have some better choices than the only one they have and often acting ungrateful for the help they're getting. It's all quite riveting.

One oddity was the amount of sex and sexually-driven nudity found in the film. At first it struck me as distracting and then I realized that it too was essential to the plot. Especially when there's no hope left, people given no other option, will turn to sex wherever they can get it if only for a momentary escape from their horrible surroundings.

A strange by-product of this unique approach is that the viewer isn't overcome with angst and emotion during much of the film. Only in its closing moments do you feel the pull of tears and anguish and that's rather noteworthy and a compliment.

It's not a perfect film. Following several of the characters is much more difficult than it should be and the acting isn't anything special. Plus the endless necessary darkness does make it harder to stay connected. I suspect some viewers lost interest along the way as a result. Regardless, I'm glad I caught it and I can see why it was nominated for a best foreign film Oscar (which I learned after seeing it).

My Weekend Is Black And Grey

2012-02-17T22:40:00.000-05:00

The start of the weekend found me catching Daniel Radcliffe in my first viewing of him as anything other than Harry Potter in The Woman In Black.

This is a standard period horror piece involving lots of dark seance-like atmosphere and a long history of local tragedy. Radcliffe plays a young lawyer, Arthur Kipps, who recently lost his wife (and mother of their young son) in childbirth and, as a result (we assume--as the story doesn't specifically tie these two things together) is experiencing a loss of focus at work. His boss sends him off to the estate of a recently deceased woman to gather up a reported plethora of paperwork in the desire to make sure they have the absolute latest copy of her will. The main problem is that the deceased's own local attorney hasn't come through with the goods.

From the moment Kipps arrives in town nearly everyone gives him a clear cold shoulder. No one wants him there and everyone seems willingly ensconced behind walls of stone and thick windows. The few exceptions include an inn keeper and an older wealthy couple with their own tale of woe.

The entire film oozes with dread and ghostly aura. The house of the deceased is the perfect haunted house and Radcliffe's look and mannerisms quickly leave behind his most famous past role. The cinematography is also wonderful. Nearly every shot squeezes out the maximum emotion and the locations are simply wonderful.

Much of the film is quite interesting and keeps your attention but, over time, frustration starts to seep in threatening the entire experience. The most annoying aspect is that Kipps seems dead-set against asking anyone in town to explain anything he's seeing. Why are they acting the way they are? Why are they treating him so poorly? What's with all the dead children and who is the woman in black?

When the ending comes it happens all too quickly and loose ends are simply tossed together in one big bucket and treated as resolved.

I should also point out that the audience I found myself in was rather ..... unique. No matter how minimal the "scare" a few sections of the audience would shriek as if ghouls were descending on their own theater seats. A few times they screamed in confusion over things not even intended to be scary. I started wondering if the producers had somehow managed to hire teens to sit in on every single showing all over the country. Sadly, it didn't do anything to help the outcome. It's a nice effort with some notable highs but, in the end, doesn't deliver.

The next film was Liam Neeson's The Grey. Neeson has been one of my favorite actors over the years but frequent readers of my reviews will no doubt recall that I've had major problems with his latest films. I now realize the guy is a long way from Shindler's List. It's now been 8 years since 2004's Kinsey, which is the last film I enjoyed him in. Most of his recent work has been in highly unbelievable action movies or in various comic book and legend-type films many of which seem entirely beneath him. It's time to change gears before there's nothing left but reverse.

The Grey is a story about a group of male oil-rig workers in the middle of a very remote section of the Alaskan wilderness. During a break they board a doomed flight and, those who survive, end up in the middle of nowhere with virtually nothing to help them survive the monumental task of survival ahead of them. Nothing seems to go their way from the moment the plane takes off.

Neeson's character is the only one among them who understands the dangers they face, most notably from wolves who descend upon the crash site almost immediately. His job with the company involved being a sharpshooter to protect other works from the likes of these huge Alaskan wolves. He seems quite the expert on their every nuance.

The group, like all such groups in these types of films, is a mixed lot. You've got a few good guys, a trouble maker or two, a couple who clearly are not physically prepared for the challenge and Neeson. One of the good guys is, quite surprisingly, played by Dermot Mulroney who is barely recognizable behind thick glasses and a swath of rough gray hair and beard.

Nothing in the film came as a surprise. It was all pretty standard fare. Most concerning is that the film also follows the standard approach by bringing with it a veritable myriad of ludicrous choices and plot elements. There are so many that I'm not even sure where to begin or if it's worth bothering. The worst offender involves, sadly, the wolves. First of all, think about Alaska. It's huge. Anyone that's read or watched anything about the Alaskan wilderness knows you can spend days, weeks or months in the middle of it and see little other than trees and birds. The guy who spent years there among the grizzly bears never had trouble with wolves. Christopher McCandless from Into The Wild fame spent all his time there without having a problem with wolves but not here. This group apparently exists in a pocket of Alaska where wolves live around every corner. We're also asked to believe that they're being hunted by the same group of wolves even after they cross a huge divide that would be virtually impossible for the same wolves to frequent--except here.

Neeson does a solid job with the role but the material just isn't interesting. The film is flat throughout. It's not awful but it's not very interesting either. It just tells its obvious story with the obvious outcome and ends with one of the most ridiculous sequences possible. I guess that's a perfect fit for this film.

I should also comment on the choice by Neeson to act in this film. If you know anything about his life story it includes losing his own beautiful wife not that long ago. His character in this film is haunted by the recent loss of a beautiful wife and we all found it impossible not to think about that with every related scene. I can't even begin to imagine how the director approached Neeson for those shots. He had to be thinking of his own wife and it all just seems heartless (of the producers) and sad. One is left to wonder if Neeson simply needs the money. I hope not.

Chronicling Chronicle

2012-02-13T12:16:00.002-05:00

For the first film to see in 2012 I decided to check out Chronicle. I hadn't seen any previews and only became interested in it due to its quick success and large collection of positive reviews.

Just before I got to the theater I read a couple things about it and realized this was going to be another one of those first-person movies where the main character shoots everything on video and we watch in a sort of documentary/videolog style. That cut into my confidence level as many such films are simply terrible.

The first few scenes didn't help the concern as everything looked very low budget and felt awkward. Here the dialog felt forced in several spots and the film struggled at times to explain the constant reliance on the camera (not by just one character but by two) but then it started to improve dramatically.

After the initial stutters it entirely won me over through the next two-thirds of the film. I was riveted to the story and the approach. I started feeling as if the producers had managed the incredible task of taking a potentially ridiculous story line and really getting us to buy into it and to connect with the characters to the point of complete suspension of disbelief.

Then the trouble begins. There's a single event at a party where things go from completely fine to utter mayhem.

The main plot involves three friends who discover a sink hole that they explore and then, not long after emerging, begin to realize they have supernatural abilities that they can hone and grow. The real gem of the story is in how they go about dealing with it all but sadly that wonderfully engaging experience then comes crashing down (like everything else in the movie) in the final third.

The characters, upon finding such abilities, completely ignore the most obvious uses for these new-found traits. For example, they need money but instead of heading to Vegas they take much more complicated and risky paths.

The main character, Andrew (played by Dane DeHaan who reminds me of a younger Leonardo Di Caprio), suddenly starts acting crazy and before you know it we've got nothing but a lot of explosions, blood, violence and a complete loss of focus and magic. The degree of explosions cannot be overstated. From the moment they begin they're nearly constant for the rest of the film.

Not only was I entirely let down by this but the audience of mainly teens and 20-something's also seemed to disconnect at the same time. The film never recovers and I'm left to feel cheated by the experience. What felt like it was going to be an entirely memorable affair instead simply turned into a poor man's Incredible Hulk.

The Year in Movies

2012-02-06T08:05:00.000-05:00

Another year has come and gone and that means it's time for me to look over the movies I saw that were released in 2011. This year was challenging for several reasons. Personally I had a ton going on that kept getting in the way of making it out to the theater. Also, when I did get there it became clear pretty early on that this wasn't going to be a major year for Hollywood classics. The highs weren't quite as prevalent and the lows were pretty bad with everything else trending lower.

The end result was that I managed to see just 31 films for 2011 and it wasn't until just last month that I was able to fill out my top and bottom five with nominees for best and worst film of the year.

The films from 2011 (in order of viewing) were:

The Adjustment Bureau *
Barney's Version ****
Cedar Rapids ** 1/2
Unknown * 1/2
Poetry *
Rango *
Limitless **
Atlas Shrugged *
Jane Eyre *** 1/2
Water For Elephants ****
Bridesmaids ** 1/2
Midnight In Paris ****
Super 8 * 1/2
The Guard ****
Point Blank ***
Our Idiot Brother *
Circumstance ***
Detective Dee And The Mystery Of The Phantom Flame **
Moneyball ** 1/2
50/50 ***
The Ides Of March ***
Tower Heist * 1/2
The Descendents ****
Hugo *** 1/2
The Artist ****
War Horse * 1/2
The Adventures Of Tin Tin **
Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol ** 1/2
We Bought A Zoo *** 1/2
A Dangerous Method **
My Week With Marilyn *** 1/2

The five best films of 2011, thankfully, had some competition--if limited. I didn't have to dig down into 3-star movies to get there and that was my biggest concern at the mid-point of the year. The five (again, in order of viewing) were Barney's Version, Midnight In Paris, The Guard, The Artist and The Descendants.

Thinking about each one of these again brought back great memories and each one is fairly unique. Not one of them is even remotely similar to any of the others. We have a personal life story, a fantasy, an action/comedy, a silent film and family love story.

However, after much contemplation one does just stand ever so slightly ahead of the rest of the field and that film is Barney's Version. I knew when I saw it last February that it would be a tough film to beat. I don't believe any of the other top films will stay with me anywhere near as long, or as deeply, as this one. Paul Giamatti took home a Golden Globe, thankfully, for Best Actor in a Comedy/Musical but that was about it.

Picky readers might take issue with this selection. This is yet another "cusp" movie (my pick for last year's best film, The Secret In Their Eyes, was another). It's officially a 2010 movie, as it's listed as having been released in September, but it didn't get a wide release until well into 2011 and I believe that's its major undoing for some. It came too late in 2010 to really get any interest at the award shows and too early in 2011 to be remembered--and that's a real shame.

I can't imagine anyone seeing this film and not being won over by it. I saw it three different times and still can't wait to see it again, especially with anyone who hasn't yet experienced it.

On the other end of the spectrum we have, of course, the worst films of the year and they are some pretty bad films though I can only wish they were forgettable. Thankfully none of them quite reach the level of ineptitude as the worst film of the last few years. These are simply terrible movies and nothing more. They are Poetry, Atlas Shrugged, Rango, The Adjustment Bureau and Our Idiot Brother.

Things that make for a terrible movie for me include a totally ridiculous plot, a comedy with no laughs, a horror film without any fright, a poorly produced effort and a film that is just God-awful boring. What makes my selection for this year's worst film most interesting is that I've seen it listed by a few others as their best film of 2011 and that film is Poetry. This movie falls into the last category by being just flat-out boring. If this is your cup of tea then you must enjoy the flavor of plain-old boiled water in a bland cup. I almost want to watch this one again just remind myself of how amazing the differences are between what some people will overlook to recommend a movie.

The reviewers that raved about this snooze-fest need to remember that those reading their reviews are very likely not going to see a study in film-making but are looking to be entertained in some way, hell, any way. This movie fails in every single aspect of that, short of being interesting to film nuts in areas none of the rest of us give a damn about. I have zero doubt that if you screened this for a room of everyday people, and forced them to finish it, a good third of the room would be sound asleep at the conclusion.

It just amazes me to no end that 59 reviewers out of 59 gave this a positive review and that includes 17 of the top reviewers in the industry. It makes me wonder what I'm not getting here but then when you read the reviews the disconnect starts to become quite clear:

"The writer-director...is principally concerned with rendering emotions that seem inexpressible."

"Those with an eye for reading between the lines can find layers of meaning."

"...is daring in the ways only quiet, unhurried but finally haunting films have the courage to be."

The reviews are filled with this sort of praise and it's not the type of praise that spells "entertainment" to most movie-goers. Emotions that seem inexpressible? Read between the lines? It's a movie. It needs to not be so nuanced and unapproachable. No one wants a two-hour question of "huh?"

My Weekend With My Week With Marilyn

2012-01-30T16:08:00.002-05:00

In what's likely to be the last film I see from the 2011 slate of films I finally caught My Week With Marilyn. I've never been a big fan of Marilyn Monroe. I've always found her story to be pitiable and overly hyped simply for the benefit of others. I also was never a big fan of her look. I can see what others see but she was just not my type so maybe that's why I've never gone for the fascination aspect. I've also never seen anything she's done that I enjoyed. For me, her acting always stuck out like a sore thumb in any of her marque roles and, in my view, that's not a good thing.

Thus, when My Week With Marilyn debuted I really had little interest in it. Over time it just seemed to keep rolling along winning converts along the way so this weekend I finally decided to give it a shot. I'm glad I did.

The film is essentially taken from the book/diary of Colin Clark, a 23 year-old new-hire of Sir Laurence Olivier's. Clark's family had connections and one of them led to this chance for Clark to meet, and ultimately spend time with, Marilyn Monroe during her work on Olivier's film The Prince And The Showgirl.

Clark, of course, is in way over his head dealing with the power elite of Hollywood in his very first job. All he knows is that Monroe is irresistible and he's entirely sucked into her vacuum-like orbit. He dares to dream of being able to touch the sun but then, much like Icarus, quickly is exposed to its danger and the potential to be burned by its uncaring rays.

The film is riveting almost from the first frame. You can't help but put yourself in Clark's shoes as virtually all of us outside of Hollywood can comprehend how powerful the influence of such megastars could be. It also helps that virtually everyone in the film is wonderful. Michelle Williams as Monroe deserves the Oscar for her spot-on portrayal. It was spell-binding throughout. She clearly studied quite heavily for this role and appears to have embodied the object of her attention. There were times in the film where I had to remind myself that it was Williams, not Monroe. Her performance is absolutely haunting.

Kenneth Branagh as Olivier is also noteworthy but my favorite non-Williams role was that of Judi Dench playing Dame Sybil Thorndike.

Also notable is the perfectly scored music for the film. It's just what's called for in virtually every case including some wonderful entries from Dean Martin and Nat King Cole.

Even the cinematography is worth notice as there are scenes that are presented in such a way that you feel as if you're watching a shot taken directly from 1956 film stock.

The only area of the film I had any issue with was the side-story of Clark and would-be girlfriend Lucy played by Emma Watson. This entire part of the film seems contrived and I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that it's pure fantasy. It just somehow didn't work for me. It also could be that I'm just not yet ready to see Watson playing romantic roles yet.

In the end we have to come to grips with the reality that no one really knew Marilyn Monroe and this film certainly can't fill in those impossible blanks but it does give us a very convincing first-hand account that lets us peek, just a bit, behind the curtain that she seemed determined to keep so tightly shut.

Why Are These Things Not In Netflix?

2012-01-30T15:33:00.003-05:00

I'm a big Netflix fan. The concept is clearly representative of where we're all heading even if that future doesn't specifically involve Netflix themselves. Streaming video on demand is what most everyone has been looking for since the first modem showed up decades ago. It was just a matter of time and bandwidth.

Now that Netflix has managed to so effectively make the case for this approach I've been wondering about two features that seem absolutely obvious (at least to me) but that aren't supported and seem to be holding the product back.

Both involve solving one of Netflix's biggest issues and that's improving the awareness of just what's available there. For the novice Netflix user (and even many who aren't) the perception often degrades to the feeling that Netflix is filled with a bunch of junk. Frankly, there's so much content that the good things on it quickly vanish into the background. Many of the various Netflix interfaces are so poor that searching is often painful on such devices. My Sony Blu-ray player is a classic example.

The first idea is really a head-banger. Why doesn't Netflix support social networking features? When I find things I know friends and family would like I can't share it with them easily. The only thing I can do is add such content to my own instant queue. Give me a way to connect to friends (via Facebook perhaps) to send them recommendations. Then I can add those to a Recommended to You section for later perusal. What's more is that while I'm at a friend's house I could do this for myself. I can't tell you how many times I've tripped over something while on a friend's Netflix setup only to have to send myself a reminder outside of Netflix. Being able to have a setup where I can easily keep a list of "friends" and then send them recommendations seems quite useful and beneficial to everyone including Netflix.

When I think of Netflix today what I see is a company that seems to have had one really amazing forward-thinking idea but now seems as if the well may have been quickly emptied. How any company like this is devoid of social networking features is entirely a mystery and a huge concern.

The other one is a bit more complex but is equally beneficial. When I present Netflix to new people--especially anyone that's a bit older--their first reaction is that it's entirely too disorganized and too overwhelming. They literally feel bowled over by the amount of options they see. An effective way around this would be to provide a comprehensive interactive "channel guide".

You may be asking how Netflix can have a guide when they don't have any channels and my answer to that one is simple--the channels I'm suggesting are entirely virtual and already exist.

You could have channels called, Action, Horror, Classics, TV and so forth. They already have these categories but then also have "Action2" and "Horror3" or variants like "Vampires". Then fill the time slots of appropriate content from the current inventory of shows. Why would this be beneficial? For one thing there's a slew of potential customers out there that are used to this sort of presentation. Make them comfortable and convert them over.

Once of the biggest issues with Netflix is that when you turn it on it just sits there. With TV when you turn it on something is on and you can bounce between things. Netflix could present itself as a complete cable replacement service this way. It gives the impression that something is always on. In fact, this is another item I'd like to see down the line and that's a tie-in with existing channels to give Netflix users access to live content like a news channel. Launching Netflix wouldn't be such a dead experience any longer. Someone like the Current TV channel should be pushing this already to get more brand awareness going.

If a user selects a movie on the guide that's listed as being half-over simply start it at the beginning no matter what. The guide exists only to give those customers a sense of comfort and to show them how much is really here. It'd be easy to come up with 100 such channels and that would give people a real sense of value. It doesn't matter one bit that's it's all artificial. The end user won't care.

More than that, Netflix could charge a premium to the various studios to highlight their content more prominently in the guide. Who gets the critical time slots on channels? Why, whoever pays for that valuable space of course. If there's a new Twilight movie coming out then the 8pm slot on the Vampires channel would show everyone the last film assuming the studio wants that. Imagine a competing film coming out and that studio wanting to make sure their related film is there or perhaps they're willing to pay for virtually any content to appear in the key time slots instead of films from the competition.

"Recording" from the guide would just add things to my Instant Queue for later viewing furthering the familial aspects of the approach. Trust me, you'd end up converting a huge number of less gadget-oriented people with this. Customer satisfaction would go up and so would revenue both from the new customers and from the new advertising stream.

My Amazing Trip To Downton Abbey

2012-01-27T16:18:00.005-05:00

During the Golden Globe awards (this year's event was one of the few times I've actually watched them) I noticed several mentions (and nominations) for a PBS show I hadn't heard of before called Downton Abbey. It immediately evoked bad memories of some other English-type films I've seen that I absolutely despised for their incredible depth of complete boredom.

However, I kept hearing good things from some reliable sources and then noticed that the first season (just seven episodes which is quite typical for British shows) is available in HD on Netflix. I decided to give one episode a chance. I'm so glad I did as this is one of the very best TV shows I've ever experienced and an experience is what it is.

The acting is flat-out tremendous which is not a big surprise given some of the major players here. The most famous is Maggie Smith playing the grandmother and she's absolutely terrific. Her daughter-in-law is played by an old favorite of mine--Elizabeth McGovern (who still looks great at 50).

The basic story takes place at an old English estate called, obviously, Downton Abbey. The year is 1912 and the first episode coincides with the sinking of the Titanic which claims two key family members causing a potential financial catastrophe for the main family of the house--the Crawley's. Don't get too concerned about the year as we move from 1912 to 1914 by the end of the first season (again, just seven episodes). Watching back-to-back in Netflix is ever so slightly disconcerting as characters freshly introduced are suddenly acting as if they've been there for years (and have been according to the plot).

The core story involves us in the lives of not only the Crawley family but, even more so, the house staff of the estate including butlers, valets, cooks, maids, helpers and much more. Each one plays a critical role in both the upkeep of the estate and the forward momentum of the plot.

The writing is the best I've encountered and has caused me to literally sit on the edge of my seat at one turn then clapping loudly at another and then smiling so broadly at another that my jaw gets tired. The stories are simply riveting and the dialogue is second-to-none. This show has it all with regard to characterizations. We have Smith playing the perfect turn of the century Matriarch continually obsessed with protocol and her place in the hierarchy. Every hint of an utterance from her character will perk up your interest as she has some of the best quotes ever to grace a script. McGovern, as the ever-watchful mother, is laser-focused on getting her three daughters prepared for a "proper" marriage. The show also boasts some of the most despicable characters in two of the staff and some genuine angelic-types that I defy anyone to not be enchanted by. You can't help but to become immersed in the inner workings of each and every character.

The Ladies Crawley -- Edith, Mary and Sybil.

The oldest of the three daughters, Mary, is part of the new age and is tired of constantly having to act as a catch for every acceptable male suitor that steps through the door. She yearns to be free but also understands the weight she carries for the family's future success. The middle daughter, Emily, is the forgotten, plain daughter and then there's the youngest daughter, Sybil, who's the wild stallion of the family. The actress that plays her, Jessica Brown Findlay, is quite stunning. She reminds me of a very classy version of Angelina Jolie and Scarlett Johansson mixed into one. It seems quite clear that the producers purposely downplay her attractiveness as it only becomes obvious much later in the series.

While I suspect the show isn't for everyone it probably would impress most people. Remember, I am not the type to go in for the typical bland, plodding British movies and shows where very little seems to happen. The two worst examples of this were Gosford Park and The Remains Of The Day. This has similarities but only good ones. Everything else about it is entirely unlike those two painful films. The biggest problem with the series is that, in typical British TV fashion, it's over far too quickly. The second season is under way on PBS but now I've missed a few episodes and there's no telling when, or even if, Netflix will get more.

The Eye Of The Beholder

2012-01-23T19:18:00.001-05:00

Back in 2005 I decided it was time to join several of my peers and to give LASIK eye surgery a shot. Those I knew that had it done all had exceptional experiences including at Kremer Eye Center, the place I'd decided to go with.

I also decided to pay a premium for the service that included lifetime support in case anything needed to be corrected beyond the initial procedure. That cost nearly doubled the final bill and I wondered if I'd regret it later.

I got the procedure and almost immediately my results differed from the results of my friends. They could see things I couldn't even remotely see. Kremer kept asking me to be patient but as the weeks turned into months it became clear that I was one of the "5%" that it hadn't worked well on. I ended up with pretty heavily impacted vision. I'd have double and triple vision. My vision would change dramatically within a day from okay to horrible and back again. Anything bright was a mess. White text on a black background looked worst of all. Not only was it in triplicate but it was also surrounded by a haze. Night vision was a real complication.

Over time I adjusted and talked with Kremer about adjustments to fix it but they balked saying that newer experience showed that going back in wasn't worth it due to a higher risk of infection. That bugged me as I then wondered what I paid extra for. I decided to wait.

Over the intervening years I adjusted to my new lesser vision. Skiing was more problematic as I couldn't see the minor details in the all-white terrain below me and I believe it may have even contributed to my breaking a leg later. Also, as the years past my vision grew more fuzzy with age. The only plus seemed to be that I staved off reading glasses while everyone else my age seemed to need them.

Then back around Halloween I decided to go stop in at Kremer once again to see if time had changed anything. They ran a full battery of tests and told me I did now have an option--PRK or Photorefractive Keratectomy. This differs from LASIK in that in LASIK procedures the main work is done below the surface of the eye while in PRK it's done without having to cut the eye to make a flap and happens on the surface. The down side is a longer recovery period lasting several days to several weeks.

They also warned me that doing this would pretty much mean I'd be forced into reading glasses. At this point I figured I'd already beaten the odds so I really had no issues with that. They then advised me to just try the weaker eye first, my left, and that might result in my being able to avoid reading glasses. The odds there sounded about 50/50.

Earlier this month I gave it a go and went for it. The experience itself was very similar to LASIK except for the part that caused me the biggest trouble. The cutting of the flap puts a lot of pressure on the eye and that caused a fight-or-flight reaction in me the first time around. In this procedure no such process takes place so it's almost painless to go through initially.

They eye is then covered with a medical contact lens to help the area heal evenly and to help keep scar tissue to an absolute minimum. The patient will need to wear that lens 24 hours a day for 3 days to a week or more. In my case I had the procedure on a Friday and the contact was removed on the following Monday. It's a good thing too as the contact lens was driving me crazy by Monday.

Another major difference between the two procedures is that almost immediately after LASIK you notice vastly improved vision. I did too but assumed the anomalies would abate after healing (but didn't). With PRK your eye is, in effect, injured and has to heal. During the interim your vision gets quite bad. Everything was foggy in my left eye and stayed that way for almost a week. Then, slowly but surely things improved. I'm now 10 days out and things are dramatically improved--though not perfect.

My distance vision is much improved and better than before but I still have some double-vision in the left eye that I don't get the impression is going to improve. I also still need to wait a while for things to settle as the difference between my left and right eyes has now caused the right side to feel worse than before. Reading is also a real exercise as one eye can't see anything and the other can. At the local pharmacy today I tried on a weak pair a standard reading glasses and things instantly improved. Sounds like I might not have avoided that part.

My biggest concern was that the bad vision underneath the lens would combine with the adjustment above and create an even worse situation. That doesn't seem to be the case but I also have come to accept that my vision will never be as good as it was with plain old glasses. If I could go back to them I would. Now it's just a matter of hoping for the best with what I have. Thankfully, for now, things are better than they've been since 2005.

Movie Marathon Day

2012-01-09T08:24:00.000-05:00

As 2011 came to a close I found myself seriously behind on my yearly movie count (that is first-run movies I see each year at a theater). In a bid to get the number up to a respectable level I talked my friends into a movie marathon day on Sunday where we managed to stuff in three films back-to-back (to back). Remember that while it's now 2012 I don't do a round-up until I've finished seeing all the 2011 films (which usually takes me into early February).

First up on the marathon was Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol. This is the fourth entry in the successful series of films starring Tom Cruise as IMF (Impossible Missions Force) agent Ethan Hunt. I've seen all the others and this one was getting rave reviews with many people calling it the best of the series. I've liked previous entries enough to suggest that the producers of James Bond pay attention as this is really what a Bond film should feel like instead of the ridiculousness that seems to have taken over that crotchety series.

This one is also quite a fun and entertaining roller coaster ride. There's absolutely no surprise that the film is chock full of action sequences and insanely complex special effects and that's a good thing here. The music is also key amping up the intensity at all the right moments. The series' theme song is right up there with the Bond theme for being able to get your motor running the moment you hear its tell-tale notes starting to rise in the background.

The principal actors are all solid with Simon Pegg once again managing to play the comedic role without it being too much. I keep expecting to tire of his approach and yet it hasn't happened yet. Here he delivers great lines nearly ever time he's on screen.

For me, however, I wasn't quite as taken with this installment as many others. First of all it's been a while since the last installment (2006) and I literally didn't recall much of anything regarding where the story left off. It would have been helpful to get a useful redux. As we don't really get that here you're left a bit in the dark as the film progresses. In fact, I'm still at a loss to explain much of the entire opening sequence.

More concerning is the seemingly complete abandonment of physics. The film appears almost allergic to any sense of reality. Yes, this is a movie and I don't expect everything to be accurate (I don't complain about sound in the vacuum of space in sci-fi films for example) but I do expect them to be somewhat within the realm of believability. That simply isn't possible here. Most of the jumps and effects are just beyond belief. The most distracting example of this is a pair of "sticky" electric gloves Ethan wears to scale the tallest building in the world. The idea is that the gloves will adhere to any surface and he can use them to climb the outside of the building. That's all well and good. What's not acceptable is that the gloves only cover his hands and forearms. Think about that for a moment. Any amount of weight placed on them would cause them to simply slide straight off your arm the moment you opened your fingers.

Another issue dealt with timing all over the film that was simply too convenient. Storms that start on cue and then perfectly come to a close at the exact movement and tempo of the ending of the action sequence. The aforementioned gloves failing exactly at the final moment of their usefulness, etc.

In the end my issues with the film reminded me of my being one of the few people that disliked the original Indiana Jones film for much of the same reason. If you have no such concerns then this is the movie for you. For me it was fun but not anything special.

The next film on the slate was the seemingly-quirky We Bought A Zoo. This movie, starring a somewhat plain Matt Damon wasn't exactly at the top of my list of films to see. The previews really didn't resonate with me and it all just seemed like light family fare aimed primarily at getting sighs from the younger members of the family. I mean, we've not only never seen Damon look this vanilla but the same is true for Scarlett Johansson and that's not easy to do.

What I experienced instead was a wonderful film that's cute, touching, memorable and enjoyable by virtually every possible movie goer. It also sports a really solid sound track that set the atmosphere perfectly for virtually every scene.

There are moments where the film falls down a bit. The zoo inspector (played by venerable character actor John Michael Higgins) is very cartoon-like which is another way to say his character is a bit overdone and the same is nearly true for his arch-enemy, the zoo carpenter, played solidly by Angus MacFadyen (Robert the Bruce from Braveheart). It's also totally predictable and very much feels like a stereo-typical Hollywood affair. In the end its biggest failing is that it's just too bland.

We know there has to be a deeper story here but the film seems too unsure of itself to go there instead opting for the safety of simplicity. I found myself wanting to still see a more adult-specific version of the film replete with all the stresses and realities that surely must have gone with the territory. I suspect the producers just flat-out couldn't come to grips with exactly what this film is. It sticks a toe in each area but then pulls it back as soon as it gets at all warm.

However, even those issues aren't enough to ruin the fun. Thomas Hayden Church as the brother once again provides a character that nearly steals the show. The ending sequences were also so powerful and well done that those alone are worth the effort (I'll never look at a red kite the same again). I doubt there was a dry eye in the house. I'm glad I saw it and would recommend it to most anyone other than those who must have a myriad of explosions to make a film worthwhile.

The last movie on the list was A Dangerous Method. This biopic on the complex relationship between Carl Jung, Sigmund Freud and Jung's patient/mistress (played by Keira Knightley) looked riveting from the previews. I was sold on the concept from the outset. The film comes from David Cronenberg who knows how to present a highly-disturbing story.

Initially the film was everything I expected. I was fascinated by the interaction between the principal characters and the manner in which they progressed. It's a very dialog-driven film and much of the pay-off comes from cutting remarks, careful motive-based word-play and, finally, direct and often stirring action.

The catch is that it just doesn't sustain the story long enough and begins to fall flat about a third of the way into the film. Once we know the foundation of the three main characters the rest is all just plainly repetitive and, after a period, a bit tedious. The acting is first-rate from almost all involved but it just doesn't change the unsatisfying end effect. It feels typically too "British" and almost insultingly high-brow. It reminded me of the plodding disaster (for me) that was Gosford Park. Lots of endless talking without much of anything really happening. There's an entire sequence of scenes involving the always-reliable Vincent Cassel playing one of Freud's disturbed patients that I still have major issues with. His character is poorly presented and comes and goes so quickly as to leave the viewer wondering what the entire point was.

By the time it came to a close I felt as if I really hadn't gained any useful insight in the real lives of Jung or Freud other than having found out about Jung's mistress of which I knew nothing. I suspect there will be Oscar talk involving Knightley but for me her acting her was actually a bit distracting. Her attempts to capture the mannerisms of someone with deep mental issues at the start of the film were so striking that I later simply could not believe anyone could recover--let alone become a professional colleague. Jung also comes off very poorly here (and nearly incompetent) and I suspect historians would take countless issues with that portrayal.

A group of us made it this long to see the film and after it was over we did talk quite a bit about it. It was clear we wanted to like it but ultimately it just didn't provide enough depth or answers to sustain our interest.