A West Coast Critic review:
A 100% vanity project for Kevin Spacey, this film is a loosely-based fictionalized biopic about crooner Bobby Darin. Spacey is known for his strong affection to Bobby Darin’s music, and Kevin now had the reputation, influence, and money to get this project from dream to script to screen (he’s listed as lead actor, director, co-writer and co-producer).
Watching it gives the impression of a Gene Kelly musical within a musical. And the story is told within a story from the POV of Darin both as an adult and as a young boy. I give Spacey credit for the unique style and story delivery, but there’s something lacking. Even though he takes a dig at himself early in the film when a character questions whether “Darin” is too old to play himself in a biopic, it still becomes obvious that Spacey is still too old to play Darin.
What really makes it so obvious is that he doesn’t have Greta Scacchi play Sandra Dee (she’s obviously too old for that role), he has her playing Sandra’s mother. But Spacey was too emotionally attached to this project to see that about himself.
Spacey is also singing all of the Darin tunes throughout the film. He does an admirable job, but he’s no Bobby Darin. There’s question as to whether he’s actually singing one tune - the song “Beyond The Sea” (the hit song on which the film is titled) - or whether it’s a Darin overdub. It doesn’t matter, since Spacey is overdubbing himself throughout the film. This is standard for musicals, as it’s very difficult to record live singing on film.
And this gets to the point about Spacey not being right for this role. Spacey mentions in the DVD extras that he didn’t want to use Darin’s vocals so as not to get locked into specific arrangements. But since he’s dubbing/lip-syncing to his own vocal tracks, it would’ve made better sense to get someone who could better match Darin’s vocal style. But to do that would make it even more glaringly obvious that Spacey is TOO OLD for this role.
One other weakness of the film is it’s central focus - the main character. Is the life story of Bobby Darin enough to carry a movie? That question is up for debate. Kevin Spacey certainly seemed to think so. He probably wrung out of the project as much as anyone could have from the brief history of the famous singer who died too young yet lived far longer than he should’ve.
I’ve always liked much of Spacey’s work, going all the way back to his stunningly powerful role as Mel Proffit in the first season of the TV series “Wiseguy”. He does a good performance in “Beyond The Sea”, but it’s not Oscar nomination worthy. Overall, it’s an interesting film with some fine music and some good performances in a style that harkens back to the 50s/60s. I’ll give it 3 wine bottles out of 5. Afterwards, pick up a CD of some Bobby Darin music (but not the movie soundtrack). Maybe that’s all that Kevin really wanted to accomplish with this film. If that’s the case, he may have succeeded.
Friday, July 01, 2005
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
EC:WC FCA Review - The Life Aquatic
A West Coast Critic Review:
I never thought I would ever say this next sentence. This Bill Murray movie is completely unfunny.
I just spent the last 118 minutes watching film stock that left me emotionally unmoved in any way. It doesn't even deserve to be called a bad movie because a really bad movie would make you chuckle at the lameness of it all. There wasn't even a moment that was unintentionally funny. There was nothing to make me cry one sappy tear. Not one piece of action to make me even wince slightly in awe. What's so mindboggling is that it's so weak even with a cast that includes Angelica Huston, Cate Blanchett, Owen Wilson, Willem Dafoe, Jeff Goldblum and Michael Gambon. This movie is so vacuous that MST3K couldn't even successfully parody the poor thing. It's THAT bad.
This isn't even worth one of my usual five wine bottles. This vapid, mind numbing, brain cell reducing DVD is barely worth 1 corroded cork. (Oh no, Mr. Bill!)
.... bad.... just.... just.... that bad.
I never thought I would ever say this next sentence. This Bill Murray movie is completely unfunny.
I just spent the last 118 minutes watching film stock that left me emotionally unmoved in any way. It doesn't even deserve to be called a bad movie because a really bad movie would make you chuckle at the lameness of it all. There wasn't even a moment that was unintentionally funny. There was nothing to make me cry one sappy tear. Not one piece of action to make me even wince slightly in awe. What's so mindboggling is that it's so weak even with a cast that includes Angelica Huston, Cate Blanchett, Owen Wilson, Willem Dafoe, Jeff Goldblum and Michael Gambon. This movie is so vacuous that MST3K couldn't even successfully parody the poor thing. It's THAT bad.
This isn't even worth one of my usual five wine bottles. This vapid, mind numbing, brain cell reducing DVD is barely worth 1 corroded cork. (Oh no, Mr. Bill!)
.... bad.... just.... just.... that bad.
HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
Just Desserts, indeed!!! link here
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A California man, angry over a U.S. Supreme Court decision expanding government power to take private property, says he will try to use the ruling to seize the New Hampshire home of Justice
David Souter and convert it into a hotel to be named the Lost Liberty Hotel.
Souter voted with the 5-4 majority last week when the Supreme Court ruled a Connecticut city could use its powers of eminent domain to take private homes to make way for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.
The justices said the project served a public purpose of revitalizing a depressed local economy, but critics have called the ruling an unprecedented expansion of the powers of government to seize private property in America.
"This is a serious project and if we get enough money from investors we will proceed with it," said Logan Darrow Clements, who runs a California video production company called Freestar Media that he said is dedicated to exposing abuses of power.
"It's solely for the purpose of showing (Souter) that his decision was unjust," he said. "We hope to make a profit as well but I don't agree with eminent domain so the irony is that we are going to use eminent domain against him."
Clements said he had contacted officials in Weare, New Hampshire, for an application to build a hotel on the property where the Supreme Court justice's home now stands, arguing that a hotel would increase tax revenue and provide an economic boost.
He said the hotel would be called the Lost Liberty Hotel and would include a restaurant called the Just Desserts Cafe and a museum with a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America.
He said instead of a Gideon's Bible, each room would include a copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged," which many people embrace as a treatise on liberty and self-determination.
"This is not a prank," he said. "The town of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land (from Justice Souter) we can begin our hotel development."
The Supreme Court had no comment on Clements' plan and the Weare Board of Selectmen could not immediately be reached for comment.
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - A California man, angry over a U.S. Supreme Court decision expanding government power to take private property, says he will try to use the ruling to seize the New Hampshire home of Justice
David Souter and convert it into a hotel to be named the Lost Liberty Hotel.
Souter voted with the 5-4 majority last week when the Supreme Court ruled a Connecticut city could use its powers of eminent domain to take private homes to make way for a riverfront hotel, health club and offices.
The justices said the project served a public purpose of revitalizing a depressed local economy, but critics have called the ruling an unprecedented expansion of the powers of government to seize private property in America.
"This is a serious project and if we get enough money from investors we will proceed with it," said Logan Darrow Clements, who runs a California video production company called Freestar Media that he said is dedicated to exposing abuses of power.
"It's solely for the purpose of showing (Souter) that his decision was unjust," he said. "We hope to make a profit as well but I don't agree with eminent domain so the irony is that we are going to use eminent domain against him."
Clements said he had contacted officials in Weare, New Hampshire, for an application to build a hotel on the property where the Supreme Court justice's home now stands, arguing that a hotel would increase tax revenue and provide an economic boost.
He said the hotel would be called the Lost Liberty Hotel and would include a restaurant called the Just Desserts Cafe and a museum with a permanent exhibit on the loss of freedom in America.
He said instead of a Gideon's Bible, each room would include a copy of Ayn Rand's novel "Atlas Shrugged," which many people embrace as a treatise on liberty and self-determination.
"This is not a prank," he said. "The town of Weare has five people on the Board of Selectmen. If three of them vote to use the power of eminent domain to take this land (from Justice Souter) we can begin our hotel development."
The Supreme Court had no comment on Clements' plan and the Weare Board of Selectmen could not immediately be reached for comment.
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
In light of Congress' recent vote on a Constitutional Amendment to ban flag burning...
I've chosen to re-post something I wrote eleven months ago (July 15, 2004, to be exact):
Here are some serious Constitutional Amendment ideas to chew on:
How about a Balanced Budget Amendment (like 40+ of the States have in their own Constitutions)? One that includes:
1) A requirement that Spending increases by no more than the increase in the rate of inflation plus the increase in population, on a year-by-year basis,
2) A two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress in order to increase Spending above that rate, good for only one year,
3) A two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress in order to increase Taxes, good for only one year,
4) One half of all yearly surpluses automatically goes toward Nation Debt relief, the other half being returned to Taxpayers. Any annual shortfalls automatically trigger an across-the-board spending reduction if Congress does not act within a timely manner to implement tailored budget cuts,
5) A Presidential Line-Item-Veto (as 40+ States already have in their own Constitutions for their Governors), with a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress in order to override the veto.
6) A Ban on all non-germane, rider amendments to Congressional legislative bills.
Speaking of Taxes... How about a Constitutional Amendment to Repeal the 16th Amendment, thereby ending the Income Tax and the I.R.S. in one fell swoop. We can then go back to collecting Federal revenues the way our Founding Fathers intended: No Capitation, or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken (U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 4). The 16th Amendment overwrote this clause, thereby obliterating the Founding Fathers' intent on limited government.
How about a Constitutional Amendment to Limit Terms for both offices of Congress (just as there already is an Amendment [#22] to limit the terms for President - Two Terms. 8 years, 10 years maximum):
1) Two Terms for U.S. Senate (12 years. 15 years maximum due to vacancy appointments),
2) Six Terms for U.S. House of Representatives (12 years. 13 years maximum due to vacancy appointments).
How about a Constitutional Amendment to put appropriate Checks & Balances on the Federal Courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court to limit Judicial Activism and instill Judicial Restraint when the Courts overstep their bounds into legislative and executive realms:
1) This could include instituting Judicial Term Limits to 20 years or a Mandatory Retirement Age of 75 (whichever comes first).
Just a little food for thought.
Here are some serious Constitutional Amendment ideas to chew on:
How about a Balanced Budget Amendment (like 40+ of the States have in their own Constitutions)? One that includes:
1) A requirement that Spending increases by no more than the increase in the rate of inflation plus the increase in population, on a year-by-year basis,
2) A two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress in order to increase Spending above that rate, good for only one year,
3) A two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress in order to increase Taxes, good for only one year,
4) One half of all yearly surpluses automatically goes toward Nation Debt relief, the other half being returned to Taxpayers. Any annual shortfalls automatically trigger an across-the-board spending reduction if Congress does not act within a timely manner to implement tailored budget cuts,
5) A Presidential Line-Item-Veto (as 40+ States already have in their own Constitutions for their Governors), with a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress in order to override the veto.
6) A Ban on all non-germane, rider amendments to Congressional legislative bills.
Speaking of Taxes... How about a Constitutional Amendment to Repeal the 16th Amendment, thereby ending the Income Tax and the I.R.S. in one fell swoop. We can then go back to collecting Federal revenues the way our Founding Fathers intended: No Capitation, or other direct tax shall be laid unless in proportion to the census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken (U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 4). The 16th Amendment overwrote this clause, thereby obliterating the Founding Fathers' intent on limited government.
How about a Constitutional Amendment to Limit Terms for both offices of Congress (just as there already is an Amendment [#22] to limit the terms for President - Two Terms. 8 years, 10 years maximum):
1) Two Terms for U.S. Senate (12 years. 15 years maximum due to vacancy appointments),
2) Six Terms for U.S. House of Representatives (12 years. 13 years maximum due to vacancy appointments).
How about a Constitutional Amendment to put appropriate Checks & Balances on the Federal Courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court to limit Judicial Activism and instill Judicial Restraint when the Courts overstep their bounds into legislative and executive realms:
1) This could include instituting Judicial Term Limits to 20 years or a Mandatory Retirement Age of 75 (whichever comes first).
Just a little food for thought.
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
EC:WC FCA Review – Lucia y el Sexo (Sex and Lucia)
A West Coast Critic Review:
Released in 2001, this foreign film from Madrid, Spain, draws you into it’s masterfully intricate universe until you fall into its hole and you come back out again in the middle. I should state upfront that this is not child fare. Were it not for it being a foreign film, this movie would get an R rating for its strong sexual content… possibly even an NC-17. But don’t let this detract you. There’s something much deeper to this story than its initial carnal yet tastefully done exploits.
Told through a series of flashbacks, we peer into the lives of Lorenzo (a struggling novelist) and Lucia (his lover). The movie starts with the deterioration of their relationship, culminating in a horrible accident that takes Lorenzo away from Lucia. We’re then brought back to the beginning of their relationship six years prior, and we soon become absorbed into their lives and their thought processes along the way.
Lorenzo’s past haunts him until he’s forced to exorcise his demons by turning it into his latest novel. But his past ends up controlling him instead. Real people merge into fictional characters. And lives get intertwined into intricate patterns. Along the way we meet Elena, a proprietor of an isolated island beach hotel, who’s own life is inexplicably tied to Lorenzo.
The script is extremely well written. The color palette is perfect for the mood of the film. And the acting is impeccable. There were moments when I laughed out loud, and there were moments when I was brought to tears (even after the third viewing). You become a part of the lives of these people as you try to sort through their histories, which fold and link in extraordinary ways.
Paz Vega (who later played in her first English-speaking role in “Spanglish” with Adam Sandler and Tea Leoni) plays Lucia. Lorenzo is played by Tristan Ulloa (who previously played opposite Penelope Cruz in “Open Your Eyes,” the Spanish film on which Tom Cruise’s “Vanilla Sky” was based). Several additional characters are introduced throughout the film, and the entire cast is worthy of accolades.
This has become one of my all-time favorite foreign films (along with “Cinema Paradiso”). I give it 4 wine bottles out of 5… and maybe a couple corks as well. If you get confused after the first viewing, watch it again… and become fascinated at how well it all fits together.
Released in 2001, this foreign film from Madrid, Spain, draws you into it’s masterfully intricate universe until you fall into its hole and you come back out again in the middle. I should state upfront that this is not child fare. Were it not for it being a foreign film, this movie would get an R rating for its strong sexual content… possibly even an NC-17. But don’t let this detract you. There’s something much deeper to this story than its initial carnal yet tastefully done exploits.
Told through a series of flashbacks, we peer into the lives of Lorenzo (a struggling novelist) and Lucia (his lover). The movie starts with the deterioration of their relationship, culminating in a horrible accident that takes Lorenzo away from Lucia. We’re then brought back to the beginning of their relationship six years prior, and we soon become absorbed into their lives and their thought processes along the way.
Lorenzo’s past haunts him until he’s forced to exorcise his demons by turning it into his latest novel. But his past ends up controlling him instead. Real people merge into fictional characters. And lives get intertwined into intricate patterns. Along the way we meet Elena, a proprietor of an isolated island beach hotel, who’s own life is inexplicably tied to Lorenzo.
The script is extremely well written. The color palette is perfect for the mood of the film. And the acting is impeccable. There were moments when I laughed out loud, and there were moments when I was brought to tears (even after the third viewing). You become a part of the lives of these people as you try to sort through their histories, which fold and link in extraordinary ways.
Paz Vega (who later played in her first English-speaking role in “Spanglish” with Adam Sandler and Tea Leoni) plays Lucia. Lorenzo is played by Tristan Ulloa (who previously played opposite Penelope Cruz in “Open Your Eyes,” the Spanish film on which Tom Cruise’s “Vanilla Sky” was based). Several additional characters are introduced throughout the film, and the entire cast is worthy of accolades.
This has become one of my all-time favorite foreign films (along with “Cinema Paradiso”). I give it 4 wine bottles out of 5… and maybe a couple corks as well. If you get confused after the first viewing, watch it again… and become fascinated at how well it all fits together.
Saturday, June 04, 2005
EC:WC FCA Review - Primer
A West Coast Critic review:
A small budget (a very, very small budget) independent film by first-time film director/writer/actor Shane Carruth. Less than 80 minutes long and shot on 16mm film, this is one plot-twisting conundrum of a movie about two guys who accidently create a time travel machine and then struggle with the moral consequences of the choices they then make.
There are NO special effects (except for one 5-second scene), yet Carruth makes this story believable. It's confusing at first because you become an eavesdropper; a fly on the wall in these guys lives, if you will. (heh... these guys lives... heh-heh-heh)
If you enjoy films like Pi and Cube or Memento, then Primer is right up your alley. If you don't like those types of movies, you'll end up ejecting the DVD before the film is finished. It's an acquired taste. And it definitely requires more than one viewing. The two commentaries on the DVD also help out tremendously with the plot. And if you really get sucked into the whole experience, you can lose your mind at the official website and forum here
Winner of the Sundance Film Festival Grand Jury Award in 2004, I gave this flick 3-1/2 wine bottles out of 5 a week before watching it, and I wrote this review 8 days from now.
A small budget (a very, very small budget) independent film by first-time film director/writer/actor Shane Carruth. Less than 80 minutes long and shot on 16mm film, this is one plot-twisting conundrum of a movie about two guys who accidently create a time travel machine and then struggle with the moral consequences of the choices they then make.
There are NO special effects (except for one 5-second scene), yet Carruth makes this story believable. It's confusing at first because you become an eavesdropper; a fly on the wall in these guys lives, if you will. (heh... these guys lives... heh-heh-heh)
If you enjoy films like Pi and Cube or Memento, then Primer is right up your alley. If you don't like those types of movies, you'll end up ejecting the DVD before the film is finished. It's an acquired taste. And it definitely requires more than one viewing. The two commentaries on the DVD also help out tremendously with the plot. And if you really get sucked into the whole experience, you can lose your mind at the official website and forum here
Winner of the Sundance Film Festival Grand Jury Award in 2004, I gave this flick 3-1/2 wine bottles out of 5 a week before watching it, and I wrote this review 8 days from now.
EC:WC FCA Review - National Treasure
A West Coast Critic review:
A national disappointment. I like Nick Cage. Most of the time his performances are strong, and the roles/films are of decent to very good quality. This movie, sorry to say, just doesn't work. Even before 9/11, the plausibility of the twisting plot would be hard to swallow. Post-9/11? It's a joke. You find yourself rolling your eyes constantly.
It's a shame because the basic premise of the secretive treasure hunt is intriguing and could have been fun to follow. There were a few moments here and there that make you cheer or blink in amazement, but it just lacks the moral import that you'd get from the thrilling Indiana Jones flicks, or the geewhiz/ohmygosh quirky fun of The Mummy series. And Cage's performance is just dialed in as though he isn't even trying.
I had high hopes when word came out that it was hitting the theaters last year. It bombed, and now I know why. The art direction & sets are cool, but it's missing essential ingredients to make it all work. Some of the acting performances are embarrassing. Basically, the script needed a lot a re-writing... or maybe it was just rewritten to death. It shows on the screen.
This is a 2 wine bottles out of 5 movie. I'm being generous. Worth a night's rental to go with your microwave popcorn, but that's about it.
The good news? Word was that National Treasure had very strong parallels with The DaVinci Code novel (which will soon become a movie in it's own right). If that's the case, I'm beaming with joy that that flick may flop as well (and deservedly so).
A national disappointment. I like Nick Cage. Most of the time his performances are strong, and the roles/films are of decent to very good quality. This movie, sorry to say, just doesn't work. Even before 9/11, the plausibility of the twisting plot would be hard to swallow. Post-9/11? It's a joke. You find yourself rolling your eyes constantly.
It's a shame because the basic premise of the secretive treasure hunt is intriguing and could have been fun to follow. There were a few moments here and there that make you cheer or blink in amazement, but it just lacks the moral import that you'd get from the thrilling Indiana Jones flicks, or the geewhiz/ohmygosh quirky fun of The Mummy series. And Cage's performance is just dialed in as though he isn't even trying.
I had high hopes when word came out that it was hitting the theaters last year. It bombed, and now I know why. The art direction & sets are cool, but it's missing essential ingredients to make it all work. Some of the acting performances are embarrassing. Basically, the script needed a lot a re-writing... or maybe it was just rewritten to death. It shows on the screen.
This is a 2 wine bottles out of 5 movie. I'm being generous. Worth a night's rental to go with your microwave popcorn, but that's about it.
The good news? Word was that National Treasure had very strong parallels with The DaVinci Code novel (which will soon become a movie in it's own right). If that's the case, I'm beaming with joy that that flick may flop as well (and deservedly so).
Monday, May 23, 2005
EC:WC FCA Review - Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy
This is a West Coast Critic review:
A very quirky and tongue-in-cheek space comedy in the vein of Monty Python. I've read the books by Douglas Adams, and this flick keeps the spirit of the novels (and the BBC radio series they were based on). It doesn't always work, with a few jokes and a couple scenes falling flat. But, for the most part, it's a fun ride. I laughed my a** off on a number of occasions.
If you're not familiar with Adams' work, then you may not quite "get it". And if you're an Adams worshipper, you may feel a little let down. But if you go into the theater with the proper mindset, you'll walk out of the theater giving it 3 wine bottles out of 5.
The special fx are cool, there's enough laughs to split your sides, and it's pure oddball escapism. I'd much rather watch this than yet another Star Wars "pre-quel" (and, no, I have not seen Stars Wars Part I, nor Part II, and I have absolutely no compulsion to see Part III... I'm Sith and tired of George Lucas).
A very quirky and tongue-in-cheek space comedy in the vein of Monty Python. I've read the books by Douglas Adams, and this flick keeps the spirit of the novels (and the BBC radio series they were based on). It doesn't always work, with a few jokes and a couple scenes falling flat. But, for the most part, it's a fun ride. I laughed my a** off on a number of occasions.
If you're not familiar with Adams' work, then you may not quite "get it". And if you're an Adams worshipper, you may feel a little let down. But if you go into the theater with the proper mindset, you'll walk out of the theater giving it 3 wine bottles out of 5.
The special fx are cool, there's enough laughs to split your sides, and it's pure oddball escapism. I'd much rather watch this than yet another Star Wars "pre-quel" (and, no, I have not seen Stars Wars Part I, nor Part II, and I have absolutely no compulsion to see Part III... I'm Sith and tired of George Lucas).
Monday, May 16, 2005
Supreme Court rejects ban on out-of-state wine sales
Fresh from the presses (via MSNBC):
WASHINGTON - Raising the bar on states wanting to restrict online commerce, the Supreme Court ruled Monday that wine lovers may buy directly from out-of-state wineries, striking down laws banning a practice that has flourished because of the Internet and growing popularity of winery tours.
While the ruling only involves wine sales, industry groups expect that it will soon apply to beer and other alcoholic beverages currently regulated through state-licensed wholesalers and retailers.
Lawyers involved in the case say the ruling will also make it harder for states to restrict Internet commerce on other regulated items — from contact lenses to car insurance.
The 5-4 decision strikes down laws in New York and Michigan that make it a crime to buy wine directly from vineyards in another state. In all, 24 states have laws that bar interstate shipments.
The state bans are discriminatory and anti-competitive, the court said.
“States have broad power to regulate liquor,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority. “This power, however, does not allow states to ban, or severely limit, the direct shipment of out-of-state wine while simultaneously authorizing direct shipment by in-state producers.”
If a state chooses to allow direct shipments of wine, it must do so on evenhanded terms,” he wrote.
Kennedy was joined in his opinion by Justices Antonin Scalia, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.
Read the rest of the article here.
This is a GOOD thing (especially for us vino lovers). I find it to be very odd the way that the voting broke down. Scalia with Ginsburg & Breyer in the affirmative while Thomas, Renquist and Stevens were in opposition.
WASHINGTON - Raising the bar on states wanting to restrict online commerce, the Supreme Court ruled Monday that wine lovers may buy directly from out-of-state wineries, striking down laws banning a practice that has flourished because of the Internet and growing popularity of winery tours.
While the ruling only involves wine sales, industry groups expect that it will soon apply to beer and other alcoholic beverages currently regulated through state-licensed wholesalers and retailers.
Lawyers involved in the case say the ruling will also make it harder for states to restrict Internet commerce on other regulated items — from contact lenses to car insurance.
The 5-4 decision strikes down laws in New York and Michigan that make it a crime to buy wine directly from vineyards in another state. In all, 24 states have laws that bar interstate shipments.
The state bans are discriminatory and anti-competitive, the court said.
“States have broad power to regulate liquor,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority. “This power, however, does not allow states to ban, or severely limit, the direct shipment of out-of-state wine while simultaneously authorizing direct shipment by in-state producers.”
If a state chooses to allow direct shipments of wine, it must do so on evenhanded terms,” he wrote.
Kennedy was joined in his opinion by Justices Antonin Scalia, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.
Read the rest of the article here.
This is a GOOD thing (especially for us vino lovers). I find it to be very odd the way that the voting broke down. Scalia with Ginsburg & Breyer in the affirmative while Thomas, Renquist and Stevens were in opposition.
Sunday, May 15, 2005
EC:WC FCA Review – Hotel Rwanda
A West Coast Film Critic Review
One powerfully effective retelling of the African genocidal massacres of the mid-90s, shown through the eyes of a courageous hotel administrator. Don Cheadle plays the roll of Paul Rusesabagina, the assistant manager of the Hotel des Milles Collines (a Belgian-owned resort in Kigali, Rwanda). Rwanda had been run by the Belgian-chosen Tutsi clan - the taller, lighter-skinned, thinner-nosed citizenry. But when Belgium pulls out of the country, the French-backed rival Hutu clan seeks revenge for their years of oppression.
But not all Rwandans have this intense hatred of their fellow countrymen, many of whom have intermarried over the years (including Rusesabagina). His family and friends are forced to take refuge at his hotel, where he soon has to protect hundreds more of his fellow Rwandans facing persecution. Known for his style and smooth talk, Paul begins to cash in the chips he's collected over the years through the various friendships and relationships he’d built over the years as hotel manager.
For two hours, you are experiencing the escalation of this calamity through the eyes of Rusesabagina. It’s not only fine storytelling, it’s downright affecting. There are a few brief moments when the film director chooses to awkwardly preach to his audience. I felt that it wasn’t needed since the rest of the film does such a fine job of explaining things without beating you over the head.
There are quite a few harrowing moments in the film, including an absolutely haunting scene in which Paul and a fellow hotel employee need to drive through a dense morning fog and encounter what can only be described as an ethereal nightmare. Cheadle's performance here as well as in the scene immediately following is acting excellence.
The western world does not get off easy in this re-telling of the genocidal atrocities in Rwanda. Fingers are sharply pointed at the U.N., with particular emphasis on the lack of compassion and intervention from France, Belgium and the U.S. under the Clinton administration.
There are several extras on the DVD that are also well worth the viewing: a commentary by Don Cheadle on several key scenes, and two documentaries – “A Message of Peace: The Making of Hotel Rwanda” and “Return to Rwanda”. These extras help to explain the historical events which are the basis of the film, as well as the process of making the movie. I highly recommend taking the time to watch these extras immediately after the movie ends.
Hotel Rwanda is definitely a 4 wine bottles out of 5 film! With fine performances by Don Cheadle and Sophie Okonedo (who plays his Tutsi wife, Tatiana), it places recent history right in your lap. And it forces you to ask why this world is letting similar situations continue in Sudan and the Congo.
One powerfully effective retelling of the African genocidal massacres of the mid-90s, shown through the eyes of a courageous hotel administrator. Don Cheadle plays the roll of Paul Rusesabagina, the assistant manager of the Hotel des Milles Collines (a Belgian-owned resort in Kigali, Rwanda). Rwanda had been run by the Belgian-chosen Tutsi clan - the taller, lighter-skinned, thinner-nosed citizenry. But when Belgium pulls out of the country, the French-backed rival Hutu clan seeks revenge for their years of oppression.
But not all Rwandans have this intense hatred of their fellow countrymen, many of whom have intermarried over the years (including Rusesabagina). His family and friends are forced to take refuge at his hotel, where he soon has to protect hundreds more of his fellow Rwandans facing persecution. Known for his style and smooth talk, Paul begins to cash in the chips he's collected over the years through the various friendships and relationships he’d built over the years as hotel manager.
For two hours, you are experiencing the escalation of this calamity through the eyes of Rusesabagina. It’s not only fine storytelling, it’s downright affecting. There are a few brief moments when the film director chooses to awkwardly preach to his audience. I felt that it wasn’t needed since the rest of the film does such a fine job of explaining things without beating you over the head.
There are quite a few harrowing moments in the film, including an absolutely haunting scene in which Paul and a fellow hotel employee need to drive through a dense morning fog and encounter what can only be described as an ethereal nightmare. Cheadle's performance here as well as in the scene immediately following is acting excellence.
The western world does not get off easy in this re-telling of the genocidal atrocities in Rwanda. Fingers are sharply pointed at the U.N., with particular emphasis on the lack of compassion and intervention from France, Belgium and the U.S. under the Clinton administration.
There are several extras on the DVD that are also well worth the viewing: a commentary by Don Cheadle on several key scenes, and two documentaries – “A Message of Peace: The Making of Hotel Rwanda” and “Return to Rwanda”. These extras help to explain the historical events which are the basis of the film, as well as the process of making the movie. I highly recommend taking the time to watch these extras immediately after the movie ends.
Hotel Rwanda is definitely a 4 wine bottles out of 5 film! With fine performances by Don Cheadle and Sophie Okonedo (who plays his Tutsi wife, Tatiana), it places recent history right in your lap. And it forces you to ask why this world is letting similar situations continue in Sudan and the Congo.
Tuesday, May 10, 2005
Soon to come... reviews of "I Am David" and "Hotel Rwanda"
Will have these DVD reviews within the next few days.
Wednesday, April 20, 2005
Welcome, Pope Benedetto XVI
I'm pleased! In lieu of my own ramblings, check out the links to the right (Mark Shea, Jimmy Akin, Curt Jester, Catholic News Geek, and Insight Scoop) for some great reading!!!
Saturday, April 02, 2005
The passing of Pope John Paul II
Pope John Paul II (whom I'm sure will one day soon be referred to as "Pope Saint John Paul the Great") has taken his final earthly breath, and is now firmly embraced by our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, in heaven.
I was a sophmore in high school when JPII became supreme pontiff, and one year later I had the opportunity to be an usher at his visit to my home town of Philadelphia in 1979. Just this past weekend, while I was back east for a week to visit family for the Easter holy days, I was going through some of my belongs which I had left behind when I moved to California 10 years earlier. I came across the yellow usher hat that I was privileged to have worn during that spiritually exciting visitation of the Holy Father. I almost thought of throwing that hat away. Something (the Holy Spirit?) prompted me to do otherwise. I placed it back inside the plastic container in my parent's garage.
I was also prompted very early this morning (12:30-1:30 AM) to go to my local church for Eucharistic Adoration. I brought the specially-handmade rosary I had given to my Mom when I left for California in '94 (my Dad had given it back to me when she died three years ago), and I prayed two of the four Mysteries for the ailing pontiff: The Luminous Mysteries (in honor of JPII who added these mysteries several years ago), and the Sorrowful Mysteries (in honor of his sharing in the sufferings of Christ in these his final moments).
Words cannot express what I and many, many others are feeling right now. The passing of Johannes Paulus II is a great loss for the Church and for the World, but a great gain for the Heavenly Hosts. The shoes of this fisherman will be difficult to fill, indeed.
I was a sophmore in high school when JPII became supreme pontiff, and one year later I had the opportunity to be an usher at his visit to my home town of Philadelphia in 1979. Just this past weekend, while I was back east for a week to visit family for the Easter holy days, I was going through some of my belongs which I had left behind when I moved to California 10 years earlier. I came across the yellow usher hat that I was privileged to have worn during that spiritually exciting visitation of the Holy Father. I almost thought of throwing that hat away. Something (the Holy Spirit?) prompted me to do otherwise. I placed it back inside the plastic container in my parent's garage.
I was also prompted very early this morning (12:30-1:30 AM) to go to my local church for Eucharistic Adoration. I brought the specially-handmade rosary I had given to my Mom when I left for California in '94 (my Dad had given it back to me when she died three years ago), and I prayed two of the four Mysteries for the ailing pontiff: The Luminous Mysteries (in honor of JPII who added these mysteries several years ago), and the Sorrowful Mysteries (in honor of his sharing in the sufferings of Christ in these his final moments).
Words cannot express what I and many, many others are feeling right now. The passing of Johannes Paulus II is a great loss for the Church and for the World, but a great gain for the Heavenly Hosts. The shoes of this fisherman will be difficult to fill, indeed.
Saturday, March 12, 2005
Long-reigning Champion Chess Grandmaster Kasparov Retires... for Politics
I saw this article in my local paper this morning. I'm always fascinated by the game of chess. I'm familiar with the pieces and the rules of engagement, though I could never fully grasp the all-important mid-game strategy (planning three, four, six, eight moves ahead). It makes my head hurt to think that far ahead. Though I always enjoyed following the "big matches," and Kasparov has been the best for a very, very long time.
I wish him luck in his political future in Russia. He certainly has the mind for it. And it appears that he has the passion, as well. Putin may have met his match (pun intended):
MOSCOW - Garry Kasparov, the brilliant and aggressive tactician regarded by many as the greatest chess player of all time, announced his retirement from professional play. He said he plans to write books and become more active in the politics of Russia, a country that's "headed down the wrong path."
The 41-year-old Kasparov has been ranked No. 1 in the world since 1984, dominating chess for two decades with formidable energy, discipline and intellect. His announcement came shortly after he won the 14-match Linares tournament in Spain.
Kasparov's mastery of chess seemed sometimes to be superhuman, and perhaps his most famous loss was a 1997 match against IBM supercomputer Deep Blue.
Shay Bushinsky, a programmer behind another chess computer, told The Associated Press that as a chess player Kasparov was "the closest thing to a computer that I know as a man. Sometimes I think he has silicon running in his veins."
But Kasparov also became famous for his colorful and vibrant personality. He was seen as an especially vital and well-rounded person in a pursuit where top players often have the image of not having interests besides chess.
"He isn't just a pawn; and he isn't just a database, either, an inflated cerebellum, a throbbing maniac in the closed system of 64 squares," novelist Martin Amis wrote of him in a 1993 essay.
Among Kasparov's interests is politics. A Russian citizen, Kasparov has emerged as an outspoken critic of President Vladimir Putin and is playing a leading role in the Committee 2008: Free Choice, a group formed by liberal opposition leaders.
But he was increasingly exasperated with the politics of the chess world, which has been bitterly divided since 1993 into two rival federations with rival champions. In his retirement announcement Thursday, he reiterated that he was disappointed with a failed campaign to reunify the title.
He also said part of the reason he was retiring was that he saw no real goals in professional chess.
"As a chess player, I did everything I could, even more. Now I want to use my intellect and strategic thinking in Russian politics," Kasparov said Friday in a statement cited by the Interfax news agency.
"I believe that at the moment the country is moving in the wrong direction, therefore it is necessary to help Russia, to help Russian citizens to make the country comfortable, just and free," he said in the statement.
"I will do everything in my power to resist Putin's dictatorship," he said. "It is very difficult to play for a country whose authorities are anti-democratic."
Kasparov said he would continue to play chess, write books about it and take part in tournaments, such as events in which he plays many opponents at once, or in speed-chess games.
Alexander Roshal, chief editor of a popular Russian chess magazine called 64, said Kasparov had no peers in the chess world.
"There's no one else of his caliber. No one comes close. He saw that, and said 'you go on without me,'" he said.
Kasparov evidently was thinking about retiring for a long time after it became clear the reunification title match would not happen soon, Roshal said.
"He won more than 40 super-tournaments and in a month he'll be 42," Roshal said. "For chess, that's not young, and he has no reason to waste time preparing for another tournament. He's not going to be greater than he was or is."
Born in Baku in the then-Soviet republic of Azerbaijan, Kasparov is thought by many to be the best chess player in history. His defeat by Deep Blue was seen as a watershed moment in technological advancement, but in 2003 he averted a similar defeat when he agreed to a draw in the last game of his series against Deep Junior, which could process 3 million chess moves per second.
"Kasparov has the most incredible look-ahead and memory capabilities I have ever seen," said Bushinsky, one of two Israelis who helped design Deep Junior.
Kasparov's chess talent was apparent at an early age. At 12 he became the youngest player ever to win the USSR Junior Championship. Four years later, he won the World Junior Championship, and achieved the title of grandmaster on his 17th birthday.
His first title match, from September 1984 to February 1985 against Anatoly Karpov, was the longest in chess history. After 48 games, the psychological and physical strain on Karpov, who was leading but appeared likely to lose, caused chess authorities to end the match inconclusively amid controversy.
Kasparov won a rematch six months later, becoming the youngest world champion ever. He defended his title against Karpov in 1986, 1987 and 1990.
I wish him luck in his political future in Russia. He certainly has the mind for it. And it appears that he has the passion, as well. Putin may have met his match (pun intended):
MOSCOW - Garry Kasparov, the brilliant and aggressive tactician regarded by many as the greatest chess player of all time, announced his retirement from professional play. He said he plans to write books and become more active in the politics of Russia, a country that's "headed down the wrong path."
The 41-year-old Kasparov has been ranked No. 1 in the world since 1984, dominating chess for two decades with formidable energy, discipline and intellect. His announcement came shortly after he won the 14-match Linares tournament in Spain.
Kasparov's mastery of chess seemed sometimes to be superhuman, and perhaps his most famous loss was a 1997 match against IBM supercomputer Deep Blue.
Shay Bushinsky, a programmer behind another chess computer, told The Associated Press that as a chess player Kasparov was "the closest thing to a computer that I know as a man. Sometimes I think he has silicon running in his veins."
But Kasparov also became famous for his colorful and vibrant personality. He was seen as an especially vital and well-rounded person in a pursuit where top players often have the image of not having interests besides chess.
"He isn't just a pawn; and he isn't just a database, either, an inflated cerebellum, a throbbing maniac in the closed system of 64 squares," novelist Martin Amis wrote of him in a 1993 essay.
Among Kasparov's interests is politics. A Russian citizen, Kasparov has emerged as an outspoken critic of President Vladimir Putin and is playing a leading role in the Committee 2008: Free Choice, a group formed by liberal opposition leaders.
But he was increasingly exasperated with the politics of the chess world, which has been bitterly divided since 1993 into two rival federations with rival champions. In his retirement announcement Thursday, he reiterated that he was disappointed with a failed campaign to reunify the title.
He also said part of the reason he was retiring was that he saw no real goals in professional chess.
"As a chess player, I did everything I could, even more. Now I want to use my intellect and strategic thinking in Russian politics," Kasparov said Friday in a statement cited by the Interfax news agency.
"I believe that at the moment the country is moving in the wrong direction, therefore it is necessary to help Russia, to help Russian citizens to make the country comfortable, just and free," he said in the statement.
"I will do everything in my power to resist Putin's dictatorship," he said. "It is very difficult to play for a country whose authorities are anti-democratic."
Kasparov said he would continue to play chess, write books about it and take part in tournaments, such as events in which he plays many opponents at once, or in speed-chess games.
Alexander Roshal, chief editor of a popular Russian chess magazine called 64, said Kasparov had no peers in the chess world.
"There's no one else of his caliber. No one comes close. He saw that, and said 'you go on without me,'" he said.
Kasparov evidently was thinking about retiring for a long time after it became clear the reunification title match would not happen soon, Roshal said.
"He won more than 40 super-tournaments and in a month he'll be 42," Roshal said. "For chess, that's not young, and he has no reason to waste time preparing for another tournament. He's not going to be greater than he was or is."
Born in Baku in the then-Soviet republic of Azerbaijan, Kasparov is thought by many to be the best chess player in history. His defeat by Deep Blue was seen as a watershed moment in technological advancement, but in 2003 he averted a similar defeat when he agreed to a draw in the last game of his series against Deep Junior, which could process 3 million chess moves per second.
"Kasparov has the most incredible look-ahead and memory capabilities I have ever seen," said Bushinsky, one of two Israelis who helped design Deep Junior.
Kasparov's chess talent was apparent at an early age. At 12 he became the youngest player ever to win the USSR Junior Championship. Four years later, he won the World Junior Championship, and achieved the title of grandmaster on his 17th birthday.
His first title match, from September 1984 to February 1985 against Anatoly Karpov, was the longest in chess history. After 48 games, the psychological and physical strain on Karpov, who was leading but appeared likely to lose, caused chess authorities to end the match inconclusively amid controversy.
Kasparov won a rematch six months later, becoming the youngest world champion ever. He defended his title against Karpov in 1986, 1987 and 1990.
Thursday, March 10, 2005
Is 3-D TV on the horizon?
Since holography (as a field of study) was my first love, (although this isn't technically "holographic" television), I wanted to post this recent article:
New 3D Screen Requires No Special Goggles
HANOVER, Germany (Reuters) - A German research institute has developed a screen that requires no special glasses to display three-dimensional images and can be viewed even from the side.
The display is meant to help architects and engineers visualize their designs or to make flight simulators more realistic. Doctors at the German University of Tuebingen have used it to train for minimally invasive surgery.
The screen, developed by the Fraunhofer Institute for Telecommunications and displayed at the annual CeBIT technology fair in the German city of Hannover on Thursday, generates two slightly different images to make objects appear three-dimensional.
A lens in front of the display directs one beam of light toward the left eye of the viewer and a second beam toward the right, making 3D goggles unnecessary.
If the viewer moves to the side, a camera at the top of the display registers the movement and adjusts the lens.
The Berlin-based Fraunhofer Institute also shows a "3D kiosk" that uses the display, intended for high-tech showrooms.
The screen is mounted on a table that has cameras and infrared sensors hidden below the surface, which pick up on gestures, allowing the viewer to skip through images or rotate a three-dimensional object by pointing and moving the hand.
Consumer electronics companies Philips from the Netherlands and Sharp from Japan are also developing 3D displays that do not require special glasses. But because they do not yet track the viewer's movements, they require a viewer to choose the best position and remain there.
More articles and websites can be found here, here, here and here.
New 3D Screen Requires No Special Goggles
HANOVER, Germany (Reuters) - A German research institute has developed a screen that requires no special glasses to display three-dimensional images and can be viewed even from the side.
The display is meant to help architects and engineers visualize their designs or to make flight simulators more realistic. Doctors at the German University of Tuebingen have used it to train for minimally invasive surgery.
The screen, developed by the Fraunhofer Institute for Telecommunications and displayed at the annual CeBIT technology fair in the German city of Hannover on Thursday, generates two slightly different images to make objects appear three-dimensional.
A lens in front of the display directs one beam of light toward the left eye of the viewer and a second beam toward the right, making 3D goggles unnecessary.
If the viewer moves to the side, a camera at the top of the display registers the movement and adjusts the lens.
The Berlin-based Fraunhofer Institute also shows a "3D kiosk" that uses the display, intended for high-tech showrooms.
The screen is mounted on a table that has cameras and infrared sensors hidden below the surface, which pick up on gestures, allowing the viewer to skip through images or rotate a three-dimensional object by pointing and moving the hand.
Consumer electronics companies Philips from the Netherlands and Sharp from Japan are also developing 3D displays that do not require special glasses. But because they do not yet track the viewer's movements, they require a viewer to choose the best position and remain there.
More articles and websites can be found here, here, here and here.
Laser co-inventor wins religion award
As someone who initially studied physics in college before turning to the arts (after hitting a brick wall named calculus), I found this article not only intriguing but also heartening. My passion in physics at the time was in the fields of holography, lasers and optics.
Laser co-inventor wins religion award
(AP - March 9, 2005)
NEW YORK - Charles Townes, co-inventor of the laser and a Nobel Prize winner in physics, was named Wednesday as the recipient of a religion award billed as the world’s richest annual prize.
Townes, 89, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, won the Templeton Prize for Progress Toward Research or Discoveries about Spiritual Realities. The award is worth 795,000 British pounds — more than $1.5 million — and Townes was honored for talks and writings about the importance of relating science and religion.
He first addressed that topic in 1964, the same year he shared the Nobel with two Russians for research on principles underlying the laser (light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation) and maser (microwave amplification by stimulated emission of radiation).
Townes said in remarks prepared for the announcement that his first talk about religion, to the men’s Bible class of New York City’s Riverside Church, was later published in IBM’s Think magazine and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology alumni magazine.
After the second article, a prominent alumnus threatened to cease all involvement with MIT if anything like it were ever published again, Townes said. He also recalled that, years before, his doctoral adviser at California Institute of Technology “jumped on me for being religiously oriented.”
“Many people don’t realize that science basically involves assumptions and faith. But nothing is absolutely proved,” Townes said. “Wonderful things in both science and religion come from our efforts based on observations, thoughtful assumptions, faith and logic.”
He has compared his flash 1951 discovery of maser principles, while sitting on park bench in Washington, D.C., with the revelations depicted in the Bible.
Townes said that, with findings of modern physics, it “seems extremely unlikely” that the existence of life and humanity are “just accidental,” which inevitably raises religious questions about whether the universe was planned.
A native of Greenville, S.C., Townes graduated from local Furman University before earning graduate degrees at Duke University and Caltech. He was a Bell Labs radar researcher during World War II and taught at Columbia University and MIT.
In 1961, Townes began another long-running interest, using optical searches for intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.
Townes receives the prize May 4 in a private ceremony at London’s Buckingham Palace.
He plans to donate a major portion of the money to Furman University, the Pacific School of Religion, the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences, the Berkeley Ecumenical Chaplaincy to the Homeless and Berkeley’s First Congregational Church.
The Templeton Foundation of West Conshohocken, Pa., which sponsors various projects on science and religion, was founded by mutual funds entrepreneur Sir John M. Templeton.
Until 2002, its annual award was known as the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion. The first went to Mother Teresa in 1973.
Laser co-inventor wins religion award
(AP - March 9, 2005)
NEW YORK - Charles Townes, co-inventor of the laser and a Nobel Prize winner in physics, was named Wednesday as the recipient of a religion award billed as the world’s richest annual prize.
Townes, 89, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, won the Templeton Prize for Progress Toward Research or Discoveries about Spiritual Realities. The award is worth 795,000 British pounds — more than $1.5 million — and Townes was honored for talks and writings about the importance of relating science and religion.
He first addressed that topic in 1964, the same year he shared the Nobel with two Russians for research on principles underlying the laser (light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation) and maser (microwave amplification by stimulated emission of radiation).
Townes said in remarks prepared for the announcement that his first talk about religion, to the men’s Bible class of New York City’s Riverside Church, was later published in IBM’s Think magazine and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology alumni magazine.
After the second article, a prominent alumnus threatened to cease all involvement with MIT if anything like it were ever published again, Townes said. He also recalled that, years before, his doctoral adviser at California Institute of Technology “jumped on me for being religiously oriented.”
“Many people don’t realize that science basically involves assumptions and faith. But nothing is absolutely proved,” Townes said. “Wonderful things in both science and religion come from our efforts based on observations, thoughtful assumptions, faith and logic.”
He has compared his flash 1951 discovery of maser principles, while sitting on park bench in Washington, D.C., with the revelations depicted in the Bible.
Townes said that, with findings of modern physics, it “seems extremely unlikely” that the existence of life and humanity are “just accidental,” which inevitably raises religious questions about whether the universe was planned.
A native of Greenville, S.C., Townes graduated from local Furman University before earning graduate degrees at Duke University and Caltech. He was a Bell Labs radar researcher during World War II and taught at Columbia University and MIT.
In 1961, Townes began another long-running interest, using optical searches for intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.
Townes receives the prize May 4 in a private ceremony at London’s Buckingham Palace.
He plans to donate a major portion of the money to Furman University, the Pacific School of Religion, the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences, the Berkeley Ecumenical Chaplaincy to the Homeless and Berkeley’s First Congregational Church.
The Templeton Foundation of West Conshohocken, Pa., which sponsors various projects on science and religion, was founded by mutual funds entrepreneur Sir John M. Templeton.
Until 2002, its annual award was known as the Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion. The first went to Mother Teresa in 1973.
Tuesday, March 01, 2005
EC:WC FCA - The Notebook
a West Coast Critic review
I had the pleasure of renting and watching the DVD release of "The Notebook" - a touching love story set in '40s flashback. Don't let the fact that Nick Cassavetes is the director of this film dissuade you. Although he's better known for such harsh films as The Wraith, Blind Fury, Face/Off and Blow, he divested himself of his previous directorial incarnations and has handled this wonderful story with proper care.
This is the third movie to be made based on a novel by Nicholas Sparks (the others being Message In A Bottle and A Walk To Remember). Sparks' success came out of nowhere fast, having bolted out of the blocks running with his first novel (The Notebook) - a manuscript that caused Warner Books to offer him one million dollars to publish (a fledgling writer's dream come true). Ten years later, his success continues to gain momentum.
I have not read any of his novels, so I cannot compare the book to the film. But The Notebook is a tender story about summer love between two wild-eyed teens from opposite ends of the economic spectrum. Noah is the humble yet daring lumber mill worker who becomes smitten with Allie, a bright and spritely girl who's family comes from old southern money.
It's your typical boy-wants-girl, boy-gets-girl, boy-loses-girl, boy-tries-to-get-girl-back kind of story that has been well-worn in story after story. But there's a certain freshness to this retelling. In part, it's due to the wonderful performance by the young lead actors: Ryan Gosling and Rachel McAdams. But what really helps give this story fresh legs is the "present day" performances by James Garner and Gena Rowlands. Garner plays the character of Duke, who reads to the bewildered Rowlands character who is suffering through the end stage of dementia - a debilitating mental disease similar to Alzheimers. The tender love and care and eagerness that Duke displays as he takes his time reading to Rowlands, attempting with unshakeable hope to reawaken her lost memories, is a testament to the kind of love and sacrifice that is all too often missing in today's culture (certainly in today's movies).
There are some weaknesses to the movie. One being a certain amount of predictability to the story. A second being Cassavetes' attempt to throw up some half-hearted red herrings to keep you guessing who the older characters really are. You pretty much know from the get-go who is who, and the film at a certain point actually pretty much tells you straight out. So the red herrings weren't really necessary.
Also, the way Cassavetes attempts to end the film felt a bit clumsy, as though you were brought to what you thought was the end... then it continues a bit further... and when you thought it had then reached it's denouement... it went just a little bit more. The ending itself is not bad. It's actually very poignant. It just wasn't as well executed as I would have expected given the wonderful pace of the rest of the film.
I'll be generous and forgiving, and give this warmhearted yet forgotten film 4 out of 5 wine bottles. Keep a box of Kleenex handy.
I had the pleasure of renting and watching the DVD release of "The Notebook" - a touching love story set in '40s flashback. Don't let the fact that Nick Cassavetes is the director of this film dissuade you. Although he's better known for such harsh films as The Wraith, Blind Fury, Face/Off and Blow, he divested himself of his previous directorial incarnations and has handled this wonderful story with proper care.
This is the third movie to be made based on a novel by Nicholas Sparks (the others being Message In A Bottle and A Walk To Remember). Sparks' success came out of nowhere fast, having bolted out of the blocks running with his first novel (The Notebook) - a manuscript that caused Warner Books to offer him one million dollars to publish (a fledgling writer's dream come true). Ten years later, his success continues to gain momentum.
I have not read any of his novels, so I cannot compare the book to the film. But The Notebook is a tender story about summer love between two wild-eyed teens from opposite ends of the economic spectrum. Noah is the humble yet daring lumber mill worker who becomes smitten with Allie, a bright and spritely girl who's family comes from old southern money.
It's your typical boy-wants-girl, boy-gets-girl, boy-loses-girl, boy-tries-to-get-girl-back kind of story that has been well-worn in story after story. But there's a certain freshness to this retelling. In part, it's due to the wonderful performance by the young lead actors: Ryan Gosling and Rachel McAdams. But what really helps give this story fresh legs is the "present day" performances by James Garner and Gena Rowlands. Garner plays the character of Duke, who reads to the bewildered Rowlands character who is suffering through the end stage of dementia - a debilitating mental disease similar to Alzheimers. The tender love and care and eagerness that Duke displays as he takes his time reading to Rowlands, attempting with unshakeable hope to reawaken her lost memories, is a testament to the kind of love and sacrifice that is all too often missing in today's culture (certainly in today's movies).
There are some weaknesses to the movie. One being a certain amount of predictability to the story. A second being Cassavetes' attempt to throw up some half-hearted red herrings to keep you guessing who the older characters really are. You pretty much know from the get-go who is who, and the film at a certain point actually pretty much tells you straight out. So the red herrings weren't really necessary.
Also, the way Cassavetes attempts to end the film felt a bit clumsy, as though you were brought to what you thought was the end... then it continues a bit further... and when you thought it had then reached it's denouement... it went just a little bit more. The ending itself is not bad. It's actually very poignant. It just wasn't as well executed as I would have expected given the wonderful pace of the rest of the film.
I'll be generous and forgiving, and give this warmhearted yet forgotten film 4 out of 5 wine bottles. Keep a box of Kleenex handy.
Monday, February 28, 2005
And the Oscar goes to...
Well, yet again, the Academy displayed their annual mutual admiration society awards for all to see. And, once again, they didn't disappoint in revealing their mastery of cluelessness, self-absorption, arrogance, and vacuousness.
Let me be upfront here. I've studied film & theater in both the undergraduate and graduate level. I've studied acting at a small, regional but well-respected theater group, and I attended a few screenwriting workshops at an Ivy League institution. I did screenwriting for several years, and I was involved in the music industry for over a decade. I'm someone who was (and in someways, still is) immersed in the arts, and who for awhile dreamed of winning one or more of the "Big 4" awards.
I document this not to toot my own horn, nor as a precursor of picked sour grapes. Instead, I disclose this to show that I have I lot of knowledge, love and respect for the arts. But, I am also able to distance myself (and it gets easier with age) from the hype and hoopla that comes with the territory.
Separate for a moment the arguments on whether one film or acting role is "better" or "more deserving" than another. That's beside the point. Rather, take a look at the types of role and the types of film that get honored (in both the nomination and the winning phases).
I've stated in previous posts that, by far, the best film for 2004 was "The Passion of the Christ." It was bold, it was controversial, it was cinematically breathtaking, it was emotionally wringing, it was truthful, it was successful (despite all that was against it), and it stepped beyond the bounds of typical movie magic and became for most viewers an unforgettable and moving experience.
But, while "The Passion" was practically ignored in the nomination process (only having been nominated in Cinematography, Makeup, and Original Score), and was shut out for even those well-deserved awards, what were the films and roles that "The Academy" chose to honor and admire?
Vera Drake - which glorifies abortion
Million Dollar Baby - which justifies euthanasia
Closer - which takes sexual perversion to an even lower level
Kinsey - which honors a demented pervert
Sideways - (a film that, for the most part, I enjoyed) to a certain extent mocks the institution of marriage
Maria Full Of Grace - which turns the holy and prayerful phrase "Hail Mary Full of Grace" into a film title about a drug "mule"
These are the types of films and roles that Hollywood holds up for honor and adulation??? They seem to go out of their way to praise films and roles that either tear apart or mock the family, the faithful, the middle class, the military, the American ideal, the honorable, the virtuous, the religious, the good.
It's a damning testimony, and it's nothing new (American Beauty was "best" picture for 1999???... oh, please).
And they still just don't get it.
Let me be upfront here. I've studied film & theater in both the undergraduate and graduate level. I've studied acting at a small, regional but well-respected theater group, and I attended a few screenwriting workshops at an Ivy League institution. I did screenwriting for several years, and I was involved in the music industry for over a decade. I'm someone who was (and in someways, still is) immersed in the arts, and who for awhile dreamed of winning one or more of the "Big 4" awards.
I document this not to toot my own horn, nor as a precursor of picked sour grapes. Instead, I disclose this to show that I have I lot of knowledge, love and respect for the arts. But, I am also able to distance myself (and it gets easier with age) from the hype and hoopla that comes with the territory.
Separate for a moment the arguments on whether one film or acting role is "better" or "more deserving" than another. That's beside the point. Rather, take a look at the types of role and the types of film that get honored (in both the nomination and the winning phases).
I've stated in previous posts that, by far, the best film for 2004 was "The Passion of the Christ." It was bold, it was controversial, it was cinematically breathtaking, it was emotionally wringing, it was truthful, it was successful (despite all that was against it), and it stepped beyond the bounds of typical movie magic and became for most viewers an unforgettable and moving experience.
But, while "The Passion" was practically ignored in the nomination process (only having been nominated in Cinematography, Makeup, and Original Score), and was shut out for even those well-deserved awards, what were the films and roles that "The Academy" chose to honor and admire?
Vera Drake - which glorifies abortion
Million Dollar Baby - which justifies euthanasia
Closer - which takes sexual perversion to an even lower level
Kinsey - which honors a demented pervert
Sideways - (a film that, for the most part, I enjoyed) to a certain extent mocks the institution of marriage
Maria Full Of Grace - which turns the holy and prayerful phrase "Hail Mary Full of Grace" into a film title about a drug "mule"
These are the types of films and roles that Hollywood holds up for honor and adulation??? They seem to go out of their way to praise films and roles that either tear apart or mock the family, the faithful, the middle class, the military, the American ideal, the honorable, the virtuous, the religious, the good.
It's a damning testimony, and it's nothing new (American Beauty was "best" picture for 1999???... oh, please).
And they still just don't get it.
Saturday, February 26, 2005
The 10 Underreported Stories of 2004
WND posted their annual list of the Top 10 Most Underreported News Stories for 2004. It's an intriguing list, including:
* Sandy Berger's stuffing of classified FBI files in his pants.
* The U.S. border issues.
* The U.N. Oil-for-Fraud... ummm, Food program.
* And the full extent of the on-going Darfur tragedy (a Rwanda redux).
It's definitely worth the read, and there are related links.
Also, in 2003, their #4 underreported story was one that should be in the Top 10 every year:
4. Persecution of Christians worldwide, especially those in countries seen as "friends" of the U.S.
Once again, one of the establishment press' great unreported stories this year has been the extent and brutality of persecution of Christians around the world – even in nations America considers friendly, moderate, "partners" in the war on terror.
As it has in previous years, WorldNetDaily reported during 2003 on the widespread persecution of Christians around the world, in "unfriendly" places, such as:
* The sad story of the Palestinian Christian who was slaughtered by Islamic extremists and his body returned to his Palestinian wife and two small children – in four pieces; and
* The Christian pastor in Sudan who was burned to death, along with his family, by military forces led by that nations' militant Islamist regime. In all, this particular massacre resulted in the deaths of 59 unarmed villagers.
But increasingly on our radar were stories of the persecution, imprisonment and murder of Christians in so-called "friendly" nations. A few examples:
* A 15-year-old Pakistani Christian boy named Zeeshan Gill was kidnapped and taken to a strict Islamic religious school where he was beaten until he converted to Islam. His captors warned if he tried to flee or return to Christianity, they would kill him.
* A Chinese Christian man named Zhang Yi-nan was severely beaten after arriving at a "re-education through labor" camp. Another Chinese Christian, Xiao Bi-guang, charged with "subverting" the Chinese government and "socialist system" was released from prison after publicity from his case elicited the prayers and protests of Christians worldwide. In fact, Xiao attributed his release to reports on the Internet, saying a policeman asked him: "How did you get your story on the Internet?"
* A court in Egypt acquitted nearly all 96 suspects charged with killing atrocities that resulted in the deaths of 21 Christians.
* And in Pakistan, America's "partner" in the terror war, a Pakistani court issued a sentence of life imprisonment to an illiterate Christian man charged with writing defamatory words about Islam's prophet Muhammad. Aslam Masih, a shepherd from the village of Mammun Kanjun in Pakistan's Faisalabad district, had been sentenced under the country's notorious blasphemy law. The 46-year-old Masih was accused of writing blasphemous words about Islam's founder on an amulet tied around the neck of a dog to help it win a dogfight. Ultimately, the court dismissed the life sentence.
Number two for 2003 was:
2. NASA's use of a green-friendly but inferior material on heat shields that broke up prior to the shuttle disaster
One day after last February's tragic re-entry explosion of the Columbia space shuttle, WorldNetDaily revealed in an exclusive report that the irreparable launch-time damage to the external tank's foam insulation, which broke free and slammed into the leading edge of the left wing, was likely due to environmental correctness.
With the help of internal NASA documents, WND showed that for the past six years America's federal space agency has used a more "environmentally friendly" – and inferior – material for foam insulation.
"In other words," WND founder Joseph Farah wrote in July, "human lives and millions of dollars in technology were put at risk because of the environmental fad."
Back in 1997, wrote Farah, during the 87th space shuttle mission, similar tile damage to the Columbia's was experienced during launch when the external tank foam crashed into some tiles during the stress of takeoff. Although the damage in that case was not catastrophic, investigators then noted the damage followed changes in the methods of "foaming" the external tank – changes mandated by concerns about being "environmentally friendly."
Here's what that NASA report said: "During the ... mission, there was a change made on the external tank. Because of NASA's goal to use environmentally friendly products, a new method of 'foaming' the external tank had been used for this mission and the (previous) mission. It is suspected that large amounts of foam separated from the external tank and impacted the orbiter. This caused significant damage to the protective tiles of the orbiter."
Ultimately, NASA's more environmentally friendly "foaming" methods ended in one of the great tragedies of 2003.
In 2002 (following the "environmental" note):
Congressional hearing proves questionable environmental science contributed to World Trade Center towers' early collapse.
WorldNetDaily's Whistleblower magazine reported that the original design for the twin towers stipulated asbestos covering for the steel support beams.
Environmentalists, however, objected to the use of the fire retardant material and New York City enacted a ban on its use during the time of the towers' construction in 1971, as pointed out during a June 2002 congressional hearing. Had it not been for the poorly installed insulation and the lack of asbestos in the upper floors of the towers, scientists testifying before Congress agreed, the towers would have stayed standing longer, undoubtedly saving many lives as occupants would have had time to escape.
"Asbestos was an early victim of junk science and enviro-fear propaganda," said Arthur Robinson, who is also a founder of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. Environmental activists "were joined by opportunistic lawyers and businessmen who reaped large profits from the anti-asbestos program. There was not a shred of evidence that insulating buildings with asbestos was harmful to human health," he added.
Those last two "environmental" stories go under the phrase: "Something I did not know."
* Sandy Berger's stuffing of classified FBI files in his pants.
* The U.S. border issues.
* The U.N. Oil-for-Fraud... ummm, Food program.
* And the full extent of the on-going Darfur tragedy (a Rwanda redux).
It's definitely worth the read, and there are related links.
Also, in 2003, their #4 underreported story was one that should be in the Top 10 every year:
4. Persecution of Christians worldwide, especially those in countries seen as "friends" of the U.S.
Once again, one of the establishment press' great unreported stories this year has been the extent and brutality of persecution of Christians around the world – even in nations America considers friendly, moderate, "partners" in the war on terror.
As it has in previous years, WorldNetDaily reported during 2003 on the widespread persecution of Christians around the world, in "unfriendly" places, such as:
* The sad story of the Palestinian Christian who was slaughtered by Islamic extremists and his body returned to his Palestinian wife and two small children – in four pieces; and
* The Christian pastor in Sudan who was burned to death, along with his family, by military forces led by that nations' militant Islamist regime. In all, this particular massacre resulted in the deaths of 59 unarmed villagers.
But increasingly on our radar were stories of the persecution, imprisonment and murder of Christians in so-called "friendly" nations. A few examples:
* A 15-year-old Pakistani Christian boy named Zeeshan Gill was kidnapped and taken to a strict Islamic religious school where he was beaten until he converted to Islam. His captors warned if he tried to flee or return to Christianity, they would kill him.
* A Chinese Christian man named Zhang Yi-nan was severely beaten after arriving at a "re-education through labor" camp. Another Chinese Christian, Xiao Bi-guang, charged with "subverting" the Chinese government and "socialist system" was released from prison after publicity from his case elicited the prayers and protests of Christians worldwide. In fact, Xiao attributed his release to reports on the Internet, saying a policeman asked him: "How did you get your story on the Internet?"
* A court in Egypt acquitted nearly all 96 suspects charged with killing atrocities that resulted in the deaths of 21 Christians.
* And in Pakistan, America's "partner" in the terror war, a Pakistani court issued a sentence of life imprisonment to an illiterate Christian man charged with writing defamatory words about Islam's prophet Muhammad. Aslam Masih, a shepherd from the village of Mammun Kanjun in Pakistan's Faisalabad district, had been sentenced under the country's notorious blasphemy law. The 46-year-old Masih was accused of writing blasphemous words about Islam's founder on an amulet tied around the neck of a dog to help it win a dogfight. Ultimately, the court dismissed the life sentence.
Number two for 2003 was:
2. NASA's use of a green-friendly but inferior material on heat shields that broke up prior to the shuttle disaster
One day after last February's tragic re-entry explosion of the Columbia space shuttle, WorldNetDaily revealed in an exclusive report that the irreparable launch-time damage to the external tank's foam insulation, which broke free and slammed into the leading edge of the left wing, was likely due to environmental correctness.
With the help of internal NASA documents, WND showed that for the past six years America's federal space agency has used a more "environmentally friendly" – and inferior – material for foam insulation.
"In other words," WND founder Joseph Farah wrote in July, "human lives and millions of dollars in technology were put at risk because of the environmental fad."
Back in 1997, wrote Farah, during the 87th space shuttle mission, similar tile damage to the Columbia's was experienced during launch when the external tank foam crashed into some tiles during the stress of takeoff. Although the damage in that case was not catastrophic, investigators then noted the damage followed changes in the methods of "foaming" the external tank – changes mandated by concerns about being "environmentally friendly."
Here's what that NASA report said: "During the ... mission, there was a change made on the external tank. Because of NASA's goal to use environmentally friendly products, a new method of 'foaming' the external tank had been used for this mission and the (previous) mission. It is suspected that large amounts of foam separated from the external tank and impacted the orbiter. This caused significant damage to the protective tiles of the orbiter."
Ultimately, NASA's more environmentally friendly "foaming" methods ended in one of the great tragedies of 2003.
In 2002 (following the "environmental" note):
Congressional hearing proves questionable environmental science contributed to World Trade Center towers' early collapse.
WorldNetDaily's Whistleblower magazine reported that the original design for the twin towers stipulated asbestos covering for the steel support beams.
Environmentalists, however, objected to the use of the fire retardant material and New York City enacted a ban on its use during the time of the towers' construction in 1971, as pointed out during a June 2002 congressional hearing. Had it not been for the poorly installed insulation and the lack of asbestos in the upper floors of the towers, scientists testifying before Congress agreed, the towers would have stayed standing longer, undoubtedly saving many lives as occupants would have had time to escape.
"Asbestos was an early victim of junk science and enviro-fear propaganda," said Arthur Robinson, who is also a founder of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. Environmental activists "were joined by opportunistic lawyers and businessmen who reaped large profits from the anti-asbestos program. There was not a shred of evidence that insulating buildings with asbestos was harmful to human health," he added.
Those last two "environmental" stories go under the phrase: "Something I did not know."
Thursday, February 24, 2005
Yes... it's been awhile.
Sorry for the long drought of posts. Real life has a tendancy to sneak up on you. I've just been busy with my 9-to-5 job, plus.... other things.
I haven't seen any new movies since "Sideways," so there hasn't been anything for me to review.
The weather here in Southern California has just been plain nasty. For awhile there I was seriously considering building an Ark (if only I knew what a "cubit" was).
I came very close - verrrrrrry close - to posting at length on one of the hot button social issues in today's culture. I was promtped by a recent episode of "ER" (a TV show I only watch because of Maura Tierney, I might add). After a few days had passed, I decided to hold off on making my post. I just felt that I wasn't quite ready yet to take that serious commentary leap. Although, I may do so in the future.
It's basically centered around the false ideal in today's society that some individuals would rather reject love for acceptance... and not acceptance of themselves as persons, but acceptance of their lifestyle - as if that was the sole defining characteristic of themselves as human beings. They'll even go so far as to quote Jesus in the bible, but they always cherry pick their quotes, taking passages out of context. And they always leave out the last few words of Jesus in John 8:11.
But, that detailed and heartfelt commentary will be saved for another day.
Until next time... hang in there. Winter's almost over.
And I promise to push myself to post here more often.
I haven't seen any new movies since "Sideways," so there hasn't been anything for me to review.
The weather here in Southern California has just been plain nasty. For awhile there I was seriously considering building an Ark (if only I knew what a "cubit" was).
I came very close - verrrrrrry close - to posting at length on one of the hot button social issues in today's culture. I was promtped by a recent episode of "ER" (a TV show I only watch because of Maura Tierney, I might add). After a few days had passed, I decided to hold off on making my post. I just felt that I wasn't quite ready yet to take that serious commentary leap. Although, I may do so in the future.
It's basically centered around the false ideal in today's society that some individuals would rather reject love for acceptance... and not acceptance of themselves as persons, but acceptance of their lifestyle - as if that was the sole defining characteristic of themselves as human beings. They'll even go so far as to quote Jesus in the bible, but they always cherry pick their quotes, taking passages out of context. And they always leave out the last few words of Jesus in John 8:11.
But, that detailed and heartfelt commentary will be saved for another day.
Until next time... hang in there. Winter's almost over.
And I promise to push myself to post here more often.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)