Saturday, July 02, 2005
Goddess On A Mountain Top
"She's got it,
Yeah baby, she's got it
I'm your Venus,
I'm your fire and your desire."
Good to know that you can "revive" your career at the advanced age of 25. Anyway, a real match for the ages (I only caught the third set, but considering it went 9-7, I'd say I got my money's worth).
Friday, July 01, 2005
O'Connor retires
|Thursday, June 30, 2005
There Goes The "Neighborhood"...
Easy as ABC...You just knew a reality show that managed to unite gay and conservative activist groups in outrage was just not going to last.
|
Mission Creeps
|'80s Nostalgia is Great, But...
...this headline, I could have done without seeing. For younger readers, here's the relevant trip down memory lane.
|
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
RedState Burning...
|Welfare Reform Meets Iraq Policy
Well, not exactly, but the ever-surprising John Derbyshire makes a very interesting observation on the "timetable" question:
Of course, war is a very different beast, but certain aspects of human nature translate across both geography and situation. Derb's (reader's) main point is a good one -- figure out how to concentrate the mind of (good) Iraqis to help speed up the transition process.
UPDATE: Geez!! I can't believe Saletan over at Slate beat me to the "welfare reform" meme -- by four hours!!! Aargh!!!! (Thanks to Matthew Yglesias over at Tapped for blogging Will.)
|
A reader whose work is to get franchise operations up and running tells me it's **KEY** to have some definite date when his guys w and let the franchisee take over. If you don't do that, the psychological dependence never gets broken -- the training wheels never come off. That sounds right to me. Putting together a working army and police force doesn't take THAT long, if the motivation is there. Six month's training is fine for combat troops. Yet here we are in year three. Perhaps a withdrawal date would concentrate Iraqi minds. Frankly, they don't seem all that concentrated right now.A similar sentiment, of course, formed the underpinning of welfare reform. It could only succeed if welfare's open-ended entitlement status ended and recipients were given a clear timetable upon which to get their act together before aid was cut off.
Of course, war is a very different beast, but certain aspects of human nature translate across both geography and situation. Derb's (reader's) main point is a good one -- figure out how to concentrate the mind of (good) Iraqis to help speed up the transition process.
UPDATE: Geez!! I can't believe Saletan over at Slate beat me to the "welfare reform" meme -- by four hours!!! Aargh!!!! (Thanks to Matthew Yglesias over at Tapped for blogging Will.)
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
Bored of the Worlds
Monday evening, I went to a screening of War of The Worlds. Readers of this space know my growing antipathy towards Tom Cruise and my view that his recent outlandish public TMI relationship with Katie Holmes would have a serious negatiive impact on the box-office appeal of the War of the Worlds blockbuster.
I did say that there was the possibility that Steven Spielberg might still save it by creating a, well, Cruise-proof vehicle. In a sense, that's what has happened. War of The Worlds is a Spielberg vehicle from beginning to end.
The only thing that I couldn't have anticipated is that Steven Spielberg -- an Academy Award-winning director of million-ticket selling films that have action, heart and style -- could have created this emotionally empty cinematic mess.
This is a bad movie, folks. And, given the talent of the people involved, this is a very bad movie.
No, to give him his due, Cruise is not the distraction Holmes was in Batman Begins. He gives a performance as divorced father Ray Ferrier that is as serviceable as it is disposable. There's some nice interaction between himself and Dakota Fanning as his daughter Rachel. On the contrary, the scenes between Cruise and Justin Chatwin (as son Robbie) are cringe-inducing. Indeed, one wonders what Chatwin is doing in the movie except for his remarkable resemblance to a young Tom Cruise.
But the chief problem is that there is no heart in the movie. You can't feel anything for the characters because they don't act like anyone you've ever met in real life. The fault for that may be that they anchored down in a preposterous script.
Logic? Move along, folks, nothing to see here.
Oh, how is it that an EMP (electromagnetic pulse) effect takes out all electronic equipment -- including lights, cell phone, cars -- except for one video camcorder (the disposable camera I can accept)? As a buddy who saw it with me said, "The camcorder is protected from EMP by product-placement." Which, given some of the multiple commercial tie-ins, is probably the likeliest explanation.
Quick question: If you've been subject to a bizarre attack from strange machines that have destroyed your home and you finally manage to escape to a place that has power, wouldn't you try to check the TV or computer to find out what the hell is going on?
Yeah, you would, except in this movie. Instead, a la Tom Cruise, you wait until the house is destroyed and a TV crew conveniently shows up to (sort of) explain everything to you.
Spielberg has always been gimmick/FX-crazy, but this movie is over-the-top. The viewer is subject to blatant rehashing of just about every gimmick from previous efforts. Count how many did you find yourself thinking, "Oh, this is like X from Jaws..or Close Encounters...or Jurassic Park." Once or twice, it can be a cute homage. But, when it happens repeatedly, you start thinking that you've somehow been trapped in some uber-Spielberg disco remix.
No, this isn't a snobbish slam against a "mindless" summer popcorn movie. The movie is a failure even by the standards of the genre. Cruise's character isn't even a hero. He's a protagonist, but hardly saves the day (though he is forced into an ethically questionable action to save his daughter and he does take out one of the marauding machines).
But to underscore how disappointing WOTW is even by summer blockbuster standards, consider this: Nine years ago, an alien invasion was thwarted by a "coalition" that included a Jewish computer nerd, a black brash-talking fighter pilot -- and a white U.S. president who was a war veteran. There were some real, memorable, characters, a pretty good plot and a fair bit of emotional depth for an action-adventure science-fiction flick.
A decade later, the biggest WASP actor on the planet (indeed, the original "brash-talking fighter pilot") can do little more than run for his life while "nature" takes its course.
Provocative? Hardly. Maybe the fault lies with the H.G. Wells source material. Whatever the case, it doesn't translate into an interesting movie.
Of course, War of The Worlds should easily clear the $100 million mark in its first five days, but that's only from the star power of its director and lead (though that same combination didn't produce record-setting b.o. for the vastly superior Minority Report). One would be hard-pressed to believe that word-of-mouth could draw many people after the first weekend.
Save your money, people. Fantastic Four, at least looks interesting.
UPDATE: My friend Harry, who also saw the screening (and generally agreed with my take) said that I should mention the post-9/11 vibe that ran through the movie. He's right. "Terror" as an explanation for what was going on did pop up a few times. One intentionally funny line had Europe as its punch line. And, when Cruise's character survives the initial attack, his ash-covered face is evocative of Wall Street workers who fled the collapse of the Towers. However, in the mess of the rest of the movie, these little touches seem more cheap than "realistic."
|
I did say that there was the possibility that Steven Spielberg might still save it by creating a, well, Cruise-proof vehicle. In a sense, that's what has happened. War of The Worlds is a Spielberg vehicle from beginning to end.
The only thing that I couldn't have anticipated is that Steven Spielberg -- an Academy Award-winning director of million-ticket selling films that have action, heart and style -- could have created this emotionally empty cinematic mess.
This is a bad movie, folks. And, given the talent of the people involved, this is a very bad movie.
No, to give him his due, Cruise is not the distraction Holmes was in Batman Begins. He gives a performance as divorced father Ray Ferrier that is as serviceable as it is disposable. There's some nice interaction between himself and Dakota Fanning as his daughter Rachel. On the contrary, the scenes between Cruise and Justin Chatwin (as son Robbie) are cringe-inducing. Indeed, one wonders what Chatwin is doing in the movie except for his remarkable resemblance to a young Tom Cruise.
But the chief problem is that there is no heart in the movie. You can't feel anything for the characters because they don't act like anyone you've ever met in real life. The fault for that may be that they anchored down in a preposterous script.
Logic? Move along, folks, nothing to see here.
Oh, how is it that an EMP (electromagnetic pulse) effect takes out all electronic equipment -- including lights, cell phone, cars -- except for one video camcorder (the disposable camera I can accept)? As a buddy who saw it with me said, "The camcorder is protected from EMP by product-placement." Which, given some of the multiple commercial tie-ins, is probably the likeliest explanation.
Quick question: If you've been subject to a bizarre attack from strange machines that have destroyed your home and you finally manage to escape to a place that has power, wouldn't you try to check the TV or computer to find out what the hell is going on?
Yeah, you would, except in this movie. Instead, a la Tom Cruise, you wait until the house is destroyed and a TV crew conveniently shows up to (sort of) explain everything to you.
Spielberg has always been gimmick/FX-crazy, but this movie is over-the-top. The viewer is subject to blatant rehashing of just about every gimmick from previous efforts. Count how many did you find yourself thinking, "Oh, this is like X from Jaws..or Close Encounters...or Jurassic Park." Once or twice, it can be a cute homage. But, when it happens repeatedly, you start thinking that you've somehow been trapped in some uber-Spielberg disco remix.
No, this isn't a snobbish slam against a "mindless" summer popcorn movie. The movie is a failure even by the standards of the genre. Cruise's character isn't even a hero. He's a protagonist, but hardly saves the day (though he is forced into an ethically questionable action to save his daughter and he does take out one of the marauding machines).
But to underscore how disappointing WOTW is even by summer blockbuster standards, consider this: Nine years ago, an alien invasion was thwarted by a "coalition" that included a Jewish computer nerd, a black brash-talking fighter pilot -- and a white U.S. president who was a war veteran. There were some real, memorable, characters, a pretty good plot and a fair bit of emotional depth for an action-adventure science-fiction flick.
A decade later, the biggest WASP actor on the planet (indeed, the original "brash-talking fighter pilot") can do little more than run for his life while "nature" takes its course.
Provocative? Hardly. Maybe the fault lies with the H.G. Wells source material. Whatever the case, it doesn't translate into an interesting movie.
Of course, War of The Worlds should easily clear the $100 million mark in its first five days, but that's only from the star power of its director and lead (though that same combination didn't produce record-setting b.o. for the vastly superior Minority Report). One would be hard-pressed to believe that word-of-mouth could draw many people after the first weekend.
Save your money, people. Fantastic Four, at least looks interesting.
UPDATE: My friend Harry, who also saw the screening (and generally agreed with my take) said that I should mention the post-9/11 vibe that ran through the movie. He's right. "Terror" as an explanation for what was going on did pop up a few times. One intentionally funny line had Europe as its punch line. And, when Cruise's character survives the initial attack, his ash-covered face is evocative of Wall Street workers who fled the collapse of the Towers. However, in the mess of the rest of the movie, these little touches seem more cheap than "realistic."
UPDATE: Mr. Drudge gives a handy preview of significant WOTW reviews:
VARIETY RAVE FOR 'WAR OF THE WORLDS'...SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER: ALIENS IMPRESS, BUT LACKS HUMAN IDENTITY...SACRAMENTO BEE: DOESN'T SET ITSELF APART...LA DAILY NEWS: THRILLING, BUT REMAKE EVENTUALLY RUNS OUT OF AMMO...NEW YORK TIMES: 'REASONABLY ENTERTAINING RENDERING'...SAN JOSE MERC: 'A PICTURE WITHOUT A THOUGHT IN ITS PRETTY HEAD; NOT END OF WORLD, JUST WISH IT WERE BY END OF MOVIE'...AP: DISJOINTED AND EPISODIC, ALIENS LOOK 'BEGGED, BORROWED AND STOLEN FROM EVERY RECENT MOVIE'...ORLANDO SENTINEL: 'GRIM, HEAVY AND PONDEROUS'...
Ah, got to love those San Jose Mercury News guys!
Monday, June 27, 2005
Everyone Loves A Parade
Sunday, June 26, 2005: Gay Pride Parade:
|
Rev. Al Sharpton marched in New York's Gay Pride Parade for the first time on Sunday -- invited by Manhattan Borough President candidate Brian Ellner. It was, as one might expect a rather interesting and colorful affair. Silly me, I forgot to bring my regular camera. Thus, I was stuck with just a few Treo shots. The above, left, was taken shortly after Sharpton and Ellner (the tall, thin, Caucasian gentleman) merged with Democratic mayoral candidate C. Virginia Fields (black lady with the white hat). Supposed Democratic mayoral front-runner Fernando Ferrer (not shown) looked quite lonely trailing the Fields-Ellner-Sharpton entourage moments later.
These three were the very few protestors seen at the march. Was it only a few because the police told them they could only hold their signs but not shout any slogans? (They apparently had not permit.) They weren't pleased to hear this. No kidding. What happened to basic freedom of speech? It's not as if they would be able to hurt anyone. 
The well-appointed regal figure was riding directly in front of the Ellner-Sharpton contingent. I was hoping to get a shot where the queen and the reverend were right next to each other, but the one time they were chatting, I couldn't get the camera working in time! Don't you just hate that!?!
Head-Shrinking Ideas...
Joel Achenbach's interesting take on psychiatry causes me to reconsider my strongly dismissive reaction to Tom Cruise's "Today" interview. The issue is more complex than I thought and, as Cruise said, the charge of it being a pseudo-science has some historic validity.
However, I still maintain that Cruise's increasingly erratic behavior will have career-threatening consequences.
|
However, I still maintain that Cruise's increasingly erratic behavior will have career-threatening consequences.
One George S. in Baseball Is Enough...
Sayeth the GOP..., according to Hill publication Roll Call (via Drudge).
Technically, someone's political involvement shouldn't preclude them from owning a baseball team (Boss Steinbrenner is a big contributor to Republican campaigns -- and got in trouble for it during the '70s; Orioles owner Peter Angelos, a trial-lawyer is a big Democrat). However, given the precarious position baseball finds itself in with Congress over steroids and the unique antipathy Republicans have for George Soros (and vice versa), it would be foolish not to think that accepting his ownership could be truly problematic for the league.
Besides, on the merits, Sweeney is certainly right about stadium construction. One would think that after all these years, the boondoggle of public financing for stadiums would be common knowledge. Of course, DC is a special case and the city cut a deal with Major League Baseball and it must fulfill its bargain (the fact that the team is actually competitive makes that a whole lot easier to take).
|
Technically, someone's political involvement shouldn't preclude them from owning a baseball team (Boss Steinbrenner is a big contributor to Republican campaigns -- and got in trouble for it during the '70s; Orioles owner Peter Angelos, a trial-lawyer is a big Democrat). However, given the precarious position baseball finds itself in with Congress over steroids and the unique antipathy Republicans have for George Soros (and vice versa), it would be foolish not to think that accepting his ownership could be truly problematic for the league.
Besides, on the merits, Sweeney is certainly right about stadium construction. One would think that after all these years, the boondoggle of public financing for stadiums would be common knowledge. Of course, DC is a special case and the city cut a deal with Major League Baseball and it must fulfill its bargain (the fact that the team is actually competitive makes that a whole lot easier to take).
