Nice two-for-$10 deal at Best Buy today, with the added bonus of free tickets to see 300 (which I plan on doing opening weekend sometime). So for $21.62, I picked up:
Unforgiven (Two-disc Special Edition)
Amadeus (Director's Cut - Two-disc Special Edition)
Batman (Two-disc Special Edition)
Batman Returns (Two-disc Special Edition)
Yearly total: 5 movies, $26.06.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
TV Review: 24: 4:00pm - 5:00pm
You know that part of the day - you've been at your desk for seven or eight hours, that lunch afterglow has passed, it's hard to get going on something new but it's too early to leave....
Yeah, that's where we are now. Four o'clock.
Not a lot of Jack action here - it takes Jack about as long to get to Logan's compound as it does for him to get changed into a suit once he gets there (but how did he get a suit in his size at Logan's house? never mind, it's Jack Bauer). Unfortunately, the Morris-Chloe drunk storyline continues apace, refusing to die as I had hoped. So it's kind of sad that the best thing to come out of this episode is the likely replacement of DB Woodside's President Palmer with Powers Boothe's more sinister vice-president, for at least some period of time. Too bad it probably comes at the expense of Alexander Siddig, whose character hasn't officially bitten the dust in saving the President, but will probably be revealed next week to have been killed off and subsequently blamed for the bombing.
Next week: Jack gets busy with some clippers (ouch), and hopefully Chad Lowe's weasely deputy gets his loose end tied up - permanently.
Yeah, that's where we are now. Four o'clock.
Not a lot of Jack action here - it takes Jack about as long to get to Logan's compound as it does for him to get changed into a suit once he gets there (but how did he get a suit in his size at Logan's house? never mind, it's Jack Bauer). Unfortunately, the Morris-Chloe drunk storyline continues apace, refusing to die as I had hoped. So it's kind of sad that the best thing to come out of this episode is the likely replacement of DB Woodside's President Palmer with Powers Boothe's more sinister vice-president, for at least some period of time. Too bad it probably comes at the expense of Alexander Siddig, whose character hasn't officially bitten the dust in saving the President, but will probably be revealed next week to have been killed off and subsequently blamed for the bombing.
Next week: Jack gets busy with some clippers (ouch), and hopefully Chad Lowe's weasely deputy gets his loose end tied up - permanently.
Monday, February 26, 2007
Morning Constitutional III
Didn't stay for the whole interview, but this morning C-SPAN featured a segment with Mike Gravel. Never heard of him? That's because he is a candidate for president of the United States from the Democratic Party not named Hillary or Barack. He's apparently running mostly as a single-issue candidate - with the issue being the "national initiative", the ability of laws to be passed directly by popular vote, without having to go through representatives (i.e. Congress).
This kind of democracy is used in some states already, of course - witness the recent recall election in California - but it was explicitly rejected by the Framers as a model for the national government. It was seen (rightly, in my opinion) as too subject to the notion of mob rule and demagoguery; not that it doesn't exist now (Lord knows), but it would be on a huge scale if used nationally. It would be the "tyranny of the majority" writ large, where basically California and New York would run the entire country; Wyoming might as well pack it up and go home.
But where Gravel goes from being a man with a bad idea into idiocy is where he'd like to have the national initiative used. The interviewer asked him what measures he would have put up for a national vote first (weren't the measures supposed to arise from the public, not from the president?). His first choice: abolition of the Electoral College (which is another form of representative democracy).
Now, this guy was apparently a United States senator for twelve years, and was well-known for using parliamentary procedures (filibuster, entering into congressional record, etc.) to accomplish his goals. So this guy knows his way around the federal government.
And am I now supposed to believe that he is proposing amending the United States Constitution strictly on a popular vote? Because that is what abolition of the Electoral College would entail.
But that's not all. He also wants to use national initiative to change the federal tax system to a consumption tax, specifically the Fair Tax. As it happens, I right now tend to be in favor of such a change (don't know all the pluses or minuses, but so far the pluses outweigh the minuses in my view). However, this again requires a change to the Constitution to enact, and he plans on doing it by popular vote. Bad idea (which makes me all the sadder that the Fair Tax might come to be associated with this guy).
It's hard to get too much of a boost in the morning by listening to a marginal candidate like this, but it's better than nothing. Gravel, you are an idiot, the time you received on C-SPAN this morning is far more attention than you deserve. Go away, so we can get back to our Obamamania.
This kind of democracy is used in some states already, of course - witness the recent recall election in California - but it was explicitly rejected by the Framers as a model for the national government. It was seen (rightly, in my opinion) as too subject to the notion of mob rule and demagoguery; not that it doesn't exist now (Lord knows), but it would be on a huge scale if used nationally. It would be the "tyranny of the majority" writ large, where basically California and New York would run the entire country; Wyoming might as well pack it up and go home.
But where Gravel goes from being a man with a bad idea into idiocy is where he'd like to have the national initiative used. The interviewer asked him what measures he would have put up for a national vote first (weren't the measures supposed to arise from the public, not from the president?). His first choice: abolition of the Electoral College (which is another form of representative democracy).
Now, this guy was apparently a United States senator for twelve years, and was well-known for using parliamentary procedures (filibuster, entering into congressional record, etc.) to accomplish his goals. So this guy knows his way around the federal government.
And am I now supposed to believe that he is proposing amending the United States Constitution strictly on a popular vote? Because that is what abolition of the Electoral College would entail.
But that's not all. He also wants to use national initiative to change the federal tax system to a consumption tax, specifically the Fair Tax. As it happens, I right now tend to be in favor of such a change (don't know all the pluses or minuses, but so far the pluses outweigh the minuses in my view). However, this again requires a change to the Constitution to enact, and he plans on doing it by popular vote. Bad idea (which makes me all the sadder that the Fair Tax might come to be associated with this guy).
It's hard to get too much of a boost in the morning by listening to a marginal candidate like this, but it's better than nothing. Gravel, you are an idiot, the time you received on C-SPAN this morning is far more attention than you deserve. Go away, so we can get back to our Obamamania.
Saturday, February 24, 2007
Movie Review: The Myth
I had reviewed Jackie Chan's most recent film, Rob-B-Hood, a little while ago. Last night I watched his previous Chinese-produced film, 2005's The Myth. This is kind of an odd film for Chan - it is partly a period piece, with Chan playing an Imperial general tasked with guarding his concubine-to-be, and then later falling in love with her. But while he's done lots of period pieces before, I don't really recall him doing this specific kind, with large armies, lots of archers, broad swords and so on. I'm recalling more colonial-era settings than imperial-era.
But that's only half of the film. The other half is set in contemporary times, where Chan plays an archaeologist investigating a tribe that seems to have mastered anti-gravity. His character does just about as much archeology here as he did back in the Operation Condor films - that is to say, not much - but this film is played relatively straight, without the goofiness of the earlier works. The link between the two eras is that the modern character is haunted by dreams of the historical character, and the two storylines end up merging by the end of the film as the tribe turns out to have connections to the Imperial-era characters.
This was kind of a frustrating film, in retrospect. The film jumps back and forth between the two timelines, and those transitions are actually handled pretty well. But each individual storyline has problems. The imperial era story just wasn't very interesting - the soldier tasked with guarding the emporer's woman isn't exactly the most original plotline, and pales in comparison with the more complex relationships in films like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon or House Of Flying Daggers. Also, Chan's fight scenes in this timeline were either not very interesting (mostly involving wild broad sword swinging) or embarassingly bad (as described later).
Another problem with both timelines was their disjointedness. About two-thirds of the way through the film, each storyline decided to take a sudden jump. The imperial-era storyline decided to jump away from the romance angle to turn into a court-intrigue/betrayal plot. Meanwhile, the modern era storyline abandons the mystic-training plot it had been developing and decides to introduce a new bad guy out of nowhere. These plot jumps were not handled well in either case, and served to kind of throw out a lot of what came before.
Of course, one can argue that plotlines are not usually the strength of Jackie Chan films anyway - what about the action? Well, while I didn't get much out of the imperial-era fight scenes, the modern era scenes were mostly entertaining. In particular, an early fight set in a tomb between Jackie and two guards (and Jackie's bumbling companion William) showed lots of the little touches I really like - Jackie's almost casual disarming of his opponents spears and swords, his self-induced injuries with the swinging sword, William's alternately helping and hurting Jackie's efforts. Another fine scene occurs on a sticky surface, causing the competitors to gradually disrobe as their clothing gets stuck down to the mat.
This film also uses perhaps the most computer-generated and wire-assisted work I've seen in a Jackie Chan film. Some of it works very well - the concluding scenes, set in a floating temple and involving a zero-gravity fight, is generally well-done, looking good and providing interest, if not a lot of intricate fighting. But there are some CGI scenes early in the film, set in the imperial era, that are just embarrassingly bad. In particular, there are some horse kicks that are about the worst use of CGI and blue-screen I've seen since James Bond went surfing in Die Another Day. The fact that they show up almost immediately in the film gave the movie a lot to overcome during the rest of its run.
I know this review has sounded really negative, and it's probably more negative than I intend it to sound. As I said, the film got off to a mixed start with some dodgy effect work, but there are definitely more worthwhile action moments later on. I guess it's good to see Jackie try something different in terms of plot, but in this case, the story experimentation just didn't quite work out. I'm going to give this a middling three stars for the later action scenes, but I do wish they had worked out a little better how the whole thing was going to fit together.
But that's only half of the film. The other half is set in contemporary times, where Chan plays an archaeologist investigating a tribe that seems to have mastered anti-gravity. His character does just about as much archeology here as he did back in the Operation Condor films - that is to say, not much - but this film is played relatively straight, without the goofiness of the earlier works. The link between the two eras is that the modern character is haunted by dreams of the historical character, and the two storylines end up merging by the end of the film as the tribe turns out to have connections to the Imperial-era characters.
This was kind of a frustrating film, in retrospect. The film jumps back and forth between the two timelines, and those transitions are actually handled pretty well. But each individual storyline has problems. The imperial era story just wasn't very interesting - the soldier tasked with guarding the emporer's woman isn't exactly the most original plotline, and pales in comparison with the more complex relationships in films like Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon or House Of Flying Daggers. Also, Chan's fight scenes in this timeline were either not very interesting (mostly involving wild broad sword swinging) or embarassingly bad (as described later).
Another problem with both timelines was their disjointedness. About two-thirds of the way through the film, each storyline decided to take a sudden jump. The imperial-era storyline decided to jump away from the romance angle to turn into a court-intrigue/betrayal plot. Meanwhile, the modern era storyline abandons the mystic-training plot it had been developing and decides to introduce a new bad guy out of nowhere. These plot jumps were not handled well in either case, and served to kind of throw out a lot of what came before.
Of course, one can argue that plotlines are not usually the strength of Jackie Chan films anyway - what about the action? Well, while I didn't get much out of the imperial-era fight scenes, the modern era scenes were mostly entertaining. In particular, an early fight set in a tomb between Jackie and two guards (and Jackie's bumbling companion William) showed lots of the little touches I really like - Jackie's almost casual disarming of his opponents spears and swords, his self-induced injuries with the swinging sword, William's alternately helping and hurting Jackie's efforts. Another fine scene occurs on a sticky surface, causing the competitors to gradually disrobe as their clothing gets stuck down to the mat.
This film also uses perhaps the most computer-generated and wire-assisted work I've seen in a Jackie Chan film. Some of it works very well - the concluding scenes, set in a floating temple and involving a zero-gravity fight, is generally well-done, looking good and providing interest, if not a lot of intricate fighting. But there are some CGI scenes early in the film, set in the imperial era, that are just embarrassingly bad. In particular, there are some horse kicks that are about the worst use of CGI and blue-screen I've seen since James Bond went surfing in Die Another Day. The fact that they show up almost immediately in the film gave the movie a lot to overcome during the rest of its run.
I know this review has sounded really negative, and it's probably more negative than I intend it to sound. As I said, the film got off to a mixed start with some dodgy effect work, but there are definitely more worthwhile action moments later on. I guess it's good to see Jackie try something different in terms of plot, but in this case, the story experimentation just didn't quite work out. I'm going to give this a middling three stars for the later action scenes, but I do wish they had worked out a little better how the whole thing was going to fit together.
And Sure Enough...
Just as soon as I post about the tendency of Democrats to obscure their legitimate arguments with wild hyperbole...
Senator Barack Obama appeared in Austin Friday in front of an estimated 15000 fans as part of a fund raiser/campaign speech. Our local news station covered the stop, and here is the photo they ran with the story:
It could have been a photo to show the large crowds that showed up or the fervor that he stirred up. Instead, the first thing that jumps out at me is the large "Investigate 9/11" sign, immediately beside Obama. It is really the intent of the left in this country to want to associate the man who is probably their best shot at getting a true left-wing candidate in the White House (Hillary sways in the wind too much between left-wing and center-left to really count) with the whackjobs that think that the evil Bush-Cheney-Rove-Halliburton-Isreal axis brought down the Twin Towers on purpose? Because that is exactly what this image does.
They just can't help themselves. God help us all if they do get their hands on real power.
Senator Barack Obama appeared in Austin Friday in front of an estimated 15000 fans as part of a fund raiser/campaign speech. Our local news station covered the stop, and here is the photo they ran with the story:
It could have been a photo to show the large crowds that showed up or the fervor that he stirred up. Instead, the first thing that jumps out at me is the large "Investigate 9/11" sign, immediately beside Obama. It is really the intent of the left in this country to want to associate the man who is probably their best shot at getting a true left-wing candidate in the White House (Hillary sways in the wind too much between left-wing and center-left to really count) with the whackjobs that think that the evil Bush-Cheney-Rove-Halliburton-Isreal axis brought down the Twin Towers on purpose? Because that is exactly what this image does.
They just can't help themselves. God help us all if they do get their hands on real power.
Friday, February 23, 2007
A Seethe Too Far
UrbanGrounds has a post discussing the left's outrage over plans for a Democratic presidential candidate debate to be held on Fox News. Among all the usual seething, boycotts and "Important Action Items" (you know, like the kind that "saved" Amanda Marcotte and, umm, the other one) comes this interesting bit (emphasis mine):
I see this as a typical problem on both sides of the aisle, but since I am of the right, I obviously see it happening more on the left. They overreach. They just can't help themselves.
Look, the argument that a Democratic debate would not get a fair shake on Fox News is at least capable of being discussed. It fails, in my view - for example, Fox News held Democratic presidential debates in 2003 and in 2004 without any kind of noticeable adverse affect on the campaign. But it is at least a rational position.
The position that Fox News is not "a legitimate news organization", however, is irrational. Lots of people feel (with evidence) that Fox News generally has an editorial slant that is more conservative that most other news groups. I feel that there is an obvious editorial slant (to the left) for most other news outlets (CBS, ABC, MSNBC in particular). Having a slant is not the same as not being a legitimate news organization.
What makes a news outlet "illegitimate"? Alternet, which published the above charge, claims on its website that it is
What makes Alternet a "legitimate news source"? What makes them more legitimate than Fox News? Fox News is obviously a legitimate news organization, and claiming they aren't simply makes the more rational parts of the left's arguments look worse by association.
If you want to make an argument, make your best argument - don't start throwing around extremist claims, conspiracy theories and the like. They just water down your position. If your point has merit, it will be considered.
Petition campaigns are under way, aimed at the Nevada Democrats and the DNC, applying serious heat to drop Fox’s control of the event because it is not a legitimate news organization.
I see this as a typical problem on both sides of the aisle, but since I am of the right, I obviously see it happening more on the left. They overreach. They just can't help themselves.
Look, the argument that a Democratic debate would not get a fair shake on Fox News is at least capable of being discussed. It fails, in my view - for example, Fox News held Democratic presidential debates in 2003 and in 2004 without any kind of noticeable adverse affect on the campaign. But it is at least a rational position.
The position that Fox News is not "a legitimate news organization", however, is irrational. Lots of people feel (with evidence) that Fox News generally has an editorial slant that is more conservative that most other news groups. I feel that there is an obvious editorial slant (to the left) for most other news outlets (CBS, ABC, MSNBC in particular). Having a slant is not the same as not being a legitimate news organization.
What makes a news outlet "illegitimate"? Alternet, which published the above charge, claims on its website that it is
an award-winning news magazine and online community that creates original journalism
What makes Alternet a "legitimate news source"? What makes them more legitimate than Fox News? Fox News is obviously a legitimate news organization, and claiming they aren't simply makes the more rational parts of the left's arguments look worse by association.
If you want to make an argument, make your best argument - don't start throwing around extremist claims, conspiracy theories and the like. They just water down your position. If your point has merit, it will be considered.
Thursday, February 22, 2007
TV Review: Lost: Stranger In A Strange Land
"...and then I suddenly lost interest."
Season 3 of Lost has been a real disappointment, and this episode is a good reason why. After what, 8 or 9 episodes, we've still learned nothing about the Others. For last season's big mystery, the scope of Dharma on the island, we didn't get a lot of answers, but at least we were getting more information. This season, the big mystery is the Others, and we are just standing still. For this episode, we get a new character, the "sheriff" Isabelle, and the return of a briefly-seen character, the stewardess. But we also get no new information about what they are doing. Alcatraz is just "where they work", but the only things we've seen them do is put Sawyer and Kate to work turning big rocks into little rocks, and holding mock trials. (And apparently, they've got a whole quasi-legal system set up amongst themselves?) Do they actually do anything?
They're still "the good guys", right Ben?
Frankly, this episode is the one where I switch sides - I'm still watching, but I'm ready for the show to end. They will have to sell me on a Season 4.
And for God's sake, bring on The Shield!
Season 3 of Lost has been a real disappointment, and this episode is a good reason why. After what, 8 or 9 episodes, we've still learned nothing about the Others. For last season's big mystery, the scope of Dharma on the island, we didn't get a lot of answers, but at least we were getting more information. This season, the big mystery is the Others, and we are just standing still. For this episode, we get a new character, the "sheriff" Isabelle, and the return of a briefly-seen character, the stewardess. But we also get no new information about what they are doing. Alcatraz is just "where they work", but the only things we've seen them do is put Sawyer and Kate to work turning big rocks into little rocks, and holding mock trials. (And apparently, they've got a whole quasi-legal system set up amongst themselves?) Do they actually do anything?
They're still "the good guys", right Ben?
Frankly, this episode is the one where I switch sides - I'm still watching, but I'm ready for the show to end. They will have to sell me on a Season 4.
And for God's sake, bring on The Shield!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)