February 2009

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28

The errors of definitions multiply themselves according as the reckoning proceeds; and lead men into absurdities, which at last they see but cannot avoid, without reckoning anew from the beginning.

-Thomas Hobbes

August 11, 2008

Does Hollywood support violent cartels of illegal immigrants defiling US national forests?

Yes, according to US Drug Czar John Walters:

“Illegal immigrants connected to Mexico's drug cartels are growing hundreds of millions of dollars worth of marijuana in the heart of one of America's national treasures, authorities say. It's a booming business that, federal officials say, feeds Mexico's most violent drug traffickers."

"People who farm now are not doing this for laughs, despite the fact Hollywood still thinks that.”

Hollywood still thinks that? Mr. Walters, the Corsican Brothers was a quarter century ago. Rumors of a Cheech and Chong reunion notwithstanding, I think the Drug Czar sounds very, very out of touch. Hollywood (like most of America) may not think it’s a big deal to grow a little bit of recreational marijuana and get high occasionally, but Hollywood is also known for being very environmentalist. While I haven’t heard any official Hollywood spokespersons discussing the issue, I suspect that the entertainers Mr. Walters is talking about are as a group fairly protective of national forests, and wouldn’t like international cartels using them for anything (including commercial cannabis farms). This is a bit different from this (NSFW language warning). Equating the two seems about as silly as, well, that second clip I just linked.

A quick aside on my comment that most of America doesn’t think that recreational use is a big deal: A CNN poll a few years back showed that 80% of Americans support decriminalizing medicinal marijuana. I couldn’t find a poll stating what percentage of Americans favor decriminalization for recreational use, but reports indicate that 25% of Americans admit to having used marijuana before, and that same CNN poll showed that only 19% of Americans support jailing recreational pot smokers. 72% favored fines over jail. And given that the difference between a fine and a tax is largely a matter of the participation rate, I find it hard to believe that most Americans would be upset to see recreational marijuana legalized, regulated, and taxed.

But all of this is beside my main point, which is that I think Mr. Walters was off base to invoke Hollywood as somehow feeding the problem. Am I wrong?

If Hollywood and Washington were ever to cooperate on these issues as Mr Walters implores them to do, I would hope that the goal might be decriminalization. To quote Robert Guest of the NORML legal committee,

Last time I checked Mexican drug cartels were not using illegal immigrants to growing tobacco, or run moonshine stills. If you are really want to end these drug cartel pot farms in national parks, legalize pot.

And I hope you know this old tune, and can join me in the chorus:

Replacing marijuana prohibition with a system of taxation and regulation similar to that used for alcoholic beverages would produce combined savings and tax revenues of between $10 billion and $14 billion per year, finds a June 2005 report by Dr. Jeffrey Miron, visiting professor of economics at Harvard University.

The report has been endorsed by more than 530 distinguished economists, who have signed an open letter to President Bush and other public officials calling for "an open and honest debate about marijuana prohibition," adding, "We believe such a debate will favor a regime in which marijuana is legal but taxed and regulated like other goods."

Chief among the endorsing economists are three Nobel Laureates in economics: Dr. Milton Friedman of the Hoover Institute, Dr. George Akerlof of the University of California at Berkeley, and Dr. Vernon Smith of George Mason University.

You don’t need to be a Nobel Laureate in economics to realize that the War on (some) Drugs is a failure. It is not only based on an immoral premise that what I inhale, inject, or ingest is the legitimate business of the government. It is also grossly impractical. It doesn’t work, and that’s not some piece of Hollywood fiction.

Costly and ineffective. That's a poor track record compared to Cheech and Chong's body of work. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Mr. Walters.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

June 27, 2007

Bruce Willis: The Man, the Myth, The Actor

So in honor of the upcoming release of Live Free or Die Hard, I really began to look at Bruce Willis as an actor and I made an interesting discovery. While many of you may not quite agree with the assessment that he is an "underrated actor" or that he should be garnering Oscar awards sometime soon, I am of the believe that he is an underrated actor, and has the capabilities to obtain an Oscar, if he really wanted one.

Quick, let's do some word association. If I were to say to you: Harrison Ford, what are the first words or images in your mind? Han Solo? Indiana Jones? Drunk guy sleeping with a coat hanger? What about if I were to say Bruce Willis? What do you think of first? Action hero? Die Hard? "I see dead people"? While Bruce has made his money (and his big name) from doing the big action films, he has earned his acting ranks while being in the smaller films that are not exactly action packed. Do you remember him wearing a bunny suit, a la Christmas Story, in a film? I do. Let's see Tom Cruise pull that off.

The debate whether Bruce is a great actor or not is not what I would really like to focus on though. Remember that interesting discovery I mentioned? You know, the one that is all of two paragraphs above this one? You probably don't remember, but that's cool, I will help you. If one were to go back and do an overview study of the types of characters that Bruce likes to play they can be categorized fairly simply with this handle:

"Reluctant, tortured hero."

Three words, and you have the type of character that not only does Bruce play often, but plays very, very well.

Think about what makes John Maclane such an appealing and wonderful character. This is a man who is put in bad situations not by choice, and certainly does not want to deal with them, but he does deal with them, despite his own personal feelings. In Die Hard, what does John try to do first? He goes up higher in the building and tries to summon help. The fire department, the police, anyone. He would have been very happy to have the LAPD come in and clean up the mess. However, that would not have made a very interesting movie, and John had to deal with those bad guys all on his own. That same philosophy carried through the rest of the trilogy and appears to be maintained in the fourth installment.

What makes John such a great character to root for is that he is not superman, not an "Ahnold" action movie clone, he is just a cop from New York in the wrong place at the wrong time. He fights against the odds and has something that we don't see too often: fear. How can you not root for someone like that? He gets lucky, uses some smarts, and a maintains a whole lot of balls to get through the troubles he gets into.

Now take the "Reluctant, tortured hero" character and apply to other films that he has done, and you will see that same quality in those characters as well. Granted, not every film he has done fits this mold, but more of them do than you think would.

The first film to really take this into account would be Hudson Hawk (1991). Bruce plays an ex-con who only wants to live a normal live and have a Latte. He is instead coerced into the proverbial "one more job" and off we go.

Or look at The Last Boy Scout (1991). The character in this film may as well have been John Maclane, as similar as they were. Bruce plays a private detective who used to be a Secret Service agent for the President and took a bullet for the Pres. He was relieved of duty because he was guarding a sleazy politician who was beating up young girls and Bruce beat the hell out of him. The character becomes a drunk and falls off the radar until...you guessed it, he is brought into a series of events (against his will and wishes, gasp!) and must deal with the issues on his own.

You get the idea now, he is really good at these characters. Other films that fit this mold are Pulp Fiction, Twelve Monkeys, Last Man Standing, The Fifth Element (John Maclane in space), Armageddon, The Sixth Sense (a bit of a stretch, but still falls within the definition), Unbreakable (this one is THE definition of reluctant hero. In this one he actually has super powers and doesn't want to use them), Tears of the Sun, Sin City, and even Grind House.

There are elements of this character types in other films that he does, but the above films really match that mold. So I then put it to you, dear reader, who plays this type of character better than Bruce? Let me expand on that a bit further, who plays the character better, and for such a long time, as Bruce? Please note that I am not saying that the characters in each film are just cookie cutters of the other (despite my jokes about "Maclane in Space") as I believe the characters do have enough differences to make them unique. It is the character type I am focusing on here. If I had to pick one actor who could be close (damn close) to playing an excellent reluctant hero I would pick Clint Eastwood. That's a good choice, right?

Well then, there you have it. I did it, I put it out there. Clint Eastwood and Bruce Willis, in the same sentence, in terms of acting.

Would you have believed it? I would not have either, until I really thought about it. Yet when the term "(insert adjective here) actor of our time" is thrown about, is Bruce ever at the end of it? I have not heard it, at all. Should it be? Absolutely. Without a doubt. You may or may not agree with me, but if you are still reading this, then chances are you are a fan of Bruce as well, and it is about time that he begins to get credit where credit is due. Not as an action hero, but as an actor, plain and simple.

Bruce Willis, the actor. Kind of funny sounding at first, but at its core, that is how it should be.

Posted by Boon | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

February 1, 2007

Because it's That Time of the Year...

I think everybody has a favorite line. What's yours?

Posted by Wulf | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

October 17, 2006

Movies and Race

I suppose I should be grateful, should consider the black male's cinematic promotion from corpse to eunuch to represent progress. In the long run, some say, the passage of time, and the cultural and genetic intermingling of the American melting pot are more likely to cure these ills than any amount of activism or finger-pointing.

Steven Barnes is an author/screenwriter. He's black, and he's watching for how black men are portrayed in movies. Hey, I just found it to be an interesting article.

So, what percentage of the movie-going population are white men? Enough that it would "bomb" a movie where a black man had a love scene? I just don't buy it. And I suspect that the thought process that brought Barnes to this commentary is at least part of the problem.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

October 9, 2006

Flags of our Fathers / Letters from Iwo Jima

Have you ever seen one trailer for two movies?

I saw a commercial today for the movie Flags of our Fathers, which is due to be released on Oct 20. Seeing that it is directed by Clint Eastwood, I was intrigued and looked it up on line. According to Wikipedia,

Eastwood is also directing a complementary film on the battle from the Japanese viewpoint. Titled Letters from Iwo Jima, it is currently in post-production and is set to be released sometime in December, approximately two months after the release of Flags of Our Fathers.

Now this sounds excellent. Looking at the cast of Letters from Iwo Jima, I note Ken Watanabe is General Tadamichi Kuribayashi in both films. Several minor parts also appear in both films. Released only a couple months apart, eh?

Cleverly, there is a trailer that advertises for both movies simultaneously. Unfortunately, most of it is in Japanese. I’d like to see a version of it released in English, but until then, here is the Japanese version.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

July 28, 2006

But Why do the Ants Speak English?

According to Washington Post movie reviewer Stephen Hunter, the movie The Ant Bully is both good and bad.

The way in which the movie is good is that it an allegory that shows us that God is just a bully, and communism is beautiful. Good luck with selling that in the red states.

The bad news, according to Hunter, is that the movie is an allegory against American wars and imperialism. The United States of America is a bumbling exterminator. That’s right, an exterminator. Let it sink in.

I am yet again fascinated that Hollywood and movie reviewers are able to seem at odds with one another, and manage to be both sides out of touch with most Americans. It is, frankly, artful.

Posted by Wulf | Comments (4) | TrackBack (0)

November 22, 2005

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire Review

First and foremost let me start out by saying that I have not read the Harry Potter books. I have always meant to do so, but have not had a chance yet. I realize that by only seeing the movies and not reading the books I am missing out on a huge piece of the entire Potter experience. Therefore, I am basing this review on my knowledge of Harry and the gang off of what I have seen on the big screen. For better or worse, please keep that in mind as I review this film.

It is my belief that "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire" was the best one by far. It was not a short film at 2.5 hours, but the time went by very quickly and you actually felt like it needed to be longer, because there were so many storylines they could have gotten into.

The fourth movie picks up at the beginning of the fourth year for our main characters at Hogwarts Academy. Nothing new here, as each film starts with the beginning of the school year, and pretty much ends with the ending of the school year. Most reviews will go into story synopsis and plot lines and give out spoilers. I do not intend to that here. Instead, I will explain the reasons why I liked the film, and talk about a few shortcomings the film had. Don't worry, no major flaws that I saw, but those that read the book might certainly think otherwise.

I enjoyed the film because it had a mixture of elements that make up a good film. It had an engaging storyline, memorable characters, and of course humor. It was also perhaps the darkest of the four films at times (though the third film was certainly a dark film in its own right). Harry and Ron and Hermione are another year older, and being in their early teens they are dealing not only with the issues of being students, but also of becoming young adults. The film touches on the troubles that kids have at that age, and our heroes must cope with these issues as well as the usual bad guys trying to ruin their bid for a fifth movie. Oddly enough, I felt that it was Hermione and Ron that reflected the changes the most of being a year older. Harry was too busy keeping himself alive to really show those changes. Harry does have a few good moments in regards to trying to get a date for a dance, but the relationship between Ron and Hermione takes a different twist, and of course humor follows. Ron's twin older brothers play a bigger role in this film (for comedic purposes) and I truly enjoyed their parts.

A Harry Potter movie would not be complete without special effects and some nifty stunts, and the fourth film does not disappoint. While the first movie played to its audiences the newness of all the magic, the fourth movie had to use a new hook to keep us in. By now we are all used to the oddness of the world and the magic that comes with it. The fourth film doesn't really break any new ground in that regard, but it does introduce the Quiddich World Cup and the Tri-Wizards Challenge, and those storylines were worth watching. We were also introduced to a few new characters that will leave their mark for us Potter movie-goers.

The final aspect that I truly liked about the film was the underlying "coming of age" theme that we see throughout. The tagline of the film is simply "Everything is going to change" and by the end of the film you can see why. Not only have things changed in terms of the main storyline (Potter vs. He we cannot name) as well as the storyline of their lives themselves. The main characters have been together four years, and while they are quite familiar with each other they also realize that as they get older many things about themselves are going to change. It is all pretty much summed up when Hermione utters the movie's tagline during the film that really makes you aware that they are aware of changes to come. Growing up is a very difficult process, whether you be a magician or a muggle, and I liked how we got to see a human side of our characters for a change in this regard.

If I had any complaints about the film, they would be only small ones. The world of Potter has grown enormous, and by the fourth movie we have many characters to deal with, and new ones being added as well. What this means is that, even at 2.5 hours, there is just not enough time to visit with each character properly. In the first film we got a heavy does of Harry and Ron and Hermione, and learned about the other players at Hogwarts. Each successive film added new characters, and by the fourth the screen time was overcrowded. This is where the books have the real advantage over the movie. Hagrid does not have enough screen time, in my own opinion, though the time he is on the screen is a lot of fun. Even Professor Snape needs more time, because he is great whenever we get to see him. That blonde-haired weasel kid? Didn't really get to see much of him in the fourth film at all. There are a handful of new characters introduced, and the movie really does not get into much depth with them at all. Granted, their presence was important to the overall plot, and they will be memorable, but they only served to dilute the screen time for the body of characters in general.

I find myself torn over how I feel about my next issue. Harry Potter, as a character, is a great character. Harry Potter, as a wizard however, leaves a lot to be desired.

On the one hand, Harry Potter hasn't really done too much to impress us as a wizard. We all know that Hermione would kick his wizard butt any day of the week if she had to. It seems that Harry has the fortune of being a living legend and gets out of his troubles through the help of those around him and a lot of good luck. In the fourth film you just kept waiting for Harry to finally do something that makes you say "well there you go, so now he is the Wizard we all thought he was" and he does have a flash of a moment to show that. Still, I found myself sometimes wondering how many times his friends would save him or he would get a lucky turn of events to save him, when it is clear that he should be (by now) more than capable of saving himself.

On the other hand, having Harry not being a blaster in the fourth film shows that he still has much work to do. Harry truly has the Peter Parker syndrome. He wants to be a normal boy and though he may have great power doesn't know really how to use it, and often times stumbles over his own feet because of that. It seems as though Harry is being carefully groomed for that one moment when he finally does break bad, and for as much as people have been anticipating that moment, it should be spectacular. Keeping Harry normal, average even, makes him very much human, and very much a sympathetic character.

One must also point out that this film is rated PG-13. I think that kids overall will not have a problem, but perhaps the truly younger ones might. It does have some very scary moments, and while most of the time the threats, while scary, are not too serious, there are a few times where the threats are very real. Be prepared for some nightmares if you bring young ones to this film. I would say it is still a great family film, and one worthy of kicking off the holiday season. If you have been a fan of the Potter films then no doubt you need to see this.

Posted by Boon | Comments (2) | TrackBack (1)