CleverDonkey.com …Musings, Commentary, Opinions, and Drivel

I can’t quite figure out why there’s not more chatter and hubbub surrounding mad cow disease. I have theories, such as the fact that if the facts were made clear to everyone there might be massive public panic (plus the possible collapse of the commercial beef industry). For all intents and purposes, mad cow disease looks like it will be the AIDS of this century. We appear to be on the precipice of an epidemic, but nobody is talking about it.

What Is It?

Cows get something called bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), which is known informally as Mad Cow Disease. Diseased cattle can transmit the affliction to humans, where it manifests itself as something called variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD). In both cases, what happens is that malevolent particles, called prions, drill through the actual tissue of the brain, consuming grey matter and slowly eroding the function of the brain until the infected person (or cow) becomes a slobbering, staggering idiot with no memories, no higher brain functions, no voluntary (or involuntary, eventually) muscle control, no self-awareness, no nothing. In 100% of the cases the person finally becomes bedridden and then dies. Slowly. Painfully.

CJD cannot be positively diagnosed in a living person. The only way to make a diagnosis is by examining the brain of someone who has died. The brain will be riddled with holes, hence the term “spongiform”. Once you catch it, you are dead. Period.

How Do You Get It?

Humans contract CJD by eating the nerve tissue or marrow of infected cows. The disease is transmitted by particles called prions, which are an abnormal form of normal protein. Prions have the wonderful characteristic of not being alive, which means that they cannot be killed by any reasonable means, and so retain their full infectious power even in fully cooked or cured beef. I’ll repeat, you cannot cook beef to make it safe from mad cow disease. Any time you eat ground beef from the grocery store, fast food joint, or restaurant, you are playing Russian Roulette. There are no tests to determine that beef is safe before it is sold. There is no way to treat or prepare the beef to make it safe if it contains any infected nerve tissue.

Who Has It?

But who has this disease? Well, that’s almost impossible to tell, as it appears to have a long incubation period, measured in years, even decades. That means that there could be dozens, or hundreds, or thousands, or millions of infected people in the world today displaying no symptoms, unable to be diagnosed, and unable to be cured.

Why Should I Be Worried?

First of all, if you are a vegetarian, you probably have nothing to worry about (for the most part, more below the Conjectures section). Also, if you never eat ground beef from the grocery store, fast food place, or restaurant, then you’re probably okay (see Conjectures). However, if you eat ground beef (that you haven’t ground yourself from whole, muscular cuts of beef like steaks or roasts) regularly, then you are running the risk of infection. Why is it risky to eat ground beef? Well, first of all, in the US it is now legal for cattle producers to sell their sick cows to feed companies, and for those companies to process these sick and dying animals into feed protein that is fed right back into the cattle population.

Think about that for a moment. You are a cattle rancher, trying to make a profit. You see that some of your cows are feeling a bit poorly. Nothing major, but just not looking right. You know that by the time you get them to the meat processor, they will probably be so obviously sick that the processor will be forced to reject them (by law). That means you have fed, raised, and shipped the cow, and now get nothing for it, except the additional expense of trying to dispose of it. However, you have another option. At the first sign of illness you can sell your cow to a feed producer. You’ll get much less than the market value of a healthy cow, but at least you get SOMETHING for your troubles.

So, what do you think the ranchers do? They do the economically sound thing and cut their losses, that’s what they do. And pour all those wonderful, indestructible, infectious prions back into the cattle population. Legally.

So, then what is the extent of the infected cattle population? That is unknown, and currently unknowable, because most cows don’t live long enough to develop symptoms. That’s right. Any or all of the healthy looking cows that we eat could be infected, and it is undetectable.

More importantly, what is the extent of the infected human population? Again, that is not very well known, as the medical community is only recently becoming aware that some deaths previously attributed to things like Alzheimer’s disease might actually have been caused by CJD. In fact, Pittsburgh Veterans hospital did autopsies of 50 or so patients whose deaths had been classified as being due to Alzheimer’s. Upon examination, it was determined that 5% of the patients actually had CJD at the time of their deaths. Think about that statistic. That’s one out of twenty people. This study has not been widely publicized, and there have been no other publicly announced studies of this kind (that I can find as of this writing).

Okay, Now I’m Worried. But What Can I Do?

This is a tough one. My wife and I have stopped eating commercially processed ground beef, for example. We bought a meat grinder and sometimes grind up steaks or roasts to make our own hamburgers, because we still get a burger jones every now and then. The issue with commercially ground beef is that, as most of us know, hamburger is not usually made from premium cow parts. Lots of lesser parts make it into the mix, including, unfortunately, random bits and pieces of nerve tissue and marrow. Cow muscle tissue (steaks, roasts) doesn’t contain any nerve tissue, normally, and so is safer than ground beef of unknown makeup.

Conjecture

However, if one starts with the fact that prions are virtually indestructible, the issue becomes more difficult. For example, if a restaurant cooks your steak (or grilled veggies) on the same grill where a hamburger has been cooked, it’s absolutely possible that prions from the hamburger can drip onto the grill and then hitch a ride on your steak (or veggies!). Remember, cooking doesn’t kill prions or render them any less infectious. Following this logic thread makes it easy to start slipping into paranoia, but the truth is that the world should be more paranoid about this threat. NOBODY is talking about this issue. NOBODY is doing anything about it. Why is that?

Well, one reason for that may be that the powers that be know that there is nothing that can be done. It’s too late to warn people, because the meat supply has been contaminated for so long that they can’t stop it now. The people who have it, have it, and they are going to die from it, and it would serve no purpose at this point to start a panic about something for which nothing can be done.

Also, another reason you don’t hear much about this is because of what happened to Oprah Winfrey. If you recall, in 1996 Oprah had a show about mad cow where she covered some of the very same topics in this article, and suddenly found herself staring down the business end of a big old civil lawsuit brought about by the beef industry. After six years, and $1,000,000 in legal fees paid by Ms. Winfrey, the suit was dismissed. Yes, free speech won out, but it certainly wasn’t free. Now, we all know the power and influence that Oprah wields in the world, so imagine the political clout of a group that can drag her through the courts for six years, and have the whole thing end quietly and under-reported.

My personal opinion is that this problem is more widespread than the powers-that-be imagine, and the threat is certainly not being investigated nor treatments or prevention being explored to the degree necessary. If you recall the gradual public awakening to the threat of AIDS, you might find the current reaction to CJD to be eerily similar. A fatal disease spread by something that everybody does, with a long incubation period so that it becomes widespread before it is publicly acknowledged with any fervor. Delays in funding research into the detection, prevention, and cure of the disease. Widespread public ignorance as to the true nature of the disease. The consequences with AIDS are millions infected and dying around the world, and no cure in sight.

What will the toll be for mad cow?

• Leave a comment... (0)

So, I’m learning that Bernie Mac is an actual actor, in addition to being a comedic performer. We’ve watched The Bernie Mac show sporadically, and I’ve always enjoyed his performances, although I’m hot-and-cold on the show in general. He was engaging as the new Bosley in the second Charlie’s Angels movie, and in Ocean’s Eleven. I like that he seems to have doggedly kept doing his thing and waiting for the world to figure out he was talented instead of trying to remake himself or package an image that follows the trends of the day. I find his humor to be very funny and very real, and obviously derived from real life, which is where all of the truly funny material comes from.

And in Mr. 3000 he shows that he is not just a performer and a funny guy, but also an actual actor and a Hollywood star with the chops to carry a major motion picture as the lead (which he does so easily that I kept forgetting that he’d never done it before). The movie itself flirts with being a great, timeless comedy, but it’s been dumbed down just enough to make it semi-forgettable. This film could have joined films like Big and Groundhog Day in the pantheon of seriously deep comedies, but it doesn’t quite make it out of the park. It’s a long fly ball, though, and the fielder has to jump up and snag it off the wall to keep it from being a round-tripper. That fielder is the script, which has some trite, Hollywood-y parts that tarnish the potential greatness of this film.

Speaking of tarnished greatness, that about sums up Bernie Mac’s character in this film. He plays a former major league baseball player who was a big hitter, who when he gets his 3,000th hit immediately retires from baseball, leaving his club (which is involved in a tight pennant race) in the lurch. You see, he only wanted to get to 3,000 hits because he felt that would insure his eventual induction into the Hall of Fame, even though he was an unrelenting jerk to everyone (teammates, media, coaches, girlfriends, etc) all throughout his professional career.

However, after he’s been retired for 8 years he’s still not in the Hall, but it looks like this will be his year. It looks like he has the votes, finally, to achieve his dream. Unfortunately, on the eve of the final tallying, the record keepers at the Hall discover that a clerical error has accidentally given him three more hits than he actually had, meaning that he’s really just Mr. 2997. That doesn’t have quite the same ring to it, nor does it match the names of all of his post-baseball businesses, which all have “3,000” in their name to capitalize on his fame. Suffice to say that he doesn’t make the Hall (by a landslide).

He decides that what he needs to do is get back into baseball (at age 47) and get those three hits. Suffice it to say that the rest of the film is fairly standard Hollywood stuff, but with a nice ring to it. His love interest is played by Angela Basset, who, in a refreshing change of pace for Hollywood, is his age. Wow, what a concept. I send out positive vibrations to the person who made the decision to cast Ms. Basset over the Halle’s and Jada’s of the world. The soundtrack is filled with good, old, funky R&B, which sets the perfect tone for Bernie Mac’s good, old, funky character. The one false note is the Frank Sinatra tune that serves as the music for the closing credits. It rings completely false and spoils the musical mood of the rest of the film.

The film hangs somewhere between 2.5 and 3 stars, but is closer to 3 so I rounded up. The film could easily be 3 or 3.5 stars with the simple deletion of some of sappier scenes, and an ending that matched the tone of the rest of the film, but what does one expect from Hollywood anymore? The fact that this film is as good as it is means that the creative forces behind it (not the dealmakers) probably had to fight long and hard to keep in the deeper, more serious parts, and so probably had to agree to Hollywood’s idea of what this film should be (and paste in the sappier parts). I have no knowledge that this is true, but the sappy parts are so clunky when compared with the rest of the film that one is led to the conclusion that they were done involuntarily by the creative team.

All that being said, the film is still well worth the price of admission. The baseball scenes are well done, with an authentic feel, and Bernie Mac is just in barely good enough shape to be believable as an older guy making a comeback. Bernie Mac and Angela Basset are an amazingly excellent pairing with real screen chemistry. The fact that they’re both in their late 40s simply makes it all the sweeter, as it is much more interesting to me to see adults falling in love as opposed to teenagers and twenty-somethings flirting with smit. And I also can’t wait to see what Mr. Mac does next.

• Leave a comment... (0)

I used to like Denzel Washington a lot as an actor. But then he slipped into a fairly repetitive rut of playing himself in every role, and I lost interest. I didn’t see Training Day, but I heard he gave an interesting, non-Denzel-like performance. That piqued my interest in his movies again, to a certain degree. But then I heard that he was starring in a remake of The Manchurian Candidate. Now, I loved the 1964 original, and thought it was way, way ahead of its time. It was also one of those movies that (I thought) never should or would be remade, because what would the point be? How could one surpass the shocking bizarre-ness mixed with reality that caused the first one to perfectly capture Cold War paranoia? When I heard about the remake, I knew two things: first, that I would never see it, and second, that it could never measure up to the first.

Well, I was half-right. It certainly doesn’t live up to the gestalt of the first, because there’s just no way they could surpass the surprise of the movie and storyline springing into existence. But, after hearing endlessly positive buzz and reviews, I did go see it. And, I have to say, it doesn’t suck, and it is not the abomination that I was sure it would be.

The story has been updated, with the backstory occurring during the first Gulf War, and the primary story being told pretty much in the present day. The basic storyline is that during the Gulf War, a patrol of soldiers goes missing, and then turns up several days later with an amazing story about how one of them heroically and single-handedly saved them all during an attempted ambush. The “hero”, played by Liev Schreiber, is the well-born son of a powerful US Senator, played by Meryl Streep. Although he was born to the manor, he eschewed his rightful place as a moneyed magnate and volunteered for the Army just in time to ship out for the first Gulf War.

Upon his return he is nominated for, and receives, the Congressional Medal of Honor by his platoon commander (Denzel Washington). He then quickly moves up the political ladder (thanks to the maniacally Machiavillian machinations of his manipulative mother) to join his Party’s ticket as the Vice Presidential candidate.

However, all is not as it seems. After a speaking engagement, Denzel’s character is confronted by one of his former squad members, who rambles on about strange dreams of their lost days that don’t match his memory of what happened. It turns out that Denzel has been having the same dreams, and decides to approach his old (and newly politically powerful) friend (Schreiber’s character) to see if he’s been having the dreams or if he can use his political clout to try and figure out what really happened to them during their lost days.

Suffice it to say that drama and intrigue ensue. All the primary actors do excellent jobs, particularly Meryl Streep, whose Senator seems like a combination of Hilary Clinton, Joseph McCarthy, and Hitler. Denzel is very un-Denzel-like, with a sort of quiet, sour manner, and very little overt emotion of any kind. If the first film had never existed, I’d probably be giving this one another half-star, but it does derive its basic storyline, characters, and concepts from the original, so loses a few points on originality.

But, that being said, it’s still a very entertaining movie. If you haven’t seen the original, go see this one and you’ll probably enjoy it greatly. If you have seen the original, this version is still worth a look due to the good script, updated story, and strong lead performances.

• Leave a comment... (0)

So, this movie is hilarious. Mynagirl and I had a rare, footloose vacation day and indulged ourselves by attending a business-afternoon screening, attended by us and a handful of 18-22 year olds. We, and they, laughed out loud throughout the whole thing. Mind you, there are some parts that are slower and stupider than other parts, but overall this is a smart and funny film wrapped up in the guise of a stoner buddy flick.

The basic storyline follows two post-graduate, pre-maturity roommates named Harold and Kumar as they spend a weekend getting stoned, getting the munchies, and embarking on a Quixotian quest for some White Castle hamburgers. For those unfamiliar, White Castle sells tiny little square hamburgers served with diced onions on top. One (if one is me) typically eats 4-6 of these little burgers (referred to colloquially as “sliders”, because they’re small, greasy, and tasty and slide right down the gulliver) at a sitting, along with 2-3 orders of fries.

The Harold in Harold & Kumar is a Korean, twenty-something, junior investment banker. He’s smart, hard-working, and shy and likes following the rules, at least as he sees him. For instance, at one point Kumar throws the correct change into a tollbooth, but the signal does not turn green and the boys are out of change. Kumar proposes just driving off. Harold says no way, because it’s his car and he doesn’t like breaking the rules. The funny part is that while Harold is declaring his conformity, he’s also rolling a joint.

Kumar, on the other hand, is a super-smart, Indian party-boy who aced his MCATs, but purposely throws his med school admission interviews so that he can simply get high and live off of money from his dad. Kumar floats through life looking for a good time, and looking to ensure that Harold loosens his white collar over the weekend and gets back in touch with his inner stoner.

Now, at this point you might think that Harold & Kumar is simply an updated Cheech & Chong movie, but it’s not. This film, while a stoner comedy on the surface, also provides witty commentary about the lives of young, first-generation Americans who live in limbo between the gratefully hardworking ethos of their parents and the soft, slacker pace of the lives of young Americans in general. Harold and Kumar are both smarter than your average bear, and pot-smoking notwithstanding, are on track to becoming upstanding pillars of society…eventually. Their adventures in this film represent a sort of last, wild bachelor party prior to their betrothal to maturity and good citizenship.

The film has a couple of low-brow moments that I could live without, but overall it is laugh-out-loud funny throughout. John Cho (Harold) and Kal Penn (Kumar) both do excellent work embodying the conflicting facets of their characters, and I expect big things will come to both of these actors as a result of their performances here. The rest of the cast also does a good job, the direction is good, the script is snappy, some of the effects are a bit cheesy, but then again this isn’t the latest Star Wars installment (thank god). This movie is well worth the price of admission. In fact, Mynagirl and I are actually talking about going back and seeing it in the theater again this weekend. Given the backlog of unwatched movies out there that we need to get to, the fact that Harold & Kumar jumped back to the top of our list should tell you a lot.

• Leave a comment... (0)

The Bourne Supremacy is a solid, well-made, easily forgotten spy/action film. I did not notice any forehead-slap-inducing plot holes, weak dialogue, or bad effects. That immediately separates this film from virtually every single recent spy/action film that I have seen. I’m not trying to damn Bourne with faint praise, because it *is* entertaining, but it is an example of good film craftsmanship, not of artistry. Today’s standard Hollywood release is as flimsy, trendy, gimmicky, and veneered as cheap furniture from Target. Bourne, in contrast, is more solid, well-made, and substantial, like, say something from the higher end of the IKEA price spectrum. Nothing permanent or enduring, but good enough to get the job done.

The story, the sequel to The Bourne Identity, follows the continuing adventures of brainwashed-former-super-assasin-turned-amnesiac-gentle-loving-hunk Jason Bourne as he is wronged, wrongfully accused, and pulled back out into the cold. Jason doesn’t remember much about his former life, but he does know that he’s a former modern-day gunslinger who is trying to hang up his pistols and have a normal life, but the forces of evil force him to strap them on and head out for another gunfight. There’s nothing like the thirst for revenge to motivate a calculating, efficient killing machine.

The film is well acted, and I appreciated the little humanizing touches like showing Bourne sitting in his car perusing a map as he plans a getaway, something one never sees James Bond do. Overall, however, the plot just wasn’t interesting enough to involve me, and although the action sequences were intelligently done (rather than just being a series of staged set pieces and explosions), most were shot in a hyper-frenetic, blurry, way-too-close-up manner that made them nothing more than blurs of color punctuated by flashes of barely discernible detail.

So, The Bourne Supremacy is an entertaining film, well worth a standard evening ticket price, but also quickly forgotten by me with no desire to ever see it again. This puts it in the top third of recent films, but I’m grading on a big curve.

• Leave a comment... (0)

Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban is a very solid and entertaining film, with a sort of throwaway storyline, solid acting, and some eye-poppingly amazing special effects. The three main characters (Harry, Ron, and Hermione) are getting older and entering their teen years, and the film depicts this in an understated but effective way, including the subtle touch (pointed out by Mynagirl) of having them spend much less time in wizard robes and much more time in casual, everyday garb. Some new characters are introduced, some old friends make cursory appearances, and this film property is moved safely to the next installment without any missteps.

The basic storyline is that Harry and the gang are starting another new year at Hogwart’s, which is a much grayer and more forebidding place than in previous installments. You see, a crazed, murderous, lunatic wizard (Sirius Black) has escaped from Azkaban prison and is apparently headed towards Hogwart’s to deal with unfinished business involving Harry. Black’s is the first ever successful escape from Azkaban, and he is being pursued by the creepy Dementors, who are the wraith-like creatures that serve as guards at Azkaban. The Dementors set up a perimeter around Hogwart’s, knowing that sooner or later Sirius Black will make a play for Harry. The Dementors are sort of a necessary evil, as they are not exactly good guys, and their presence around Hogwart’s places a sort of deathly pall over everything. Suffice it to say that once the stage is set and the characters are introduced, everything ends up not as it seems, which has become the expectation for Harry Potter films.

Also expected are effects that are so good that you begin to lose sight of the fact that they are effects. As usual, the broom-riding and Quidditch playing are so smooth that you forget to remember that it isn’t actually happening. But this installment also introduces the Dementors, which are sort of like these silent, flying Grim Reapers that have a tendency to start sucking the soul out of anybody who happens to cross their path, and they seem to have developed a taste for Harry’s soul, for some reason.

But the most jaw-dropping effects involve another creature that’s new to this story, named Buckbeak. Buckbeak is a hippogriff, which is a half-horse, half-bird. Picture a creature the size of a horse, with the front half being a bird (including wings) and the back half being horse and you’ll begin to get the idea. Buckbeak is animated with such smooth, realistic details and movements that he really transcends the whole “special effects” classification and begins to approach magic. Buckbeak is a bit ill-tempered, but he takes a shine to Harry and gives him quite a wild flying ride.

All-in-all this is a very entertaining movie, but it also feels very much like a middle chapter. The most important things that happen are the introductions of new, key characters, and the uncovering of their apparent motivations. Having someone new as Dumbledore (Michael Gambon takes over for the late, great Richard Harris) is a bit off-putting, but Mr. Gambon does a servicable job with a reduced role. Also reduced, role-wise, is Maggie Smith as Professor McGonagall, who only has one line by my count.

Still, the movie held my attention all the way through, and I appreciated the darker, more foreboding tone of this film. I can’t wait for the next installment, but I’m also curious how they’re going to keep using the same three actors for the kid’s roles, as the films are taking longer to make than the time that is elapsing in the books. Well, maybe the special-effects wizards will figure out how to do away with the actual actors and replace them with digital magic. Abracadabra.

• Leave a comment... (0)

Troy tells the story of the siege of Troy by the Greeks, sparked by the romantic defection of Helen, wife of the king’s brother. I hope I didn’t just give too much of the plot away, but since the story has been around for thousands of years I won’t feel bad if this is the first time you’ve heard it (but you should…what do they teach in schools nowadays, anyway??). Although the story on which it is based is an incredible epic, this film version is light on substance and depth, but deep on action and melodrama. It’s not a bad film, but not really great, either, and when a film strives to tell a great story, but is not itself great, the effort rings hollow and leaves the viewer unfulfilled.

Er, unless the viewer has come to see the un-CGI-enhanced, god-like display of Brad Pitt’s new physical form. Speaking from a staunch record of unblemished heterosexuality, I still have to say…wow. The combination of Pitt’s looks, physique, and smoldering charisma make him very believable as Achilles, the greatest warrior of his day. I was heartened to hear that Mr. Pitt gave up smoking in order to be able to undertake the grueling training that was necessary for his transformation, and then equally disappointed to hear that he had taken that nasty habit back up. I will never understand smoking.

Anyway, that’s not why you called. The film contains some very good performances. As mentioned above, Brad Pitt easily embodies the role of the fearless, undefeatable mercenary Achilles. I was equally impressed with Eric Bana as Hector, one of the princes of Troy, who is also a great warrior, but also a great leader and a great (and therefore tragic) man. Brian Cox portrays Agamemnon, the king of Greece, with ferocious kingliness and believable world-domination abilities. Peter O’Toole plays Priam, the fading but still great king of Troy. Orlando Bloom sort of fades into the background as Hector’s weaker brother Paris, giving a lackluster, translucent performance (I don’t know what that means, but it sounds right).

There are also a couple of chicks in the movie, but they seem simply to be props for imperilment and/or lust, and none of the female characters have much to do, unfortunately.

The majority of the film has to do with the siege of Troy, and includes many battle scenes. While grand in scale these scenes aren’t very moving, as it is apparent that 90% of the actors, horses, boats, and chariots in each scene are CGI, which immediately takes me out of the flow of the film and into a sort of dispassionate observer role. I would have preferred the combination of a couple of hundred extras and the skill of the director to make them feel like much more, rather than this overblown pseudo-real-cartoon-ish display. The actual face-to-face confrontations are quite compelling, with everybody obeying the laws of physics (thank ye Gods) and none of the Greeks or Trojans anachronistically whipping out any kung-fu moves on anybody (thank ye Gods yet again).

All in all, Troy is an enjoyable film, but it is a trifle, and manages to tell a great and timeless tale in an unengaging and uninvolving manner. At nearly three hours you get your money’s worth, but there are some spots where things just seem to drag for no discernable reason.

For those of you interested in how the story turns out, at the end Bedevere, Launcelot, and Galahad leap out of a giant, wooden rabbit and take the French castle by surprise…

• Leave a comment... (0)

Click here to see the review of Kill Bill: Vol 1.

I have a love-hate relationship with the films and public persona of Quentin Tarantino. Part of me is overjoyed that a trumped-up, slacker video store clerk could rise to the position of big-budget, kid-in-a-candy-store auteur. For the most part, I love his writing and directing styles, and even enjoyed his acting in From Dusk Till Dawn. He sometimes edges a bit too much into self-indulgent, homage-heavy, comic-book-styled extravagance for my tastes, and he seems to revel in his celebrity a bit more than will prove healthy in the long-term, in my opinion.

However, I can’t argue with the results demonstrated in Kill Bill: Vol. 2, and its predecessor Kill Bill: Vol. 1. In both installments he takes the action and violence to a point that is not just over-the-top, but transcendent. But in Vol. 2 we also get much more of the back-story and gain a deeper understanding of the characters and their actions. In fact, there are extended moments of quietly spoken dialogue that had me on the edge of my seat as much as, and in some cases even more than, the fight/action sequences.

And the cast all give incredible performances. Uma Thurman continues her Terminatrix-like rampage, but still manages to remain a vulnerable human being. Daryl Hannah makes a brief but explosive reappearance. Michael Madsen should only work on Tarantino films, as here he shows amazing depth as Bill’s shallow brother who also has more layers than we expect. Only Quentin Tarantino would think to cast Bo Svenson (yes, *that* Bo Svenson) as a small-town, West Texas preacher. For those of you who are asking, “Who the hell is Bo Svenson??!?”……..exactly my point.

And then there’s the quirky casting of Michael Parks. If you’ve seen From Dusk Till Dawn, Parks played the Texas Ranger at the convenience store near the beginning of the film. In Kill Bill: Vol. 1 he played the small-town Texas sheriff that investigates the chapel murders. And in Kill Bill: Vol. 2 he appears, effectively but almost unrecognizably, as Bill’s 80-year-old, Mexican, adopted, pimp, daddy-figure. Where in the world did Tarantino find him, and what compelled him (rightfully) to cast him in these films? Parks’ resume reads like a history of episodic television, including roles in The Real McCoys, Gunsmoke, Perry Mason, The Alfred Hitchcock Hour, Ben Casey, Wagon Train, Route 66, Medical Center, McCloud, Get Christie Love, Police Woman, Police Story, Baretta, The Rookies, Ellery Queen, Fantasy Island, The Equalizer, Murder She Wrote, Twin Peaks, and Walker Texas Ranger. I have to hand it to Tarantino for finding and casting Parks perfectly in his roles, although I think I have just answered my own question, knowing that Tarantino was an avid TV-viewer growing up.

Which brings us to David Carradine, who plays Bill. Yes, *that* David Carradine…most famously known as the peace-loving, wisdom-imparting, ass-kicking Kwai Chang Caine from the TV series Kung Fu. The David Carradine who has (sadly, and unbeknownst to me or anyone else I know) been making one or two unheralded, unseen, unknown, low-budget films a year for the last decade or so. The David Carradine who, had you asked me before seeing him in this movie, I would have said had a career that was over and that he was hanging onto the bottom rung. The David Carradine who, given his pedigree as a former kung fu star, seemed tritely cast as the leader of a gang of martial-arts assassins in this film.

But Mr. Carradine gives a career-saving performance here. His Bill is smart, funny, wise, lucid, dangerous, powerful, and sad. In fact, even though on the surface this appears to be the story of Uma Thurman’s character, it is the nearly omnipresent, nearly omnipotent Bill who is equally the focus of the movie, even when he’s not onscreen (such as during the entire running time of Vol. 1). Although I don’t think it will happen, and I’m not even sure it should, I will not be outraged if David Carradine receives an Oscar nomination for his performance, and I will be outraged if this does not resuscitate his career.

Carradine brings just the right amount of humanity and inhumanity to the character of Bill. So much so, in fact, that at the end, after all that he has done to Beatrix (Thurman’s character, who is finally named in this installment), I was still not sure if I wanted her to kill him, leave him alive, or stay with him. Any and all of the choices are grossly imperfect, which makes The Compleat Kill Bill the perfect tragedy. This may sound overblown, but there is a near-Shakespearian feel to the inevitable-ness of the story, in retrospect.

And so, Quentin Tarantino has done it again. This movie, even though it is an homage to kung fu and spaghetti western movies, is unlike anything you’ve seen on the screen. It is original and brash, but it isn’t avant-garde or stupid (or is that redundant?). Yes, it is very violent and gross, but there are very few films where a character will get the contents of a dip cup thrown in their face (ask your redneck cousin) or have their eyeball plucked out and squashed between toes, and it doesn’t seem gratuitous. Well, this is one of those films. Make sure you see Vol. 1 before seeing this one, though, because even though Vol. 2 could stand on its own as a film, it is much more powerful if you know the goings-on from Vol. 1. Moviegoers are also in an interesting position, because you should already know if you’re going to like this film, based on the first one. If you liked Kill Bill: Vol. 1 you’ll almost assuredly like Vol. 2 as well. If you hated Vol. 1, then I doubt Vol. 2 will do much for you. If you were unsure about Vol. 1, I urge you to see Vol. 2 and then judge the whole thing together as The Compleat Kill Bill.

• Leave a comment... (0)

I went into Starsky & Hutch with lowwwwwww expectations, as I generally find myself being annoyed by Ben Stiller, I’ve been disappointed with Owen Wilson’s recent role choices, I don’t think I’ve ever liked anything that Snoop Dogg has done, and although I haven’t seen Old School, I was pretty sure I wouldn’t like it (and S&H is directed by the same guy). So, put it all together and I was sure this would be a toilet-humor-intensive schlock-fest of the worst magnitude.

Boy, was I wrong. The movie is very, very funny. Stiller and Wilson have great chemistry, Snoop makes a good Huggy Bear, and there’s even some halfway decent cop-action sequences. As a kid I watched the original TV series regularly, but I couldn’t tell you one single plot line or catch phrase from the show. However, I did remember some strange tidbits, such as how perfectly Ben Stiller captured the akimbo-ness of Starsky’s running style when chasing a suspect.

The movie also captures the gestalt of the ’70s very well, with bevies of glossy-lipped, Farrah-haired, free-love-embracing foxes, pimp daddies, muscle cars, cocaine, leisure suits, discos, and the music…man, does the movie get the music right. I shudder to think what the music budget was for this film, because they got all the good stuff, like:

Dazz – Brick

Folsom Prison Blues – Johnny Cash

Right Back Where We Started From – Maxine Nightingale

Use Me – Bill Withers

Dancing Machine – Jackson 5

That’s The Way I Like It – KC & The Sunshine Band

Don’t Give Up On Us – Owen Wilson (originally by David Soul, the original Hutch!)

Afternoon Delight – Starland Vocal Band

The story revolves around a drug lord (Vince Vaughn) who is introducing a type of cocaine that is not detectable by drug-sniffing dogs. The drug is extracted from a genetically altered coca plant, gets you just as high, and tastes like artificial sweetener. The name of this concoction? It is, of course, called “New Coke”, in a funny nod to one of the great shared cultural experiences of the 80’s.

Starsky and Hutch are paired together in that old tradition of the straight-laced, by-the-book cop (Starsky) being paired with the laid-back, rule-bending partner (Hutch) by their always angry, always shouting boss. The film also portrays Starsky and Hutch as a sort of ambiguously gay duo…not that there’s anything wrong with that…but also has the boys chasing the ladies, and even includes Hutch involved in a cocaine-fueled menage-a-trois with two cheerleaders (it’s not as seedy as it sounds).

There’s also a stunningly funny, excrutiatingly discomforting, mind-numbingly absurd cameo by Will Ferrell, where he…no, I just can’t explain it. You have to see it for yourself. I’m not a big Will Ferrell fan, so believe me when I say that his scenes alone are worth the price of admission and are, by themselves, funnier than most of the “comedies” being released by Hollywood these days.

Also watch for the nearly unrecognizable Juliette Lewis as the drug lord’s girlfriend, Chris Penn as another cop, Jason Bateman as a Gordon Gecko-ish consigliere, and Amy Smart and Carmen Electra as the aforementioned cheerleaders.

Put it all together and you have a funny, entertaining film that doesn’t stoop to cheap shots or toilet humor, and that manages to catch the feel of the 70’s and the original series while still feeling fresh and new. Kudos to all involved – this film has raised my opinion of all of you, and I can’t wait to see what you do next.

• Leave a comment... (0)

We knew next-to-nothing about this movie, except that it was written and directed by David Mamet and starred Val Kilmer. That was good enough for us, so we headed down to take in an early-evening show after work.

The film starts with no ado, and no explanation of the characters or the setting or the plot or anything. In fact, Mamet structures the story in such a way that there is almost zero exposition by any of the characters, and you have to really pay attention to understand what is going on, who the characters are, and why they are doing what they’re doing. It’s not deliberately obtuse, or anything, but you, as the viewer, are responsible for staying with the story, and what’s there is there, so if you don’t get it, you don’t get it.

Normally I don’t hesitate to talk about plot, since the marketing people behind most movies seem to delight in telling most of the story in the trailer. However, in Spartan the plot unfolds in little, begrudging steps, and a large part of my enjoyment of this film was the pleasant feeling as each new piece of the jigsaw puzzle snicked into place. But below I am going to talk about the plot, so I recommend that if you haven’t seen the film, but think you might see it, go ahead and see it, then come back here to read the rest.

************************************************************

YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!

************************************************************

**************************************************

As the movie opens, we see Val Kilmer as a vaguely military-type guy, and he appears to be observing some sort of pursuit training in a forest area. A young male recruit is chasing/tracking a young female recruit and Kilmer’s character is providing advice/encouragement/criticism. In a wonderfully unexpected turn of events, there are no romantic entanglements between any of our primary characters. It’s not that I’m anti-romance, or anything, it’s just that in virtually every other movie where a character is a young, female military recruit (or just a young female), there is an inevitable subplot involving love (or at least lust). It was refreshing here to see people able to interact without falling into bed with each other for a change.

Once the training sessions are complete, Kilmer’s character packs his duffle and climbs in his truck to head out, but instead he’s stopped, handed a message, and climbs aboard a chopper that speeds him to a situation room where it’s apparent that something bad (and big) has happened. If you haven’t already seen the film, please don’t read this part because it’s wonderful to experience the arc of the story as it is told on the screen. What’s happened is that a girl is missing, presumably an important girl given all the hubbub.

It turns out that the president’s daughter has been kidnapped, and Kilmer’s character has been brought in to find her and bring her back. It becomes clear during the film that things like Constitutional rights, the Geneva convention, and human compassion do not apply to Kilmer’s character, and he is not only licensed to kill, but to maim and torture as well. It’s not that he’s sadistic, or even out of control, but he is very driven and effective in his work.

The rest of the story will be left as an exercise for the viewer. Suffice it to say that the story twists and turns in directions that I didn’t expect, and in fact wouldn’t have even have conceived of until after I saw the film. And I love that. I love when a film (or a book, or TV show, or anything) tells a story that continues to feel realistic while it bends and twists into directions that at first seem impossible, but then makes a lightning jump from inconceivable to inevitable. And the foundation for that jump is that the story, although certainly not mundane, feels real and possible.

The script is crisp, and Val Kilmer does an excellent job embodying the character of the ruthless and effective problem solver (for the good guys [maybe!]). The direction is tight, the locations are realistic, the cinematography imparts the correct mood, and the entire package is a thoroughly enjoyable, unexpected piece of entertainment. Forget that you aren’t seeing ads for this on television, or hearing about it from your friends. Go out and find it and watch it as it is more than worth the price of admission.

• Leave a comment... (0)