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

First of all, after seeing this movie I think that it would be great for its two stars (Jack Nicholson and Adam Sandler) to make more movies together. This movie has an interesting story, an uneven script, workmanlike direction, and solid lead performances. In fact, Sandler and Nicholson fully inhabit their roles and play off one another with humorous edginess.

Without revealing too much, the storyline progresses a bit differently than I expected given what was shown in the trailers, but it’s not wildly different. Plus, this is a light comedy, so the story is just the framework for the humor, for the most part. The script ranges from hilarious and witty to juvenile and weak, but there’s a touch more hilarious wittiness than there is juvenile weakness, and overall I enjoyed the film.

But the weak, juvenile parts of the script make me want to know which of these is true:

1. Artless studio executives force crude, tasteless “humor” into otherwise witty, intelligent scripts because they think it adds an “edge” that will bring in some highly coveted demographic.

2. Pragmatic screenwriters know that their script won’t sell (or will be butchered by artless studio executives) if it doesn’t contain some crudeness, so they add it themselves in an attempt to control the awfulness of it.

3. Times and tastes have changed, and I’m now entering my “cantankerous old fart” phase.

My guess is that it’s a combination of all three. From my viewpoint, if you were to take out the anatomical and bodily-function “humor”, and were to make the ending just a bit more believable (I’m not asking for realistic, just as believable as the rest of the movie), this movie would have rated 3 to 3.5 stars. As it stands, though, it’s sort of a Frankenstein’s monster with parts from Waterboy, Happy Gilmore, The Wedding Singer, and As Good As It Gets. And not just the good parts.

• Leave a comment... (0)

Currently seven Houston locations.

Houston has a plethora of great sit-down, fine-dining restaurants, and also has the requisite number of fast-food chains and Chiligan Fridays-type establishments. Easily lost in this cornucopia is Beck’s Prime. From the outside it looks sort of chain-y and fast food-y. From the inside it sort of looks like a burger joint. But the reality is something completely different and unexpected.

Yes, the ambiance is fast food (no table service), but the food, while not fancy, is composed of astonishingly fresh, tasty, and well-prepared ingredients. My particular favorite is the swordfish sandwich. I like to get it with a side of wild rice. Marie likes to get the veggie burger with a side of grilled veggies (which are actually flame-grilled and tasty). You won’t find any of that on a 99 cent menu. Beck’s also has an array of Angus steaks and chicken dishes, all available at the counter or the DRIVE THROUGH! Yes, you can drive through Beck’s on your way home from work and show up at home with some delicious rib-eyes cooked to order.  The french fries are freshly sliced and fried potatoes, not chopped/formed. The milkshakes are sinfully delicious, guaranteed to contain 10% butterfat. And it all comes at very reasonable prices (higher than fast food, but lower than sit-down).

It’s actually taken us a while to get into the groove with Beck’s. When we would eat on the cheap or need super-fast service, we would opt for traditional fast food. When we wanted better food or service we would opt for traditional sit-down dining. Also, none of their seven locations is right nearby (although they aren’t really far away, either, just not as convenient as fast-food). But every time we would go there we would simply be amazed the great food, good prices, and superbly knowledgeable/efficient/polite/helpful/friendly staff. So now we make it a point to spend the few extra minutes in the car, and spend the few extra dollars on the food to bypass the fast-food grind to have a MEAL, and not just some food. Beck’s fills a perfect niche in our dining repertoire, and they continue to move up in the rotation by always providing consistently fresh, delicious, reasonably-priced food. Give them a try.

• Leave a comment... (0)

Where to begin with this one. First of all, I was a faithful viewer of The Gong Show, created by Chuck Barris. I thought it was hilarious. For those of you who don’t know the show, the shtick was that rather ordinary people of (usually) limited talent would come onstage and perform their act, which could be anything from eating a popsicle in a lascivious manner to performing some (quite good) jug band music, and anything in between (and beyond) that you can think of. Picture Letterman’s Stupid Human Tricks extended to a half-hour show (coincidentally Letterman was a Gong Show judge at one point). Chuck Barris (Chuckie Baby) was the emcee, and there was a panel of three minor celebrities who would either a) “gong” the contestant, which indicated that their act was no longer bearable or b) give the act a score. At the end of the show the contestant with the most points won a few bucks.

There are those who felt that The Gong Show mocked or humiliated the contestants, but unless you lived under a rock you knew that it was quid pro quo…you did your stupid/embarrassing/pathetic “act” and Chuckie Baby would put you on the air for your 37 seconds of fame. It was win-win and was done with such enthusiasm and self-awareness that it reached surreal comedic proportions. I’ll stop talking about The Gong Show after you read this quote which sums up everything I loved about the show and Chuck Barris…this is Chuckie Baby introducing some random act:

“And our next act says he’s only semi-professional…which is great…because we’re only quasi-interested.”

Now to the movie — Confessions of a Dangerous Mind is George Clooney’s directorial debut. Yes, *that* George Clooney. The George Clooney. My respect for his talent and intelligence keeps growing. Selecting this movie for his first shot at directing was dangerous and brilliant. This concept is NOT a guaranteed winner. Chuck Barris and The Gong Show are, at best, a distant memory to today’s movie viewers, remembered with fondness by some and disdain by others, if even remembered. The script is adapted from Barris’ autobiography, in which…

********** SPOILERS AHEAD **********

…he claims that, along with being the inventor/producer of The Dating Game, The Newlywed Game, and The Gong Show, he was also a hitman for the CIA, and killed 33 people, using his trips around the world as ‘chaperone’ to show winners as cover. Well, that’s just bizarre. Whether or not it’s true, it’s just weird and bizarre and absurd. And unbelievable. Sort of. But, why did they send their contestants to places like West Berlin and Helsinki as prizes? Why would Barris, the high-powered producer of multiple TV shows, take time out of his schedule to chaperone these schlubs on their trips? I do not know the answers to these questions but I do find them interesting.

And so, apparently, did Clooney. His first great move as a director was insisting that Sam Rockwell play Chuck Barris. I first saw Rockwell as Guy Fleegman, the unknown, hilarious, and constantly-imperiled crew member in Galaxy Quest, and next saw him as the head bad guy in Charlie’s Angels, where his chameleon-like shift from good guy to bad guy was astonishing. In COADM he plays Barris to perfection. The recreated scenes on the set of The Gong Show are uncannily and excruciatingly realistic representations of the real show. Rockwell also conveys the emotions of a semi-reluctant hitman in a moving and plausible way.

Drew Barrymore does an excellent job as Barris’ ongoing love interest, and Clooney plays his role (as Barris’ CIA handler) with understated non-George-Clooney-ness, and does not detract from Rockwell/Barris as the star and focus of the movie.

The story is as described above – one thread of the movie chronicles the well-known and true story of Chuckie Baby’s beginnings as a network page, through the creation of his game shows and on to their ultimate cancellations. A separate thread chronicles the possibly true/possibly fictional/definitely strange story of his recruitment and activities as a globe-trotting CIA hitman. Both stories are dramatic, funny, well-told, and well acted.

I struggled with myself about writing this next part, because it seems self-serving, but it is nonetheless accurate. When I used to watch The Gong Show, I noticed that there were times when Barris seemed transfixed as if having an out-of-body experience. And times when he would look down at the floor and stare with a look of such sadness that I remember it to this day. And times when he would stare out at the camera with what can only be described as a thousand-yard-stare. These would be momentary flashes, and then his face would light up with his trademark grin, and the band would signal a flourish, and the show would go on. But I always remembered these aspects of his hosting persona, and had always harbored a minor curiosity about the man, and a curiosity about these un-game-show-host-like behaviors. I’m not implying that these remembered behaviors support his being a hit man, but they were certainly noteworthy and possibly relevant.

All in all, this is a solid debut for Clooney, and a very entertaining movie. I attended the film with three other people, none of whom were Gong Show enthusiasts, and they all also loved the film. It is surreal and funny, well acted and well directed. I can’t wait to see what Clooney and/or Rockwell and/or Barris do next.

• Leave a comment... (0)

Taste Like Dirt!

I am not a freak.  I am not picky.  I am not hard to please, inflexible, or timid.  I am…a supertaster.  The scientific validation of what I have always known has set me free.  Foods like coffee and mustard literally make me gag.  Raw tomato tastes like acidic dirt (or what I imagine acidic dirt would taste like) to me.  Almost all beans, with the exception of green beans, are un-choke-down-able.  Peanuts are disgusting.

I am not a timid or picky eater.  I am always willing to try new foods, and I eat all sorts of strange things (snails, calamari, oysters, pop tarts, kipper snacks).  I love different ethnic foods (Chinese, Italian, Lebanese, Greece-y) and am not a restaurant snob.  However, there have always been certain foods that I cannot eat.  Not ‘will not’ eat…cannot eat, at least not without having to control the gag reflex.  And all my life I have been referred to as picky and/or inflexible with regards to food, when I knew that I wasn’t.  I didn’t know what I was, but I knew that I wasn’t picky.  I didn’t have a choice.  I was born this way.

Supertasters
I was born a supertaster.  Supertasters (25% of the population) have a higher concentration of taste buds on their tongue, and experience tastes at three to five times the level of normal tasters.  The scientists involved say that supertasters live in a neon taste world, while normal tasters (50% of the population) live in a pastel world.  The remaining 25% are the non-tasters, who are nearly impervious to bitter and spicy foods.  The non-tasters are the folks who eat any and everything, regardless of taste, texture, bitterness, or spiciness.  Supertasters, on the other hand, are particularly sensitive to bitter tastes, which are prevalent in things like coffee and vegetables.

When I first read about the concept of supertasters, I immediately knew they were describing me.  As a kid my mother adapted our household meals so that there was always stuff I could eat.  I know that it was probably difficult for her, and troublesome, and she did always try to get me to eat my vegetables and to try new things.  As a kid I was horrified at the thought of new foods, because I knew that a) it was impolite to not eat the food on one’s plate and b) everyone figured that a child who resisted a certain food was ‘just being picky’, and they pressured the child to ‘just try it without thinking you’ll hate it’ and it would be okay.  So I avoided, to the extent a child can, any circumstances where I would be forced (FORCED) to choke down food that was making me gag.  Not by evil people, but by people who just did not understand.

As I got older I got much more open to new foods, because everyone respects the food choices made by adults, and if I didn’t want to eat something I didn’t eat it.  This opened up a whole gastronomic world to me that I had avoided because of the minefield of forced ingestion.  I love trying new foods, and I will willingly try anything once.  But there is a list of foods that I cannot eat.  I regularly revisit this list, just to see if things have changed, and they never do.

Coffee Clash
Example number one is coffee.  I *love* the smell of coffee brewing.  It smells like heaven.  But I cannot drink coffee in any form.  I don’t care how much sugar, cream, foam, or flavoring you put in it, it still tastes horrible to me.  HORRIBLE.  I don’t care if you chill it, decaffeinate it, latte it, french press it, freeze dry it, or slow roast it.  I hate it.  I love my wife, but I won’t even kiss her after she drinks it.  DisGUSTing.  And I *want* to like coffee.  Not drinking coffee puts one in a very strange social no-man’s-land that not many people know about.  I don’t “go out for coffee”.  I don’t “take it black or with cream”.  At least Starbucks serves some pretty delicious hot chocolate, so I don’t end up sitting there like a dope with a coke in the coffee shop.  When people learn that I don’t drink coffee, it brings them up short, as if I said I didn’t really believe in gravity.  Not that they don’t understand what I’m saying, but it’s just the whole concept is foreign…I mean, gravity is a natural law, and one’s beliefs have nothing to do with it.  Believe me, in American society today there is a natural law that all socialization must eventually revolve around coffee.

Yellow Journalism
Did you know that many, many menus do not specify the presence of mustard on hamburgers and hot dogs? “A delicious, 1/3 pound burger, cooked to order, with lettuce, tomato, onion, and pickles…” says the menu.  And you order it, you get it, and guess what’s smeared on the bread? Clotted yellow crap, that’s what.  Mustard.  You can pick off the pickles and onions, if you like, but you can’t unabsorb the nasty  mustardiness from the bread.  If you ask about it, the waitron will look confused, because “well….hamburgers just come with mustard….it’s assumed, you know?” If I don’t know the condiment standards of a particular establishment, I now always order “and NO mustard”, regardless of what the menu says.  That ensures that I (usually) don’t get mustard, but many times it also generates a condescending reference to how their burgers don’t come with mustard, and a feigned look at the menu to verify that I, as the consumer, was just too stupid to have read that for myself.

The One Reason I Like Lawyers
Thankfully (for me) there are many, many people who are seriously allergic to peanuts.  As in life-threatening.  This means that if you order something with no peanuts, people usually take you seriously, as a potential opponent in civil litigation.  Nothing prompts a restaurant to get an order right like the threat of a lawsuit.  They also always know which dishes have peanuts in them, specifically to service their allergic clientele.  I gleefully and unashamedly take advantage of this situation, because I love many foods that traditionally come with peanuts, but I HATE PEANUTS, IN ALL FORMS.  Even if “there’s just a little bit” and “you can’t even taste it”, trust me, I can.  I’m actually shuddering with repulsion thinking of the times I’ve accidentally eaten things that were peanut-ridden.

Parents, Please Listen to Your Children
I know that there are bratty little kids who claim to hate every single food.  They are just being ornery.  But parents, you KNOW if that’s what your child is like, because they do it with other stuff, too.  If you have a kid who will sit without television for hours while you wait for them to choke down a dozen peas, you may have a supertaster for a child.  You may also just have a stubborn brat, but, as a parent, I know that you’ll know the difference, at least eventually.  If you have always been able to eat everything that was put in front of you, then bully for you.  But don’t bully your kid once you’ve realized that they really do HATE what they’re eating, and it does TASTE LIKE DIRT, and it is MAKING THEM GAG.

There have to be realistic limits, but please don’t automatically assume that your child is faking.  I was that child once, and although we did have some conflict over it, my Mom really did a remarkable job of putting food on the table that the whole family could eat, including me.  And supertasters really don’t like vegetables.  That’s a sad fact, but as a kid virtually all vegetables tasted like dirt to me…and nasty dirt, at that.  And if you force your kids to eat foods that are, quite literally, disgusting to them, you may be laying the groundwork for future eating disorders.

Also, this is not junk science.  Go to your favorite web/news sources and search for ‘supertaster’.  This is very real.  It’s also very real vindication for all of the others like me who have been persecuted over the years.  And it turns out that,  not only were we not picky, the actual issue is that only we were able to  experience all the flavor of foods, and that some of them are just disgusting.  Everyone thinks they have taste.  But only the few, the proud, the supertasters, have been scientifically proven to have three to five times the taste of rest of  you.

• Leave a comment... (26)

Over the last couple of weeks I have seen two television commercials which startled me with their inhumanity.  The first was from Quizno’s Subs, and featured their chef who was so focused on his job that he was shown walking by the cage of his pet bird, and the bird was apparently dead on the floor of the cage.  The message I got from this commercial is that he was so dedicated to his job that he ignored and neglected his pet to the point that it starved, dehydrated, and died while trapped in its cage.

The second commercial was for Altoids, the Curiously Inhumane Peppermint ©, which depicted a young student in science class feeding one of the new, strong Altoid products to the class guinea pig.  The mint is so strong that the guinea pig literally explodes on the screen.  I almost couldn’t believe what I saw.

I have been a consumer of both Altoids and Quiznos for a long time, and have enjoyed products from both.  Also, I’m no PETA-belonging animal rights activist.  But the above commercials were such incontrovertible depictions of animal cruelty that I have sworn off products from both companies.  I have contacted both companies with my concerns and have received canned platitudes in response.

Now, I eat meat and wear leather, and I am comfortable with the food chain.  However I don’t think it hypocritical also to be against unnecessary and/or gratuitous animal cruelty.  Although I hunted and fished as a boy, as I got older I lost my taste for it, finding it cruel and barbarous, since it was not a matter of survival for me, only sport.

There is also a strong correlation between cruelty to animals and psychopathic behavior.  Notorious serial killers Ted Bundy, Albert DiSalvo, and Jeffrey Dahmer (among many others) all got their start by torturing and killing animals.  Unless Quiznos is starting to open up snack bars in prisons and mental wards, and they sell Altoids at the counter, I think both companies should rethink this particularly distasteful marketing strategy.

• Leave a comment... (0)

I am currently watching CNN and seeing video of the disintegration of the Space Shuttle Columbia, replayed over and over again. There are many eyewitness accounts, speculation, and denial that it was sabotage or terrorism. I’m also hearing that, upon take-off, debris had struck the left wing of Columbia and small pieces of insulation had broken loose. I am beginning to wonder if this ultimate fate was known to be more probable because of the damage. I wonder if the ground and flight crews had gnawing trepidation during the mission, worried that there might be problems on re-entry. I wonder if they explored options, such as docking with the space station, or launching another shuttle for rescue, but found those options to be unrealistic. I wonder if NASA made sure the crewmembers spoke with their families one last time with the knowledge of the upcoming risks during landing. I don’t know which fate is more tragic – to have known all through the mission about this risk, and have the opportunity to prepare yourself, or to have it be a total surprise.

So NASA has suffered another tragedy. So has the US. So has the world. But, these events notwithstanding, human spaceflight represents man’s ultimate achievement. The complexity, danger, and risk involved in sending humans into space and bring them safely home boggles the mind. After space-related accidents, there is typically a hue-and-cry about the money wasted on spaceflight, and the continuing problems with NASA, and the need to focus the resources used in these lofty pursuits on more earthbound matters, such as hunger, disease, poverty, war. Those issues need addressing, but it is not a zero-sum game, where we either address them or continue the human exploration of space. The world has the resources for both, even though sometimes these resources are not used efficiently.

For those who do not understand the necessity of human spaceflight, please put yourself in the position of early humans, huddled together in a small tribe somewhere, staring out at the wide world in awe and wonder. Everything outside of your territory is unknown and unknowable. The only way to learn about those things over the next hill is to go there. Go there. Go. Man’s third most driving impulse, after procreation and survival, is to go and learn. What’s over that hill? What’s on the other side of that river? What happens if I just sail west into the heretofore endless ocean? What does the bottom of the ocean look like? Go, see, learn.

That drive has a less-apparent secondary effect, which is that it promotes the ongoing survival of humanity. If all of humankind lived in one valley then it could easily be wiped out by disease, flood, fire, or other catastrophe. But once a few intrepid explorers leave the safety of the known world (the valley) and establish a permanent, sustainable presence somewhere else, then it is now exponentially more difficult to wipe out humanity. And if a new generation of explorers leaves the continent of the valley, it becomes nearly impossible to wipe out human life without wiping out virtually all life on earth. So our unstoppable curiosity has helped increase our chances of survival as a species.

But if looked at from a larger perspective, we are still in a very fragile position. A rogue asteroid (or nuclear power) could conceivably snuff out human life. And that would be that. We gave it the old college try, but oh well, it took a global catastrophe to kill us off, so what could we have done?

What we could have done is to continue our natural progress. When early man started spreading and hit the ocean, that was that, for the time being. Then, over time, extended ocean travel became possible. New lands were discovered. Mankind expanded. Now we face the ocean of space. It is orders-of-magnitude more daunting than an earthbound ocean, and represents a moat that contains humanity in a stranglehold on a tiny island (planet) in a vast ocean (space). It is imperative to the survival of mankind that we get off this island.

There are those who will argue that mankind is not worthy of preservation, and that the plethora of earthbound problems illustrates our inherent flaws. To those who are convinced of this, I can offer no argument. If the essential goodness of humanity as a whole is not apparent to you, then I cannot sway you, because it is, at heart, a matter of faith. I have faith in the inherent goodness of humanity, and I believe that if I have any higher purpose in life, it is to contribute to the survival and betterment of the species. And I see human spaceflight as the single most important undertaking of mankind, because it is inarguably the only means for our survival.

Someday the sun will burn out. Let’s hope that our descendents witness it on their version of CNN.

• Leave a comment... (0)

(to the tune of A-B-C by the Jackson Five, apologies in advance)
M-P-G…it’s  low on my S-U-V…but don’t say that you’re better than me, unless you  regular-ly, commute bi-ped-al-ly while hugging a tree!

I read a story  recently about a television commercial that equated driving an SUV with  supporting terrorism. The ads are using the same idea as the the ones about  drugs supporting terrorism (I actually sort of agree with the drug ads). The  logic is that a) SUV’s are less fuel effecient, so b) SUV drivers buy more gas,  and c) most gas comes from Middle-Eastern oil, so d) the dollars we spend on  gasoline support Arab terrorism. I drive an SUV. A big old four wheel drive Ford  Expedition. It gets about 13 miles to the gallon during my regular commute. I  would prefer that it were more fuel efficient, but fuel efficiency was just one  of my selection criteria.

Safety
My first selection criteria  was the safety of my family. The Expedition outweighs the majority of personal  vehicles on the road, which means that it transfers more energy than it absorbs  if there is a collision. If you’re unsure about the physics of that, think of an  18 wheeler colliding with a VW Bug and think about which would sustain the most  damage. This means that in most accidents the occupants of my vehicle would have  a slightly higher survival rate. Also, I sit way up high while driving, giving  me very good visibility of the traffic around me. This provides slightly better  odds of not getting into an accident in the first place. I live in Houston,  which is prone to flooding, so the four wheel drive provides slightly better  capabilities of slogging through racing water in order to escape danger. Also,  the high ground clearance provides the ability to handle higher water without  the engine dying. Also, being such a big vehicle means that people are more  likely to be able to see me, and thus not run into me, if avoidable. And, while  Fords are not nearly as reliable as some other cars, the Expedition is a  reasonably reliable vehicle, according to Consumer Reports, so there’s a  slightly lower chance of being stranded compared to some other  makes/models.

Now, none of this guarantees anything, but it’s all about  playing the odds. I have stacked the deck in favor of me and the occupants of my  vehicle (usually my family) being more likely to avoid an accident, and to  survive an accident if it occurs, than someone in a smaller, lighter, lower  vehicle.

Comfort
The second most important factor in selecting  the Expedition was personal comfort. I’m 6′ 5″ and not small and I fit  perfectly in an Expedition. I fit okay in my wife’s Toyota Tundra pickup,  but am a bit cramped and not comfortable on longer drives. We have done a bit of  vehicle shopping over the years, and the list of vehicles that I am comfortable  in is very short. And that’s comfortable as in physical comfort and not being  cramped, not comfortable from a  how-do-others-perceive-me-because-this-is-what-I-drive perspective. I care very  little about any status conveyed by my vehicle.

Convenience
The  third decision factor was convenience. We have two big old dogs, and they fit  perfectly in the back when we take them places. Plus the Expedition is great for  hauling around a bunch of folks, picking up groceries, lugging home bounty from  Home Depot, etc.

The Real Cost
So, I get 13 MPG. Let’s compare  that to the mileage of a fairly standard vehicle, let’s say a 6 cylinder Honda  Accord sedan, shall we? According to EPA estimates, the Honda Accord EX V-6 gets  21 MPG in city driving. So, compared to this fairly standard vehicle, I get  eight fewer miles per gallon. I drive about 10,000 miles per year, so that works  out to about 293 more gallons of gas over the course of a year. That’s less than  one gallon a day. That’s not insignificant, but let’s get the whole  story.

The Whole Story
I live less than five miles from my  place of work. That is not an accident. We pay a premium to live where we do  (close to downtown). If we moved to the suburbs we could get an equivalent  residence for about half what we paid. Also, if we lived in a suburban school  district, we wouldn’t have to pay private school tuition because the public  schools are safer/better than the inner-city schools. So we pay a big monetary  cost to live close to our places of employment. We also love that living in town  means we’re closer to movies, shopping, arts, nightlife, dining, etc. We live  where we live because it’s worth it to us. One of the side-effects of this  choice is that we have a very short commute. My commute is less than 10 miles  total each day. Less than 5 miles each way. And I’m not sitting in any  bumper-to-bumper traffic, either. I toodle right along the whole way. Compare  that with the average commute and it more than makes up for the one  gallon a day. So, why do most people have a longer commute than I do? Because  they chose to live in the suburbs because a) it’s safer and/or b) it’s cheaper  and/or c) it’s more convenient and/or d) they’re more comfortable in a suburban  environment.

So, for their convenience, comfort, safety, and  lifestyle ($$), suburbanites use much more fuel than I do. Where is the hue  and cry to eliminate suburbs? Where is the demonization of suburbanites? Can you  imagine the laughability of claiming that living in the suburbs equates to  supporting terrorism?

The Real Solution(s)
The real solution is  for each of us to do what we can to conserve fuel, and for the government to  force the hand of automakers to create better engines. I would gladly pay  a reasonable premium for a more fuel efficient vehicle that met my needs, but  there isn’t one. And don’t even get me started on how government and industry  should be working together to move away from internal combustion engines  altogether (and into the Age of Hydrogen).

And before you ask me  to sacrifice my safety, comfort, and convenience by buying a smaller vehicle,  you must first be willing to sacrifice your safety, comfort, and convenience by  moving in from the suburbs. Or by carpooling. Or by riding the bus. Or by  telecommuting. Or by buying the smallest, most fuel-efficient econobox that you  can squeeze into. Or by leaving for work earlier to avoid sitting in traffic. Or  leaving for home later to avoid sitting in traffic. Are you doing those things?  If so, then you are setting a great example. And I think I am, too, by spending  my hard-earned dollars to live close enough to my job so that I don’t burn  excess fuel commuting. Feel free to send me a thank you card.

Otherwise  I suggest you park your car and start doing your daily commute on your high  horse, because he seems to be raring to go.

• Leave a comment... (0)

Narc has all the ingredients of a four star movie. As it stands, it’s almost a three star movie, but not quite. Ray Liotta is pitch perfect as the large, menacing cop, and Jason Patric is solid as his partner-come-lately. The story was compelling, and I did not see the ending coming at all, even though it flowed and fit perfectly with the storyline (it wasn’t some jarring twist out of left field). It is difficult to find movies where the ending is unforeseen and satisfying, but not ridiculous nor done for shock value, but this one was smoothly and skillfully done. Joe Carnahan, the writer/director, definitely seems to have a future, and I’ll be very interested to see his next film.

But there were some parts of this film that didn’t work for me. There one or two overlong declamations, one or two too many flashbacks/flashforwards/flashsideways/flashthroughblurrylenses, and one or two too many dilapidated tenements peopled with one or two too many drug addicts/dealers.

But there is also some good stuff here. Carnahan does not underestimate the audience, and you have to pay attention to pick up on certain things. If you wait for the movie to go back and explain what just happened, well, you’re out of luck if you missed it or didn’t get it the first time. I like that in a movie – don’t hide stuff from the audience, but also don’t zoom in on it with the melodramatic music playing to make sure we know “this is important”. Play it the way it should play within the story and let the audience figure out what’s important. I love that. And this movie does it right.

Also, the scenes of family and home life ring painfully true, and the interactions of Liotta’s and Patric’s characters don’t blindly follow the cop/partner/gritty/action/buddy script that we all know so well.

Overall this movie was very close to 3 stars for me, but not quite. Still, Narc is a very solid 2.5 stars, and I feel it was worth the price of admission and investment of time.

• Leave a comment... (0)

I hadn’t watched It’s A Wonderful Life in a number of years, at least not all the way through from beginning to end. Well, we watched it last night, and I have to say that this movie deserves its legendary status. I know the whole story, inside and out, having seen it many, many times, but I was still caught up in the film, still cared about the characters, still marvelled at the darkness of the tribulations in this supposedly sweet holiday film, still got choked up at the end, and still loved it. LOVED it!

Jimmy Stewart is one of my favorite actors, and my admiration of him grows with each film of his I view. We recently watched the excellent “Anatomy of a Murder”, which (like Wonderful Life) allowed Jimmy Stewart to play light comedy while also exploring deep, almost dark, themes. His wit, intelligence, and everyman-ness make him charming, but not cloying, and powerful, but not twisted. That’s it — take the charm of Cary Grant (minus smarm), the power and menace of Marlon Brando (minus psychoses), and the looks of Howdy Doody, put them all together and you’d get something close to Jimmy Stewart.

In the years since It’s A Wonderful Life was released, many films with similar themes have been made, and have been referred to as Capra-esque (after Wonderful Life’s director Frank Capra). The genre has been done and redone so many times that many recent “Capra-esque” films seem to border on parody. Do yourself a favor and go back to the source, get the DVD or tape to avoid commercial interruptions, and watch this great film from beginning to end again. It is well worth the investment of your time.

• Leave a comment... (0)

What an idiotic show. These are supposed to be the crime scene investigators, but they end up questioning witnesses, pursuing suspects, making arrests, etc, none of which is their job. There was an episode with a private plane crash in the Everglades, and the CSI team handled the entire case. No local police. No feds. No FAA. Nothing. Ridiculous.

Some of the forensic stuff is interesting, but they dumb it wayyy down for the audience, and the characters spend a lot of time saying things like, “I think I’ll use the mike-row-scope now, which is a device that will let me be able to see tiny things as if they were slightly larger.”

And (my apologies to Marie) *what* is the appeal of David Caruso? He looks as translucent and fragile as a newborn baby bird (see http://us.imdb.com/Name?Caruso,+David), he arrogantly left his first-and-only hit TV show (NYPD Blue) for a film career that flopped, while boldly predicting that NYPD Blue would fail without him (it’s still going strong), has made a string of deplorable movies, and just doesn’t seem to have any charisma at all, to me. I guess he falls into the category of Things Scott Doesn’t Understand About Women. He’ll be entry number 165,145,798,643,654,134. Approximately.

• Leave a comment... (0)