Rants, reviews, and reflections

Mike's Comments

Monthly Archives: July 2005

MUST LOVE DOGS

Posted on by Posted in Movies

Must Love DogsA paint-by-numbers chick flick, but the writers lost count. Featuring more clichés than you would care to endure, including not one but two understanding gays, providing shoulders for the heroine to cry on.

Sarah (Diane Lane) is a 40-something recent divorceé, who can’t seem to find the right guy. Worse, she is burdened with an ultra meddlesome family—especially older sister Carol (Elizabeth Perkins) who is having her own marital problems, but finds the time to be a constant companion. Carol posts Sarah’s name on an Internet dating site, setting up the latter’s meet cute with Jake (John Cusack).

As you might expect, their road to togetherness is bumpy, one of the bumps being Bobby (Dermot Mulroney), the father of one of Sarah’s preschool students. In the meantime, her father Bill (Christopher Plummer) is sowing his own wild oats in the wake of his widowhood. One of his lady friends is Dolly (Stockard Channing). I hope that Channing, in horrific makeup, is not now being relegated to quirky old lady roles. Strip away Channing’s age makeup, and put her up against the 21 years younger Lane, and tell me who looks better. (Diane would be advised to put a wee bit of fat back into her diet).

There are no surprises in the plot, but boy, are there problems with helmer Gary David Goldberg’s screenplay. Goldberg is better known for TV fare, and in that genre one can probably get away with dialog that is nothing more than sitcom boilerplate, stereotypes, and impossible economics. For example, in TV Land, it’s OK that the friends of Friends could not in any manner afford their NYC apartments, with the jobs they had. TV viewers come for the cheap, quick laughs, dumb situations, and shtick, and can tolerate it for a 30-minute show. A 98-minute feature is a whole different story.

Jake is a boat builder who doesn’t sell any boats; Sarah’s house seems way too nice for a preschool teacher, unless she had a killer divorce settlement; and Bobby lives in a trailer park, but drives a late model Volvo. Jake is sensitive because Doctor Zhivago (1965) is his favorite movie, and he eats at ethnic restaurants. In real life, you’d have a difficult time finding a 40-something guy who could sit through all 3 hours and 17 minutes of that film, let alone discovering one who pegs it as his favorite.

Sarah is cautious about involvement, but manages to have sex with Bobby, as he explains away the presence of her hot instructional assistant at his home, with an excuse that even her students would not believe.

On the other hand, Jake must REALLY be a great guy, since he turns down—twice—easy sex with cute-as-a-button (and about as dumb as one, also) Sherry (Jordana Spiro). And, what’s up with this notion that the only thing Sarah’s sisters have to do is hang out with her? The nadir of all this family time is an appalling sequence in which the girls sing the theme from TV’s Partridge Family. Goldberg may not have wanted to stray too far from his roots, but this scene is devastating to watch, and adds nothing whatsoever to the story.

They say women like the sort of drivel that is “Must Love Dogs,” but you have to wonder. The only believable character is the promiscuous Sherry. Everyone else, including the way too empathetic “deli guy” (Kirk Trutner), and the precocious preschoolers is an uber-phony stick figure. Few, if any, of the situations could actually occur in real life, and the women come across as being superficial, and pretty stupid.

Finally, too many questions linger after the closing credits. Will Jake finally sell a boat? How will Sarah face Bobby and his son for the rest of the school year, following their tawdry sex? Will Bill settle down with Dolly? What will Sarah’s sisters do now that they don’t have to concentrate on getting her a match? And, who gets to go out with Sherry?

Must love dogs…indeed.

WHAT IS THE LAW?

Posted on by Posted in Uncategorized

Movie fans will recall this line from the classic 1933 horror flick “Island of Lost Souls” (based on the 1896 H.G. Wells novel, and horribly remade in 1996). It is voiced by mad scientist Dr. Moreau (Charles Laughton), as he addresses his half-animal/half human creations:

Dr. Moreau: What is the law?
Sayer of the Law (Bela Lugosi): Not to eat meat, that is the law. Are we not men?
Beasts (in unison): Are we not men?
Dr. Moreau: What is the law?
Sayer of the Law: Not to go on all fours, that is the law. Are we not men?
Beasts (in unison): Are we not men?
Dr. Moreau: What is the law?
Sayer of the Law: Not to spill blood, that is the law. Are we not men?
Beasts (in unison): Are we not men?

Moreau is attempting to humanize his monsters with laws. Unfortunately for the good doctor, it doesn’t work, as the movie ends in a terrifying off-screen sequence in which Moreau is viciously killed in his very own “house of pain.”

Here, then, was a case of proscription (Thou shalt not…). The other traditional form of law is a prescription or direct positive order (Thou shalt…). Lately, we have added another version, that would, by reversing age-old proscriptions, permit and perhaps even encourage certain behavior (Now, thou canst…). The endless struggle over federal judges, especially Supreme Court justices, centers on this newest wrinkle.

The two most obvious examples are the creation of unlimited abortion rights, and the notion of homosexual marriage. In both cases, the immemorial structure of the family is maliciously attacked, with the ultimate goal of substituting the State in its place. Related to this, the recent decision in Kelo v. New London, allows the government to take home and hearth for any reason it chooses, in a sneaky perversion of the Fifth Amendment. Previously, all the fascist State could do was raise taxes to levels that might force some out of their homes, but this at least had to be tempered with the desire of officials to get reelected. Not anymore!

One might ask how we got to this point.

In ancient times, the law worked because it was clear to all that it was an essential civilizing force; there were relatively few regulations; and enforcement was generally quick, harsh, and just. It doesn’t work now because it is arbitrary (Ten Commandments allowed to be posted or not for no logical reason); contradictory (racial discrimination is wrong and right); enforcement is capricious (Martha Stewart is quickly nailed, but the Enron perps are still free to cheat another day); is anything but harsh (repeat offenders are continually sprung to offend again); and it is seen as a tool for Leftist fascists to promote their sick social agenda.

Thus, looking at the big picture, it will take more than a few conservative judges to repair the damage. The Federal leviathan originated with Lincoln, and was set on its present metastatic course by FDR. More than that, it is apparent that many Americans (not yet a majority, perhaps) are quite happy with the emergence of Big Brother, as they trade in their freedom for a particular crumb or two.

For the rest of us, the hope is that new media, an empowered younger generation, and the gradual extinction of the Left by its own practice of abortion, can turn the tide.

BLIND GUIDES, UPDATED

Posted on by Posted in Uncategorized

As the investigations of the London terror attacks continue, and the identities of the suicide bombers are revealed, it is quite disheartening to hear the standard drivel that seems to follow any act of violence.

Friends and neighbors of the perps express shock and dismay, noting that Mr. X. always seemed like a nice guy. If parents are interviewed, they express sorrow, and claim that they could not see this coming. And, worst of all, we get endless commentary on how they went wrong, or even more nauseating, what WE could have done to prevent them from going wrong.

The fixation on finding a reason for someone going wrong, and not focusing on the evil itself derives from functional atheism, pure and simple. In this worldview, there is no objective good and evil. That would require an ultimate source of morality. In fact, evil does not really exist. Rather, good men are driven to commit evil acts by some external force or circumstance. And, if only we can understand this, and work with the individual, rehabilitation is possible—restoring the offender to his natural good self. Applying this to suicide bombers does present logistical problems, but not to worry.

As is the case with all Leftist precepts, they never seem to work in the real world, yet that does not diminish their popularity one iota, nor lessen the passion of their advocates. This mental disorder, as Michael Savage puts it, goes further.

Without fail, after any act of appalling violence, there are “reasoned” cries against retaliation. Inevitably, the words of Jesus are invoked, usually by an atheist temporarily masquerading as a Christian:

You have heard that it was said, “An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.”

But I say to you, offer no resistance to one who is evil. When someone strikes you on [your] right cheek, turn the other one to him as well. (Matthew 5:38-39)

Jesus, of course, was no ordinary preacher, and there is much more going on here, than our faux Christians realize. He is citing the so-called Lex Talionis, the oldest law in the world, as it was included in the Code of Hammurabi (18th century BC). Widely and wrongly interpreted as some sort of vengeful construct, it is, in fact, the foundation of mercy. It lays it down that only the man who committed the injury must be punished, and his punishment must be no more than the equivalent of the injury he has inflicted and the damage he has done.

Furthermore, as practiced in Old Testament times, punishment was to be meted out by the judge, not by the one offended, and Jewish scribes even noted that to carry out the rule literally might be a miscarriage of justice. What if a good eye or good tooth were removed in punishment for what was a bad eye or bad tooth? Beyond that, there are several instances of mercy in the Old Testament:

Take no revenge and cherish no grudge against your fellow countrymen. You shall love your neighbor as yourself. (Leviticus 19:18)

Say not, “As he did to me, so will I do to him; I will repay the man according to his deeds.” (Proverbs 24:29)

If your enemy be hungry, give him food to eat, if he be thirsty, give him to drink. (Proverbs 25:21)

Let him offer his cheek to be struck, let him be filled with disgrace. (Lamentations 3:30)

Mercy being well established in Jewish custom, Jesus is talking about something different here. If a right-handed man is facing another man, and he wants to deliver this blow to the cheek, in all likelihood, it would be with the back of his hand. In Jewish Rabbinic law, this was considered a supreme insult. Jesus himself was called various names, and his followers were subjected to even worse, including being called cannibals. So what? There are a whole lot more important things to be concerned about, aren’t there?

For insults, snubs, and slights that we all encounter, then, resentment and retaliation are pointless. Note well, though, that this is in no way proscribes self-defense against physical assault. Indeed, we are called to care for the “least ones,” and who is more vulnerable than an innocent commuter, trying only to get to work?

Jesus would have little patience for our present day Pharisees (“blind guides,” He called them), who seek to mislead the people by attempting to elucidate “root causes” of what is nothing more than damnable evil. You want a root cause? It’s called free will. The terrorists made a choice to kill. They didn’t have to do it, they chose to do it. Case closed.

ELIJAH’S TAKE ON DIVERSITY

Posted on by Posted in History, Religion

Long before 9/11, 3/11, and 7/7, other civilizations had problems with sick religious cults in their midst. Let’s take a look at one of the earliest conflicts.

The apostasy of Israel’s kings dates back to Solomon, in the 10th century BC. Surrounded by all sorts of pagan countries, and given to marrying foreign princesses, it seems that even the wisest of men could be taken in (1 Kings 11). The worst offender was to come about 100 years later. The weak and amoral King Ahab became completely dominated by his much more famous wife Jezebel, daughter of the priest-king Ethbaal, who convinced him to introduce the worship of the Tyrian god Baal-Melkart. Bristling with grrrl power, she had most of the prophets of Yahweh killed, and wasn’t above whacking commoners when it suited her.

Most of the Baals were fertility gods, so we can assume that the usual orgiastic festivities, including the priests and priestesses of Baal getting it on with the sacred prostitutes, and the various permutations thereof with the, uh, laity occurred with gusto. Thus, this blatant promiscuity, and the lowering of the notion of God to a mere natural force, denied moral values and any transcendental reality. One can hardly imagine a more destructive force to the Hebrew monotheistic belief system. But, what’s a little multiculturalism and diversity among friends, right?

It was into this mess that Elijah appears, and predicts to Ahab three years of drought (1 Kings 17:1). The drought happens, all right, and this was apparently to soften up Ahab and the Israelites for Elijah’s big challenge. He gets Ahab to assemble all the 450 prophets of Baal, along with with the people on Mt. Carmel, to see whether Baal or Yahweh (as represented by Elijah, His sole remaining prophet) will bring rain. But the first step is to call for fire to consume their respective sacrifices.

The Baal team goes on first, and prances around their altar from morning to noon, calling on their god, and engaging in various rituals, including slashing themselves with swords and spears, but nothing happens. Elijah then rebuilds his altar, destroyed by the pagans, and thoroughly wets down the young bull and the wood for the fire. At that, he calls to the LORD, and…

The LORD’S fire came down and consumed the holocaust, wood, stones, and dust, and it lapped up the water in the trench.

Seeing this, all the people fell prostrate and said, “The LORD is God! The LORD is God!”

Then Elijah said to them, “Seize the prophets of Baal. Let none of them escape!” They were seized, and Elijah had them brought down to the brook Kishon and there he slit their throats. (1 Kings 18:38-40)

This would not be the end of the cult of Baal, however. A nasty civil war follows, instigated by Elijah’s successor Elisha, and that finally seems to do the trick. As to Lady Jezebel, she is thrown out of her palace—literally—and run over by Jehu, the new king. When they return to bury her, all that is left is her skull, feet, and hands. She was devoured by a pack of dogs.

Draw whatever analogies you like to our current situation with the Islamo-fascists. Considering that Europe, especially the UK, has coddled these fanatics for decades, it just might be that the PC philosophy of liberal tolerance is beginning to show a few rough edges.

It remains to be seen whether or not our leaders will take the hint.

WAR OF THE WORLDS

Posted on by Posted in Movies

War Of The WorldsSpectacular effects, mostly subpar perfs, typical Spielbergian superficiality, and inexplicable plot elements mark this latest incarnation of H.G. Wells’ 1898 classic.

Ray Ferrier (Tom Cruise) is a divorced blue collar automobile enthusiast with an attitude, who has to watch his surly son Robbie (Justin Chatwin) and spoiled precocious daughter Rachel (Dakota Fanning) for a couple of days, as his ex-wife Mary Ann (Miranda Otto) and new husband leave for some R&R in Boston. By the next morning, though, strange and deadly things begin to occur.

Continuous lightning strikes, unlike anything they have ever seen, blast down from the sky, and all electrical appliances, including watches, cell phones and cars, simply stop operating. As Ray walks into town to investigate, he sees a lot more stalled cars, but then observes a huge Tripod emerging from deep underground. The Tripod is revealed to be a efficient killing machine that incinerates people to fine dust (although leaving their clothing mostly intact), destroys buildings, and is definitely not of earthly origin.

Covered by human ashes as he races home, Ray grabs the two kids and commandeers a vehicle, running because its solenoid was replaced at his suggestion, and takes off. Unsure of his destination, he agrees with the children to head to Mary Ann’s home, only a few miles away.

They spend the night in the basement, fearful of impending attacks. Ray rises early, and carefully walks outdoors, only to encounter a scene of incredible destruction. A large passenger aircraft has crashed in the neighborhood, taking out several houses. As he gets closer to the plane, he sees a man scavenging food and drink, from the onboard supplies. The man is part of a network news crew, and a woman in the crew shows Ray some footage, replete with images of many Tripods, and how the aliens controlling them descended to Earth via the lightning.

She goes on to explain that the Tripods must have been buried for thousands of years, awaiting the return of the aliens, to wreak their final havoc on Earth. At that, their news van speeds away. Ray decides to take the kids to Boston, in hopes of hooking up with his ex, to bring comfort—such as it may be—to his children. The balance of the pic records their perilous journey, and the fate of the alien invaders.

*SPOILERS AHEAD*

Spielberg’s spin on the original story pegs this invasion as a return trip, and therein lie several difficulties that should have never made it through script development:

No matter how advanced the invaders are, NO culture is going to bury weapons for thousands of years, with an eye to (re?) conquest. Why limit yourself to old technology? And, while we’re at it, what did the aliens do here on their first trip? Did the first wave die of bacterial/virus infection, as well? If they did, wouldn’t they have sent a message back home to that effect?

If the aliens were unaware of the microorganism problem, that must mean that they didn’t land the first time, but somehow shot all the weapons deep into the Earth, in preparation for the invasion. OK, but then why wait so long? And, how is it, that with all the millions of construction projects that occurred on Earth in the thousands of years between visits, not a single Tripod was ever encountered by any human?

Of course, all of this begs the question as to the purpose of their mission. In Wells’ novel, the Martians need a new planet NOW, not thousands of years in the future. Given a return trip, more explanation seems essential. Unfortunately, nobody told Steven.

In his quest for spectacle, Spielberg shows a military force get wiped out, in a lethal firestorm. Standing close at hand is Robbie, who should have been killed but miraculously survives, for the big reunion at the movie’s end. Via a very silly contrivance, Ray must temporarily choose between the two kids, and lets Robbie run off to be near the action. As Ray and Rachel run to take shelter in the cellar of a conveniently still standing farmhouse, they can see this colossal explosion, and they and the audience can only assume that Robbie has been killed. In Spielbergland, though, protagonists are invincible. Heck, even Mary Ann and her new hubby (on-screen for about 30 seconds total) somehow survive the onslaught.

What are the chances that five people, spread into two groups, could all emerge unscathed from this level of destruction?

Finally, it’s very difficult to really enjoy a movie that has no likable characters, but welcome to Steven’s world. Ray is a selfish jerk, and will probably remain one. Maybe he reflects Spielberg’s concept of blue collar America. Rachel is extremely annoying, and could portray the director’s concept of a typical kid. Robbie’s character arc is the most promising, but he is absent for one-third of the pic. Mary Ann does little save flash a beatific smile, on account of her being pregnant, fashionably in her late 30’s or early 40’s. This is the softer side of grrrl power, in that she originally married beneath her station, but now hangs with the Boston brahmins.

Yet, the sure bet is that the F/X will make up for all the deficiencies of this feature, even if the overall box office trend is down.