Rants, reviews, and reflections

Mike's Comments

Author Archives: admin

RIGHTEOUS KILL

Posted on by Posted in Movies

Righteous KillDespite a bad script, less than stellar editing, and too many iconic actors wasted in tiny roles, this pic still is mostly fun to watch, based on the presence of De Niro and Pacino. Some atmosphere is lost with Bridgeport, CT being used—with little success—to portray Manhattan.

Turk (Robert De Niro) and Rooster (Al Pacino) are veteran NYPD homicide detectives, who are looking into a serial killer that specializes in offing scumbags, who have beaten the legal system. The killer leaves a scrap of paper at each crime scene, with a small poem explaining the murder.

Younger detectives Riley (Donnie Wahlberg) and Perez (John Leguizamo) get in on the act, as well, and it is Perez who suggests that the killer is probably a cop. Indeed, at the beginning of the movie, we see Turk in a video apparently confessing to the crimes, but are not sure at that point if the entire film is going to be a flashback building up to the confession, or if there is going to be some twist. There is a twist, but much of the audience will see what’s coming long before it is revealed.

Spicing up the proceedings are sexy crime scene investigator Karen Corelli (Carla Gugino), who likes to have rough sex with Turk. She is also part of two visual red herrings whereby ominous scenes show her coming home alone late at night, and you think she is going to be attacked…but she isn’t.

Two more characters of interest are Spider (Curtis Jackson), a big time drug dealer, and his fancy lawyer client Jessica (Trilby Glover), who goes undercover for Turk and Rooster, much to her own peril.

The story plays out—too slowly—in a disappointing manner, building up to a final confrontation that should have never even made it past the first draft. Add to that a few more plot elements that didn’t need to be there, and it leaves you wondering why the many producers involved did not call in a script doctor.

Some critics are complaining that De Niro and Pacino are too old for this sort of thing, and technically they’re correct. It was pointless to have these two aging stars try to pull off action-type cop roles. Instead, it would have worked much better if they were simply older, wiser, and slower-moving police.

Clearly, this thing got made only because of the two stars, but then, why didn’t they offer any input that could have improved this film? One hopes that De Niro and Pacino are not falling into the pattern set by Marlon Brando and Laurence Olivier, who in their later careers just started showing up in questionable to rotten projects, for a quick payday. Isn’t it also possible to get a reasonably quick payday on a decent movie?

LOOKING AT MSM COLUMNISTS: FROMA HARROP

Posted on by Posted in The Media

Although we have skewered mainstream media columnists in past essays, this piece marks the first of what will become a somewhat regular feature.

Harrop seems like a good place to start, because her work is not completely negative. Indeed, this Providence, RI based journo has been characterized as an independent thinker, who tilts leftward. These days, that means she hates all Republicans, but would prefer Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama. My main gripe with her is that even when she is generally making sense (perhaps 40% of the time), she still gets things dead wrong, or misses the much larger point.

In a piece entitled “Media Swallow Kennedys’ Arrogant Presumption,” Harrop does a great job of deconstructing the Kennedy mystique, and spares no barbs for Teddy, Caroline, Patrick, and even—to a smaller extent—JFK himself. Not much to complain about here, except that by the end you realize that this was all just a big setup to attack Obama.

A new Obama ad shows the Illinois senator flanked by Patrick and Ted, with Caroline spouting the same sort of vacuous platitudes that (sadly) have characterized his own speeches. Obama is better than any of these people, and the spot emphasizes what’s missing in his campaign: substance.

I have no idea why Obama is “better than any of these people,” especially since none of the Kennedys hung out with terrorists like Bill Ayers, or race-baiters like Jeremiah Wright. Moreover, although it is not demonstrated in this particular article, her admiration for Hillary Clinton, who had a pretty empty resume before her election as senator, suffers from the same sort of media worship heaped on the Kennedys.

In a piece entitled “At Least Admire Spitzer for His Foes,” she swallows the disgraced governor’s cover story hook, line, and sinker.

A few good words for Eliot Spitzer. The resigned New York governor could be brutish, vindictive and, when it comes to sexual rectitude, a grand hypocrite. But in going after the depredations of Wall Street, subprime lenders and corporate looters, he was a rare crusader.

Plenty of people hated Spitzer, since he was cynically attacking targets that he thought would make him a populist hero. What she doesn’t add is that in nearly all cases, those targets who fought back won. Spitzer was all style and no substance, making him not rare at all, but a very typical politician.

In a piece entitled “The High Cost of Healthy People,” Harrop, supposedly the independent thinker, buys into the standard acute disease care model of health care, that promises to bankrupt all industrial democracies.

Let’s put it bluntly: Longer lives cost more money. Those who make it to 90 thanks to exercise and six daily servings of vegetables are more likely to suffer the expensive ravages of old age. Everyone dies of something. So he who avoids a fatal heart attack at 70 is more at risk of cancer at 80. Those extra 10 years can mean extra CT scans, hip replacements and physical therapy, even for those in relative good health.

The simplistic idea being peddled here is that even if we live longer by taking better care of ourselves, we are still going to die, and will still need some sort of acute care before death. What nonsense! The more people who actually die of natural causes, the less that will be spent on acute care. Not everyone dies of a big disease, and not everyone will need a hip replacement.

It simply never occurred to her to think outside the box. In effect, she is saying that even if everyone is healthier, we will still be spending the same amount on health care!

Finally, she takes a rather uncharitable look at Sarah Palin and her pregnant daughter in her column “Don’t They Have Birth Control up in Alaska?” Considering that polls now indicate that Palin is considerably more popular with potential voters than either McCain or Obama, never mind that McCain’s numbers are up, where does this come from…

One tries to untangle McCain’s political calculations. The Schiavo case, creationism and similar excesses appeal to a passionate but small slice of the electorate. They are one reason voters are booting Republicans out of power. So while some religious conservatives may be “energized” by the Palin pick, most everyone else is revolted.

You can’t figure McCain. He had been doing well up to now—holding even with Obama in a dreadful year for Republicans and building support among the independents who call the shots in swing states. This Palin deal makes you question not only his judgment, but—if he really had vetted Sarah Palin—his sanity.

Maybe Harrop really is one of the Leftie fools who thought that the mass availability of birth control and abortion on demand would lower the incidence of unwed mothers. Of course, the opposite has occurred. Then, she conflates all the so-called religious issues as being way outside the mainstream, even if poll after poll disagrees with her.

CONCLUSION: Froma Harrop does distinguish herself by occasionally drifting away for the Leftist agitprop, but in the end, it hardly matters.

THE SARAH PALIN PICK AND SOME SIDE ISSUES

Posted on by Posted in Politics

Leave it to the old guy to come up with boldest move in this presidential campaign. In fact, one could argue that it is the boldest move in a presidential campaign in at least the last 50 years. Comparisons to the 1984 Mondale/Ferraro ticket fall short, since Mondale had no chance of defeating Reagan, and in fact got destroyed in an electoral vote landslide (525 to 13).

Thus, knowing that they were going to lose big in 1984, what harm could there be in making a “historical” statement by nominating Geraldine Ferraro? The difference now is that McCain is very much in play, so picking Palin bears none of the tokenism that applied to Ferraro.

Sarah Palin was chosen to appeal to conservatives, primarily. Given her pro-life, pro-gun, meat-eating, tax-lowering credentials, one wonders how much she should appeal to the so-called “PUMAS” (Party Unity, My Ass) Democrats, who are big Hillary Clinton supporters. Of course, there is much going on beneath the surface.

Hillary supporters would like nothing better than for Obama to lose, thus opening up a 2012 slot for their favorite candidate. Fair enough, but what does Bill Clinton think about all this?

Just before Bill made his speech at the Dem Convention on August 27th, former President Jimmy Carter told The Washington Times that Bill Clinton became an unwittingly divisive figure during the Democratic primaries, damaging his wife’s chances to win the presidency with a series of verbal gaffes. Carter noted: “As he tried to campaign for his wife, I think in the heat of the campaign he made some verbal mistakes.”

Whether Carter was trying to spin things, or is just simply clueless is hard to determine, but let me assure you that NOTHING Bill Clinton ever does is “unwitting.”

During his presidency, Clinton misquoted a passage from the Sermon on the Mount as “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall inherit the earth.” This passage, Matthew 5:9, is correctly rendered “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons (or children) of God.”

This was no mistake. Instead, it was a clever inside joke. He just wanted to see how the sycophant media would react. He reasoned that many of them were inveterate atheists, and would have no familiarity whatever with the Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes, or Matthew’s Gospel. More fun, though, would be those who knew he was wrong, but were afraid to contradict him. They were afraid to contradict him because they did not want to upset his supposed “Christian” bona fides, earned, apparently by lugging a bible the size of the Manhattan Yellow pages with him to Sunday services.

Why am I mentioning this minor incident? Precisely BECAUSE it was a minor incident. Yet, look at the thought that Clinton put into it.

Now, consider the ego of the man. Do you think for a moment that he actually wanted his wife to achieve the same office he did? Do you really believe that he wanted to be “First Man” in a Hillary White House? No verbal gaffes, as Carter put it, can possibly come from a man who would parse words to the extent that he would utter the famous line, “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”

Suffice to say that if Hillary does get the opportunity to run again, she’d better keep Bill far away.

Will Hillary supporters flock to the McCain/Palin ticket? Sarah Palin is the polar opposite of Hillary Clinton. Palin worked her way up the ladder, while Clinton was awarded a Senate seat, based strictly on her name, with essentially no résumé. Palin characterized herself as a “hockey mom,” a term that would never be uttered in million years by Clinton. (Nor would “soccer mom.”)

Palin is overwhelmingly popular, Clinton is burdened with negatives greater than 40%. Palin was a beauty queen, and Hillary is, well not particularly good-looking.

One can hardly imagine Sarah Palin enduring a philandering husband, but then compare the marriages! The Palins were childhood sweethearts, the Clintons are a political marriage of convenience.

John McCain has thrown down the gauntlet. Which team is really America? A prissy leftist and his political hack, gaffe-prone running mate? Or a maverick war hero and the small town girl who made good?

Congratulations, Senator on a huge and bold move.

MICHAEL PHELPS AND FROSTED FLAKES

Posted on by Posted in Current Events

When the deal between Kellogg’s and Phelps was announced a few days ago, an immediate controversy was sparked. Some on the “health” side of things were upset that he should be endorsing such a sugar-laden cereal—in light of the childhood obesity epidemic. Other voices said that this is America, and he should try to go for all the gold he can, now that he won all those gold medals.

Several issues are raised here…

The only way Phelps can derive any revenue from his years of training in swimming is by endorsements, and maybe a book deal, since there is no professional swimming circuit. Clearly, there is a lot more money to be made by endorsing hugely successful mainstream commercial products than there would be from taking on some obscure health food item. One exception might have been Quaker Oats’ oatmeal, but perhaps they never came calling.

Parents and health educators who decry celebrity endorsements for unhealthy childhood items seem to be begging the question as to what the parents’ influence should be. At one time, popular athletes were endorsing cigarettes and beer, and if there was an outcry about this, it was pretty quiet.

Then, there is the whole matter of celebrity endorsements. Why should we be influenced by paid endorsers at all? My feeling is that this mode of promotion never actually creates more sales unless it is employed to introduce a new product. What is really going on here has a lot more to do with the egos of the companies and their ad agencies, than increasing sales. Apparently, snagging a big celeb to do an endorsement is considered some sort of accomplishment in and of itself.

Note that this is completely different from getting a big star to “open” a picture, since the star is directly part of the movie, while the endorser has nothing at all to do with the product he is pitching.

And, what about the “health” aspect of all this? There is not much harmful in Frosted Flakes if they are part of a balanced diet. As I have often pointed out, 50-odd years ago, when I was a little kid, all we seemed to eat was junk food, yet almost no kids were fat. The reason is that the portions were smaller, we were far more physically active, and there was no PC police around to prevent shunning of the few fat kids who did exist, which almost invariably led to them losing weight.

Besides, it is by no means clear that athletes—in general—are necessarily in good health. Stories abound of elite runners who drop dead, football players who die young, overweight baseball players, and pixie-sized gymnasts whose development seems to have been retarded by over-training. Moreover, if “fitness” includes cardiovascular endurance, correct body weight, flexibility, strength, and balance, many professional athletes would fail to make the grade.

For example, football linemen are substantially overweight; wide receivers that go in for one play, and then return to the bench to suck oxygen lack endurance (but may have short-term blinding speed); and elite weight lifters often lack flexibility.

In addition, certain questions remain unanswered. Can someone in “good health” die young of “natural causes”? Should any determination of “good health” take into account genetic issues that put someone at a disadvantage? Can someone look older than their years, but still be in “good health”?

It all comes down to this: Michael Phelps worked hard—albeit for a lot shorter period of time than most folks—and if he can find a company willing to put him on easy street for the rest of his life, why not take the offer?

MIRRORS

Posted on by Posted in Movies

MirrorsA few jump scares, very brief nudity, a small amount of creative gore, and ominous music do not make up for poor acting, weak dialog, and a running time too long by at least 20 minutes. Based on the 2003 Korean production Geoul sokeuro (Into the Mirror), which also bogged down in the middle, Mirrors went from being the event horror flick of the summer to a dead-time August release, that eschewed pre-release press screenings. Well, technically, there were press screenings, but they all seemed to occur at 8:30 PM on the night before theatrical release—preventing mainstream day-of-release newspaper reviews.

Ben Carson (Keifer Sutherland in full Jack Bauer mode) is a suspended New York City cop, forced to take a job as a night security guard for a shuttered department store. It seems that a horrific fire took place at the giant store a few years ago, and the insurance claim is still tied up in litigation—thus, it has to be preserved for the time being. No word on who’s paying the rent or taxes on this prime piece of Midtown real estate lying idle. The Korean original certainly had this plot point better, as it takes place in the days before the store is to be re-opened after a fire.

Ben is estranged from his wife Amy (Paula Patton), who—inexplicably—must wear the world’s most robust push-up bra for the entire film, so that her exaggerated cleavage becomes an absurd and unwanted distraction. Currently, Ben is living with his younger sister Angela (Amy Smart), and takes some pretty heavy meds to combat his alcoholism.

During his first night on the job, he notices a few disturbing things at the store, including handprints that appear to be coming from behind mirrors, along with images in the mirror that don’t agree with the actual objects in front of the mirror. Worse, he starts seeing strange things in mirrors and other reflective surfaces outside the store.

Soon, we figure out that the set piece at the very beginning of the movie, in which a man seems to be forced by his reflection to cut his own throat, was actually the death scene of the former night security man.

At about this point, Angela shows us why she’s in the movie. She disrobes and steps into the bathtub, although her reflection in the mirror stays in the position of staring back at her in a standing position. And, just like the former night security guard before her, Angela’s image forces her to kill herself by the rather novel method of tearing off her lower jaw, and bleeding to death. Of course, this makes no sense, since she had nothing whatever to do with the goings-on at the store, but what else was the filmmaker to do? It is too early in the movie to kill off the hero, and Amy and the kids are needed for action to follow.

Surprisingly, this shocking event doesn’t put too much of a damper on the proceedings, and Ben is right back at work the next night, trying to figure out how to stop the evil force in the mirror. This eventually leads to him visiting a community of nuns, where one of them just might have the answer.

Then follows the inevitable final battle, and a twist ending that could only work given the constantly changing rules of the mirror world.

It should be pointed out that even if all aspects of Mirrors had been improved, it is still not a horror film at all, but is rather a mystery. Even though nearly all recent Asian horror movies have to do with some object (a videotape, a cell phone, or in this case a mirror) causing the death of someone, and behind it all is a girl with stringy black hair, the ones that succeed are actually scary.

To be scary, a film needs a scary premise, and then must demonstrate it in a way that keeps us on edge. Jump scares are tiresome and don’t do the job.

To be sure, the notion of an evil mirror world could have been scary as Hell, and if done properly would have given viewers chills every time they looked in a mirror—much as many were afraid to take showers after seeing Psycho (1960). Unfortunately, helmer Alexandre Aja was clearly not up to the task.

ANGEL HEART (1987) RETROSPECTIVE

Posted on by Posted in Movies

Angel HeartOne of the darkest films ever made, this stunner may have been pitched as “noir 1950s detective story meets gothic horror.” While way too much emphasis on a steamy sex scene, that had to be cut to get an R rating, overshadowed its theatrical release, the pic was rediscovered on cable and home video, and has become a cult classic.

The movie opens on the mean streets of New York City, in January, 1955. Low-rent private eye Harry Angel (Mickey Rourke) gets a call from attorney Herman Winesap (Dann Florek) requesting that he meet with a wealthy client later that day in Harlem. The mysterious client is Louis Cyphre (Robert De Niro).

Cyphre and Winesap explain the nature of the investigation: Determine the whereabouts of one Johnny Favorite, a popular crooner before World War II, who obtained some “help” from Cyphre. Apparently, Favorite was injured in the war and also developed amnesia, being cared for at a facility upstate. Cyphre became concerned since he was getting regular reports for years, but they suddenly stopped. There is a matter of some sort of debt, and Cyphre does not want to leave the status of the account in limbo.

With that, Harry departs for Poughkeepsie—the last known residence of Mr. Favorite. When he checks at the care facility, though, he is told that Favorite was transferred out in 1943. Of course, this contradicts what Cyphre told him, and he remarks to the sexy nurse who is pulling the records that the transfer entry in the file, dated 1943, is written in ballpoint—an virtual impossibility. (Ballpoints were not sold in the US until 1945, although they could be obtained earlier in Europe).

Angel gets the name of the now-retired doctor who made the transfer entry, and proceeds to the man’s house for more information. As it happens, the doctor is a morphine addict, who does reveal some information to Harry. Harry wants more, though, and locks him in a room—away from the drugs—to sweat it out for a few hours, in the hopes of loosening his tongue. Harry returns to find him dead—an apparent suicide.

A meeting with Cyphre follows, and Harry, who thought this would just be a missing persons case, wants out. But, Cyphre offers him $5000 and unlimited expenses to keep up the search. How can he refuse?

The trail now shifts to Coney Island, as Angel discovers a woman who knew Johnny Favorite, and mentions a couple of his friends. The friends are down in New Orleans, and that’s where Harry heads next.

Before long, it is quite clear that Johnny and his friends were into some serious Satanic rituals and probably voodoo, as well. Harry interviews both an old girlfriend of Johnny’s, and one of his musical associates, learning more from what they don’t say, than from what they actually tell him. Every new development is more foreboding, leading up to his meeting Epiphany Proudfoot (Lisa Bonet), eventually revealed as the daughter of one of Johnny’s lovers, and a voodoo priestess just like her mother.

The tone becomes ever more dark, as Angel pursues leads against the backdrop of Louisiana bayou country and Bourbon Street. All is explained following an unforgettable cataclysmic sex scene, performed to Lavern Baker’s 1953 classic “Soul on Fire.”

This movie works because of great acting, but more so because of the incredible tableau set by helmer Alan Parker and director of photography Michael Seresin. Even though the soundtrack includes many period recordings, Trevor Jones’ score also contributes to the dark, depressing mood. Of course, none of this could have happened without the source material Falling Angel by William Hjortsberg, reputed to be a whole lot darker than this film!

Mixed in with the foreboding atmosphere are religious themes (Satanism, cultic Christianity, and voodoo), and extreme sexual tension. Indeed, this tension starts with the first female character Angel encounters during the investigation (the nurse at the Poughkeepsie facility) and just keeps building up, until it is “relieved” in the sex scene. And, it must be said, all the bad guys (and gals) definitely get theirs in the end.

Replete with symbolism and plenty of quick cut images, Angel Heart is worthy of repeated viewings, and the Special Edition DVD offers a number of features, including background on voodoo.

WHAT SHOULD THE FEDS BE SPENDING OUR MONEY ON?–1

Posted on by Posted in Politics

It would seem that the ideal government should endeavor for low taxes, and engage in serious debates on just what items are actually worthy of support. Indeed, you would think that every politician would run on a platform of lowering taxes, but almost none of them do.

Instead, whether Republican or Democrat, the vast majority of them continue to push expensive and mostly useless programs, supposedly designed to solve the crisis du jour. Don’t you find it ironic that a politician can be considered “conservative” as long as he wastes tax dollars on the military?

These days, there really is a full-blown health crisis, and it’s even more serious than a few people getting overexposed to formaldehyde in FEMA trailers. I’m referring to the obesity epidemic, that affects more than 50% of Americans. While the Feds are funding studies, and certain limited educational programs, the efforts fall well short of the coordinated national effort that should be launched.

Compare this to the incredibly overblown homeland security activities, which are little more than a giant boondoggle. Think about the number of people affected.

The events of 9/11 were tragic, of course, but affected only a tiny percentage of Americans. Overarching security at airports and other high-risk facilities just means that the terrorists won. In brutal fact, Americans have been far more affected by homeland security, than by the actual events of 9/11.

To be sure, there have been no sensational follow-up events, but there has also been a pattern of not calling obvious mini-terror events “terrorism.” Medical historians would liken this to the amazing disappearance of polio cases after the Salk and Sabin vaccines—and the concurrent increase in diagnoses of meningitis.

Assuming the Feds should spend money on public health, might it not be worthwhile to attack the obesity epidemic, considering that it affects 150 million people? The Campaign to End Obesity has a plan that makes a lot of sense, and should be getting more notice.

However, people tend to react much more strongly to sudden and sensationalistic events, rather than disturbing trends that build up slowly. Moreover, people tend to react far more emotionally to sudden rather than slow death, or spectacular death, rather than mundane death.

How is the death of a Twin Towers occupant any more tragic than a car accident that could have taken the life of an otherwise similar executive making his daily commute on the very same day?

Sensationalism and emotionalism are what drives media and politics. That’s why the pols are forever talking about crises, which require urgent action—except when they don’t, such as the current summer recess of Congress that occurred without an energy policy.

If there really were political leadership, attention would be far more focused on a rational discussion of what we should be spending our money on, as well as taking a hard look at the success of failure of current programs, rather than just trying to extract ever more dollars to pursue pork projects. But, the situation will only change with term limits. Just don’t hold your breath waiting for that.

CURRENT AFFAIRS

Posted on by Posted in Current Events

Some quick takes on the events of the day…

 

The decline of newspapers

This one’s not too difficult to figure out.

1.     Online sources are instantaneous, and even though many newspaper’s websites attract great amounts of traffic, they haven’t figured out a revenue model yet. Certainly, they could run teasers of stories, and offer a subscription, or set up a small fee basis to continue reading the story. In fact, if they all did this, their problem of how to monetize their websites would be solved.

2.     Original model was based on high-priced advertising from real estate, auto dealers, and department stores. However, even before the current housing meltdown, most real estate agents would tell you that the only reason ads were placed was that the clients wanted them. They were never cost-effective. As to the car biz, again, even before Craigslist, there were “Auto Trader” pubs that generally did a better job. And, department stores have been feeling the pinch for a long time, and just cut back.

3.     Thus, the ad model is being hit with the double-whammy of declining business and declining rate base, since subscribers are leaving in droves.

4.     Crummy demographics. Most people under thirty don’t use newspapers, and the publishers are turning off the rate base that remains with an ever more elitist Leftist editorial bent.

5.     Bad management. Every interview of a newpaper exec is full of platitudes about how the business is changing, but that print must still be at the core of what they do. And, no mention is ever made of changing the editorial policy.

 

Trans-fats banned in California

You just have to love government, right? With industry and legal residents leaving the state in the largest numbers yet, and with many institutions—including schools—struggling to keep their heads above water, I’m sure it’s a great comfort to know that restaurant meals will be somewhat healthier. Bear in mind that many disagree with the hysterical conclusions regarding trans fats being related to coronary heart disease, anyway.

No word, though, on how this will affect the real major health problem: Obesity, especially childhood obesity.

But, like the State’s infamous proposition 65, the trans fat ban will assure job security for legions of bureaucrats.

 

FEMA trailers

While it’s easy enough to bash the agency, the fact is that they had to come up with a way to provide emergency housing for 150,000 people, and many manufactures pulled out all the stops to supply trailers. Were there problems? Of course, but given the gigantic size of the undertaking, what do you expect?

More than that, there were simple enough ways to vent the trailers, and all of this is lost on the chattering classes. Somehow, if I were given a free place to live, I might be more hesitant to bite the had that fed me. No doubt, the growing class action suits will become big news items in the near future, but the end result will be that the next time the Feds need trailers, unless indemnity is guaranteed, the manufacturers will rightly refuse the “windfall” business.

 

The JonBenet Ramsey case

On July 9, 2008, Boulder County District Attorney Mary Lacy stated that DNA tests conducted by Bode Technology Group revealed that skin cells left behind on JonBenet Ramsey

THE DARK KNIGHT

Posted on by Posted in Movies

The Dark KnightUltra-dark in tone, loaded with violence, and burdened with a bit too much plot, this pic moves well beyond what you might expect from the typical superhero action flick.

The film opens with a bank heist, directed by the Joker (Heath Ledger), made all the more brazen in that it is a mob-owned bank, and the Joker kills all of his accomplices. This is just the latest blow against against organized crime, though, as the trio of Batman (Christian Bale), Lt. Gordon (Gary Oldman), and new district attorney Harvey Dent (Aaron Eckhart) seems to be having some success in ridding Gotham City of crime.

Dent is proclaimed as a white knight, who’s not afraid to fight crime, and he has also impressed Batman’s former girlfriend Rachel Dawes (Maggie Gyllenhaal) enough that she is now Dent’s girlfriend. Meanwhile, the Joker offers to kill Batman, and after demonstrating his utter ruthlessness—not to mention psychotic behavior—the mob agrees to his ridiculously high fee.

Although his first attempts to kill Batman and Dent both fail, the Joker comes up with the stratagem of killing one citizen of Gotham City every day until Batman reveals his secret identity. In a surprise move, Dent says he is Batman, and since the Caped Crusader is technically a fugitive vigilante, he turns himself in. Naturally, the crime wave does not stop, and in a spectacular sequence, the Joker is finally caught.

Of course, he escapes, via a double ruse, and a sort of homage to the jailhouse escape of Hannibal Lecter. Now, the story really gets into high gear, with a goodly number of twists and turns before all is resolved. In keeping with the film’s dark tone, the resolution and conclusion are by no means neat and tidy. The perfs are all first rate, with Ledger’s attracting the most attention, but he surely was helped along by the excellent script.

Serious and though-provoking matters are touched upon here. The Joker in this film is far more than a mere criminal or serial killer. He is a full-fledged urban terrorist, with no particular goal in mind, other than to create chaos. One theme of the pic is “rules,” and unlike the mob or law enforcement, he doesn’t have any. While his free form approach does thwart the good guys, at other times, rules of civilization hamper his designs.

Still, as Batman refuses to kill the Joker when he has the chance, you wonder if that wouldn’t have been the more prudent thing to do. Indeed, the trade of Samir Kuntar, who murdered a four-year-old Israeli girl and her father 29 years ago, for some body parts of two dead Israeli soldiers makes a pretty good argument for a take no prisoners stance.

It’s no spoiler to mention that Dent suffers terribly, and undergoes a transformation. The audience is put right at the dividing line (and it’s not a clear one) between justice and simple revenge. Another controversy introduced is the notion of how much high-tech surveillance is too much, even if it is only being used to foil a potentially catastrophic event.

For me, though, it is rather apparent that eliminating the bad guys early on would also eliminate any concerns over follow-up measures. How justice is served by maintaining effete postures of us being “above” certain acts in the face of outrageous terrorism continues to be a mystery to me. After all, for things that really do matter to the government—such as non-payment of taxes or violation of gun laws (Randy Weaver)—their bellicosity in pursuing alleged wrongdoers would make the Joker blush.

ARE THERE ANY LESSONS FOR US IN WALL-E?

Posted on by Posted in Current Events

As of this writing, Wall-E, the latest animated feature from Disney-Pixar, has pulled in about $150 million (against an estimated production budget of $180 million). Besides being a robot love story, the pic offers certain insights on mankind and the environment. Is there a serious takeaway from this film?

At the heart of Wall-E’s story is the notion that a giant conglomerate of the future—Buy n Large—has managed to control virtually all aspects of people’s lives, and that rampant consumerism has turned the Earth into a dead planet, full of waste. Indeed, the company’s mission statement concludes: “Because at Buy n Large, we want you to leave your life to us.”

No worries, though. All of humanity is ensconced in the massive space vehicle Axiom, where robots take care of their every need, and all food is in liquid form to make things even easier. Most noticeably, all the humans are grotesquely fat, and are barely capable of movement on their own. They don’t seem to interact with or touch each other, either.

To proceed, we are simply going to have to ignore the rather large irony of having a giant movie, replete with all sorts of merchandising tie-ins, lecture the viewer about the evils of consumerism. Maybe Sam Goldwyn was right when he said, “Pictures are for entertainment, messages should be delivered by Western Union.”

As to obesity, we might not have to be as far into the future as Wall-E’s time to achieve humanity’s fate as depicted in the movie. After all, results from the 2003-2004 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, using measured heights and weights, indicate that an estimated 66 percent of U.S. adults are either overweight or obese.

The CDC notes that overweight and obese individuals are at increased risk for many diseases and health conditions, including the following:

     
  • Hypertension (high blood pressure)

    •  

  • Osteoarthritis (a degeneration of cartilage and its underlying bone within a joint)

    •  

  • Dyslipidemia (for example, high total cholesterol or high levels of triglycerides)

    •  

  • Type 2 diabetes

    •  

  • Coronary heart disease

    •  

  • Stroke

    •  

  • Gallbladder disease

    •  

  • Sleep apnea and respiratory problems

    •  

  • Some cancers (endometrial, breast, and colon)

    •  

No wonder that public health officials regard obesity as the number-one preventable cause of morbidity and mortality in the country today.

How about the lack of contact between humans? Certainly, as one walks down the street and sees legions of people with headphones, listening to their mp3 players; or the tremendous acceptance of online purchasing, allowing us to buy without talking to anyone, it is difficult to disagree with the observation. But, what was it that made these impersonal means of commerce so popular in the first place?

I think it has at lot more to do with the poor customer relationship systems that were put in place—starting roughly in the 1960s—than any particular epidemic of misanthropy. As a young child in the 1950s, I have vivid memories of my parents getting real live customer service, whether it was from the owner of a small shop, or a sales clerk at a large department store.

What happened was a large injection of professional management types, who knew precious little about the retail business. But, they were going to show the world how profits could be maximized by hiring minimum wage help to be mostly clueless as the customer stumbled along. Hey, the customer was still going to buy the same stuff, and look what we’ve saved on overhead.

Thus, the once professional and knowledgeable sales clerk was replaced by an army of teenage kids—which later included educated immigrants who were unable to find something better. Retailers such as Nordstrom tried to buck the trend by installing a somewhat higher-end sales force, but to do this was forced to charge premium prices. Lately, this has not worked too well for the company, as its same store sales are in decline.

In the end, it was simply better to go online.

Finally, could the Earth actually become uninhabitable, based on too much waste? In a word, NO. For one thing, if such a situation were even beginning to happen, it would be noticed, and measures would be put in place to reverse the trend. Our success in cleaning up air and water pollution in only a couple of decades after perhaps two centuries of former abuse is proof of that.

And, could one mega-corporation control our lives as Buy n Large does in the film? Not a chance, but a mega-government sure could, and nearly does now.