Rants, reviews, and reflections

Mike's Comments

Author Archives: admin

UNKNOWN

Posted on by Posted in Movies

UnknownA fast-paced thriller in the spirit of Alfred Hitchcock, minus Hitch’s eye for a good story. Solid action makes up for the ludicrous plot, and these days, that’s probably enough.

As the pic opens, renowned botanist Dr. Martin Harris (Liam Neeson) and his wife Liz (January Jones in full ice queen mode) are about to land in a wintry Berlin for an important technical conference. Once they arrive at their hotel, though, Martin realizes that he has left his briefcase back at the airport.

Without telling Liz, Martin quickly hails a cab to return to the airport. Lucky for him, his cab is driven by the best-looking cab driver of all time—Gina (Diane Kruger). Not so lucky for him is that her car gets into a terrible accident, and flies off a bridge into the icy waters of the River Spree.

Poor Martin is knocked unconscious, but is pulled to safety by the much smaller Gina, and is taken to the hospital. When he regains consciousness, he has no identification, and for awhile does not even know his name—an apparent victim of amnesia. Within a few days, he remembers who he is, and heads back to his hotel.

If Martin wondered why his wife never searched for him, he gets the blunt answer upon his return to the hotel. Liz says she does not know who he is, and another Dr. Martin Harris (Aidan Quinn) appears, replete with full credentials proving his identity. Martin-1 protests, of course, but is soon thrown out of the hotel.

Realizing that Gina is the key to the mystery, in that she is the last one who saw him before his amnesia, he seeks her out, and begs her to help him. Wouldn’t you know that Gina is an illegal alien from Bosnia, complete with a tragic backstory. Still, she agrees to help him, and sets him up with Ernst Jürgen (Bruno Ganz), an ex-Stasi (East German secret police) agent with a heart of gold

It doesn’t take long for Jürgen to figure out most of what’s going on here, even if all three of them (Jürgen, Gina, and Martin) are now targeted for death.

The third act plays out amidst wild car chases, a brilliant showdown between Jürgen and the chief baddie, and a neat, mostly satisfying twist.

 

***SPOILERS AND OTHER COMMENTS***

I won’t reveal the twist since that qualifies as a mega-spoiler, which would pretty much ruin the movie for you. But, there are a few things that are worthy of further comment…

Jürgen figures out that Martin is caught up somehow in a major assassination plot. The problem is that it is so extravagantly and unnecessarily complicated. Moreover, the reason behind the hit is dubious, if not laughable.

In an example of PC gone nearly berserk, the pic features not one but two saintly illegal aliens, along with the inane prospect of a good guy ex-Stasi agent. No doubt, German auds will get a kick out of this, along with seeing the German Diane Kruger somehow playing a Bosnian illegal.

January Jones is perfectly cast as the emotionless wife, but something tells me she’s not really acting.

It was fun watching the two Eurotrash killers, Smith (Olivier Schneider) and Jones (Stipe Erceg). After all, this stereotype appears in nearly every action movie these days.

So much action takes place at Berlin’s Hotel Adlon Kempinski—prominently identified as such— that you’ve got to wonder whether they traded product placement for the location fees.

MANDATORY INSURANCE

Posted on by Posted in Politics

A good deal of fuss is being made about that provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (also known as Obamacare) which mandates the purchase of health insurance. Many people feel that this provision is unconstitutional, and at least one federal case (Commonwealth of Virginia v. Kathleen Sebelius) found for the plaintiffs.

The legal theory in the Virginia case came down to a question of whether the provision was a tax or a penalty. The defendants presented it as a tax, but the Court was unpersuaded. The Court concluded that Congress lacked power under the Commerce Clause to compel an individual to involuntarily engage in a private commercial transaction, as stipulated by Obamacare’s “Minimum Essential Coverage Provision.”

The Court also held that the power of Congress under Article I, Section 8 is not unlimited. Nice thought, but really it’s too little, too late. If giving Congress the power to “regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes” permits all that has already been done under the Commerce Clause, the genie has been out of the bottle for a long, long time.

Ironically, the model the Left should have used was the Social Security Act of 1935, in which a nearly universal old-age pension (an insurance product) would be financed by a payroll tax. Clearly, that is how nationalized health care is financed in every other country. However, such a straightforward move would look too much like “socialized medicine,” and the direct approach was not taken.

No one seems to care that socialized medicine—as in Medicare— has been with us since 1965. Moreover, Medicare has influenced all other aspects of how health care is delivered, regardless of who is paying for it.

The direct approach was also not taken because a myriad of details have not yet been worked out, and are left in the Act to the discretion of the Secretary of Health and Human Services. I guess the policy wonks who came up with this mess were not all that wonkish, after all.

When the Act was first approved, I was waiting for some conservative commentator with a contrarian bent to ask this question: If it’s so bad to force people to buy health insurance (Obamacare), why is it OK to force them to buy an old-age pension (Social Security)?

A corollary to this question would be: If it is OK to force people to purchase an old-age pension, why don’t they at least have their choice of vendors, as they would under the Obamacare provision? Why must it be purchased from the Federal government?

I guess the insurance industry lobbyists have a lot more stroke now, than they did in 1935.

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

THANKSGIVING, 2010

Posted on by Posted in Current Events

This year, many families will have to work a little harder to find those blessings to count up. Given a recession triggered by outrageously incompetent government oversight of the mortgage industry, crony bailouts, and a ludicrously out-of-control Transportation Security Administration—to name but a few negatives—how deep do we have to look to find something good?

First of all, no life is free from adversity. Fortunately, though, the vast majority of us have the wherewithal to cope, and that itself is a blessing. For those who cannot, family members can often pick up the slack, and that too is a blessing.

Still, many of us are angry if such adversities are imposed on us by a government, which in theory exists only to serve us.

If it makes you feel any better—and it probably won’t—rank incompetence and blatant stupidity within the US Government is hardly a new phenomenon. If you’re so inclined, surf through the archives of these columns, and you’ll find plenty of examples. One aspect that I cover more than many writers is awful Supreme Court decisions.

But, there’s even a blessing here, and it goes beyond the loss-of-63-seats revolution in this past election. Most other countries simply could not have survived decades of such miserable leadership. Rejoice in our material wealth and in the resourcefulness of our people, who can thrive (relatively speaking, at least) despite the machinations of this brood and earlier broods of vipers.

It is this context, that I proffer a series of cynical, if true, observations on the current state of the union.

 

   In 100 years we have gone from teaching Latin and Greek in high school to teaching Remedial English in college. (Joe Sobran)

   When a politician wrestles with his conscience, he usually wins. (Joe Sobran)

   The Feds sue Arizona to stop probable cause searches of suspicious-looking individuals for possible immigration violations, but then tell us that invasive personal searches of essentially everyone, without probable cause, are just fine.

   The Feds bail out GM, allowing it to go public again. Don’t you wish that you had a $45 billion tax holiday on YOUR business? However, you and I are limited as to the number of shares we can purchase, but Saudi Prince Al-Waleed Bin Talal now owns 1 percent of the company. Chapter 11 bankruptcy would have been the best way to handle the GM debacle, but that did not leave enough room for massive fraud and corruption.

   In an all-too-common example of trade associations being co-opted and going completely against the interests of their members, the once-respected American Medical Association supports Obamacare, even though at the very least, it will mean lower Medicare reimbursements for the doctors. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: If health care is so important, why don’t we care about doctors?

 

Let’s close with something that really is a blessing. The much vaunted Chicago Climate Exchange is closing at the end of this year. Just goes to show you that a bad idea, even if it has massive funding and is recommended by the usual idiots, will still fail if it makes no financial sense. The bad news is that the guy who foisted this outrage on the public made out like a bandit.

Oh yeah, Goldman Sachs lost on this deal also. Pity. Maybe the best news here is that it makes Al Gore look like a fool—again.

Happy Thanksgiving.

LET ME IN

Posted on by Posted in Movies

Let Me InA creepy, yet bittersweet riff on the vampire legend, presented as a teenage revenge fantasy. The pic touches on many themes, but is markedly inferior to the original Låt Den Rätte Komma In (Let The Right One In—2008).

The original film was set in suburban Stockholm, Sweden in the winter of 1982. Here, the scene changes to the US of course, but is set in a wintry Los Alamos, New Mexico, also in 1982.

As the movie begins, an ambulance speeds toward the hospital, and a man is brought in, who is badly disfigured from acid burns. A cop (Elias Koteas) wants to interview him, thinking he might be able to shed some light on a recent rash of murders. However, the man can’t speak, so the cop leaves him a pad and pen.

The cop walks back to the nurse’s station, and he is told that a few minutes ago a young girl came to visit the man. Suddenly, they hear a scream from the ICU and the man has jumped out the window to his death. He leaves behind a note that says: “I’m sory [sic], Abby.”

The action now switches to two weeks earlier.

Owen (Kodi Smit-McPhee), a lonely 12-year-old boy, is introduced. His parents are separated, and although he is living with his mother in a nondescript apartment block, she neglects him, and seems to be drinking all the time. He notices that a young girl of about his age and her father are moving into the next-door apartment. Strangely, the girl is walking barefoot in the snow.

At school the next day, we see that he is mercilessly bullied by Kenny (Dylan Minnette) and his friends. No doubt, the bullying is made all the worse since Owen makes no attempt whatever to fight back, or even restrain his cries of pain.

That night, he goes out to the apartment’s courtyard and engages in a mock knife attack against Kenny, with a convenient tree taking the punishment. The new girl Abby (Chloe Grace Moretz) is also in the courtyard, and sees this. She asks him what he is doing, and he replies “Nothing.” She says that she can’t be his friend and departs. Later, he notices her father (Richard Jenkins) outside.

We now focus on the father, who attacks a random victim, and brings him out to the woods. Using equipment he had brought along, he hangs the man upside down from a tree branch, cuts his jugular, and arranges a jug to collect the blood. However, he hears someone coming and in his haste to flee, overturns the jug and loses most of the blood.

The father returns home empty-handed to Abby, who is now revealed to be a vampire, and he to surely not be her father. She berates him for screwing up, saying that now she will have to “do it herself.” And, do it herself she does. Acting like a hurt little girl, she lures in an unsuspecting victim, and takes in her fill of his blood. Showing what must be her idea of mercy, she breaks his neck so he too won’t become a vampire—and a competitor.

The next night, Owen and Abby are again in the courtyard, and she notices an injury that he admits came from classmates. She says he has to fight back and fight back hard. She asks him if he likes her and he says “Yes.” But then she asks him if he would still like her if she weren’t a girl. While he is pondering this, he hears his mother call him in for dinner.

Meanwhile, the “father” is looking for another victim, but really botches things this time, and must use the acid he always carries with him to disfigure his face, precluding easy identification. He thus becomes the victim from the beginning of the film.

With the “father” out of the way, Abby and Owen grow very close, and all indications are that he will become her new protector and companion, but there are still a few things to take care of…

 

***SPOILERS AND OTHER COMMENTS***

The story is unique and compelling, and that was ample reason for the American remake. Helmer Matt Reeves plays it pretty close to the Swedish original, but the changes he does make are not improvements. One example is the completely pointless opening scene, which anticipates the basic story’s unfolding by two weeks. Another is making the mother a drunk and an apparent religious fanatic.

One more are the TV snippets of Ronald Reagan including his speech “America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good…” Then, there’s the setting of Los Alamos, no doubt a facile attack on nuclear weapons—or something. I guess by Reeves’ reckoning, Owen’s problems are compounded by America being a nuclear power, and having Reagan as president. In the original, Owen was simply neglected by his separated parents. No need for the alcohol or religion, unless this too is part of Reeves’ simplistic attacks on contemporary American society.

Worse, though, is Reeves not developing the androgynous nature of Abby. After all, she did ask Owen if he would still like her if she weren’t a girl. In the original, she is revealed to have no pubic organs, and in the book she is actually a pre-teen boy who was castrated by the vampire/master who originally bit him. Adopting the persona of a 12-year-old girl became a better way for “her” to get along in the world.

So, what appears at first blush to be an odd, if bittersweet, case of puppy love is—upon reflection—something much darker. How low can Owen’s spirits have dropped to choose a life with Abby? Consider that he will be the homosexual platonic companion of a vampire, and must be a relentless serial killer, as well. “Nihilism” is not a strong enough word to describe such hopelessness.

We can only speculate how many Owens and “fathers” Abby has already had, and how many are still in her future, to say nothing of the countless innocent victims of her blood lust.

WALL STREET: MONEY NEVER SLEEPS

Posted on by Posted in Movies

Wall Street Money Never Sleeps Now here’s a great idea. Do a follow-up to your own 1987 moderate hit Wall Street, against the backdrop of the 2008 financial meltdown, and above all, bring back Michael Douglas as Gordon Gekko. How can it miss?

For starters, helmer Oliver Stone can’t seem to decide whether he wanted to make a financial market manipulation thriller, or a treacly relationship picture. Worse, the protags of the relationship are miscast, with the female lead also written as unlikable and unbelievable. Add to that a sentimental ending that seems to have been tacked on after a test screening, and this movie is nowhere near as good as it could have been.

The pic opens with Gordon Gekko claiming his personal effects, as he leaves prison in 2001. Gekko had done an eight-year stretch for insider trading and other financial misdeeds. No one is there to meet him at the prison gates. O How the Mighty Have Fallen, I guess, but no point in lingering on all that, as we jump forward to 2008.

We are then introduced to our young protags, Jacob “Jake” Moore (Shia LaBeouf), and his girlfriend Winnie Gekko—as in Gordon’s daughter—(Carey Mulligan). Gordon is on the TV hawking his new book Is Greed Good?, and this upsets Winnie, since she hates her father for, among other things, supposedly “causing” her brother to die from a drug overdose.

Jake is a hotshot trader at investment banker Keller Zabel, while Winnie works for a Leftist blog. The firm’s namesake, Louis Zabel (Frank Langella) is Jake’s mentor, and out of the blue gives him a bonus check for well over a million bucks. Zabel is clearly disillusioned with the business and wonders out loud, “How do you make money on losses?”

Good question, but that doesn’t explain how alleged maven Zabel got his own firm into big trouble. Thanks to rumor-mongering and some quick plays by shark Bretton James, (Josh Brolin), Zabel’s firm goes down the tubes. Soon after, Zabel offs himself by stepping in front of a subway train. Jake is unaware of James’ involvement at this point.

A few days later, Jake goes to a lecture given by Gekko, and afterward introduces himself as the man who will marry his daughter. The two of them fashion a deal whereby Jake will help Gekko get back with his estranged daughter, while Gordon will find out exactly who was responsible for Zabel’s downfall, and how to exact revenge.

Even though the third act will disappoint many viewers, Stone keeps up the pace, and you really don’t notice the 2 hour and 13 minute running time. On the other hand, you will notice several pointless detours from the main story.

***SPOILERS AND OTHER COMMENTS***

Douglas, of course, turns in the best perf. Langella has his moments, as does Josh Brolin. Susan Sarandon aces the inexplicable role of Jake’s mother. There is almost no chemistry between LaBeouf and Mulligan, but that’s not the only problem with those two.

Given her hatred of her father and everything he stands for, why in the world would she take up with essentially Gordon Gekko, Jr. in Jake? By the same token, we have no reason to believe that the young Jake is such a mastermind—beyond reminiscences from Zabel claiming that he was analyzing markets when he was 12.

It should be a joy to see nonagenarian Eli Wallach as the wise old I-banker Jules Steinhardt, but the dialog given him—featuring bird noises (no kidding)—is ludicrous.

If it comes as a surprise that Gordo put aside $100 million in a Swiss account for Winnie, it defies all logic how she gives it up.

Finally, Stone would have been better served to lose the obvious visual symbols of kids blowing bubbles, the repeated views of the Manhattan skyline, and the overbearing 80s soundtrack.

THE TOWN

Posted on by Posted in Movies

The TownThis intense crime drama offers plenty of thrills, but suffers from significant plot holes and unlikely character development. A rewrite is more than indicated here, and one wonders why it never happened.

An opening title card tells us that the Charlestown neighborhood of Boston is home to most of the perps who are responsible for the more than 300 bank robberies that occur in Boston every year. Just to put things in perspective, based on FBI statistics and extrapolating to the end of 2010, the number would actually be around 80 for the entire state of Massachusetts. For what it’s worth, this “home of bank robbers” image is probably 15 years out of date.

As the pic opens, a crew of Townies (as the neighborhood residents call themselves) is over in Cambridge to rob a bank. The band is headed up by Doug MacRay (Ben Affleck), and includes his hot-tempered and doped-up best friend Jem (Jeremy Renner), along with ace driver and hot-wire wizard Gloansy (Slaine), and alarm hacking expert Dez (Owen Burke). They are outfitted with masks and automatic weapons.

Even though the heist seems to produce plenty of cash, and everyone inside the bank is cowering on the floor, Jem believes that the manager has activated the silent alarm, and beats him severely. In fact, the alarm has been activated by the assistant manager Claire Keesey (Rebecca Hall), although the perps are unaware of this. Nevertheless, Jem takes her hostage and blindfolds her, even though they have never taken hostages on any previous jobs.

After the crew drives around for awhile, they let her go. Subsequently, the gang splits up the money, which includes a large share for local crime boss Fergie (Pete Postlethwaite). It is at this point that they examine Claire’s ID, which they grabbed, and note that she also lives in Charlestown. Jem wants to kill her, but Doug says he will take care of things.

Meanwhile, FBI special agent Frawley (Jon Hamm) has already interrogated Claire, who tells him that she has been threatened, and the gang knows where she lives, so she is reluctant to cooperate. Soon after, Doug encounters her at a laundromat, and even though she has had a harrowing experience just a few days earlier and starts weeping, agrees to have a drink with him. Of course, she has no idea who he really is.

Reluctantly, Doug agrees to pull an armored car heist in Boston’s North End, and the crew makes good its escape despite the narrow streets, and the pursuit of a dozen or more police vehicles. Although they get the money, this one does not go smoothly, producing several casualties. Further complicating matters, Doug and Claire fall in love.

As you might imagine, Jem is furious upon hearing this, and not only because this will surely compromise the crew. Jem’s sister Krista (Blake Lively) was once Doug’s girlfriend, and still pines away for him, but she is a drug-addicted single mother, and Doug is definitely not the father. Not exactly a tough choice between her and Claire, for our hero.

In the third act, the ante is upped even more, as Fergie forces Doug to participate in a more-than-ambitious heist at Fenway Park, by threatening to harm Claire—as well as Doug. This will all play out amid much violence, with a few unexpected turns.

***SPOILERS AND OTHER COMMENTS***

The biggest single flaw in the movie is the character of Doug. The writers aren’t sure whether he is a more gentle version of Jem, or just as violent with a nicer facade. By the same token, it makes little sense that Claire would still carry a torch for Doug after he has revealed himself as the gang leader.

Just as inexplicable is the loyalty shown to autocratic and sadistic crime boss Fergie. It must be nice to sit around and “plan” the heists, while others risk life and limb, and then be able to collect a huge share. What’s more, the crew is not exactly living high on the hog, despite their history of bank jobs.

Although it is necessary to propel the plot, the romance between Doug and Claire is unmotivated, and there is zero chemistry between the two. The meet cute at the laundromat is stupid, since Claire is a “tunie,” local slang for a yuppie, and would no doubt have laundry facilities in her apartment building.

The contrast between Claire and Krista is exaggerated beyond reason, to almost the level of a parody. Frawley is able to use Krista’s jealousy to foil the Fenway heist, but it is unlikely in the extreme that Jem would have confided so many details to his sister.

Against all odds, Doug and Jem are able to escape from the Fenway crime scene, but Jem, disguised in a police uniform, is made almost at once. Strangely, Doug—similarly attired—is not spotted, and once again can successfully flee the scene.

Somehow not appreciating that this would implicate Claire, Doug leaves her a large amount of cash from the Fenway job, which she then uses to make an “anonymous” donation to fix up a local hockey rink. Presumably, with her inside knowledge of banking, she can pull this off and not endanger herself. With the money, he also includes a clue to where he is headed. But, come on! The FBI will be watching her for the rest of her life.

A far better ending would have had the Fenway job foiled, based on a tip from Doug to Frawley, with the last scene showing Claire visiting Doug in prison, serving his five year or so shortened sentence. The writers want you to believe that he is too much of a stand-up guy to do this, but will just the same whack Fergie and his triggerman Rusty shortly after the Fenway heist. He is certainly smart enough to know that the Fenway caper is so risky that his friends would be better off if the job were short-circuited.

Finally, for a film that lavishes us with such details as to how the crew sanitizes their crime scenes with bleach, it is remarkably sketchy on how Doug can elude detection and establish a new life for himself.

More than that, recall that Fergie forces him to do the Fenway job by threatening him and Claire. But, just before this scene Doug tells Claire that they should leave for Florida straightaway. Good idea. Why didn’t they do this? Fergie admitted that without Doug there would be no Fenway heist, so he wouldn’t be endangering his friends.

MACHETE

Posted on by Posted in Movies

MacheteThis over-the-top revenge fantasy is loaded with cartoon violence, nonstop action, and a surprising amount of big-name talent. But the ham-handed politics and racial undertones will be enough to turn off some viewers. Supposedly, the pic started off as a joke trailer, included in Grindhouse (2007), but since the movie got made, I doubt that it was really a joke at all.

As the story begins, Machete (Danny Trejo) a Mexican federale and his partner are headed at high speed to make an important bust. His boss warns him to wait for backup, but of course he doesn’t, and instead walks right into a vicious trap. He is forced to watch drug lord Torrez (Steven Seagal) murder his wife, and is left for dead.

Somehow though, he survives, and makes it across the border into Texas, where he is soon discovered by a sketchy businessman named Michael Booth (Jeff Fahey) and Luz (Michelle Rodriguez), a charismatic woman who runs a taco truck .

Booth gives him $150,000 to assassinate an anti-immigrant state senator (Robert DeNiro), but Machete is just the fall guy. In fact, an assassination attempt has been orchestrated, to galvanize sympathy and support for the senator, who is currently running for reelection. Machete evades the police, being helped by the Network—a group set up to help the illegals. Luz is soon revealed to be the leader, and wants Machete to play an active role. He already gave Luz the $150,000.

Machete is game, but first needs to seek his revenge against Booth and Torrez.

Meanwhile, Booth has his own problems. His daughter April (Lindsay Lohan) is a drug addict, and he has incest fantasies about her. What’s more, he’s been keeping DVDs of the senator’s midnight border attacks on helpless illegals, but these have been grabbed by Machete, who broke into his house. And that’s not all. During the break-in, Machete catches April and her mother June (Alicia Rachel Marek) doing a lesbian porno video, that will presumably be a big hit on April’s Facebook page.

Needing a bargaining chip, Machete kidnaps the two women, but not before he gets into their video. He turns the incriminating border videos over to ICE agent Sartana Rivera (Jessica Alba). Booth ups the ante by killing Machete’s priest brother (Cheech Marin), and all this drives us toward the climactic battle between the Network and its supporters, and self-styled border enforcer Von Jackson (Don Johnson) and his minions.

***SPOILERS AND OTHER COMMENTS***

On one level, Machete is pure comic book entertainment, replete with memorable lurid images. While most of them depict ultra violence, most guys will also recall the matching boobie shots of Lohan and Marek.

On another level, though, there is more than enough pro-illegal agitprop, and it’s impossible to ignore, even if some critics including the NY Times‘ Stephen Holden would rather that you just laughed it off. But, how can you laugh off outrageous nonsense such as the Network needing its own doctors, since illegals are turned away from hospital emergency rooms?

A few commentators have complained that the Anglo women (meaning April and June) are portrayed as idiotic sluts, while the Latinas (namely Luz and Sartana) are heroic and virtuous. Point well taken, except one could also argue that this bespeaks a matriarchal bent, and that isn’t necessarily a good thing. In any event, there were plenty of Mexican women hanging around Torrez, and I doubt that their virtue was maintained.

Any more analysis of this pic is unwarranted. Enjoy it for the thrills, and move on.

WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY: THE FIRST NEOCON

Posted on by Posted in Politics

No, this piece is not about the late columnist and media figure. Rather, I chose the title to set the mood, and take it from an essay by brilliant economist and political historian Thomas J. DiLorenzo.

Quoting DiLorenzo:

As William F. Buckley, Jr., the original neocon, declared in 1952, fighting the Cold War meant that “we have got to accept Big Government for the duration,” including “a totalitarian bureaucracy within our own shores” with its “large armies, atomic energy, central intelligence, war production boards, and the attendant centralization of power in Washington.” How on earth genuine conservatives who favor limited constitutional government came to embrace Buckley as one of their leading spokesmen is a bizarre mystery.

Indeed, Buckley’s rapier wit—that regularly attacked Federal social programs with great aplomb—was AWOL in the wake of pointless military adventures and intelligence extravagances. Why, it must be asked, is it somehow inherently better—nay, completely justified—to spend excessively on these causes, while social program spending is bad? Tax dollars misused are still tax dollars misused, right?

But, there is more here than just overspending, or even decrying dubious foreign adventures. In the case of the Cold War, for example, why was it fought?

The stock answer is that the Ruskies were using their power and influence to dominate the rest of the world, and they had to be stopped or at least controlled. Fair enough, but what intelligence were we getting in those days?

How difficult would it have been to determine that without exception all of the Soviet satellites were in desperate economic shape, antiquated and backward in every way save military prowess? Thus, why not just let the great Soviet experiment implode—as it surely did by 1990? I have little doubt that such intel was coming in, but was suppressed since it didn’t serve the purpose at hand.

The purpose at hand, of course, was to build a giant military/intelligence apparatus, which, irony of ironies, proved utterly useless whenever put to the test. Infamously, it did NOT predict the fall of the Soviet bloc. Yet, as Loren Feldman is wont to say, “It doesn’t mattah.” This apparatus has continued to grow, without a Cold War. In government, nothing succeeds like failure. Please give us more of what didn’t work before.

More than that, the entire Cold War was a complete betrayal of the supposedly sacred cow of American exceptionalism. If America really is the greatest, freest, best, most powerful, etc. country on earth, why should we care about some loser Commies?

Why shouldn’t we focus instead on building our own country, rather than costly “nation building” elsewhere—to the tune of untold billions of dollars? Exactly what is wrong with rational isolationism? Beyond trade and the establishment of some strategic presence, what is the point of “international relations”?

How many wars has diplomacy prevented? Compare that to the number of wars this country was dragged into, supposedly to help our allies, or for the even more vague reason of “national interest.” What was our dog in the fight for World War I? If winning in Vietnam was so important, why were there ruinous rules of engagement that could only lead to a shameful loss?

Sadly, these rules of engagement have only gotten worse. Thus, we have the disastrous double whammy of a lack of mission in Iraq and Afghanistan, combined with rules of engagement that guarantee ineffectiveness. Of course, brave Americans will keep dying—for no reason at all. When was the last time our military was actually defending our direct interests? Except for half-hearted recent efforts against Somali pirates, you probably have to go back more than 100 years.

DiLorenzo and others have noted that deficit spending and central banking assure that citizens will be enslaved, and there is no better way to burn through the national treasure than war.

But changing such institutions may never happen. We can start by voting all the bums out, and questioning the conventional wisdom at every turn.

MAKE WAY FOR TOMORROW (1937) RETROSPECTIVE

Posted on by Posted in Movies

Make Way For TomorrowThis vastly overrated clunker fooled everyone except its original theatrical audience. The pic bombed on release, but wowed the critics at the time, right on down to the present day. Despite its many glaring flaws, which quite literally turn it into a parody of itself, you will search the Web in vain to find anything other than stellar reviews. Orson Welles himself was taken in, claiming that “It would make a stone cry.”

The movie opens as a family reunion is occurring at the home of elderly Barkley “Bark” Cooper (Victor Moore) and his wife Lucy (Beulah Bondi). The time is 1937, close to the height of the Great Depression. A quick exterior shot portrays a more than decent-sized home.

Bark, a bookkeeper by trade, tells the gathered clan that he was laid off four years ago, and has been unemployed ever since. He and Lucy have burned through their savings, and the bank will be foreclosing. One of the sons asks how much time they have, and Bark speaks of a six-month notice, only to then reveal that the time is up in a few days.

As it happens, none of the kids has sufficient space to accommodate both parents, or so they say. Thus, Lucy is sent to live with the eldest son George (Thomas Mitchell), his wife Anita (Fay Bainter) and their teenage daughter Rhoda (Barbara Read) in New York City. Meanwhile, Bark goes off to an unnamed rural location, some 300 miles from New York, to be at the home of daughter Cora (Elizabeth Risdon) and her husband Bill (Ralph Remley).

Nellie (Minna Gombell), another daughter, makes up a variety of excuses why she can’t help out at all, and a third daughter Hattie is way off in California, and beyond reach—at least for the moment.

Lucy must share a room with her granddaughter, and this becomes a big hardship for the youngster. In fact, Rhoda complains to her mother that she is so embarrassed by Lucy that she can no longer have her friends come over to visit. However, this is not borne out by the events on the screen.

Worse, though, is the contrived situation that occurs as Lucy interacts with a high-class bridge instruction seminar run by Anita at their New York apartment. Clearly, Anita is teaching these classes to bring in some extra money, and her students are all well-heeled and quite sophisticated.

Inexplicably, Lucy—who is neither senile nor nasty—interrupts the proceedings by placing a squeaky rocking chair right in the middle of the living room. Later, the phone rings, Anita answers, and it is Bark wanting to speak with Lucy. Even though this will surely be disruptive as the phone is also in the living room, Anita hands it over to Lucy, who speaks in an obnoxiously loud old-fashioned “long distance” voice.

Of course, Anita is embarrassed by this, but since she could have just as easily have told Bark to call later, can hardly blame Lucy. Yet, she does. Moreover, Anita also holds Lucy responsible for not being able to monitor Rhoda’s dates anymore, since none of the men come to the home.

We are being set up to see how selfish Anita is, but the circumstances are so contrived that I’m sure audiences weren’t buying it in 1937, either. It doesn’t help that all of this “action” unfolds at a glacial pace.

Meanwhile, Bark has little to do at daughter Cora’s home, so he spends most of his time at the store owned by Max Rubens (Maurice Moscovitch). Moscovitch offers the movie’s best performance, and is also part of a scene that simply defies explanation.

Rubens is well aware of the forced separation of Bark and Lucy and their tenuous finances, and offers a made-to-order solution. Mr. Hunter, a wealthy lawyer, is looking for a couple to act as permanent caretakers for his nearby farm, and upon Max’s recommendation, Bark and Lucy could get the job. Even better, they could live there—rent-free—for the rest of their lives.

Incredibly, Bark turns him down flat. More on this later.

As events play out, Lucy is headed to a home for elderly women. (I guess that there aren’t any homes for elderly couples in New York.) Based on catching a cold (no kidding), Bark is scheduled to be sent off to Hattie’s in California, and its more “healthful” climate. Presumably, the children will be paying for Lucy’s care.

Feeling a wee bit guilty, though, the siblings arrange for a reunion dinner at the New York apartment of George and Anita, where Bark and Lucy will say their (likely final) good-byes. Bark arrives in New York several hours before the dinner, so he meets Lucy, and they return to the hotel where they spent their honeymoon 50 years earlier.

Bark must have plenty of pocket money now, because he orders drinks for himself and Lucy at the hotel bar, where everyone is nicer than nice to them (as opposed to their rotten kids). The couple is having such a great time that they decide to blow off the family dinner, and eat instead at the hotel’s fancy restaurant. In keeping with this fairy tale portion of the story, they are comped on the dinner as well as the drinks.

The film ends at the train station, where Bark is headed off to California, and Lucy must return to George’s apartment until she is put in the home—although Bark knows nothing of this.

There is much wrong with this flick…

Why on Earth did Bark turn down the caretaker job? Tellingly, that scene, which completely destroys the premise of the entire “sad” story, is never mentioned in any of the reviews.

It is difficult enough to accept that a bookkeeper could be unemployed for four years during the Great Depression, but it is beyond reason that a bookkeeper would keep on spending like there’s no tomorrow under those circumstances.

Any number of stupid throwaway lines could be mentioned, but this one was especially absurd: Bark explains that he no longer has a particular book since it was taken away when the bank foreclosed. I was unaware that any bank would bother to hold such personal items as collateral. How did the couple end up with anything more than the clothes on their backs?

Perhaps the worst travesty, though, is the ending. After a glorious day in New York City, where they profess their mutual love, Bark has no problem whatsoever leaving Lucy to fend for herself, as she watches his train depart. Contrary to all normal human experience, there was not a single conversation whereby the couple discussed other possible solutions—anything to stay together.

Given the miserable story, the acting is serviceable. Ironically, Victor Moore was known primarily as a comic actor, and the incongruous light tone he brings to the film helps make it endurable.

I suspect that the mythology surrounding “Tomorrow” is due in large measure to the revisionist posturing of the movie as an argument for Social Security. But then, Social Security was also overrated.

THOUGHTS ON THE WORLD CUP–SO FAR

Posted on by Posted in Sports

Disappointing performance by the US team

Sure, some calls went against the side, but when you consider that we still have no strikers who can score goals, Team USA was lucky to win its group. Unfortunately, Landon Donovan can’t have a career game every single time, and even if he did, this would not be enough to win against better opponents.

The sobering truth is that the last time a forward landed a goal for our side in a World Cup was in 2002, when Brian McBride scored against Mexico.

Choice of personnel was puzzling, as well, especially in the final game against Ghana. Starting Ricardo Clark was clearly a mistake, and coach Bob Bradley brought in Maurice Edu around 10 minutes after Ghana scored its first goal.

Furthermore, even though Jozy Altidore was the leading scorer for the USA in the World Cup qualifiers, he was terribly ineffective in the tournament. Inexplicably, he was kept in for the entire Ghana match, when Edson Buddle—with much to prove, and certainly no worse a tournament record—was on the bench.

However, problems with the USA program go beyond this single tournament.

It is quite inconceivable that in a country with more than 300 million people—to say nothing of our “diversity”—we can’t field a stronger team. I can only speculate here, since I have no inside knowledge, that the fault lies in the recruiting.

The USA side is comprised mostly of men who have played for European teams, and a few stars from Major League Soccer. For the most part, these players came up through the ranks of organized youth soccer, and then played in high school and college. Great, but does Team USA look beyond the obvious sources?

In every city you can see organized teams featuring mostly Hispanics, with an occasional superb player. Is Team USA too lazy to check these out? On the other hand, there are programs underway to promote soccer to inner city youth, that should pay off in the future.

As to the sport gaining in popularity in this country, I think the situation is positive. More and more viewers are eschewing the absurd time commitment and the sting of endless commercials that is now NFL football. For every three hour telecast, there might actually be 15 minutes of action—and even this seldom persists for more than 20 seconds.

Perhaps the greatest advantage of soccer is that normal size people, with athletic ability of course, are able to play and even become stars.

We’ve come a long way from earlier World Cup broadcasts that were only available on special pay-per-view.

 

Officiating

The worst thing about FIFA officiating is that is not subject to replay review, or review of any kind. Thus, a crooked ref can easily change the outcome of a game, with the only punishment being banishment from the rest of the tournament.

I would suggest the following changes:

  • Replay on goals

  • Severe penalties for diving, with more red cards given. Replays could be used here.

  • More severe consequences for poor officiating, with investigations occurring in egregious cases

 

Other remarks

One interesting aspect of this year’s World Cup is the non-performance of several highly-paid stars, including Wayne Rooney, Lionel Messi, and Christiano Ronaldo. Beyond pure arrogance and massive ego, the only explanation I can proffer is that within club play, opponents and refs defer to the stars, supposedly for the “good of the game.”

Whatever the reason, the poor showing by the above three may well affect their reputations in the next club season.

There has been some discussion regarding the intentional handball by Luis Suarez of Uruguay (in the game against Ghana). There are those who argue—unctuously—about “fair play,” as if fouls for inappropriate tackles never occur. More importantly, such arguments seem to assume that a supernaturally perfect system of discerning between inadvertent and intentional fouls actually exists.

Suarez did what he had to do. Absent his action, the game was lost. Knowing that his handball would result in a red card and a penalty kick, Suarez counted on the nerves inherent in a big time penalty kick in the World Cup, and he was right. It was a clever play.

Ghana can complain all they want, but nothing Suarez did could have caused them to miss the otherwise routine PK.