Rants, reviews, and reflections

Mike's Comments

Author Archives: admin

WRITING ABOUT POLITICS…OR NOT

Posted on by Posted in Politics

You may have noticed that I’m not writing about political issues as much as I used to. In fact, a couple of weeks ago, I was asked about this by a fellow member of a locally-based trade association.

Maybe I’ve been doing this too long, and given other writing assignments beyond the Mike’s Comment collection, I’m experiencing some level of burnout. But, the short answer is that politics is boring and depressing.

Let’s start with the politicians themselves. The vast majority of them are deeply flawed individuals, who are also not very bright. Yet, surrounded as they are by an army of sycophants, their perception of their own value is inflated beyond measure. The depressing part is that their capacity to inflict destruction is immense.

Can you name any other field of endeavor whereby a participant can yield great power and influence, yet have absolutely no practical knowledge of the objects under his control? Granted, this seems to occur more often now in big business, but not to the appalling degree we see it in government.

Who are these people anyway? They are the same creeps who ran for office in high school, and the same annoying dweebs who want to run your PTA or homeowners’ association. Taking a page from Groucho Marx, I would have to conclude that running for office should disqualify someone for further consideration.

Why not have the candidates be limited to those invited by a rigorously screened group of “elders”? Why not, indeed? Mainly, it’s because such a system would not have so many ripe possibilities for corruption or entertainment value.

What about the electoral system itself? It is just about completely broken. Districts have been gerrymandered to virtually assure re-election of incumbents, unless that individual is flagrantly corrupt, or has been in office so long that the voters are sick of him. The modest success of the current Tea Party movement should not so much be heralded, but should rather be viewed as those few examples of the system operating on the grass roots level, as it was intended.

In other words, we should rather be reminded of how miserable things have become by these few successes.

As to the laws and regulations rammed down our collective throats all these years, the pathetic truth is that the vast majority have been complete failures. The regulatory process, for example, has degenerated into nothing more than a series of onerous burdens that inevitably favor large companies.

That’s why Wal-Mart, once the very model of an entrepreneurial company, now supports every socialist program that comes down the pike. Compliance will always be easier for the giants than for their competitors.

Meanwhile, the efforts of political commentators are disappointing, to say the least.

When Rush Limbaugh makes one or more pronouncements, we know it helps create vast wealth for him, but what good does it do for his listeners? I understand that it can rile them up, but how does that really change anything? Surely, it does help his competitors on the other side of the political spectrum, as they too can get their listeners all riled up, increase their audiences, and sell more advertising.

We already know that those on the Left—for whatever reasons—favor some form of oligarchic socialism. But what is the excuse for those on the Right and their loopy “Constitutionalism.” Have they ever actually read the document?

Article I, Section 8 gives Congress all the power it will ever need!

Here is how it starts:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States;

“General welfare” is pretty broad, don’t you think?

And, here’s how it ends:

[The Congress shall have Power] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

What little protection the citizens have resides exclusively in the Bill of Rights. We talk about the balance of powers, but you can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times your Supreme Court has limited the power of the government in any meaningful way.

Much more can be added, and perhaps I will return to this subject. As noted, though, it is already too depressing.

ROBIN HOOD

Posted on by Posted in Movies

Robin HoodGloriously staged battle sequences do not make up for an overlong, talky and fairly boring experience. Some story elements border on the ludicrous, and there is pointless tinkering with historical reality, along with PC revisionism. Viewers expecting to see the traditional Robin and his merry band in Sherwood Forest are in for a big disappointment, as are those who are expecting a sensible back story of the legend.

The pic begins at the close, not the “turn” of the 12th century—thus invalidating one of the opening descriptive graphics of the film, after specifically mentioning the year 1199. Given the reputed budget of $250 million, and purported (if untrue) rigor to history, this error is unforgivable.

Archer Robin Longstride (Russell Crowe) and his buddies are coming home from the Third Crusade, and must engage in one more battle. Led by Richard the Lion-heart (Danny Huston), this particular engagement is against the French. Richard is killed, and Robin and company decide that they have had enough of war, and will flee to England. On their way, though, they witness a group of French soldiers led by English turncoat Godfrey (Mark Strong) ambush an elite English contingent that is taking Richard’s crown back to England.

Robin and company force the French group to leave, but all the English are already dead or dying, and this includes the leader of the contingent, Sir Robert Loxley (Douglas Hodge). Loxley begs Robin to take the crown back to England, and return his (Loxley’s) sword to his father in Nottingham. While impersonating a knight is a crime punishable by death, the archers figure that this would be their best ticket back, and so don the chain mail and board the boat waiting for Loxley’s detail.

Richard’s crown is turned back to his mother Eleanor of Aquitaine (Eileen Atkins), who crowns her much inferior other son John (Oscar Isaac) as the new king. John is completely taken in by Godfrey, who is actually working for the French king Philip (Jonathan Zaccaï). The idea is to weaken John’s popular support, so that the French can easily invade.

Robin and his band (still masquerading as Loxley and company) leave London for Nottingham, and reach the Loxley estate. Here he encounters Lady Marion Loxley (Cate Blanchett), who, because of the hard times and high taxes, is outside working with the commoners. Apparently, owing to the constant wars, virtually all the children in the town are orphans, and to support themselves have become outlaws, stealing all the Loxley’s seed grain.

Robin intends to return the sword and leave Nottingham straightaway, but is persuaded to stay by Robert’s father Sir Walter Loxley (Max von Sydow). What’s more, since Marion cannot inherit the estate based on the misogynistic customs of the time, he convinces Robin to continue the masquerade, and act as Marion’s husband. Marion is not terribly keen on this, but realizes that it is the best course, under the circumstances.

Meanwhile, John is desperate for revenue, as the treasury has been depleted from Richard’s adventures. Trouble is, the people have already been taxed too much. Godfrey offers to bring in lots more money, using force, secretly hoping that this will make the people hate John even more. The building conflict will eventually reach Nottingham, and Robin will play a key role in its (at least temporary) resolution.

***SPOILERS AND OTHER COMMENTS***

While one can forgive some historical inaccuracy in a popular feature, it is noted that the Magna Carta was signed before the French invasion portrayed in this movie, and not after. While that point does not really change the plot details, helmer Scott should be ashamed by his rip-off of Saving Private Ryan (1998), as he portrays the invasion.

Moreover, it is quite unlikely given the navigation abilities of the era that the French fleet’s landing site could have been so well predicted, as it had to be in the film.

Perhaps the most flagrant anachronism is the appearance of Lady Marion (a feminist, natch) in full chain mail in this battle against the invading French. Indeed, this item is doubly foolish as both she and Friar Tuck (Mark Addy) join the battle in perfectly fitting chain mail. Where did that come from, especially since most of the grunt soldiers involved in the fight were not so equipped?

The pic embarks on the relatively new PC tack of portraying King Richard as something less than a hero, again judging him by contemporary standards. Fair enough, but since many accounts of the real Richard peg him as tall and very handsome, thesp Danny Huston may not have been the best choice for the role. No doubt, though, the worst PC sin was given in Crowe’s speech to Richard as to how his army had become “godless,” after murdering innocent civilians.

Presumably, this charge refers to an incident in 1191 at Acre, when Richard killed 2,700 Muslim hostages during a truce. History records this matter a bit differently than Crowe’s speech.

For one thing, there were no women and children. Richard took the hostages as a guarantee that Saladin would release his own Christan hostages. This was part of the truce. Saladin did not release the hostages, even though Richard gave him three weeks beyond the original deadline. It was only after Richard concluded that Saladin would either stall indefinitely or simply not honor the terms at all, did he order that the hostages be killed.

In any case, there was plenty of blood on the hands of both leaders.

A key plot point is that Sir Walter knows the truth about Robin’s father, who died when the boy was young. As it happens, the father wrote what would become the Magna Carta, but was executed when he demanded various human rights. Robin finds the document his late father wrote, and uses its precepts to unify the quarreling barons to fight the French. King John verbally agrees to these rights, and that’s the only way that the baron unite, but oddly enough never signs anything!

Of course, after defeating the French he disavows this, and declares Robin, who is effectively the George Washington of England, to be an outlaw. This whole business is preposterous, and there were several shocked looks among my fellow moviegoers. Yes, the same army that the barons put together to defeat the French would now somehow become loyal to the hated King John. And, the barons would simply kowtow to this outrage. Right.

One is tempted to blame this on the screenwriter, but what usually happens is that a script changes during production. In this case, the change was surely not for the better.

IRON MAN 2

Posted on by Posted in Movies

Iron Man 2Too many characters, too much dialog, action sequences that seem uninspired at times, and a less than compelling story make this sequel a bit of a disappointment. You’d think they would care more about getting a good script, since even the 17-year-old boys are becoming weary of pointless, drawn out CGI “action.” Still, the film does hit a few true notes.

Party-hardy Tony Stark (Robert Downey, Jr.) has already let the world know that he is Iron Man, but now he has to appear before a senate committee. It seems that Senator Stern (Garry Shandling, looking puffy) wants him to turn his Iron Man suit over to the US Government. Stern brings on Stark’s competitor Justin Hammer, who tries to make the case that the technology should not be proprietary, but the presentation bombs and Tony gets the last laugh—or so we think.

Meanwhile, though, mysterious Russian Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke) hears his father on his deathbed blame all of their problems on Howard Stark, Tony’s late father and the elder Vanko’s former business partner. Ivan promises revenge, and will use some Stark Industries plans stolen by his father.

As Tony flits around the world, the scene changes to Monaco at Grand Prix time, and one of Stark Industries’ cars is entered. Much to the chagrin of his top assistant Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow), he commandeers the race car. Ivan shows up, dressed in his “Whiplash” suit and wreaks havoc on the track, until he is stopped by Tony, who fights him in his Iron Man suit.

Stark’s victory is pyrrhic, though, as now Tony’s contention that no one else has the iron man suit technology is disproven.

Too much of the movie deals with Tony’s self-destructive behavior, not to mention his body being slowly poisoned by the palladium-powered heart he installed in the original pic. Perhaps the most pointless scene involves a lengthy fight—in full Iron Man suits—between Tony Stark and best friend Lt. Col. James ‘Rhodey’ Rhodes (Don Cheadle). Samuel L. Jackson has a small role as the head of a mysterious security agency that needs Tony’s help, and Scarlett Johansson has way too little to do as a Stark operative.

The final confrontation has a great build-up, but ends on a curiously dull note.

***SPOILERS AND OTHER COMMENTS***

As to the “few true notes” mentioned above, Senator Stern is a grasping, slimy incompetent. Sadly, that description is more applicable to members of the real senate than most people might realize. The shenanigans between defense contractor Justin Hammer and Congress are also spot on, unfortunately. The fact that a thug like Vanko would be utilized at the top levels of DOD also has real-life parallels, along with the Colonel Blimp-like general, who briefly takes over the Iron Man suit project.

The way the media gush over Tony Stark is uncomfortably reminiscent of its fawning over real life celebrities, and its neglect of what was once the more serious business of journalism.

Movie Line crit Stephanie Zacharek is spot on with this observation:

The big problem with Iron Man 2, maybe, is that it so dutifully gives the people what they want, instead of giving them what they didn’t know they wanted.

IF HEALTH CARE IS SO IMPORTANT, WHY DON’T WE CARE ABOUT DOCTORS?

Posted on by Posted in Health Care

Whatever you might think about Obamacare, at best, it attempts to address the issue of PAYING for health care. Indeed, 99 percent of all the talk on “health care” revolves around matters of payment. Surely, this has to be dealt with, but what about quality? And, as I will discuss in this essay, what about the doctors?

If you want to put some historical perspective on this, you can look back to 1965 and Medicare as the first big intrusion into the doctor/patient relationship. But, to some extent, the die was already cast when private insurance plans started proliferating after World War II.

However, it would be the late 1970s when the model began to seriously unravel. It was at this point that private insurance would become THE dominant factor, essentially controlling how health care was to be practiced. True, those patients covered under PPO (Preferred Provider Organization) plans would have it better than their counterparts under HMO (Health Maintenance Organization) coverage, even if they had to pay more for the privilege.

In the initial stages of the insurance takeover, doctors’ fees did not take such a beating (at least when compared to today), but things were to change. As it happened, the downward spiral required turncoat doctors to cooperate with the insurance companies. Thus, the greedy docs and local medical associations who thought that if they formed groups and played ball with big insurance may have seen their reward, but for every sellout, there are thousands of doctors who got screwed in the process.

Consider the plight of the new medical grad today…

The newly minted doctor likely has well over $200,000 in student loan debt, which is going to be hard to pay off, given ludicrous resident salaries that are usually less than $50,000/year. And, for that, they get to put in 100 hours a week. Isn’t that what you want, a sleep-deprived doctor working on you? Besides, don’t you feel better knowing that the greedy docs aren’t making any money? Instead, it’s the greedy execs and administrators of the hospital corporations, not to mention the insurance companies.

Please note that these residents are the heart of our hospital system; yet, they are fundamentally screwed by the system. Most nurses with several years in are doing a lot better financially than these doctors—in terms of outright salary, rational working conditions, and better lifestyle.

What about that resident after three years (or more), when his residency is completed? Well, then he gets to be the junior junior associate in a private practice, and will surely work hard for the money, which can now approach $200,000 annually if he is lucky. But, he still has all that debt, and will be working only marginally fewer hours than he did as a resident.

The upshot is that very few doctors enjoy their lives, or their vocation, but have committed so much to get to that point, that they must continue. Many opt out of traditional private practice altogether, contending that the business model does not work anymore, and even if it did, cannot stand the lifestyle.

Because of the threat of malpractice litigation (a problem that Obamacare did nothing to lessen), scores of otherwise unnecessary tests and procedures are ordered, driving up the price of care for no good reason.

Older doctors routinely complain about the lack of practical experience and knowledge shown by the up and comers, and this too comes back to the failed and broken system.

Let’s start with med school. Admission standards favoring state residents (in most cases) skew the relative quality of the students. And, of course, there is still the pervasive social engineering making it far too difficult for qualified Anglo students to gain admission, when compared to their minority brethren. For what it’s worth, being a white female currently affords no particular advantage.

While there is a fairly rigorous licensing process in place, it tends to select much more for those who are good at taking multiple choice tests, rather than those who also possess excellent clinical skills.

Med students routinely complain that much of what is taught in medical school —especially during the first two years—is overkill at best, and probably flat-out useless. Nearly all med students agree that the curriculum need not consume four years. Good luck trying to shorten that, given the big bucks collected in tuition.

Did you know that the so-called Match, which places med students in residencies, has total control of what position they will be offered, excepting the very unlikely case of a brilliant student somehow being able to arrange his own deal? Needless to say, the vast majority of students will be disappointed with their “assignment.” Imagine that, after all those years in school, you are ASSIGNED your first job, and regardless of your wishes, your specialty is picked for you, as well.

Not surprisingly, the most desired specialties are those identified with the most normal hours, and highest incomes. Thus, few want to become pediatricians, and there is a big trend toward dermatology. One wonders how the residency rush would shake out if docs were just able to submit resumés to prospective hospitals?

So, how can this be changed, you might ask? Clearly, more docs and more patients have to speak out. Unfortunately, most doctors are nerds who basically follow orders, and those who do speak out must confront an incredibly monopolistic and vindictive system.

If there is a silver lining in Obamacare, it will be when the average Joe speaks out on behalf of his “provider,” the doctor.

DREAM–WHEN YOU’RE FEELING BLUE

Posted on by Posted in Music

Dream

“Dream,” with music and lyrics by Johnny Mercer, has been covered by dozens of artists. The song was introduced in 1945 by the Pied Pipers, and hit number 1. Not long after, Frank Sinatra released a version. Other well-known covers were done by Roy Orbison, Ella Fitzgerald, The Skylarks, and Michael Bublé.

The first time I heard the song, I was probably five years old, and it was on someone’s AM radio—peppered with plenty of static, no doubt. It was to become one of my all time favorites.

With the advent a few years ago of easy music downloads, a hobby of mine has been to listen to many versions of a particular piece, evaluate them, and save only the best. Eventually, I would go through this exercise with “Dream.”

Without question, the best performance of this song comes from Susannah McCorkle’s 1986 album called—appropriately enough—”Dream.” Backed by a small group featuring New York heavyweights Ben Aronov (piano) and Frank Wess (tenor sax), Susannah slows it down a bit, and includes the seldom heard verse.

Get in touch with that sundown fellow
As he tiptoes across the sand
He’s got a million kinds of stardust
Pick your fav’rite brand, and…

Now for the chorus, which is even slower, giving plenty of space for tasty piano and sax fills.

Dream, when you’re feeling blue
Dream, that’s the thing to do
Just watch the smoke rings rise in the air
You’ll find your share of memories there

So dream when the day is through
Dream, and they might come true
Things never are as bad as they seem
So dream, dream, dream

Now comes a dreamy sax solo by Wess, setting up Susannah’s reprise

So dream when the day is through
Dream, and they might come true
Things never are as bad as they seem
So dream, dream, dream

Her final “…and they might come true” is wistful as is her “Things never are as bad as they seem.” Perhaps she was trying to convince herself.

Never a big star, McCorkle was doing well enough in 1986, but suffered from depression, and was to finally lose her record deal and her spot at the Oak Room Supper Club. She was apparently off her meds when she leaped to her death from her 16th floor apartment on May 19, 2001. As it happens, her father and an aunt had also committed suicide.

Does suffering make for better art? Not always, but it’s for sure that sincerity does, and even if Susannah did not completely believe the lyrics, she really wanted to.

Give her version a spin some time.

 

Lyrics © WB Music

A LENTEN REFLECTION

Posted on by Posted in Religion

The Gospel reading for the fifth Sunday of Lent (Cycle C) is John 8:1-11. This is the familiar story of the woman caught in the very act of committing adultery, brought before Jesus. The crowd notes that Mosaic law stipulates that she should be stoned to death, and asks Jesus what he recommends. It is in this passage that he famously replies: “Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”

At that, the crowd disperses, until only Jesus and the woman are left. The story continues:

Then Jesus straightened up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?”

She replied, “No one, sir.” Then Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you. Go, and from now on do not sin any more.”

This short passage elicits a number of comments…

Within the greater context of the Gospel story, the woman is brought before Jesus for the primary purpose of tripping him up. This popular teacher already has a reputation as being somewhat lenient with sinners. If he condemns the woman outright, he is not merciful, but if he does not condemn her, then he is going against the law. On the surface, to the enemies of Jesus, this seems like a surefire trap.

His answer bespeaks the infinite mercy of God, and also is a verbal gem that stops his accusers cold.

Per the text…

“Teacher, this woman was caught in the very act of committing adultery. Now in the law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?”

They said this to test him, so that they could have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and began to write on the ground with his finger.

But when they continued asking him, he straightened up and said to them, “Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”

What was he writing on the ground? Some say that it was a list of sins committed by the accusers, others say that if the woman was a prostitute, it was a short list of her clients, many of whom were standing there accusing her. At any rate, if she was really caught in the very act of committing adultery, how come her partner does not also stand accused?

At best, this is far from a just tribunal. Indeed, it has been said that we can learn much about a society by the way it treats its women. Just how was she caught, anyway? Was it a set-up from the beginning?

Note that Jesus is not exactly gentle in giving out his mercy. The woman is made to stand before the crowd, suffering plenty of embarrassment—not to mention fear for her life— before she is finally pardoned. Then he admonishes her not to sin anymore. Some texts render it: “But from now on, avoid this sin.”

We are left to ponder whether or not she avoids this sin, all sins, or backslides within days. Interestingly, it is not even known if she is repentant during this process, or if she thanks Jesus for saving her life.

Another theme here is that God prefers conversion to punishment, and surely, conversion is at the very heart of Lent.

YOUR LOSS OF FREEDOM: THE FIX WAS IN FROM THE BEGINNING

Posted on by Posted in Politics

A great issue of the moment is whether the Federal government should take over health care. People wonder why Obama and company are pursuing this with such alacrity, even though most of the public is opposed.

The answer is quite simple: Inasmuch as health care encompasses one-sixth of the total economy, government hegemony here would be the easiest way to greatly expand the size and influence of government. Indeed, every country in which the central government runs health care has become essentially socialistic, and there has never been any turning back.

Analysts on the Right will identify various key events in American history to be the turning point whereby the United States set out on the road to Socialism—or more precisely, when the Federal government transformed into an all-powerful Leviathan. However, there is considerable disagreement on this turning point, even among the most doctrinaire conservatives.

There are those who would choose LBJ’s Great Society. This massive set of programs aimed to address civil rights, poverty, education, and health—racking up untold billions in expenditures. No one would deny that the most visible result has been the huge expansion of federal agencies, with limited to negligible improvement in the areas mentioned, possibly with the exception of civil rights.

Some will name FDR and his New Deal as the turning point, and they would have ample evidence, what with the National Recovery Administration, Social Security, packing the Supreme Court, and dozens of new “alphabet” agencies. Still others would go back to the horrific War Between the States, and Lincoln’s incredible policy of making war on his own people, to preserve a Union that was supposed to be voluntary in the first place.

Upon reflection, though, it becomes clear that Lincoln’s imperial presidency did not develop in a vacuum. Rather, the trend toward nationalism and the erosion of any state sovereignty started virtually from the beginning.

Former vice president and senator John C. Calhoun, although rightly stigmatized for his pro-slavery views, was absolutely correct regarding his fears of an ever-expanding federal government, that could never be trusted to limit its own powers.

Thomas J. DiLorenzo names Alexander Hamilton and John Marshall as the architects of the all-powerful national government, and Marshall and Daniel Webster especially as those who created the fiction that the states were never sovereign, and that the Constitution was created somehow by “the people” and not the states. Webster was to repeat this lie endlessly even though it flies in the face of Article VII.

DiLorenzo also explains that since Article III, Section 3 defines “treason” as consisting in “…levying war against them [the United States], or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort,” Lincoln’s invasion of the South was nothing but treason. Yet, Webster attempted to turn this on its head when he claimed that “To resist by force the execution of a [federal] law, generally, is treason.”

In other words, to RESIST constitutionally defined treason became treason in Webster’s fantasy world. Webster advised that frequent elections and the judiciary would prevent government tyranny. As DiLorenzo notes: “We tried that for decades and decades, Daniel, and it didn’t work.”

OK, but is there a single starting point for this grand notion of Federal superiority? Yes there is, and it goes back to 1816, and the Marshall court, although in this particular case, Marshall recused himself. This was the case of Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee—the first case to assert ultimate Supreme Court authority over state courts in matters of federal law, and at its essence, an early blow against the doctrine of nullification.

Famed legal historian Charles Warren called this decision “the keystone of the whole arch of Federal judicial power.”

Here’s the background…

Lord Fairfax held land in Virginia. He was a Loyalist and fled to England during the Revolution. He died in 1781 and left the land to his nephew, Denny Martin, who was a British subject. The following year, the Virginia legislature voided the original land grant and transferred the land back to Virginia. Virginia granted a portion of this land to David Hunter.

By invoking the Jay Treaty, the US Supreme Court declared that Fairfax was so entitled, but the Virginia courts, where the suit arose, refused to follow the Supreme Court’s decision. As it happens, the Virginia Supreme Court’s refusal was based on its own interpretation of the Jay Treaty, and not that they should or should not follow the US Supreme Court.

Martin appealed, and the US Supreme Court rejected the claim that Virginia and the national government were equal sovereigns. “Reasoning” from the Constitution, Justice Story affirmed the Court’s power to override state courts to secure a uniform system of law and to fulfill the mandate of the Supremacy Clause.

It is noted that the Supremacy Clause in Article VI merely says that the judges in every state shall be bound by the constitution, but it is quite a leap from that to the notion that the US Supreme Court can overturn all state decisions, and was even worse to read that into Article III.

Moreover, by 1816, the Jay Treaty was moot given the War of 1812; and Marshall had a good reason to recuse himself. He and his brother had signed a contract with Martin to buy the land in dispute. Of course, this man—who still holds the record for longest tenure for a chief justice—would have no influence on his associate justices, would he? That’s why they voted 6-0 for Martin and thus their colleague Marshall.

One more rotten Supreme Court “landmark” decision, and an early guidepost on the road to Federal tyranny.

SHUTTER ISLAND

Posted on by Posted in Movies

Shutter IslandRelentlessly creepy, with good performances and music that tends to the melodramatic. The plot twist will be anticipated by many viewers, and could disappoint. All things considered, though, the story (from a best-selling book by Dennis Lehane) is strong, and upon reflection, the twist is the best course the plot can take. A valid complaint is the excessive running time of 138 minutes.

As the pic opens, it is 1954 and US Marshals Teddy Daniels (Leonardo DiCaprio) and Chuck Aule (Mark Ruffalo) are headed by ferry to Shutter Island, located in Boston Harbor. The island houses Ashecliffe Hospital, a state-run institution for the criminally insane, and the agents have been called in to investigate the disappearance of a patient from the high-security facility. This particular patient killed her three children.

The duo find it hard to believe that someone could have escaped, given the rugged terrain, cold water, and lack of any sort of vessel to make the crossing. Still, they have their job to do.

Soon, they are introduced to Dr. Cawley (Ben Kingsley) and Dr. Naehring (Max von Sydow), the lead psychiatrists, who do not seem terribly motivated to help with the investigation. Worse, Naehring appears to be an ex-Nazi, and that hardly sits well with Teddy, a decorated soldier who participated in liberating Dachau during World War II.

Worse yet is the deteriorating weather, which may cause power losses, and could strand them on the island.

During the course of the investigation, senior agent Teddy reveals to Chuck that he has an ulterior motive, and in fact pulled strings to get the assignment. His wife Dolores was murdered a few years earlier, and he thinks that the culprit, one Andrew Laeddis, is a patient/prisoner at the facility. Dolores (Michelle Williams) will appear in visions to Teddy from time to time during the movie.

But finding Laeddis may not be easy. Besides Building A for the women and Building B for the men, there is also the foreboding Building C, housing the most violent patients. Entry to Building C requires special permission, which Teddy is sure he would not be officially granted. What’s more, there are rumors of horrific Nazi-style medical experiments going on at the island’s lighthouse, and he wants to look into these, as well.

As the storm’s intensity increases, the duo get their chance to enter Building C, and Teddy does find Laeddis. But the marshal may have been given hallucinogenic drugs by Dr. Cawley, and can’t be sure of very much. As it is, Teddy has been having terrible flashbacks regarding Dachau and seems to be unraveling mentally.

A break in the weather allows him to continue on to the dreaded lighthouse, where all will be revealed.

Helmer Martin Scorsese and DP Robert Richardson create the perfect Gothic mood, complete with endless dark corridors, concentration camp flashbacks, and Teddy’s own nightmares. Even with its flaws, a gripping cinematic experience.

CRAZY HEART

Posted on by Posted in Movies

Crazy HeartA bravura performance by Jeff Bridges makes up for a weak script, hampered largely by a poorly conceived female lead. Tender Mercies (1983) covered this ground (broken down country singer/songwriter seeks redemption through the love of a good woman) a whole lot better.

As the pic opens, country artist Bad Blake (Jeff Bridges) is driving through New Mexico on the way to a gig at the bar attached to a bowling alley in a small town. Blake, once a legend in country music, is none too pleased with this state of affairs, but after several marriages and too much drinking—not to mention that this gifted songwriter hasn’t written anything new in years—what more can he expect?

Still, he seems to be arguing constantly with his manager Jack Greene (Paul Herman), who also handles current young giant country star Tommy Sweet (Colin Farrell). Bad was a mentor to Tommy, and provided him with numerous hit songs, which presumably earned him plenty of cash. Yet, he bears some sort of grudge against Tommy, that is never really explained in the movie.

Clearly, Blake is in bad shape, as he has to take a puke break during one of his performances at the bowling alley.

Bad’s next gig is in Santa Fe, at a somewhat better venue. He arrives early and hears keyboard man Wesley Barnes (Rick Dial) playing some tasty licks. Bad compliments him on his skill, and Wesley asks if his journalist niece Jean (Maggie Gyllenhaal) can interview him after the show. Bad agrees, and in pretty short order, he and the much younger Jean have a relationship.

Blake gets an offer to open for Tommy Sweet in Phoenix at a big concert, and although initially being against it, consents to do this. He is rewarded by Tommy coming on stage during his set to perform a duet of one of Blake’s signature songs—much to the delight of the crowd.

Bad really starts to bond with Jean and her four-year-old son, but Jean warns him not to drink in front of the boy. Blake also tries to reach out to his own long-lost 28-year-old son. The rest of the film deals with Bad turning his life around, even if there may not be a storybook ending in all of this.

***SPOILERS***

One of the reasons I liked Tender Mercies better than Crazy Heart is that the story made much more sense, and the female lead—played by Tess Harper—was more believable. Maggie Gyllenhaal is game, but does not really have the looks to pull off the part, and the part itself is dubious.

She is so attracted to Blake, that she sleeps with him by the second night, and professes her love soon thereafter. Yet, a relatively minor incident—not well dramatized, and related to Bad’s drinking—breaks up the relationship for good, even when Bad expresses sincere regret, his love, and gets sober.

In Tender Mercies, Mac Sledge (played by Robert Duvall, who also appears in Crazy Heart), is redeemed by Rosa Lee (Tess Harper). He stops drinking, reconciles with his own daughter, and gains a new family by marrying Rosa Lee. This all works in Horton Foote’s beautiful, Oscar-winning screenplay.

In Crazy Heart, Bad Blake stops drinking, does not reconcile with his son, and gets dumped by Jean. Even his reconciliation with Tommy Sweet is implied, rather than shown.

The tagline for Crazy Heart is “The harder the life, the sweeter the song.” Sure enough, during the interview when Jean asks Bad where the songs come from, he replies: “From life, unfortunately.” It does seem like overkill that nothing on the romantic/family side works out for Bad Blake, and this is driven home further in a pointless scene in which Jean encounters him at a local concert appearance 16 months after the main action.

She is sporting a wedding ring (from “a real good guy”) and press credentials from a bigger paper. She asks the newly successful Bad (now using his given name of Otis) for another interview. He accepts, of course.

Sorry, but this whole bit didn’t work for me. Too bad the late Horton Foote wasn’t available for a rewrite.

LEGION

Posted on by Posted in Movies

LegionNot quite as bad as the critics would have you believe, this pic certainly has an interesting premise. God is fed up with humans, and is raining down destruction via His angels, who are taking over countless human shells to help with the Apocalypse, or at least the extermination. However, one of the top angels—the archangel Michael—isn’t going along with the program, and is trying to save humanity.

The movie opens with Michael (Paul Bettany) landing on Earth in a Los Angeles alley, whereupon he cuts off his wings, takes a police car, and fills it with plenty of weapons and ammo. We don’t know where he is heading, but then the action shifts to the Paradise Falls diner, located somewhere in the Mojave desert.

The characters at the diner are introduced in pretty rapid succession: Bob (Dennis Quaid), the embittered owner; his son Jeep (Lucas Black); the very pregnant Charlie (Adrianne Palicki), and Percy, Bob’s partner (Charles S. Dutton) make up the diner staff. Kyle (Tyrese Gibson); and a family in conflict with father Howard (Jon Tenney), mother Sandra (Kate Walsh), and teenage daughter Audrey (Willa Holland), round out the customers.

The first sign of trouble comes in the form of a little old lady with a walker (Jeanette Miller), who transforms herself into a demon who can walk on the ceiling, clearly interested in killing everyone in the diner. The lady/demon is shot in the nick of time, but this attack, along with the dead phones, has definitely freaked out our diner folks.

Soon after, Michael shows up at the diner, explaining the situation to the bewildered occupants. When asked if he has come to protect them, he answers, “No. I came to protect her (pointing to Charlie).” Charlie’s soon-to-be-born baby is apparently mankind’s only hope.

Hoards of zombie-like attackers will come, but “all” our little group has to do is fend off the multiple assaults until the baby is born. Adding to the excitement is that Michael’s brother, the archangel Gabriel (Kevin Durand), has been sent to kill Michael and the baby.

In keeping with the movie formula, many of the characters will not survive, and nearly all of them—with their mortality in sharp focus—express regrets. If anything, there is too much talk, and although there is intense action, it seems as if much more was left in the editing room, along with some plot.

No doubt, a variety of theological issues are introduced, but they are just introduced. Since Lucifer started off as an angel before going to the dark side, the notion of an angel turning against God’s will is established, even if this was a one time occurrence. But, exactly how a child born on what will turn out to be Christmas day will save mankind is never explained, and certainly begs the question in that another child sort of beat him to it, around 2000 years ago.

There are also Old Testament references suggesting that God would never repeat the total destruction wrought by the Flood, and that even a small number of people would be worth saving. Perhaps a more sound premise would have involved some random fallen angel (certainly not an archangel) unleashing waves of destruction.

Legion has its moments, but does not quite satisfy.