400

Two weeks ago, it was revealed that there is currently 400 parts-per-million of CO2 in our atmosphere. The last time this happened, humans were not on this planet. There are detrimental consequences. As I searched around the web for a variety of different bad news, I was surprised at the good news I was finding. The good news is surprising and encouraging, but it by no means suggests that we are really making the revolutionary changes we need to sustain our planet's health. Regardless, I thought about sharing some of the news:

There's some good news.

1. The U.S. has actually lowered its emissions. As much as I would like to credit the current administration for this, much of it is due to factors outside of the government's control. And unfortunately, a large part of it is due to the recession, as people have cut back on energy use because of the economic conditions. Additionally, the shale boom is credited with lowering CO2 emissions because natural gas is becoming more prevalent in the U.S. and is about half as dirty as coal or petroleum. With coal being "dead man walking" and the increasing price of oil , natural gas seems to be benefiting the U.S.; for example, "Made in America" is making a comeback and "Made in China" is declining as it's becoming cheaper to produce goods in America than it is in China.

Supposedly, the U.S. has actually reduced its emissions the fastest, falling to levels even below what the U.S. pledged at Copenhagen several years ago. (I find this hard to believe; as the Vancouver Observer put it, "The Americans?  Really?")

But President Obama and his team deserve some credit. They have reduced pollution from cars, cut harmful emissions from power plants and proposed the first regulations of CO2-producing factories, limiting the amount of emissions from these plants. Additionally, the Recovery Act, arguably the best piece of legislation from his administration, contained over $4 billion in tax cuts for individuals to energize their homes more efficiently and $13 billion in tax cuts for  renewable energy production; the law was clearly the largest energy bill in the history of the country with vast environmental reach, covering electric vehicles, smart grids, renewables, etc. (See Michael Grunwald's glowing defense of the Recovery Act called "The New New Deal.")

But has the U.S. actually lowered its emissions? Read the bottom.

2. There are other serious steps in the right direction.  Carbon sequestration is happening. With the help of Energy Star products, last year, Americans prevented 242 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions. You hate the way those eco-friendly compact florescent light bulbs take a long time to light up? Then look to the impressive (and cost-efficient) LED lightbulbs that are taking over. South Korea, one of my favorite countries, plans to launch the most aggressive carbon-trading market in the world. Bill McKibben has organized one of the most effective environmental activist groups, 350.org, and there are many other activist groups, like fossilfree.org. People are still interested in this and people are still making a difference.

3. The rise of EFH (Energy from Heaven). The price of crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells per watt has immensely decreased from a high of $76 per watt to a low $0.74 per watt this year. Portugal is apparently operating at 70 percent renewable energy! Has this incredible ingenuity of renewable energy that is taking place in Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and even the United Arab Emirates been happening in America?

A little bit. Perhaps the most obvious example is renewable energy in Chicago.  Chicago and other cities have enough usable wind for energy, but as you can see in the video, conventional wind turbines are safe to use in open areas but dangerous to use in urbane areas. To solve this, scientists developed a propeller based on DNA strands (they call it "the Helix") so that it can safely power buildings. In New York City, Mayor Michael Bloomberg has been given about $50 million from the Sierra Club to fight coal based on public health grounds. Additionally, he's presiding over a city with massive potential for solar energy and other renewable energy sources.    

     

And some bad news.

The biggest concern is that these steps are not enough. The U.S. still is one of the two major culprits in carbon dioxide emissions. Kevin Matthews argues that this decline in U.S. emissions is highly misleading, that he U.S. actually increased its emissions and that the EIA report does not factor in methane emissions (so stop eating cows). Shakeb Afsah and Kendyl Salcito at Think Progress argue that natural gas has had a limited effect on replacing coal, that in fact the vast majority of the emissions decrease has to do with the reduction of petroleum and coal use and the increase of EFH; natural gas (an "energy from hell"), in essence might have replaced coal in some areas but actually offset its decrease by its increase in other sectors (see the graph to the right for the increase during the shale gas boom period of 2006-2011). Even those who trumpet natural gas should recognize that natural gas is not a long-term solution to this problem.    

We've made some steps in the right direction, but it's clearly not enough. We're still having fun, and we shouldn't be.





environment, 400, 350, natural gas, oil, emissions, CO2, renewable energy, Obama, New Deal, Recovery Act

Read More →

Happy (Late) Earth Day

Happy (Late) Earth Day, everyone. As I've been teaching pre-medical students the bizarre language known as English and working to complete my Master's degree, I haven't had as much free time as I would like. So now, in honor of Earth Day, I would like to take a moment to write about one of my favorite topics: the environment. Here are five observations about the current state of things and some advice on what we can do to solve it:


1. Stop using plastic (or at least try to)! Plastic is a profound problem. But there's good news and bad news--the bad news is that contrary to what we all hope, about 90 percent of all plastic bottles are in fact not recycled; about four-fifths of all plastic bottles end up in the ocean and then into our stomachs (diapers go through a similar route). Instead of being recycled into new bottles, plastic bottles are more likely to be down-cylced. The good news is that we can live in a world without plastics. There are relatively simple ways to do so. You can of course buy a reusable steel bottle to avoid plastic bottles, and probably the easiest is to buy reusable shopping bags; go a step further and buy reusable produce bags. Another easy thing to do buying a juicer so you can make your own juice, including types not often found in grocery stores, like watermelon juice and cucumber juice. This is also healthier, as store-bought juice is either too sugary and/or devoid of fiber.   

2. Students need to be taught critically about the problem. Instead of boring students with a trivia-based approach in the classroom that they will likely not retain, students need to comprehend the bigger picture, that the status quo benefits those are contributing more to the problem (e.g. China, the U.S., Russia, and Saudi Arabia) and destroying countries that contribute less (e.g. Bangladesh, the Maldives, Nigeria, and Haiti). Bill Bigelow, a critical pedagogist, has written a curriculum described in his article "The Big One" (2009)  "Environmental justice movements," he wrote, "are beginning to imagine a future that is greener, more cooperative, more democratic, and less oriented toward profit, consumption, and economic growth." Students should be taught that they have a responsibility to be good stewards of the earth, that it is selfish to be otherwise, and that they have the power to change things.

3. One party is greener than the other. Perhaps no finer example of this exists than the contrast between Democratic and Republican environmental policies. After the 1973-1974 oil embargo, some countries had effective responses. France, for example, established nuclear power as its main energy source (though, interestingly, America, because of its size, actually uses more nuclear power than France. Nevertheless, France powers almost eighty percent of its nation by cleaner nuclear power). Denmark, despite heavy gasoline and CO2 taxes, has had tremendous growth for decades but a fairly flat energy use increase. Under President Carter's administration, fuel standards for cars and trucks were raised (something President Obama has continued to do). How did President Reagan respond? By simply lowering the standards, from 27.5 miles per gallon to 26 miles per gallon. President Bush tried to reverse Clinton-era air conditioning regulations and by doing so would have wasted billions of dollars and 50 million metric tons of carbon, or about the equivalent of 34 million cars on the road. (A court reversed the administration's decision.) Republicans used to have a environmental legacy to be proud of; consider Teddy Roosevelt's national parks initiatives and Richard Nixon's creation of the EPA. But Reagan, the Bushes, and the Tea Party have tried to make sure that is reversed.

Thomas Friedman, in his book "Hot, Flat and Crowded," noted that after 9/11, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer was asked if President George W. Bush believed the American people needed a lifestyle change to combat terrorism. His answer was "a big no." The President, he said, "believes that it's an American way of life, and that it should be the goal of policy makers to protect the American way of life. The American way of life is a blessed one." So instead of enacting what Friedman calls a "Patriot Tax" to combat mass murderers, the U.S. government gave us massive tax cuts, establishing enormous debt we are still struggling to pay off, and told us to go shopping.

(The current administration deserves praise for its green work, but more is needed.  The administration should be pressured until it adopts tough regulations for CO2 emissions for power plants.)

4. It shouldn't be easy and it shouldn't be fun. According to Friedman, we're not having a green revolution, we're having a green party. A green party is fun and easy to do. You just have to change your light bulbs and plant a tree and you can continue to mow your lawn, drive your car, eat all the meat you want, not pay any more taxes, and vote for the GOP. We're past the point where changing light bulbs can solve the problem. Consider a list of the more challenging steps needed (and Friedman claims these are the "easy" ones): replace 1,400 coal-powered plants with natural-gas powered ones, install carbon capture and sequestration at 800 plants, cut electricity by 25 percent. Consider that Indonesia and Brazil are just under China and the U.S. in terms of CO2 emissions. Why? Because of all the deforestation. How many of us could live without paper?

People of the higher-income nations, particularly Americans, have not been asked to seriously sacrifice to solve this problem. Some ways could actually help us, like converting our dumb electric grids to smart ones, so people are encouraged to use electricity at hours of the day when the grids are under less pressure (instead of the current system where people are charged a flat rate no matter when they use electricity). Mowing your lawn the old-fashioned, eco-friendly way will not only save you money but also get you some exercise. Switching to a more plant-based diet will help lower methane emissions (which are far more harmful than all those hummers we hate so much) but could also help prevent doctors removing an artery from your leg to put in your heart when you are rushed for surgery. And despite my previous complaints against President Bush, his 2007 law (a law phasing out incandescent light bulbs and one which his modern contemporaries call socialism) is a step in the right direction, and changing your light bulbs can make a difference. But we need to work much, much harder.

5. Hypocrisy is humbling. Or rather, admitting you're a hypocrite is. I myself profit off of an oil-producing nation, and I use a massive amount of CO2 just to get here (and travel internationally for vacation). Does this make me a hypocrite? Of course it does. But I recycle and don't use plastic and compost and vote Democrat! But I need to change just like everyone else. I would rather be hypocritical about this issue than dumb, but hypocrisy is nothing to be proud of.  

Finally, remember that 99 is not 100, and you should help the planet because it's the right thing to do, not because it's sexy.


UPDATE: Here's the New Yorker's interesting articles on President Obama's environmental legacy and Al Gore.

Read More →

The Amazing Spider-Man

Film critics are told to go into every movie rooting for it to be a smashing good time.  I must confess that I had no such thinking walking into "The Amazing Spider-Man." I suppose I shared the consensus view that there was no need to re-boot the franchise so soon after Sam Raimi's trilogy.  I think, though, that after the negative reaction fans had towards the "Star Wars" prequel trilogy, there has been considerable efforts from filmmakers charged with the task of rebooting franchises to do it justly, and that's why the James Bond, "Planet of the Apes," "Batman" and other reboots have been so successful. Fortunately, Marc Webb's "The Amazing Spider-Man" is another one of these successful reboots.

Andrew Garfield (from "The Social Network") is Peter Parker, the awkward boy Tobey Macguire portrayed in the original trilogy. Here, as Spider-Man (which he finally becomes at almost an hour into the movie), Garfield suffices, but I suspect he needs one more go-around before getting it completely right. He has had a lot of good training from this one, as his co-stars include Rhys Ifans, Sally Field, and Martin Sheen; those three actors are worth the watch of any movie, so to see all three here is a real treat, and they're all in top form, particularly Ifans, who's given a lot of "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde" moments to have fun with. It's just a shame that we don't only see this portrayal but also Ifans disguised in silly-looking GGI effects. When he's in his full metamorphosis as the Lizard, he looks rather silly (but again, as a sick scientist, he's wonderful). Emma Stone as Gwen Stacy is as likable and funny as she was in "Easy A" and "Zombieland," but unfortunately isn't given much to do here until near the end. Denis Leary also appears as Stacey's strict, traditional "law-and-order" father (who also happens to be the police chief who despises Spider-Man). Finally, Stan Lee, as he always does, has a cameo here, and it probably is the best Stan Lee cameo ever.

But as Peter Parker the teenage high school student, Garfield overdoes the awkwardness, overplaying his nervous stuttering in front of pretty girls. The audience is too smart to believe that Peter could be severely punched in the stomach and face several times and then waltz into class. But still, despite this taunting from a school bully whose behavior is way too unrealistic (and considering what demons high school bullies are, that is saying a lot), the audience is probably willing to suspend its disbelief and cheer when Peter has fun humiliating him in the school gym. That's after he gets his mutant powers, of course. And he gets those powers in a science lab when a spider bites him....oh, what's the point of discussing all the details of the plot? By now, everyone knows it.

And that's a problem Webb's "Spider-Man" has: it hastily checks through the "to-do" list of a "Spider-Man" reboot: Peter gets bullied, he's bitten by a spider, he gets new powers and struggles to understand how to use them. This is a lesson in the subtle differences in listing versus telling.  Webb and his team believe that they need to go through the check list with all this stuff, and these scenes usually are the ones that don't work. Case in point is the CGI scenes with Spider-Man flying around the city or his nemesis, the Lizard destroying the city. They are disguised as "show-me" moments. The parts that really work are the ones where we're being shown something genuine. Not necessarily the visuals, but the human element that makes up the "Spider-Man" mythology. As expected, a lot of this comes from the relationship between Peter and his surrogate father, Ben, played by Sheen. Sheen's character is a simple, working-class man, and yet he has a lifetime of powerful education to pass down to his nephew. But there are other show-me moments, like when Spider-Man must act quickly to save a boy from a burning car. It reminded me of those pictures of the window-washers at hospitals who sometimes dress up as Spider-Man to entertain the children.  It's evidence that the world not only needs heroes, but movies about super heroes.



This review is dedicated to Roger Ebert, who died on Thursday. He wrote the following about "Spider-Man 2," one of his favorite films of 2004: "Now this is what a superhero movie should be...it's a superhero movie for people who don't go to superhero movies, and for those who do, it's the one they've been yearning for." (In his opinion, "The Amazing Spider-Man" was the second best in the series.)












Movies, movies, theater, cinema, watch, watching, watches, view,  see, saw, celluloid, cine, cinema, cinematics, cinematograph, feature, film, flick, motion picture,moving picture, photoplay, picture, screenplay, show, silent*, silver screen, talkie,talking picture, videotape, Spiderman, Spider-Man, Spider Man, Martin Sheen, Andrew Garfield, Batman, James Bond, Planet of the Apes, Social Network, Emma Stone, amazing, lizard, rhys ifans, roger ebert

Read More →

Afghan Star

Havana Marking's "Afghan Star," the winner of the 2009 Best Director and Audience Award at the Sundance Film Festival, is perhaps the most interesting look at a country we should, but probably don't, know a lot about. As the title suggests, this is a documentary about Afghanistan. Not about the current and never-ending war there, but, again as the title hints, a documentary regarding the "American Idol"-style television contest, "Afghan Star." To say this show is dangerous for the performers is an understatement, particularly for the female ones. One of them in particular, after she is voted off the show, strips her hair of its cover and dances around the stage for one last performance. The grin of a Westerner's face would likely fade as we then see the reaction of her countrymen and women. They are not pleased. "Afghanistan is an Islamic country," one of them says. Even though she is eliminated, we see her struggle to get back home and avoid the copious amount of threats from conservatives.

Saudi Arabia is an Islamic country, as well, and yet their definition of what is acceptable for women is radically conservative, even by Afghanistan's terms. Considering also that the world has gone through great liberalization in this past decade, it's stunning to see that in a part of the world where women not only studied with men but also sang rock music to shouting fans is now a region where young girls are shot in the head for attending school. Music is forbidden? Why? I can only tell through brief conversations that conservative Muslims believe music has traditionally been seen as distracting Muslims from their religious duties. But what about video games? Why is permissible to be distracted by them? This is something I will never be able to comprehend. But this is a documentary made for Westerners who would like to get up and one second cheer and another lecture. My reaction was similar to the one I had after watching Alison Klayman's "Ai Weiwei: Never Sorry." While Westerners may be encouraged, what do most folks in Afghanistan and China have to say about these topics?

As hackneyed as it sounds, you're likely to learn a bit more about Afghan culture through this documentary than you do on the nightly news. Consider that the final contestants are from different ethnic groups--Hezara, Pashtun, and Tajik. I suspect the average viewer would be a bit surprised to see, frankly, what these folks look like. Some folks, particularly Westerners, might wonder why they don't look like Arabs, as it seems the rest of the world lumps Islamic countries all together into the Middle East. I remember several years ago, there was an English language learner at our school in the Czech Republic. She was from Kazakhstan (or one of the "-stans," I can't remember which), and a colleague of mine remarked that "she looks so Asian." I think Americans need to be aware that 1) Asia is not simply Japan, China and the Koreas, but a whole host of nations, and 2) we need to rethink how we "see" ethnicity. A person from Afghanistan most likely does not look too similar to a person from Oman. Regardless, there are stories here that need to be told. Those of people who hid radios during the Taliban rule. As the war begins to end (theoretically), it would be interesting and anxiety-inducing to see what kind of stories we can expect in the next documentaries about Afghanistan.
 



Movies, movies, theater, cinema, watch, watching, watches, view,  see, saw, celluloid, cine, cinema, cinematics, cinematograph, feature, film, flick, motion picture,moving picture, photoplay, picture, screenplay, show, silent*, silver screen, talkie,talking picture, videotape, Afghan, Afghan Star, Islam, controversial, Westerners, documentary, liberal, conservative, 

Read More →

Side Effects

"The good people sleep better, while the bad ones seemed to enjoy the waking hours much more."
-Woody Allen's "Side Effects"

I'm calling about Emily. The doctor-patient relationship has perhaps never been so devilishly portrayed on screen as it is in Steven Soderbergh's "Side Effects," an entirely different film from Woody Allen's collection of short stories. There are four main characters in this movie--a loving husband recently released from prison, his wife who experiences mental illness, and the current and former doctors treating her. But the main focus is on the young wife and her current doctor. The wife is played by Rooney Mara, most famous for her Oscar-nominated performance in "The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo." Mara is Emily, and her husband, Martin (Channing Tatum), is released from prison after serving a term for insider trading. Despite her reunion and a decent job, Emily is severely and hopelessly suffering from depression, to the point where she attempts to take her own life by crashing her car into a wall. In the hospital, she meets Dr. Jonathan Banks (Jude Law), the psychiatrist who will treat her. His remedies include a fairly aggressive approach using numerous pills, many of which cause her terrible side effects. After seeking advice from Emily's former psychiatrist (Catherine Zeta-Jones), he puts her on an experimental drug; its main side effect is sleepwalking.

The first half of the movie is an incredibly powerful and haunting look at our seemingly addictive lure to pharmaceutical drugs. Mara is haunting, and sympathetically so--how many of us will watch this movie and be reminded of an experience in which a patient pleaded for reason and clarity from their doctor? Why is this happening to me? Why isn't the medicine working? Will it ever stop? What's wrong with me? We've all heard the story of Pandora's Box being opened, unleashing terrible things into the world. Hope remained. While hope is, as "The Matrix" trilogy told us, both our best and worst quality as a species, hopelessness is undoubtedly a terrible state. Perhaps the drugs only make things worse.

But after an hour of messages that are borderline "Reefer Madness," Soderbergh begins his real fun. There's a thrilling twist, things become a bit wonky, and Soderbergh as he often does understands that his audience is too smart for a two-hour lecture. The feeling of hopelessness shifts from one character to another as our story twists and turns; it's reminiscent of Hitchcock's "Vertigo" and "Psycho," two thrillers which start with a MacGuffin and decide to re-write the whole thing half-way through. Beyond that, Soderbergh is a director comfortable challenging our current groupthink position on who's "good" and "bad" in society. Consider his "Contagion," from two years ago, where Law played a journalist, usually the moralistic character in today's media; in "Contagion" he spreads fear and anarchy. There's a lot of thought put into Soderbergh's characters, even in more two-dimensional movies he has done recently, like last year's "Magic Mike."

The actors are commendable, though Tatum isn't given too much to do and Zeta-Jones sometimes come across as too Cruella DeVille-like. But Law is brilliant here, obsessed with setting things right, regardless of where that moral compass points, and so is Rooney, who is creepy without being gratuitous. She's assisted by trademark Soderbergh features--the almost other-worldly cinematography by Peter Andrews (look it up to see who he really is) and Thomas Newman's cryptic score. It's one of the best films I've seen in a while.


act, acting, actor, actress, Catherine Zeta-Jones, pharmaceutical, Hitchcock, movie, movies, review, side effects, Movies, movies, theater, cinema, watch, watching, watches, view, feature, film, flick, motion picture



         

Read More →

The Best Films of 2012

Hey there, cats and kittens. Here are some of the best movies of 2012:

(In no particular order.)

Argo
Ben Affleck (has anybody been able to explain why he wasn't nominated for Best Director?) succeeds at easily blending genres and styles in this movie. Its opening is reminiscent of the intensity of "Saving Private Ryan," and from the beginning one gets the sense that Affleck and his team went to great lengths to get the details right. It's actually this point--details--that hurt the movie, because eventually the movie strays from them. Towards the end, "Argo" seems to evolve from a smart thriller to a dumbed-down action flick, simply because the filmmakers underestimated their audience. But it's still quite a good film.

Undoubtedly, this movie will win the Best Picture Award. Voters will feel bad for not nominating him for Best Director, so they'll compensate by giving him this award (and to fellow nominees George Clooney and the white guy in this clip).

Django Unchained
Just as Affleck was robbed of a nomination for "Argo," so too were Leonardo DiCaprio and Samuel L. Jackson for Best Supporting Actor nominations for Quentin Tarantino's "Django Unchained." Tarantino's style may be overly inspired by various different sources, as expected, but his screenplay is superb, particularly the sequences at Candy Land, as Django (Jamie Foxx) and Dr. Schultz (Christoph Waltz) attempt to rescue Django's bride (Kerry Washington). DiCaprio is brilliant as Calvin Candy, a horrible slave owner with no empathy or remorse (or soul), and equally entertaining to watch is Jackson as Stephen, the Uncle Tom slave supervisor. While it's a shame that neither of them were nominated, Waltz is considered a favorite for Best Supporting Actor, though it's a peculiar nomination for him as he has the majority of lines in the film. DiCaprio, Washington, Foxx, Waltz, Jackson and the others who show up along the way all have different styles of acting, but Tarantino does a commendable job in directing them all.

Amour
Michael Heneke's "Amour" is a love story filmed as a horror movie. Just like last year's "A Separation," it's so suspenseful and intense without the use of music or the usual gimmicks. By the end of the movie, with a uniquely quiet climax, I was on the edge of my seat, and thought to myself that I rarely, if ever, have a reaction like that to movies when so little is happening on the screen.  Heneke figures out how to establish an emotional connection without playing the usual notes; we feel for these characters, and there's no score to tell us to do so.

The Woman in Black
Just when haunted house movies seemed to be too dull, "The Woman in Black" brings us that rich tradition of Hammer Films horror. Rotten Tomatoes summarizes this movie as foregoing "gores for chills." But this movie is so much more than that. Yes, it's atmospheric, but it's also terrifying.  (And it's also underrated; I couldn't find any other list where this made the top ten.) Hammer is back.

Monsiuer Lazhar
My bias towards this film is that I am a teacher, and so many memories (good and bad) were constantly coming back to me as I watched this movie. The role of the teacher, and the delicate balance one plays, is demonstrated well here, especially with Mohamed Fellaq's performance as an immigrant from Algeria teaching an elementary class in Quebec. So many elements were running through my head: fragile students, even picked on by teachers; favorite students and least favorite students (but of course equality toward all of them), East versus West in teaching styles, and young students' search for their identities. This is close to being the best film of the year.

But that goes to...

Moonrise Kingdom
This is not only the best film of the year but also Wes Anderson's best film.  Just as I have a bias towards "Monsiuer Lazhar" because I'm a teacher, I have a bias towards "Moonrise Kingdom" because I am a former Boy Scout and Eagle Scout. While watching the movie, I picked up all the bizarre eccentricities of what it's like to be a Boy Scout, but even if one has never been a member of the Scouts, it's still immensely entertaining. There are wonderful characters here: Edward Norton as a hapless Boy Scout leader, Bruce Willis as the town's police chief, and Bill Murray and Frances McDormand as the parents of a young, rebellious girl. But the real stars here are young actors Kara Hayward and Jared Gilman, playing two loners who run away for self-discovery in a far more humorous way than we usually see. I hope to see many more fantastic movies with them.

The Oscars await...


Turbo-tastic!

                           

Movies, movies, theater, cinema, watch, watching, watches, view,  see, saw, celluloid, cine, cinema, cinematics, cinematograph, feature, film, flick, motion picture,moving picture, photoplay, picture, screenplay, show, silent*, silver screen, talkie,talking picture, videotape, best movies of 2012, Ben Affleck, Argo, Moonrise Kingdom, Django Unchained, Amour, The Woman in Black

Read More →

The Most Overrated Movies of 2012

There were some good movies this pasty year, some great ones (emphasis on the word "some"), and some bad ones. Unfortunately, there were some that we were told were good, but actually were quite bad. How easy it is to pick on those which were destined to be bad; I only wish more critics would call out those movies that were truly bad even though they received such high reviews. Here's a look at some of those such films:

Brave
Educator and writer Herb Kohl noted in a review of books written for elementary school students that the literature sections included classic European tales like Snow White and Cinderella, "tales of royalty and wealth filled with passive or wicked females, evil step-parents, pure and handsome princes...Young women need to be rescued from older women, purified for marriage into royalty or sacrificed to save their fathers." Pixar's "Brave" offered an opportunity to break away from this typical Disney portrayal of princesses. At first it seemed it would be true. Not only is the princess portrayed in the movie a lot tougher than the male characters but also is up against her mother, who is both un-evil and her actual parent. Unfortunately, that's where the opportunity ends. This movie is dull, and disappointingly so. What could have been a unique moment for tough princesses shies away into an unfortunate mess.

Beasts of the Southern Wild
Angry that Ben Affleck wasn't nominated for Best Director?  You can blame A) the Academy, B) the critics who for some reason adored "Beasts of the Southern Wild," and C) director Benh Zeitlin, who was for some odd reason nominated for Best Director instead of Affleck. Admittedly, Zeitlin has a talent, and I hope I enjoy his future work more than this one, but "Beasts of the Southern Wild" is interesting and appealing only if you've never seen "Whale Rider," "Where the Wild Things Are," and a whole host of other surreal movies about children.

The Cabin in the Woods
What a joy it was to see Bradley Whitford and Richard Jenkins in such wonderful roles. Unfortunately, the focus of the movie is on the "horror" scenes, which are not only un-scary but ridiculous. But that's the point, some will say. It's a joke, they will say. If it's a joke, then the joke's on me.

Killing Them Softly
Director Andrew Dominik and star Brad Pitt tried to recreate what worked so well in "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford." They failed. They would have us believe that in the world of "Killing Them Softly," angry thugs and murderers sit around watching C-SPAN and talking politics. At different points, Pitt's character goes on diatribes about Jefferson and different current events. "America's not a country," he says, "it's a business." Wow. That's deep.

Pitch Perfect
You've seen "Mean Girls" and "Bridesmaids," so skip "Pitch Perfect," because it's basically the musical version of these two movies, stripped of any enjoyment.

The Avengers
Can somebody please, please tell me what's so fantastic about this movie? Is it the silly dialogue? The annoying characters? The orgy of CGI effects? The headache-inducing fight scenes? The wooden dialogue? The bad acting to match the wooden dialogue? What a terribly overrated movie.  


I don't have the energy to complain any more, but I'd also like to issue a hiss to "Oslo, August 31st," "Gayby," and "The Master."  Hopefully, next year will feature less overrated movies.




Movies, movies, theater, cinema, watch, watching, watches, view,  see, saw, celluloid, cine, cinema, cinematics, cinematograph, feature, film, flick, motion picture,moving picture, photoplay, picture, screenplay, show, silent*, silver screen, talkie,talking picture, videotape, Brave, Cabin in the Woods, Pitch Perfect, Avengers, Killing Them Softly, Beasts of the Southern Wild  

Read More →

Oscar Predictions

Best Supporting Actor
This is one of the most challenging to predict this year. If the Oscar's play it safe, they'll pick Tommy Lee Jones for his role as abolitionist congressman Thaddeus Stevens. Particularly if it turns out that "Lincoln" ends up sweeping the Oscars, then Jones will easily ride those coattails. But "Lincoln" has had a rough couple of months; it owes it's likely win for Best Director due to the fact that Ben Affleck simply isn't nominated, and there has been a bit of a backlash against Tommy Lee Jones, I think for good reasons. For one, while it's hard not to admire Jones as an actor, in this performance he doesn't do much except yell a lot. Whereas the scenes with Daniel Day-Lewis in the title role are riveting, with Jones they are distracting. He hits usual, expected notes and with his usual Southern accent (Stevens was from Pennsylvania).

Jones' chief rival is Christoph Waltz for "Django Unchained." I would prefer Waltz to win over Jones, but (and this is a bit unfair), I don't think it's as good as a performance as he gave in the other movie with Tarantino he did ("Inglorious Basterds") which won him an Oscar. Alan Arkin was fine in "Argo," but he gives essentially the same performance he gave in his Academy Award-winning role in "Little Miss Sunshine," and if I didn't think he deserved it then, I don't think he deserves it for "Argo." That leaves Philip Seymour Hoffman for "The Master" and Robert De Niro for "Silver Linings Playbook." Hoffman is fine in "The Master" but not particularly noteworthy. De Niro, however, shines in one of his best performances in years. Here is an actor who is noted for his violent yet frequently complex characters and comedic roles in more recent ones. But it's rare to see De Niro in an emotional role, one in which the movie partially depends on how the father-son relationship plays out. He pulls it off terrifically.

While De Niro has not won any major prizes this cycle, the good folks over Goldderby have him only slightly behind the frontrunner, Tommy Lee Jones.

Who should win: Robert De Niro
Who will win: Tommy Lee Jones

Best Animated Feature
As long as the Academy does not award "Brave," I will mostly be happy. How disappointing a movie like "Brave" is (please see "The Most Overrated Movies of 2012," coming soon). Anyway, while "Wreck-It-Ralph" and "ParaNorman" are both admirable, enjoyable movies, the really winner here should be "Frankenweenie." This is Tim Burton's best movie in years, an homage to the B-movies of his youth (though I will concede it's getting old) and a unique reminder about the importance of science. Not only is the animation more impressive, but it's also a better movie. Still, with the Golden Globe going to "Brave" and the Annie Awards going to "Wreck-It-Ralph," it doesn't seem like this is Burton's year (the Academy has never shown much appreciation for him).

What should win: "Frankenweenie"
What will win: "Wreck-It-Ralph"

Best Supporting Actress
Nobody thinks Anne Hatheway won't win for her emotional performance in "Les Miserables." It is a commendable performance, and she will (and probably should) win. With that being said, not enough praise has been given to Helen Hunt in "The Sessions." Playing a character much more dangerous and complex than any found in "Les Miserables," Hunt navigates a precarious role that few other performers could. Some will say that she should be denied the award because she was "only nominated because of all the nudity." But her performance is so much more than this. Scenes with her and her interactions with John Hawkes, who stars as a paralyzed man in need of sex education, are some of the most emotional scenes of the year. Hatheway was excellent in "Les Miserables," but the Academy voters should consider Hunt as well.

Who should win: Anne Hatheway or Helen Hunt
Who will win: Anne Hatheway

Best Picture

So many nominees. What shouldn't win? I didn't hate "Les Miserables" like some did, and I highly recommend seeing a theatrical production of it. Still, "Les Miserables" is one of the weakest of the nominees (but not as weak as "Beasts of the Southern Wild"). "Zero Dark Thirty" is provocative, well-written, and controversial, but it's a bit dull compared to Kathryn Bigelow's previous film, "The Hurt Locker." "Life of Pi" and "Silver Linings Playbook" are both crowd favorites but are certainly underdogs here. That leaves a horse race between "Lincoln" and "Argo," with the latter having the most momentum. But the really terrific movies here are "Amour" and "Django Unchained." Both don't have a shot, but both are certainly better. "Amour" is Michael Haneke's most impressive work and Quentin Tarantino does a fine job with his tribute to spaghetti westerns in "Django Unchained."

What should win: "Amour"
What will win: "Argo"

Read More →

Life of Pi

"There is a famous formula, perhaps the most compact and famous of all formulas...It appeals equally to the mystic, the scientist, the philosopher, the mathematician."
-Edward Kasner and James R. Newman, "Mathematics and the Imagination"

Pi is a a mystic and a philosopher. His parents are scientists, though they named him not after the mathematical equation but after a swimming pool, the Piscine Molitor pool in France. Piscine, or Pi, mostly rejects his parents' lack of faith because "to choose doubt as a philosophy of life," the author Yann Martel mentions in the book, "is akin to choosing immobility as a means of transportation."  This is a fascinating thought, and I wished it would have made it to the film. Unfortunately, much of this deeper thinking is omitted; instead, we are treated to more of a visual experience. Pi may be a philosopher as is the author, but director Ang Lee is a visual artist. As an artist, he is remarkable and deserves his nomination for Best Director.  But with "Life of Pi," he hasn't been able to marry the visual with everything else like he did with "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" and "Brokeback Mountain."

Pi's ship is called the Tzimtzum, which (I'm quoting Wikipedia) explains the concept that "God began the process of creation by 'contracting' his infinite light in order to allow for a 'conceptual space' in which a finite and seemingly independent world could exist." As we expect, the ship crashes and kills (we are to assume) not only the crew members but also most of the zoo animals belonging to his family. I say most because a Bengal tiger survives and fights for control of the lifeboat with Pi. Here on this boat is where Pi wakes up to find this infinite light, and now he is independent. It is this moment that Lee is at his finest. This is also the beginning of the second act and it's where Lee sometimes forfeits his storytelling ability to visually amaze us.

The first act shows us a young Pi (Ayush Tandon) as a teenager in school. His classmates have a lot of fun with his name ("Look, he is Piscine!" and "Are you Piscine right now?"). To avoid such mockery, he triumphantly ties the mathematical concept of pi to all his courses, chiefly with his math course as he writes all the numbers of pi on the board. The scenes with Tandon as Pi were my favorite because they embraced the coming-of-age aspect of the story. Here Pi is not a scientist like his parents but embraces not simply Hinduism but also Christianity and Islam--he praises Vishnu while also praying with the sign of the cross before his meals and praying five times a day towards Mecca. But as a young man (Suraj Sharma), he loses his faith(s) and is disappointed to hear that his family is moving their zoo to Canada. If you've seen the trailer, you've seen the gist of what happens next.

While barely surviving the ship's sinking, he's trapped on a small lifeboat with the tiger, the tiger his father warned him is not his friend. The tiger's name is Richard Parker, and it's best to hear why it's named that from the movie and not in this review. The second third is where Pi and Richard Parker struggle not only to survive but also to determine who will control the boat. The scenes are intriguing, but as mentioned before, the viewer has likely already seen a good chunk of this stuff from the trailer (I must stop watching trailers), and it's where Lee starts to try to impress us too much. The deeper thinking submits to visual effects, and obvious allegories are only briefly touched on. The third act is where the wheels really start to fall off.

This is not to say that "Life of Pi" is not a good movie. It is. And one of the reasons why it's so good is not only its visuals but also its fine performance by Sharma. He is virtually the only performer in the movie, and most of the time (I'm assuming) he's working with a CGI-tiger. This is Sharma's first movie, and I hope to see many more featuring him. As a visual experience, "Life of Pi" is a commendable job by Lee and his effects crew. As compelling, unforgettable storytelling, it's less appealing.

Read More →

Lincoln

With malice towards none. This quote, I believe, does more to define President Abraham Lincoln than any other. Delicately balancing the enormous difficulties of his time in office, knowing when to give in and when not to compromise, Abraham Lincoln was a gentle man. Years ago, I read David Herbert Donald's biography of him which recounted one of his aides complaining that he wouldn't be surprised if Lincoln allowed his young son to use Lincoln's boot (or maybe it was his hat) as a toilet, and Lincoln would probably find it humorous.

Daniel Day-Lewis portrays Lincoln this way: a kind intellectual who would rather not fight but will if he has to. He loses his temper as most presidents do. (According to Jonathan Alter's "The Promise," aides who worked for both President Clinton and President Obama said that Clinton's tendency was to explode with range and humiliate someone, then apologize with a big hug. Obama's way is much more powerful: a cold stare, terrible silence, and no apology.)  Lincoln does not want to fight, but he will if he has to. A fan like everyone else of Daniel Day-Lewis, I was concerned that after watching him in Martin Scorsese's "Gangs of New York" and Paul Thomas Anderson's "There Will Be Blood," Day-Lewis would overdo it. As Abraham Lincoln he does not. He understands that most of the time he has to be subdued, with malice towards none. He doesn't need to be passionate, because that quality comes from Lincoln's wife, played by Sally Field, and the leader of the Radical Republicans, Thaddeus Stevens (Tommy Lee Jones) who always pushed Lincoln to move faster. At times, Mrs. Lincoln and Representative Stevens quarrel in public, as seen in one of the best scenes where Mrs. Lincoln gives Stevens a calm, cheeky diatribe, and Stevens, in the presence of the president, must stand there and accept it.

With the focus of a benign president in malevolent times (he is pointedly asked by an opponent how many hundreds of thousands of have men died during his time in office), we are spared some of the more mythological elements of the Lincoln story, and that is how it should be. Henry Ford's "Young Mr. Lincoln," which is still the best of the Lincoln film versions, shows us Lincoln as a lawyer; here that would be entirely unnecessary. (Sean Wilentz has an interesting article in the New Republic about this Lincoln movie and the Lincoln myth first set by D.W. Griffith's controversial "The Birth of a Nation.") Instead, we see Lincoln as a masterful politician, creating slightly unethical ways of securing passage of the Thirteenth Amendment. We get glimpses of Lincoln as a scholar, Lincoln as a husband, Lincoln as Commander-in-Chief, and Lincoln as a borderline-dictator. As the joke goes, Lincoln and other presidents may have suspended habeus corpus, but at least Lincoln told us.

Still, I couldn't help but feel a bit underwhelmed by Steven Spielberg's "Lincoln." One doesn't have to go back decades to find better movies from the master, just look at the movies he made last year. He combined new technology with old, "Indiana Jones"-esque material in "The Adventures of Tintin" and made his tribute to the Golden Age of Hollywood with "War Horse." "Lincoln" is a movie about one of our greatest presidents; "War Horse" is about a British boy's horse in World War I. I should have been much more engaged with "Lincoln" but in retrospect found "War Horse," as imperfect as it was, much more enjoyable.    

But undeniable praise should be given to Day-Lewis, considered by many to be the front-runner for this year's Best Actor winner. Unfortunately, even though he is in the vast majority of this film, it's too little, and we spend too much time with characters either less interesting and/or played by less talented actors. Some of the interesting performances are from Hal Holbrook (who once played Lincoln) as a conservative Republican more interested in ending the war than ending slavery, David Strathairn as Secretary of State William Seward, and a trio of John Hawkes, Tim Blake Nelson, and James Spader as the three dispatched by Lincoln to come up with more votes to pass the Amendment.  But this is Day-Lewis' movie, as it should be, and for his performance alone, it is recommendable.



Movies, movies, theater, cinema, watch, watching, watches, view,  see, saw, cinema,  film, flick, motion picture, Lincoln, Spielberg, Daniel Day-Lewis, Tommy Lee Jones, Obama, Clinton, Sally Field, Indiana Jones, David Strathairn

Read More →