Sure, we all buy gas. Those of you who are lucky enough to walk, bike, or take public transportation don’t have to worry about it. For those of us who drive, we know it’s not good for the environment and makes the US depend too much on oil. With that said, we still have a choice.
Pick Your Poison: An updated environmentalist's guide to gasoline from Sierra Club shows you which companies are at the top and which are at the bottom of the barrel.
ExxonMobil, known for its bad environmental reputations and its strong stance in trying to dismiss global warming, ranked as one of the worst and BP Amoco, who supports the Kyoto Protocol to cap greenhouse-gas emissions, ranked at the top with Sunoco.
I'm actually a regular at the local Dominick’s (Safeway) gas station because they use the wind energy to power the fuel station. My ultimate goal is to bike to work. Until then, I'll take Safeway or BP over ExxonMobil.
On a somewhat related note, In the book Stop Global Warming, Laurie David wrote –
"Clever self-interests have successfully scared people away from the fight by insisting that to be an environmentalist, you must be held to a gold standard of perfection. Environmentalists even do it to each other. Unless you live in a solar-powered house, are a practicing vegan, wear hemp clothes, and bike to work, no need to apply here. These qualifications would scare away pretty much everyone I know, and I know a lot of environmentalists. I’ve been asked, “Do you eat meat?” The not-so-subtle subtext being, well, if you do, you aren’t really an environmentalist. I’ve been asked, “What are your shoes made of?” The subtext being that if they’re leather, well, you’re just a hypocrite."
I believe the point she tries to get across is that there will always be people who attempt to discourage you from being aware of the issues and from taking actions against the big companies. But why let someone with hidden agendas tell you what to do? If everyone listens to these people then there would never be any actions taken.
It’s fortunate that I can think for myself and I know that I can make a difference. For example, I know that the local produce is more expensive than buying from the big supermarkets but I’m supporting the local farmer, which mean better local economy, and the food is fresher, healthier, and doesn’t have to be shipped from someplace else, which mean less transportation and less contribution to the global warming.
If it’s possible, then I’d write a different piece like “Buy bike, not car” but since we live in a country where driving is a part of life, you pick the companies that you think have done the less damage to the planet.
Related links:
Take Action! — There are many simple things you can do in your daily life — what you eat, what you drive, how you build your home — that can have an effect on your immediate surrounding, and on places as far away as Antactica.
Join the Virtual March — The Stop Global Warming Virtual March is virtual but its purpose is real. By spreading the word and sharing this with others, our collective voice will be heard around the world.
Energizing America — Fossil fuels burned brightly in their day, but now it's time to make the leap to safer, cleaner, climate-friendly alternatives
Negawatt Power — The simplest solution to global warming
Decoder: Corn-Fed Cars - Detroit's phony ethanol solution
Consumer Power - Want to send a message with the dollars you spend? Here's what you need to know to select products and companies that are consistent with your environmental values.
Saturday, December 30, 2006
Monday, December 18, 2006
The Passion of the Christ: a borderline snuff film
I finally got around to see The Passion of the Christ. I could see the audience being divided into four different major groups. Those who liked it because of how they can connect to something Mel Gibson attempted to communicate, those who disliked it because they felt that their group were unfairly portrayed, those in the middle who appreciated it for what it was, and then those in the middle who were confused and didn't appreciate it for what it was because they weren't sure what "it" really was.
To say that the violence of the punishing and torturing of Christ is extreme and very graphic is an understatement. Violence is one of the biggest problems I have with the film. I have an ability to separate between real life violence and the ones in the movie. I don't have nightmares or physical effects watching something gory on films but I cringed while watching The Passion of the Christ and felt depressed throughout the movie.
What is the redeeming value in putting the audience through the brutal whipping scene where Jesus screamed in pain? The louder he screamed, the louder the laughter from the Roman soldiers and the harder they whipped him. What is the redeeming value of putting us through a slow-motion of the whips hitting the flesh, splitting it open, and blood splattering all over the place? What is the redeeming value of showing us how cruel and heartless a human being can be treated?
Not to say that this scene wasn't effective since it managed to make me feel totally depressed. My immediate reaction was that this is probably about as close as I could get to watch a snuff film; how they managed to avoid an NC-17 rating is a mystery.
From talking to a Christian who knows the story well, she said that Gibson's intention was to show how much suffering Christ went through so that it could be appreciated. When asked why she refused to see the film she said that she already knew the story and didn't want to sit through the violence.
If that is the case then who is this film for? Doesn't it mean that the explicit graphic is unnecessary if a Christian who shares Gibson's belief doesn't want to see the the explicit showing of the brutality of the Roman soldiers and how Christ took it all in stride?
I thought that the film lost its message with the unnecessary graphic violence. There were some flashbacks here and there that showed the lighter sides between Jesus and his disciples and Jesus and Mary before Christ was captured but not enough to salvage the film.
The story began when Jesus was captured and ended when he died on the cross. The rising of Jesus scene felt incomplete as if Gibson wanted to show us that there was a light at the end of the tunnel after kept showing us the horrific images. He had his cake and ate it, too.
The production was first rate but I can't imagine anyone paying attention to it. The acting was convincing enough even though each character seemed to be stuck in the same emotions throughout the movie. For example, the Roman soldiers – ruthless and sadistic; Jesus Christ – in pain and agony; Mary and Christ’s disciples – helpless, crying, and depressing and so on.
Before seeing the movie, I thought that I would fall into the third group of audience mentioned in the first paragraph and would appreciate the movie for what it was. Alas, Gibson managed to put me right into the fourth group of confused audience. To some degree, I understand and appreciate Christianity after going to a Catholic school for nine years so my criticism of the movie isn't equivalent to a criticism of the religion. But with the appreciation that comes from the knowledge, I feel that The Passion of the Christ was too personal and didn’t accomplish anything that hasn’t already been accomplished.
To say that the violence of the punishing and torturing of Christ is extreme and very graphic is an understatement. Violence is one of the biggest problems I have with the film. I have an ability to separate between real life violence and the ones in the movie. I don't have nightmares or physical effects watching something gory on films but I cringed while watching The Passion of the Christ and felt depressed throughout the movie.
What is the redeeming value in putting the audience through the brutal whipping scene where Jesus screamed in pain? The louder he screamed, the louder the laughter from the Roman soldiers and the harder they whipped him. What is the redeeming value of putting us through a slow-motion of the whips hitting the flesh, splitting it open, and blood splattering all over the place? What is the redeeming value of showing us how cruel and heartless a human being can be treated?
Not to say that this scene wasn't effective since it managed to make me feel totally depressed. My immediate reaction was that this is probably about as close as I could get to watch a snuff film; how they managed to avoid an NC-17 rating is a mystery.
From talking to a Christian who knows the story well, she said that Gibson's intention was to show how much suffering Christ went through so that it could be appreciated. When asked why she refused to see the film she said that she already knew the story and didn't want to sit through the violence.
If that is the case then who is this film for? Doesn't it mean that the explicit graphic is unnecessary if a Christian who shares Gibson's belief doesn't want to see the the explicit showing of the brutality of the Roman soldiers and how Christ took it all in stride?
I thought that the film lost its message with the unnecessary graphic violence. There were some flashbacks here and there that showed the lighter sides between Jesus and his disciples and Jesus and Mary before Christ was captured but not enough to salvage the film.
The story began when Jesus was captured and ended when he died on the cross. The rising of Jesus scene felt incomplete as if Gibson wanted to show us that there was a light at the end of the tunnel after kept showing us the horrific images. He had his cake and ate it, too.
The production was first rate but I can't imagine anyone paying attention to it. The acting was convincing enough even though each character seemed to be stuck in the same emotions throughout the movie. For example, the Roman soldiers – ruthless and sadistic; Jesus Christ – in pain and agony; Mary and Christ’s disciples – helpless, crying, and depressing and so on.
Before seeing the movie, I thought that I would fall into the third group of audience mentioned in the first paragraph and would appreciate the movie for what it was. Alas, Gibson managed to put me right into the fourth group of confused audience. To some degree, I understand and appreciate Christianity after going to a Catholic school for nine years so my criticism of the movie isn't equivalent to a criticism of the religion. But with the appreciation that comes from the knowledge, I feel that The Passion of the Christ was too personal and didn’t accomplish anything that hasn’t already been accomplished.
Friday, December 08, 2006
Afterlife
To me, afterlife is all about romance or romantic ideas. To be exact, the idea or the theory of there's something else to look forward to after you die is much more romantic than ceasing to exist.
Of course, nobody knows for sure since none ever come back and tell us about their afterlife experience. Still, as human we imagine. Some painted the idea of spending your eternal (after) life with the Creator. Some said that you come back (reincarnate) as a different person. The ideas gives us hope, it consoles us in difficult times when we lost our loved ones. It says that they have passed on to a "better place".
Despite what I think deep down (that the end of this life is just that, the end), I can't help but cling to the idea of reincarnation, the idea of reunite with people I loved and have loved dearly, the idea of coming back to this beautiful blue earth and give it another round, and the idea of finishing the unfinished business.
How romantic!
Of course, nobody knows for sure since none ever come back and tell us about their afterlife experience. Still, as human we imagine. Some painted the idea of spending your eternal (after) life with the Creator. Some said that you come back (reincarnate) as a different person. The ideas gives us hope, it consoles us in difficult times when we lost our loved ones. It says that they have passed on to a "better place".
Despite what I think deep down (that the end of this life is just that, the end), I can't help but cling to the idea of reincarnation, the idea of reunite with people I loved and have loved dearly, the idea of coming back to this beautiful blue earth and give it another round, and the idea of finishing the unfinished business.
How romantic!
Monday, September 11, 2006
The Bush Administration’s Five Pitfalls following the 9/11 event
One - Iraq war/invasion: no weapon of mass destruction found, number of civilians reported killed by military intervention in Iraq is between 41,650 and 46,318, cost of war at $313,879,700,000 and increasing, US casualties (named dead and reported dead) – 2665.
Two - Osama Bin Laden is still plotting the attacks on the US and its allies.
Three - The Bush administration had everything going to unite America and failed to capture the moment.
Four - There was no action against Saudi Arabia where fifteen of the nineteen terrorists came from.
Five - The US has lost the support from many around the world despite the initial goodwill it has received after the attack.
Tuesday, September 05, 2006
Does Democracy = peace?
President Bush keeps talking about spreading democracy to promote peace. This to me raises a series of the following questions:
Does democracy automatically mean peace?
In general, would a country of a different system be willing to embrace democracy?
Can peace be achieved in a different way? In other words, can any other systems beside democracy produce a peaceful environment?
Is spreading democracy comparable to spreading the teaching of one's religion?
If so, wouldn’t the result be obvious (assuming that my supposition about nobody likes to be imposed upon regardless of what being imposed is correct)?
Could a system that works so well in one country fail miserably in the others because of the differences in history, culture, people, and belief?
Does democracy automatically mean peace?
In general, would a country of a different system be willing to embrace democracy?
Can peace be achieved in a different way? In other words, can any other systems beside democracy produce a peaceful environment?
Is spreading democracy comparable to spreading the teaching of one's religion?
If so, wouldn’t the result be obvious (assuming that my supposition about nobody likes to be imposed upon regardless of what being imposed is correct)?
Could a system that works so well in one country fail miserably in the others because of the differences in history, culture, people, and belief?
Friday, July 07, 2006
Overlooked Actor: Paul Giamatti
Back in 2004 when the Oscar announced the nominees, I wrote the piece below complaining about how Paul Giamatti was overlooked for his portrayal of Harvey Pekar in American Splendor. With his new movie (Lady in the Water), coming out, I think back to the first time I saw him in “Duets” and his other roles after it. I would say that his performance as Harvey Pekar still stands as his best.
Here is my first official complaint about this year Oscar, Paul Giamatti wasn’t nominated for the Best Actor category.
Of all the five nominees, I’ve seen Sean Penn, Jude Law, and Johnny Depp. Pending the other two films with Ben Kingsley and Bill Murray, I’d nominate Giamatti over Law and Depp despite how much I liked Cold Mountain and thoroughly enjoyed Depp’s invention of Captain Jack Sparrow in Pirates of the Caribbean.
In “American Splendor”, one of the most important things (if not the most) is to find an actor who could play Harvey Pekar. Giamatti did just that and more. Pekar, a comic book writer, has had people illustrated his face and his characteristics in so many forms that his wife wrote to him prior to their first meeting that she wasn’t sure if she would be seeing the “young Brando” or just a total slob.
When I see Giamatti’s face expression, I couldn’t help but wonder if he was trying to imitate Pekar or just totally reinvented a different character. Most likely, Giamatti was reinventing a different Pekar. That is because Giamatti did what the other illustrators had done in presenting Pekar in the way that they understand him. Pekar said it himself that Giamatti looks nothing like him but the important thing here isn't finding and actor who looks like Pekar but one that can understand what kind of person Pekar is and portray it accurately.
Hope Davis did an equally admirable job as Pekar’s wife, Joyce. Davis, who is beautiful in real life, played Joyce not by putting on a wig, glasses, and not wearing makeup but by morphing herself psychologically into how a woman like Joyce would talk, think, and express.
The technique of switching between comic and real life, and between real Pekar and Giamatti are smooth and well done. I thought this was a risk worth taking as it paid off really well since it could easily become a distraction if not well create.
A real treat for me is when Robert Crumb was revealed as a friend and illustrator of Pekar. I’ve seen Crumb years ago and had no idea the two are friends. I liked “Crumb” the same way I liked “American Splendor”. The difference between the two films is that “Crumb” is more like a documentary with everybody playing themselves.
It’s a pity that “American Splendor” only got nominated for one award (Best Writing/Screenplay) and it will probably come home empty-handed. “American Splendor”, in my opinion, is clearly a better film than “Seabiscuit” and “Master and Commander”.
Here is my first official complaint about this year Oscar, Paul Giamatti wasn’t nominated for the Best Actor category.
Of all the five nominees, I’ve seen Sean Penn, Jude Law, and Johnny Depp. Pending the other two films with Ben Kingsley and Bill Murray, I’d nominate Giamatti over Law and Depp despite how much I liked Cold Mountain and thoroughly enjoyed Depp’s invention of Captain Jack Sparrow in Pirates of the Caribbean.
In “American Splendor”, one of the most important things (if not the most) is to find an actor who could play Harvey Pekar. Giamatti did just that and more. Pekar, a comic book writer, has had people illustrated his face and his characteristics in so many forms that his wife wrote to him prior to their first meeting that she wasn’t sure if she would be seeing the “young Brando” or just a total slob.
When I see Giamatti’s face expression, I couldn’t help but wonder if he was trying to imitate Pekar or just totally reinvented a different character. Most likely, Giamatti was reinventing a different Pekar. That is because Giamatti did what the other illustrators had done in presenting Pekar in the way that they understand him. Pekar said it himself that Giamatti looks nothing like him but the important thing here isn't finding and actor who looks like Pekar but one that can understand what kind of person Pekar is and portray it accurately.
Hope Davis did an equally admirable job as Pekar’s wife, Joyce. Davis, who is beautiful in real life, played Joyce not by putting on a wig, glasses, and not wearing makeup but by morphing herself psychologically into how a woman like Joyce would talk, think, and express.
The technique of switching between comic and real life, and between real Pekar and Giamatti are smooth and well done. I thought this was a risk worth taking as it paid off really well since it could easily become a distraction if not well create.
A real treat for me is when Robert Crumb was revealed as a friend and illustrator of Pekar. I’ve seen Crumb years ago and had no idea the two are friends. I liked “Crumb” the same way I liked “American Splendor”. The difference between the two films is that “Crumb” is more like a documentary with everybody playing themselves.
It’s a pity that “American Splendor” only got nominated for one award (Best Writing/Screenplay) and it will probably come home empty-handed. “American Splendor”, in my opinion, is clearly a better film than “Seabiscuit” and “Master and Commander”.
Friday, June 23, 2006
"Fag" issue
I wrote the following three paragraphs (with minor edits for grammar) and e-mail it to Jeff Passan in response to his article, "Guillen doesn't get it", posted on June 22, 2006 on the Yahoo! Sports web site.
There is no excuse in using the term "fag" regardless of one's intention. Ozzie Guillen should be ashamed of himself. With everything that's happening following the incident, I'm sure he will be much more careful in calling people names using a term that might offend a specific group of people.
With that said, I can't help but wonder about the outrage. How many people calling for Guillen's head actually support gay marriage? Did the US, all of a sudden, turn into an ideal country that supports the equal rights for gays and lesbians? Last I heard, the majority of Americans support the ban on gay marriage. President Bush referred to the same sex marriage as a threat to the value of the American family and a threat to marriage – many Americans agreed.
I feel that we are wasting our energy in blowing up this story when the real issue is about the way the close-minded people treating other people who are different than them. If Guillen would be suspended a game or two for his remark then can we suspend President Bush a couple of months for treating gays and lesbians like second-class citizens?
There is no excuse in using the term "fag" regardless of one's intention. Ozzie Guillen should be ashamed of himself. With everything that's happening following the incident, I'm sure he will be much more careful in calling people names using a term that might offend a specific group of people.
With that said, I can't help but wonder about the outrage. How many people calling for Guillen's head actually support gay marriage? Did the US, all of a sudden, turn into an ideal country that supports the equal rights for gays and lesbians? Last I heard, the majority of Americans support the ban on gay marriage. President Bush referred to the same sex marriage as a threat to the value of the American family and a threat to marriage – many Americans agreed.
I feel that we are wasting our energy in blowing up this story when the real issue is about the way the close-minded people treating other people who are different than them. If Guillen would be suspended a game or two for his remark then can we suspend President Bush a couple of months for treating gays and lesbians like second-class citizens?
Saturday, March 18, 2006
To all the innocent lives lost in this senseless war
Joe Johnson is just an average Joe.
Joe is a husband, a father, and also, at age 48, an Army corporal.
In 2003, Joe joined the National Guard wanting to go to Iraq to fight the terrorists. How many average Americans had that kind of thought went through their minds after 9/11 and after the Bush Administration had attempted over and over to link the tragic, terrorist acts to Iraq and Saddam Hussein? How many still have this very same thought today?
On Easter morning of 2004, the bad news was delivered to the Johnsons, one of Joe’s sons, Justin, a 1st Cavalry Division machine gunner who was in Iraq at the time he joined the National Guard was killed by a roadside bomb.
Joe stayed in the US to help his wife cope with grief. But after a year of his son’s death, Joe decided that he was ready to join the troops in Iraq. Joe was assigned an escort duty for fuel convoys. Asked why he made the decision to be in Iraq and Joe responded "It's a lot of things combined," he said. "One, a sense of duty. I was pissed off at the terrorists for 9/11 and other atrocities. Second, I'd only trained. I wanted combat." And then, he said, "there's some revenge involved. I'd be lying if I said there wasn't. "
But there’s something else, something deeper than what we’ve seen on the surface. We sense that when Joe said the following – "I don't really have love for Muslim people," Johnson said. "I'm sure there are good Muslims. I try not to be racist." Although he hasn't read the Quran, or spoken with Muslims, he has "heard" the Islamic holy book "teaches to kill Jews and infidels. And it's hard to love people who hate you."
Again, how many average Joes have heard the "kill the infidels" phase being associated with Islam and shared Joe’s feeling toward Muslims?
But today, just like many average Americans, Joe has changed his mind. He no longer seeks revenge for his son’s death. He no longer wants to kill anyone, let alone the terrorists and he hope that the Iraqi children "grow up to know right and wrong".
"I really don't want to kill innocent people," he now says. "I don't want to live with that the rest of my life."
"If I go home and didn't kill a terrorist, it's not going to ruin my life," he said. "Maybe I'd just as soon not. I don't know what it would do to my head."
Those statements above say so much. No normal, average person wants to kill people, let alone the innocent ones. Only after Joe, just as many average Americans, was lied to, misled, and betrayed by the Bush Administration that he decided to re-enlist.
Joe’s wife, Jan, hoping that her other soldier son, Josh, won’t be going to Iraq. I can’t say that I blame her for thinking like an average mom who cares deeply for her children.
Can you blame her?
Source: Father Loses Taste for Revenge in Iraq
Related links:
Cost of Iraq war could surpass $1 trillion - The Pentagon is spending about $6 billion a month on the war in Iraq, or about $200 million a day
March for Peace travels through Whittier - "I want to make sure my son didn't die in vain."
Military dad celebrates 200th protest of Iraq war - "Iraqi oil isn't worth my sons' blood."
Iraq Body Count - "We don’t do body counts" General Tommy Franks, US Central Command
Cost of War - A running total of the U.S. taxpayer cost of the Iraq War
Joe is a husband, a father, and also, at age 48, an Army corporal.
In 2003, Joe joined the National Guard wanting to go to Iraq to fight the terrorists. How many average Americans had that kind of thought went through their minds after 9/11 and after the Bush Administration had attempted over and over to link the tragic, terrorist acts to Iraq and Saddam Hussein? How many still have this very same thought today?
On Easter morning of 2004, the bad news was delivered to the Johnsons, one of Joe’s sons, Justin, a 1st Cavalry Division machine gunner who was in Iraq at the time he joined the National Guard was killed by a roadside bomb.
Joe stayed in the US to help his wife cope with grief. But after a year of his son’s death, Joe decided that he was ready to join the troops in Iraq. Joe was assigned an escort duty for fuel convoys. Asked why he made the decision to be in Iraq and Joe responded "It's a lot of things combined," he said. "One, a sense of duty. I was pissed off at the terrorists for 9/11 and other atrocities. Second, I'd only trained. I wanted combat." And then, he said, "there's some revenge involved. I'd be lying if I said there wasn't. "
But there’s something else, something deeper than what we’ve seen on the surface. We sense that when Joe said the following – "I don't really have love for Muslim people," Johnson said. "I'm sure there are good Muslims. I try not to be racist." Although he hasn't read the Quran, or spoken with Muslims, he has "heard" the Islamic holy book "teaches to kill Jews and infidels. And it's hard to love people who hate you."
Again, how many average Joes have heard the "kill the infidels" phase being associated with Islam and shared Joe’s feeling toward Muslims?
But today, just like many average Americans, Joe has changed his mind. He no longer seeks revenge for his son’s death. He no longer wants to kill anyone, let alone the terrorists and he hope that the Iraqi children "grow up to know right and wrong".
"I really don't want to kill innocent people," he now says. "I don't want to live with that the rest of my life."
"If I go home and didn't kill a terrorist, it's not going to ruin my life," he said. "Maybe I'd just as soon not. I don't know what it would do to my head."
Those statements above say so much. No normal, average person wants to kill people, let alone the innocent ones. Only after Joe, just as many average Americans, was lied to, misled, and betrayed by the Bush Administration that he decided to re-enlist.
Joe’s wife, Jan, hoping that her other soldier son, Josh, won’t be going to Iraq. I can’t say that I blame her for thinking like an average mom who cares deeply for her children.
Can you blame her?
Source: Father Loses Taste for Revenge in Iraq
Related links:
Cost of Iraq war could surpass $1 trillion - The Pentagon is spending about $6 billion a month on the war in Iraq, or about $200 million a day
March for Peace travels through Whittier - "I want to make sure my son didn't die in vain."
Military dad celebrates 200th protest of Iraq war - "Iraqi oil isn't worth my sons' blood."
Iraq Body Count - "We don’t do body counts" General Tommy Franks, US Central Command
Cost of War - A running total of the U.S. taxpayer cost of the Iraq War
Tuesday, March 14, 2006
Is "The English Patient" a better film than "Fargo"?
In 1997, the following movies besides the two in the title were nominated for the Best Picture award for Oscar: Jerry Maguire, Secrets & Lies, and Shine. The English Patient won 9 out of 12 awards including Best Picture. Fargo on the other hand, only won two out of seven awards (Best Actress and Best Screenplay).
Looking back, the only thing I remember about The English Patient is in a Seinfeld episode when Elaine (played by Julia Louis-Dreyfus), who was absolutely disgusted by the movie, screamed out – “Quit telling your stupid story, about the stupid desert, and just die already!”
Fargo, on the other hand, has become a classic. Anything from Frances McDormand’s performance (in one of the most memorable roles ever created in cinema) to William H. Macy’s breakthrough role as a sleazy car salesman (oxymoron) to an excellent cinematography showcasing the harsh Minnesota landscape in winter to brilliant screen writing, editing, and directing by Joel Coen and Ethan Coen.
Sure, I’m biased by leaving out the good aspects of The English Patient but whenever a film like Fargo, Traffic (I've been known to occasionally trash Gladiator since I thought it was the worst out of the five films nominated for Best Picture in 2001), or L.A. Confidential (Titanic isn't a better film) lost the big awards to some films that are inferior then it’s my duty to represent the better films and voice my displeasure.
Looking back, the only thing I remember about The English Patient is in a Seinfeld episode when Elaine (played by Julia Louis-Dreyfus), who was absolutely disgusted by the movie, screamed out – “Quit telling your stupid story, about the stupid desert, and just die already!”
Fargo, on the other hand, has become a classic. Anything from Frances McDormand’s performance (in one of the most memorable roles ever created in cinema) to William H. Macy’s breakthrough role as a sleazy car salesman (oxymoron) to an excellent cinematography showcasing the harsh Minnesota landscape in winter to brilliant screen writing, editing, and directing by Joel Coen and Ethan Coen.
Sure, I’m biased by leaving out the good aspects of The English Patient but whenever a film like Fargo, Traffic (I've been known to occasionally trash Gladiator since I thought it was the worst out of the five films nominated for Best Picture in 2001), or L.A. Confidential (Titanic isn't a better film) lost the big awards to some films that are inferior then it’s my duty to represent the better films and voice my displeasure.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Complicated relationship, Enron, and Melinda
The Ballad of Jack and Rose (2/9/06)
Rebecca Miller
The incestuous part of the plot is sure to turn many audiences off but I look at it as something real and possible considering the circumstances. Once you get past that, the performances are admirable especially for Daniel Day-Lewis, who portrays a dying man losing all kind of personal battles, and the movie raises an intriguing question of how much input you should have concerning your children belief (in anything). Most of us are given the opportunities to experience many different view points before we come to a conclusion of what’s best for us. Should you give your children that same opportunity or should you make a decision for them based on your own experience? 3 ½ stars
Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room (2/10/06)
Alex Gibney
Based on a book with the same name, it takes a deeper look at the major players from Enron such as Ken Lay, Jeff Skilling, and Andy Fastow as opposed to the detail investigation of the case. In that regard, it’s more of a human story than the Enron collapse (though, there is plenty of that covered in the film). The “California” part is telling and should make you angry. 3 ½ stars
Melinda and Melinda (2/11/06)
Woody Allen
The exact same story of a guest showed up uninvited portrayed from two different point of views. It hits all the “light” notes even from the tragic perspective. Notice how nice the apartments interior are. Rich people shouldn't be unhappy or should they? 3 stars
Rebecca Miller
The incestuous part of the plot is sure to turn many audiences off but I look at it as something real and possible considering the circumstances. Once you get past that, the performances are admirable especially for Daniel Day-Lewis, who portrays a dying man losing all kind of personal battles, and the movie raises an intriguing question of how much input you should have concerning your children belief (in anything). Most of us are given the opportunities to experience many different view points before we come to a conclusion of what’s best for us. Should you give your children that same opportunity or should you make a decision for them based on your own experience? 3 ½ stars
Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room (2/10/06)
Alex Gibney
Based on a book with the same name, it takes a deeper look at the major players from Enron such as Ken Lay, Jeff Skilling, and Andy Fastow as opposed to the detail investigation of the case. In that regard, it’s more of a human story than the Enron collapse (though, there is plenty of that covered in the film). The “California” part is telling and should make you angry. 3 ½ stars
Melinda and Melinda (2/11/06)
Woody Allen
The exact same story of a guest showed up uninvited portrayed from two different point of views. It hits all the “light” notes even from the tragic perspective. Notice how nice the apartments interior are. Rich people shouldn't be unhappy or should they? 3 stars
Monday, January 30, 2006
The Cloning, The Crusades, and the Tropical Malady
The Island (1/27/06)
Michael Bay
WARNING: MILD SPOILER ALERT!
I didn’t have a problem that the second half of the movie turned into a mindless action flick. The first half, which has gotten much praise from the critics for raising a moral question about cloning, was just there as an excuse for the special-effect extravaganza and well done action scenes. “The Island” seemed to be inspired to some degree by “The Matrix” and its sequels from the screenplay to the special-effect showcasing in the highway and high-rise chase scenes. 3 stars
Kingdom of Heaven (1/28/06)
Ridley Scott
It would have helped if my knowledge on the Crusades wasn’t so poor. As it turned out, it simply was about a bunch of crazy mofos killing each other in the name of religions. There are several ways you can direct this movie, make it into a deep religious film or make it a drama/action flick. Ridley Scott chose the later and did an excellent job in directing the spectacular battle scenes which didn’t have a feel of simulated video game like “Gladiator”. 3 stars
Tropical Malady (1/29/06)
Apichatpong Weerasethakul
Here’s a strong contender for the worst film of 2006. The first half of this film is pure cinema in that it goes about its story telling business without being distracted by the usual camera tricks, unnecessary dialogues, or misleading soundtracks. The relationship between the lovers was gradual, uncomplicated, and gentle. Yet, we sensed that there was something terribly wrong and dangerous lurking in the background. We knew this from the opening scene where a unit of soldiers posted for pictures in front of a dead body before carrying it away.
Then the movie made its turn for the worst when it decided to go beyond what it can (and should) do into the territory of experimented cinema. In about an hour period of the second half, the movie has managed to make almost no progress in the storytelling department.
Was there an underlined connection between hunting the shape-shifting beast in the second half and courting his lover in the fist half? Perhaps; I don’t know and I don’t really care. “Tropical Malady” had potential to become a great movie but bravely and foolishly decided to push the envelope and failed miserably. 1 ½ stars.
Note: Obviously, the critics disagreed with me. “Tropical Malady” won the Jury Prize (Cannes), Special Jury Prize (Indianapolis), and Critics Award (São Paulo).
Michael Bay
WARNING: MILD SPOILER ALERT!
I didn’t have a problem that the second half of the movie turned into a mindless action flick. The first half, which has gotten much praise from the critics for raising a moral question about cloning, was just there as an excuse for the special-effect extravaganza and well done action scenes. “The Island” seemed to be inspired to some degree by “The Matrix” and its sequels from the screenplay to the special-effect showcasing in the highway and high-rise chase scenes. 3 stars
Kingdom of Heaven (1/28/06)
Ridley Scott
It would have helped if my knowledge on the Crusades wasn’t so poor. As it turned out, it simply was about a bunch of crazy mofos killing each other in the name of religions. There are several ways you can direct this movie, make it into a deep religious film or make it a drama/action flick. Ridley Scott chose the later and did an excellent job in directing the spectacular battle scenes which didn’t have a feel of simulated video game like “Gladiator”. 3 stars
Tropical Malady (1/29/06)
Apichatpong Weerasethakul
Here’s a strong contender for the worst film of 2006. The first half of this film is pure cinema in that it goes about its story telling business without being distracted by the usual camera tricks, unnecessary dialogues, or misleading soundtracks. The relationship between the lovers was gradual, uncomplicated, and gentle. Yet, we sensed that there was something terribly wrong and dangerous lurking in the background. We knew this from the opening scene where a unit of soldiers posted for pictures in front of a dead body before carrying it away.
Then the movie made its turn for the worst when it decided to go beyond what it can (and should) do into the territory of experimented cinema. In about an hour period of the second half, the movie has managed to make almost no progress in the storytelling department.
Was there an underlined connection between hunting the shape-shifting beast in the second half and courting his lover in the fist half? Perhaps; I don’t know and I don’t really care. “Tropical Malady” had potential to become a great movie but bravely and foolishly decided to push the envelope and failed miserably. 1 ½ stars.
Note: Obviously, the critics disagreed with me. “Tropical Malady” won the Jury Prize (Cannes), Special Jury Prize (Indianapolis), and Critics Award (São Paulo).
Monday, January 23, 2006
Birth: The Concept of Reincarnation
There are so many angles we can talk about the movie “Birth” that I don’t even know where to begin. Everybody who has seen the film would agree that the most critical point is the question of whether Sean, played by young Cameron Bright, is who he says he is.
Though the movie seems to be leading us toward the confirmation of reincarnation, it still reluctant to provide us with the absolute conclusion because to come to the absolute conclusion, one has to be an expert in the concept of reincarnation and I don’t think that the film wants to claim that responsibility.
But by not being absolute about it, the movie leaves us with so many possibilities to speculate. Some will dislike how the movie is played out and some will overlook the uncertainty and have fun trying to figure out the movie and come up with their own conclusion.
Personally, I think it’s the film’s weakness for not being brave enough to be absolute. I couldn’t help but thought about how brilliant “Birth” could be if it were in the hand of M. Night Shyamalan, who has left us without a doubt as to what really happened in his masterful work, “The Sixth Sense”. 2 ½ stars.
Though the movie seems to be leading us toward the confirmation of reincarnation, it still reluctant to provide us with the absolute conclusion because to come to the absolute conclusion, one has to be an expert in the concept of reincarnation and I don’t think that the film wants to claim that responsibility.
But by not being absolute about it, the movie leaves us with so many possibilities to speculate. Some will dislike how the movie is played out and some will overlook the uncertainty and have fun trying to figure out the movie and come up with their own conclusion.
Personally, I think it’s the film’s weakness for not being brave enough to be absolute. I couldn’t help but thought about how brilliant “Birth” could be if it were in the hand of M. Night Shyamalan, who has left us without a doubt as to what really happened in his masterful work, “The Sixth Sense”. 2 ½ stars.
Friday, January 06, 2006
It's been a while...
So let's not waste anymore time...
Syriana (
Stephen Gaghan
“Syriana” is a political film that achieves greatness of “Traffic” and “Crash” but on a higher level and the story is told in a more complex manner. It’s not that big of a surprise to see the connection consider that Stephen Gaghan also did the screenplay for “Traffic”. Its main theme is about the
The Cat’s Meow (
Peter Bogdanovich
Regardless of whether the series of unfortunate events on the boat had actually taken place or not, The Cat’s Meow is quite an entertaining film. The fact that the plot is based on the real life
Christmas Vacation (
Jeremiah S. Chechik
I liked Clark Griswold much better than I liked Ferris Bueller so I’ll give Christmas Vacation an unenthusiastic 2 ½ stars.
Ang Lee
Watching “
Assault on Precinct 13 (
Jean-François Richet
Despite the fact that I liked “Assault on Precinct 13” enough to recommend it, I thought it was a waste of the talented casts which include Maria Bello, Gabriel Byrne, Ethan Hawke, and Laurance Fishburne. In short, it’s a good mindless (but decent in production and details) entertainment, which provides a good break from the heavy dramas and/or thought-provoking films. 3 stars.
Sox Pride (
Major League Baseball
How could you not like fundamental baseball? The White Sox lack big stars, strikeout pitchers, or big hitters (nobody hit over .300) but they more than made up for it with strong pitching, timely hitting, and solid defense. “Sox Pride” is the overview and highlights of the team success in 2005. A must have for the Southsiders and a great gift for Cubs fans and sportswriters everywhere. 3 stars.
Kissing Jessica Stein (
Charles Herman-Wurmfeld
There are a lot of sexual activities going on in “Kissing Jessica Stein”. The movie is, after all, R rated (for sexual content and language). But not all of the activities are sexual acts. As a matter of fact, most of them portray the characters discussing sex, lesbianism, and relationships. The dialogues are well written and true to the characters (who are smart, funny, and witty people). I was impressed to learn that the screen was co-written and co-produced by the two leading characters, Jennifer Westfeldt (Jessica) and Heather Juergensen (Helen). Though, the movie doesn’t go into heavy part of the same sex relationships, it touches on whether homosexu
Frank Miller, Robert Rodriguez, Quentin Tarantino
If you understand and appreciate the violence in “Kill Bill”, you will like “
Subscribe to:
Posts (RSS)
