The Darjeeling Limited

This week's movie is "The Darjeeling Limited" starting Owen Wilson, Adrien Brody and Jason Schwartzman.

This is an extremely low-key, dark comedy that will not go over well with many though I enjoyed it quite a bit. The comedy is very similar to what you find in director Wes Anderson's other movie (that I feel is a classic), "The Royal Tenenbaums".

The characters are extremely quirky and not very reminiscent of actual people. They're not supposed to be. They're troubled in deep ways stemming from a complicated background that has turned them into walking psychological studies.

The look of the movie is bleak but that too is very much part of the design. The camera angles and such are also very different. Nothing about the movie is standard fare.

It starts off with a movie short that, initially, feels disconnected to the actual film but actually is listed as part one of the two parts (the second being the movie itself). This is called, "Hotel Chevalier". I'm not sure why the movie was presented in this manner but it was. The ironic part of this short is that it has gotten some press for being presented as Natalie Portman's first on-screen nude scene. She's been quoted as being regretful of the choice and has stated that it won't happen again. What's ironic is that there's nothing here to see. You see an exposed backside and a few side shots with all parts hidden away and that's it. If this is her idea of a nude scene expect to only see her from here on out covered in a thick blanket.

Anyway, it took a bit to not think about Owen Wilson's real life suicide attempt while watching this as his character in the movie attempted it as well. After you get over that it just becomes another plot element and that's it.

If you're up for dark, low-key comedies then this is a good choice. If you're not into them, avoid this movie at all costs as there's nothing else here.

So Much For the Oil Argument

Today oil passed the inflation-adjusted record for the highest price in history. This was another item the righties held up as a reason to ridicule President Jimmy Carter. Now he's no longer the holder of that record. I wonder just how many Bush fans will admit to this. I suspect almost none will.

The current President is supposed to be savvy in one area more than others and that's supposed to be in oil. Meanwhile everything involved in oil is a disgrace. Where's all the oil from Iraq that supposed to be a large part of why we got into the mess we're in? Why aren't we awash in oil at this point? Instead we're paying more for our cars and my heating oil is going up 20+ percent again for about the 5th year in a row. What used to be a simple bill is now something we have to work around and plan for. It's now a huge investment.

Meanwhile Bush, who claims he wants to keep Russia's President Putin in check fails to see that driving up the price of oil works to keep him in power. Nothing would cause more trouble for Putin than for the price of oil to collapse.

So now we have another item we can add to the "legacy" of George W. Bush. He'll now be remembered for lying us into war, getting us bogged down in it, inadequate in responding to disasters, being unable to speak coherently and now overseeing the highest oil prices in history.

Great job!

Movie Sunday

I saw two movies today. I don't do that often any longer but managed to pull it off anyway.

The first movie up was, "Across the Universe". This is a musical set entirely to music from The Beatles. Nearly all (and possibly all, though I can't say for sure) of the characters are named after characters in Beatles tunes. The lead is Jude and he falls in love with Lucy. Lucy's brother is Max (and that's the name I can't place). Along the way they meet Sexy Sadie, Jo Jo and Prudence along with other smaller characters complete their own references.

The movie is, at times, a bit disjointed. Several of the scenes feel like they exist mainly to force in the lyrics of a particular song. Most of the time it's done fittingly but not always. Also, the producers didn't seem to be able to make up their mind as to the look of the film. It goes from standard to psychedelic to fantastical often without any sense of necessity. It's more like, "Oh, now we're going to play with the focus, and now we're going to use clown imagery."

Aside from this the movie is pretty enjoyable. The acting isn't too bad. The singing is generally very good and the plot is entertaining enough. It also has several scenes that succeed in tugging at the emotions and one or two that you think, "Wow, what a great job!" The ending was very satisfying.

Right after this movie we switched gears to see the new version of "The Nightmare Before Christmas". Tim Burton's Halloween tale has been redone by Disney in digital 3D. Yes, we sat there with the glasses on.

I've always been a fan of this movie though I can see why it isn't for everyone. I also feel it's more of a Christmas story than a Halloween story. The new version looked pretty good up there. It was shown at our local AMC (a place I generally detest going to) using their digital projector. It's also pretty clear that this movie wasn't originally done in 3D. While some of the effects were impressive much of it might has well have just been in 2D. Elements often felt that they could have been in 3D but just weren't. This was made all the more obvious by a couple of 3D trailers being shown just prior to the movie starting that did impress with their use of the effect. Interestingly, the most impressive 3D in the movie was a new pre-show scene, involving a jack-o-lantern jack-in-the-box, pointing out that you're watching the 3D version.

The rest of the movie appeared untouched to me but I also hadn't seen it in a few years and am not a scene-by-scene authority on it. It played as I remembered it and certainly didn't lose anything in the process. I still love many of the songs and much of the look.

The main thing I came away with was that I'm willing to see more movies using 3D. However, if this ever really took off, I'd like to find a company that produces top quality 3D glasses to use over the freebies they give you at the theater. Ours were brand-new and came wrapped in sealed plastic but they were also pretty poor. The lenses were bent causing distortions in the picture.

Gone Baby Gone

In a word--Wonderful.

For a bit more than one word, Ben Affleck's first directorial experience is a beautiful film that should impress most everyone that sees it.

The movie impressed at nearly every turn and from every angle. The most notable thing about it was how dead-on realistic it all seemed. Characters in it acted exactly the way you'd expect them to act in real life. They looked the part. Even the "pretty faces" were worn. Furthermore, the acting was superb across the board.

The story was also pretty impressive. I'll be curious to see if people see the ending long before it gets there but it appeared most in the theater we were in didn't see it. I saw a good chunk of it but that's because I'm always looking to figure it out ahead of time. The best thing about the story itself is that it will most likely pull you apart emotionally. You won't know what the best options are and this film does not take the easy way out. Choices have consequences and those consequences, as in life, often come to pass.

I will be recommending this movie to friends and family for a long time to come. Ben Affleck needs to be congratulated for this effort. I'm not sure if I'd call this Oscar-worthy for direction but I wouldn't rule it out either. Go see it.

Flyers Management Needs Reminder

I went to see the Flyers in action last night and was surprised to find the arena well off of capacity. In the middle of the game at least one out of every three seats was empty.

This is a new team with new energy and they're having a great start to the season. This building should be sold out with lines waiting outside for tickets. Instead I saw three people (I think from one group) standing at the ticket counter as I went by it.

As grandpa would say, "In my day...." the Flyers would sell out routinely and the energy level of the crowd was much higher as well.

I guess they're making more money this way but I have to believe that having people in the seats is better for everyone that not having them there. The seats we had were marked $85. We got them from a family member. That's $170 for my son and I to sit there if we'd paid for them. That's insane in my view. A family of four having to pay $340 for a single night out for okay seats? I think I'd rather hit a movie for $60-$75.

Huge swaths of seats were unsold in the nosebleed sections. That tells me the pricing is just not in line with demand. People with money don't want to sit there and people who are willing can't spend that much for those seats.

Here's hoping management figures it out, but I doubt it.

Eli Roth Needs To Get A Life

For the second time in a couple months I notice a headline about filmmaker Eli Roth and his blaming piracy for the plight of his movie. In this case it's "Hostel: Part II". Anyone who knows me knows I average about a movie a week and yet I wasn't even aware there was ever a Hostel: Part I.

This guy has zero clue when it comes to piracy. In his view he'd be filthy rich if not for piracy. It has not occurred to him that his movie is just interesting enough to be downloaded but not good enough to pay for. Why is it his crap his so persecuted while most other movies have no such problem?

He claims it's "real money." As I've said many times. No, it's not. Real money is what you have in your pocket. When it's IN your pocket and then LEAVES your pocket, then you can cry about theft. Until then, it's not real money Eli. How you failed to grasp this basic parenting principle is curious.

He goes on to say he doesn't want "fans" that are pissed at him over this. Who does this guy think he is? In fact, before these rants I'd never even heard of the guy.

I finally, out of curiosity, watch the first Hostel (I'd have loved to download it but it showed up on DirecTV as luck would have it so I just watched it on the DVR. Frankly, be glad most of you have no clue who Eli Roth is. The guy has some real issues. The film is a psychologist's fantasy come to life. It's sick beyond anything most of you have seen. I'm pretty sure snuff films would come off tame. I kind of think we'd be better off if the FBI keeps tabs on this guy 24/7 especially now that he's about to blow a real gasket.

Pushing Daisies

This season we're trying out a number of new shows to see what might be enjoyable. The one show, so far, that has impressed both my wife and me is "Pushing Daisies". If you're not familiar with the concept, it's pretty bizarre right from the outset. The main character, Ned, is a pie maker who has a special "talent". Ned can touch anything that has died and bring it back to life but with two catches. First, if he doesn't touch them again within one minute someone else within the vicinity has to die to make up for it. Second, if Ned does touch them a second time they will die permanently regardless of any other attempts to bring them back.

Ned, of course, put this interesting ability to use in ways that created a variety of issues. He first brought back his dog who was hit by a car. The dog is still alive much later in life suggesting a bit of immortality but Ned is now unable to touch him directly. He also brought back his mother who died when he was a child. This choice caused the father of his childhood love to die in her place and the tragedy was multiplied when Mom kissed Ned goodnight causing her to die for good.

The show itself is entirely unique. There's a narrator throughout the story that adds depth in much the same way Daniel Stern's narration helped "The Wonder Years". Here it's even more impressive as the voice is done in a way that's reminiscent of Dr. Seuss. The voice is playful, whimsical and adventurous. The show would be very different without it. The look of the show is also extremely important and effective. It too reminds you of Dr. Seuss. If not that then certainly it reminds one of a Tim Burton project.

The acting is okay but nothing special so far. The actors are still finding their way. There's Ned who is well cast and fits the role. There's his new business partner, Chi McBride, who realizes that there's money to be made with Ned's talent by bringing back the dead to ask for clues about who killed them. Then there's Ned's childhood love, now grown, played by relative newcomer Anna Friel. Anna seems to remind people of several other famous actresses. She reminds me a bit of Evangeline Lilly. Her character died in the first episode and was brought back by Ned who didn't have the willpower to return her to her fate. Now they're falling in love but are unable to do much of anything about it. Ned also hasn't found a way to tell her that he was responsible for her father's death. Then there's Ned's co-worker at the pie store played by the impossibly short Kristen Chenoweth. Her character, Olive, is secretly and desperately in love with Ned but he has no idea.

The show's fantastical concept and presentation is a wonder to behold. It's like re-discovering the magic of Christmas as an adult. You sit there smiling most of the time you watch it. Much of it has to be taken at face value and not questioned. When the dead are brought back they fail to ask the most basic questions and everything is kept positive. No one, so far, is distraught or desperate not to be sent back. They all just accept their fate and willingly participate in the dialogue with Ned while they can.

My biggest concern with the show is how long it can go on. How long can this concept feel fresh? For now I'm pushing the concerns to the back of my mind and just enjoying the show for what it is and for as long as it's here to be enjoyed. It's certainly not for everyone but it is a treat for those it does fit.

Michael Clayton..... Yeah, okay.

This is yet another movie that got rave reviews (Roger Ebert used the word "perfect" in his description of it) that were so positive that I feared there was little chance I would like it. I find this happening all the time with movies that have "universal" appeal. This meant I went into the movie with lower expectations than I might have otherwise had based solely on the reviews. That means I had a better chance of being impressed here.

We watched and watched and watched, seemingly for an eternity. In the end my thinking was that at two hours, this movie felt twice as long as "The Firm" and that film was 30 minutes longer. What's more is that the two stories share some similarities and I think the latter was a much more enjoyable experience. Then again, I just can't get enough of Wilford Brimley.

This isn't to say "Michael Clayton" is a bad movie. It has its moments. The acting is fantastic. Most noteworthy is the performance from Tom Wilkinson. However, many of the characters in the movie feel no more important than most of the props. There's a brother who has issues but why, we don't really know. There's an estranged wife/ex-wife but we don't know which or why though we can guess. There's the head boss of the big corporate entity who has a past that's hinted at but never explained. There's the lead council for the same company who has motivations that are never fully put forth. I could go on for another several characters.

There are also countless pieces of the story that make little sense and I don't mean later after you've had a chance to think about it. They don't make any sense the moment you see them. I have so many questions I'd like to ask right here but can't in case anyone reads this and hasn't seen the movie. I think I can say this much: So much care is taken in one scene to avoid notice while in a scene a few minutes later the same characters act with complete reckless abandon. Why the horses? What was the importance of the dash issue? All of these things conspire to drag out the story and confuse the entire plot. It only pains you later to realize they're also never going to be resolved. Their existence in this movie is a complete mystery.

The end of the movie features a wonderful pay-off but it just doesn't make up for the previous one-and-three-quarters hours. This is a story that could have been told, with equal impact, in well under 90 minutes with some creative editing and little else.

If you're into movies for the performances and the look, go rush to see this. If you're looking for depth, feeling and edge-of-your-seat drama/suspense, pick something else. I nearly fell asleep twice.

Music Labels Getting Just Deserters

The music labels are taking major hits of late with the defections of several of its most talented and most successful artists. Madonna is the latest to announce her departure.

It's about time these guys got what was coming to them. As a consumer it's now been decades that we've been ripped off by these guys. Not only have they overcharged us for their product by artificially keeping the free market from determining pricing but they've also been successful at keeping new, better technologies out of our hands for long periods of time. Now they're out there trying their best to make us forget all about digital music.

Digital music is here to stay and the market is showing that, done right, there is money to be made. In fact, more money per song than has ever been made before. Of course this sort of thinking seems beyond the typical bean counters at the labels. Like most other large entities, they get entrenched in the way they do business and have no capability to respond positively to creative new possibilities. They see all such efforts as an enemy that must be destroyed at all costs.

Think about it. When is the last time you read something positive about the music industry? It's almost always bad news. How long do these guys have to get torpedoed before they release its their steering that is taking them right into the path of those explosives?

If they don't respond to the current problem they're going to find the problem solved for them by going under. Just how many of the most talented artists will it take to leave before these entities can no longer function? I suspect it's not as many as people might think.

If the artists are smart they should realize that, for the first time in history, they have the labels right where they would want them. It's time to finally fix this mess once and for all.

The only concern I have is that the labels might react by simply paying the artists more resulting in even more lunacy on the consumer front.

TiVo Gets it a Decade Too Late

I just read this quote from TiVo's CEO Tom Rogers, "I like to think of (a TiVo box) now as a digital video receiver. The idea we're building toward is, anything that's out there, from any source, you need TiVo to get it, organize it and make it fast and easy to be able to find it." He saying this in relation to finally allowing the TiVo to hook in and store audio on a TiVo via Real Network's Rhapsody service.

This is like realizing you need to make a right turn at a light you passed several major vacations ago. That trip is over. I highly doubt this will make things right now.

Many years ago companies spoke of the concept of "convergence". It was a magical word. No one could make it work. The idea was to get consumers to accept a device that would stay in their living room or family room and control all their media in one location. The big catch was that it had to be alluring enough to leave on all day and night. This is no small issue for a lot of buyers. Most people still turn off their PC's. No one could make anything that buyers would accept and then came TiVo.

By its very nature it only makes sense for a DVR like TiVo to stay on every minute of every day. That's pretty much how TV works and if you wanted the benefits of a DVR then this would be the trade-off and, thankfully many people decided it was worth it.

Without even realizing it TiVo had reached the marketing promised land.

TiVo put out one strong product after another in the quest to perfect TV viewership. Once they felt that'd gotten within reach of it (but not quite there) they looked out at the horizon and wondered what should be next. Who TiVo chose to talk to I can't be sure of but I do know that the evidence suggests that a large part of the input came from their own community forums and their own management. Very little info came from typical future customers.

The problem with this is that TiVo management has never been all that great at foretelling the future and forums are notoriously filled with people who are anything but your typical customer. Listening to either to the exclusion of everyone else is a bad idea and it seems that point was missed here. I say this because TiVo's chosen path was so foolish as to question the competency of everyone involved.

Here you have a box that consumers finally accept. It stores massive amounts of complex data--lots and lots of video. It also does this surprisingly well to the point that seniors unable to set the clock on VCR's were able to hop right in and use a TiVo. So, when it came time to expand their horizons and support other media types what did they choose? They chose to allow you to view audio and photos via streaming technology.

What?

A TiVo can store literally hundreds of hours of video but when it came time to work with far less complex, far smaller, audio and photos, TiVo thought it was a good idea to invoke streaming..... Think about that. They took these would-be customers and said, "If you want to watch TV, just hit play and you're set. If you want to listen to a song learn about networking, install server software on your PC, setup of a wireless or wired network. Install a router. Install an access point. Setup a firewall, learn about port forwarding. Then, make sure your PC is on 24/7 too and make sure its setup properly to access all your music. Finally connect to it on your TiVo and with those two devices, plus a stereo, plus the router, the access point and so forth, you can then play a simple song."

This sounded like a winning concept to them. They embarked on what they called "HMO" for Home Media Option. I tried to point this out to posters on their forums but of course these were filled with kids and geeks who thought streaming was the greatest invention ever and couldn't possibly conceive of it being an issue for anyone.

When you'd ask them why video could be stored locally but audio and photos required so much extra work, no one had a valid answer but that didn't stop them from wanting it. The concept that other people wouldn't be as PC-centric as they were didn't occur to anyone apparently.

HMO has now been one of the biggest failures of TiVo's existence. When they released it at a high price only the forum posters and a scant few others bought in. Then the price dropped. Then it dropped again. Before you knew it, it was free and still the masses didn't care for it.

I kept asking through all of this why TiVo forgot the basics. The TiVo was the perfect media CENTER and yet TiVo forgot this when it came to audio and photos and tried to re-brand it as the perfect media hub in a world full of failed media hubs.

Now Tom Rogers says that the TiVo should be the center. How he still is running things there says a lot about why TiVo has had the rollercoaster ride it's had. If they'd have realized this ages ago and provided a simple way for consumers to dump all their media onto it (and not by having to link to it via a PC either) then I think they really would have dominated the marketplace. Maybe there's still hope but I have my doubts.

DirecTV Finally Delivers

I've been with DirecTV now for nearly all of their entire history. I signed up back just after it first became available and have been with them ever since. When I first signed on it was a simply an amazingly fresh experience. Nearly everything about it represented dramatic improvement.

The picture quality was exceptional. The number of channels dwarfed cable offerings. They were the first to offer the masses west coast feeds that made time-shifting of shows possible (C-band satellite had this but few owned it). They had set top boxes that were so much better than what cable offered. They were among the first to offer on-screen guides. Their pricing was also dramatically lower than cable as well. They had NFL Sunday Ticket. They were the hot property and, at the time, represented the fastest-growing technology out there.

Then DirecTV slowly morphed into just another cable company. They were driven to add programming beyond the technology of the time resulting in poor image quality often well below what cable offered. Cable also caught up and passed DirecTV in the number of channels available. Where we once had 3 times the number of movie channels, cable now offers twice the movie channels of DirecTV.

Several years ago DirecTV told its subscribers that they'd be the leaders in high definition television. They created entire campaigns around this and ran commercials calling themselves the HD leader. This, of course, was matched immediately by a fall to the bottom of the HD battle.

Just within the last couple of weeks all that has changed. Back in June DirecTV launched their latest satellite and it changed everything. We've now gotten over 30 HD channels with the promise of nearly 70 more by the end of the year. The picture quality of each has been, so far, exceptional and it includes new channels as well as HD versions of existing ones. Many I still have not yet gotten chance to watch. The Smithsonian Channel is a notable selection. I've yet to see anything on it that wasn't at least interesting. Even The Weather Channel looks amazing. Every radar screen and forecast graphic jumps out of the set at you. There are some mixed bag offerings. CNN is here but it generally runs with side-bars showing that they haven't quite made the jump fully over to HD yet. Other channels offer what we call "stretch-o-vision" where they take typical standard definition television and stretch it to fit the screen making everyone appear short, fat and generally distorted.

DirecTV also now offers a very competitive set top box and this is a nice return to the old days. Several years ago DirecTV decided it was a better idea to take over this portion of their business and things went downhill immediately. Boxes designed under their direction were immediately lacking in features and often were buggy. Their latest box, the HR-20 DVR, is well on its way to being a top offering. It still needs work and DirecTV seems committed to it at this point. They even offer a somewhat open beta program for those interested in testing the latest versions of software for it. Most impressive is that they very much seem to be listening to their customers on what this box needs to be competitive.

The big question for me, as a long time subscriber, is just how long will this last? I've been down this path only to be let down later. Will DirecTV lose this advantage by destroying the best things about it? Will that try to do more than the technology can bear, once again destroying the picture many of us have paid so much to see?

Time will tell but for now we're enjoying the latest chapter in the story.

Ken Burns WWII Documentary

I have been a fan of Ken Burns since I first encountered his documentary on the Civil War. That documentary stands, to me, as the most compelling telling of the story of that period of life in our country's history. Nearly every facet of it hits on all cylinders. There are very few misses among the entire series. I bought it on VHS tape and then couldn't wait for it to show up on DVD. In fact, I just finished watching the entire series again while introducing it to my son. I believe it's at least the fourth time I've seen it from start to finish.

When I heard about Ken Burns new project, "The War", I couldn't wait to see it. However, this effort doesn't impress me anywhere near as much as the his work on the above project. The narration is decent but not noteworthy. The stories seem like they're tossed at you almost randomly. There are no historians like Shelby Foote, from the first project, to bring a sense of perspective and depth.

The entire story is handicapped from the outset with a flawed concept. The idea is to tell the story from the perspective of four towns in America. The problem is that World War II was a global war that impacted most of the world. Trying to shoehorn everything into the perspective of just four towns makes no sense. "The Civil War" told the story of much of the country making sure to include the best known battles and many of the smaller skirmishes.

Instead of a historical timeline of events we get a timeline that is bent to fit the concept and the results are fairly dull. I've seen several interviews where the interviewers were overflowing with praise for elements of the effort that I'm just not seeing. Much was made of the use of so much color and "never-before-seen" footage. I'm just not seeing it. Much of what I've seen so far (I'm trying hard to finish episode four of seven and have seen it in 5 pieces and counting) is footage that I've seen before or that is so reminiscent of existing footage as to be indiscernible from the footage used. I've seen other documentaries that used more color and brought home the realism better.

The individual stories also lack any real depth. For example, the Battle of the Philippine Sea was so one-sided that it's now generally referred to as "The Great Marianas Turkey Shoot." I've watched entire hour long shows on this affair that drove home all the elements of this battle and managed to give it the emotion it deserved. Here the term is tossed out like they were naming a candy bar and then forgotten. You get no real sense of any of the people involved except for a select handful of people from four towns in America. That's a nice touch but it leaves too much unsaid.

There are many other efforts that do a far better job of telling the story of the second World War. Ken Burns has let me down on this one. Maybe he needed more episodes as the war is pretty hard to distill down into a mere seven pieces. The bottom line is that I suspect this effort will be quickly forgotten and I can't recommend that anyone else spend their time with it.

Jon Stewart Does It Again!

Jon Stewart is quickly becoming a hero of mine. Here's a guy who runs a parody news show and he's more accurate and effective than most of the press in the country. He's someone you can believe in. His integrity is beyond question in my view.

Last night his guest was Chris Matthews from MSNBC. The interview was some of the best television possible. Chris is not a favorite of mine. I used to like him but then started noticing very disturbing, partisan elements to his commentary. Then it became impossible to ignore. The guy really hates liberals and doesn't understand them at all. He can't fathom how people aren't impressed with George Bush and anyone who can't understand that has their own problems.

Anyway, Matthews was on The Daily Show last night to promote a new book. This one was all about how life is like a political campaign and to succeed you need to treat it like that along with all the heartless decisions that get made along the way in a campaign. Stewart had read it beforehand and I'm continually amazed at how many of these books he's able to read given that he has 4 guests a week and at least 3 of them have books to push.

Matthews asked if Stewart read it (mistake number one) and when Stewart informed him that he had Matthews asked, point-blank, what he thought (mistake number two). Stewart was full of opinions on it and none of them were good. He started by seriously calling it a "recipe for sadness". Matthews was so caught off-guard by this turn of events that he literally didn't know how to react. He fumbled over what to say and how to react. He kept trying to find a way to rescue the interview and finally had to resort to phrases like "You're just impossible".

Jon Stewart, being the person he is, clearly felt bad about the way it went. Completely out of character for the show Stewart came back from the final commercial and tried to say something nice about the book without compromising his principles.

I'll be very surprised if Chris Matthews rushes back to the show anytime soon.

Just a Hannity Reminder

Please recall that back before the 2006 elections, Sean Hannity, prognosticator that he is, told his listeners that, God forbid, if the Dems gained control of Congress then it would result in the government becoming bogged down by nothing but ongoing impeachment proceedings.

Well, the first year of the two is nearly over and so far we've heard a couple comments about possibly looking into considering if impeachment is something worthwhile. We've also heard Democratic leaders saying impeachment isn't on their radar.

Do remember this each and every time that wind-bag opens his mouth to tell you how much he knows about politics and what's going to come to pass.

3:10 to Yuma Is Worth the Ticket

This weekend my son and I went to see "3:10 to Yuma". It stars Christian Bale and Russell Crowe in a classic western. It was my son's very first western so I was a bit apprehensive. Thankfully by the end it was his favorite movie (as is just about every movie he sees to that point).

Like a lot of people I had seen enough westerns to hold me for some time. That's why we took a bit to get out to see this one. In fact, the only reason we even saw this is because there was nothing else acceptable that he could see. This did have an "R" rating but it really only had it for the violence aspect which he saw as tame anyway.

I have yet to make up my mind on the abilities of Christian Bale. In one movie he seems to be great at the craft of acting and in the next he looks like he just moved out of commercials. This movie puts him squarely in the first category. Russell Crowe is strong as usual. Peter Fonda is also excellent in a supporting role.

The movie overall is nothing all that special. There isn't anything really all that unique about it and the story itself has a few rather large holes in it but that doesn't matter much. It's still a very enjoyable experience and well worth the money. It's never going to be viewed in the same class as "Unforgiven" but is certainly better than the typical western fare.

The main characters are decently covered here. It's the cursory characters that fail to impress. Crowe's gang of outlaws are clearly bad men but that's about all you'll get from them. A lot of people are churned through the plot and you just have to take them with a grain of salt and move on.

I think any new western is going to be measured against Unforgiven and that caused me to think of the other Clint Eastwood westerns that I need to expose my son to. 3:10 to Yuma is certainly a better than average movie but I have a hard time seeing how it got the four stars some reviewers are giving it.