Change Your Image
fetboy
Reviews
Caprica (2009)
More please.
Admittedly I am was a big fan of BSG, but Caprica is pretty damn awesome in so many ways. The big praise goes out to the cast which is nothing short of miraculous in that it actually managed to top BSG's. Eric Stoltz, Esai Morales, Paula Malcomson, Polly Walker, Sasha Roiz, Brian Markinson, Jorge Montesi, and Hiro Kanagawa are an amazing blend of talent, personalities, and chemistry that works in every scene. At the core is Stoltz and Morales who are polar opposites, but find common ground in mutual grief. Stoltz and Malcomson play the picture perfect couple that keeps deep secrets from one another. Morales and Rois play close orphaned (immigrant) brothers who are on opposite sides of the law, (or are they?). And Walker and Markinson play antagonists to each other on socio-religious ideology. Montesi plays a godfather character better than De Niro or Al Pacino did, and his character is sure to come between the Adama brothers. Kanagawa plays the unscrupulous business partner/co-scientist of Stoltz, and his role in the development of the cylons is sure to wrap it altogether, or tear it all apart. How did it all happen, who was to blame, who were the saviors, who is right, and who is wrong? A lot of story arch(es), a lot of possibilities, and great a cast to make it all interesting as the story of the greatest futuristic/prehistoric tragedy unfolds. The cast and story lines aren't the only things to praise about Caprica. The sets, most of which are reused from BSG, are dazzling to the eyes, and the production makes common structures such as a convent, an old bank, modern and 60s styled buildings, and narrow catwalks to beautifully setup every scene with the perfect atmosphere. The natural majestic landscape of Vancouver is spellbinding, and somehow the uses of regular street scenes compliments both the futuristic and exotically exciting nature of the show. The use of "the light" lighting and music scoring are carried over from BSG, and are used as spectacularly in Caprica as they were in BSG. I ordered Caprica through netflix, watched it twice, then had to watch it with the commentary, and then had to buy it so that it will always be in my collection. The final cut of the Caprica's pilot did well with all the editing, as it introduced the characters and started the story arches and sub plots without giving anything away, but leaves you hungry for more, and they had better give it.
Sleeper Cell (2005)
Mixed Bag
Sleeper Cell attempts to swim both sides of the pool (terrorism/patriotic Muslim Americans), and it does neither very well.
I had put off watching this show for a very long time, because I had a feeling it would be too predictable, but after a year in my netflix queue, I finally moved it up to the front.
The show is about an undercover Muslim man working for the FBI in an attempt to infiltrate a terrorist cell operating in the United States. The undercover agent in the show actually is a Muslim, so we see his conflict/resolution between his Patriotism and his Religious beliefs. Personally I would have rather watched a drama about a Muslin American family living in the United States, but it is doubtful that an America TV channel (cable or network) will ever produce anything that shows Muslims in a flattering light.
I am not a Muslim, but I have a lot of Muslim American Friends, and I can honestly say that none of them are terrorists and they all love America.
Sleeper Cell comes close to busting stereotypes of Muslims, but it also focuses on the worse Muslim stereotypes. In the first episode we see an "honor killing," which is a very poor portrayal of Islam, but in the 3rd episode we see a very respected moderate Muslim scholar teaching the viewer that the real Jihad is actually a personal struggle that is not meant to incite violence towards others.
If only the Moderate Muslim scholar had been the main character of the show.
Americans need to learn a lot more about Islam, Sleeper Cell helps a little bit, but it comes up far short of giving the America audience what it really needs to knows.
That said, the acting in this show is superb, and the drama is extremely engrossing. If only they had made this show about Islam in America without the terrorism, it would have been first rate.
Sicko (2007)
Some American's in the USA do have fully funded government health care!!!
Hello everybody. I am American and I have fully funded, US government run health care. How is that possible you ask? I am an active duty US servicemen! My deductibles are nothing, I pay nothing, I can go to the government run hospitals anytime I want, and none of my requests for special medical services and procedures will ever be denied or declined. In fact, I literally have the same health care plan that the Gitmo detainees have. However the current politicians in office have decided to deny that health care system to reservist, national guardsmen, and veterans (but they give the health care coverage I have to themselves). So don't tell me that a government run, government funded, non-profit health care system won't work for Americans, because it is working for millions of Americans.
Since I am writing here I might as well address some of the BS arguments against universal health care.
BS argument #1; it's too expensive. Well, according to CNN.COM's fact check on "Sicko", France, which has a health care system that is ranked in the top 10 (where as America is ranked 37th) only spend 11% of their GDP on health care, where as America spend over 15% (much of which goes to help make the CEOs of Aetna, CIGNA, Kaiser Permanente, Humana, Wellpoint, HealthPartners, Allina and all the other HMOs billionaires, as Michael Moore pointed out). Also according the CIA world fact book, American's have a GDP per-capita of $44,000, where as France's GDP per-capita is only $31,100, so in fact if America had an identical system to France, it would only cost about 8% of our GPD.
BS Argument #2; it would cost the tax payers a lot of money. True, but let's think about this rationally; would you rather pay a $1,000 a year in taxes to fund a health care system that will give you universal health care no matter who you are, or do you prefer to pay $1,900 a year out of your pocket to a heath care system that works to maximize it's profits by denying as many claims as it possibly can? Where would you rather have your hard earned money go to; to the national treasury, or to the bank accounts of the billionaire HMO CEOs? The national treasury we can control with our votes, but we have no control over the HMO CEOs, most of whom keep their money in accounts and investments outside of the USA.
BS argument #3; citizens of nations with universal health care systems have to wait longer to get operations. True, but not by much, and at least they get their operations. In a universal health care system claims are not denied because of preexisting conditions, and cancer survivors are not denied coverage because they once had cancer.
BS argument #4; Fraud cases are costly. However the people who say that fail to mention that the fraud cases are present in the existing American privatized system, but that under a Government run system fraud cases would be easier to spot, because the government would have more sources (such as law enforcement) to look into cases that were fraudulent. The US government is lass likely to get ripped off by individuals than private HMOs are. In any case it does not seem likely that the amount of fraudulent claims would increase under a universal Health care system (more than likely the amount would decrease).
Personally I know a lot of young, very patriotic US servicemen, servicewomen, and dependents who have survived cancer through the health care they received from the US Military, and are terrified of getting out of the service, because they know American HMOs will not want to offer them coverage.
We are a very sad country if we cannot take care of our heroes.
Casino Royale (2006)
A new Bond!
When you ask a man which Bond they identify themselves with, you will get a really good idea of what kind man they are by their answer. Finally we have a thinking man's James Bond. I wont compare Daniel Craig to the other Bond actors, because Daniel Craig's performance stands out as its own. He's charming without being charming, gentlemanly without being gentlemanly, and smart without being smart.
At first he comes off as a nerd by hacking computers, but quickly he becomes a beach god in the next segment, and yet he manages not to confuse the audience as to who he really is. He's the new Bond; gritty, calculating, sensitive, crafty, and not the least bit unrealistic, which are all traits that could also be said about the Movie "Casino Royale" as well.
Unlike other Bond films, especially the recent ones, "Casino Royale" doesn't rely on outlandish stunts to capture the audience's attention, but rather lets the story unfold. At no point did the actions of the characters need to be explained, and there wasn't a moment in which I wasn't riveted to see what was going to happen next.
When people ask me which Bond I identify with, I will tell them Daniel Craig, because he defined himself better than all the other Bonds did, and he didn't need big explosions to prove he was a hero.
My only complaints about the movie are that the last fight scene was a little hard to follow (but I loved the conclusion it came to), and the movie ends on a bit of question mark, which I hope means that the next Daniel Craig Bond film will start off where "Casino Royale" ends.
If they can follow up this master piece with another master piece Ian Fleming will be proud.
Suchwiin bulmyeong (2001)
Focuses on negative American stereotypes.
A very well made movie, and beautifully acted, but an American viewer will definitely take offense to it (especially if they are, or have been, a US serviceman). I have been searching for a good Korean movie or TV show that would give insights as to how the South Koreans feel about the American presence in their country, but surprisingly that topic is almost never brought up in Korean made entertainment. I read the cover of "Address Unknown" in the video store, and thought this would be a good movie about the Americans in South Korea. It is a good movie, but I was offended. The movie focused of several stereotypes that I found appalling (I will try to write this review without giving away too much movie in details, but be aware there are spoilers in this review).
The movie's main characters are a horribly poor, mentally disturbed, Korean woman and her mixed racial son that was the issue of an African American airman. In the viewer's first introduction to this couple, we the viewer see the son attempt to brutalize his mother. The message was obvious; The Korean mothers of children of American servicemen live desperate lives, and their mixed racial children resent them.
Having spent 6 years in Japan in the US navy, and being the father of 2 Japanese American Children you can probably understand why I would be offended by this notion.
Matters may have been different in the 60s and 70s, but I can say from personal experience that every child of an Asian mother and American serviceman that I know has benefited greatly from being truly bi-lingual, and have lived well in their respective countries (I have been searching for information on the actor/rap singer Dong-kun Yang to see if he actually is half African American, but if he's not, he still spoke English beautifully in the movie). The relationship between the mother and her bi-racial son takes a terrible turn, when the son slicing off his mother's breast tattoo that depicts her former, American serviceman, lover's name. The mother throughout the movie takes pride in her son and her past love with the American serviceman, and to me these were the only touching aspects of the movie. To see the son attack his mother in this way really made my heart sink and I could not understand what point the director was trying to make, other to characterize bi-racial children negatively.
The breast tattoo topic comes up again when an AWOL American soldier attempt to carve his name into the breast of his Korean lover, so that she will never forget him after he is gone. I have been searching on the web, and I cannot find any account of such an occurrence happening, in the long US-Korean relations, involving a serviceman carving his name into a Korean woman (or girl) against her will. Where that stereotype of an American wanting to tattoo a Korean woman came from, I have no idea, though it does sound a lot like what KKK members are reported to have done in the States. In any case I thought it was a very unfair portrayal or Americans, and it reminded me a lot of the myth of Vietnamese women who hid razor blades in their vaginas (might have happened, but I highly doubt it, and there is no report of it actually having happening).
Early in the film we see this same serviceman offer that same Korean girl a chance at eye surgery in trade for her becoming his sweetheart. Anyone who knows anything about the US military knows that such an exchange is absurd, because a serviceman could only get surgery for a Korean woman if she was his wife. The message that that exchange attempts to give, which becomes more clear later, is that Korean women (and Koreans in general) are forced to yield to everything Americans demand (no matter how demeaning), because Americans feel that the Koreans owe them so much after all the Americans have done for them. Later the girl blinds her surgically repaired eye, giving the message that her deranged American lover's gift was not welcomed after all.
I hope that Koreans who have watched (or plan to watch) "Address Unknown" will not assume that all American servicemen are deranged, because were not, or that we intend to make outrageous demands of them after all of the "gifts that we have given them," because we do not.
The tone of "Address Unknown" borders on anti-American propaganda, which is really a shame because this movie is very well made.
I hope someday there will be a less grim movie made about the post war Korean-American experience, because I know from personal experience that most interpersonal Korean-American relationships are not all bad (though in the 60s and 70s, relationships between Koreans and Americans were probably a lot more strained).
Shimotsuma monogatari (2004)
Best female coming of age movie every made.
Just when I was about to give up on Japanese cinema ever producing anything good, other than a Techno-Horror, I ran across this gem at the video story.
American audiences may think that Momoko and Ichigo are extreme examples of Japanese girls, when in fact they are actually well developed profiles of 2 of Japan's most prolific subcultures. In Japan the bike riding Yankis are everywhere (and typically the women quit the gangs after getting knocked up, an example of which the actress Anna Tsuchiya followed), and the Momoko (The lolitas, but I always referred girls like her as "Raggedy Anns on crack") like styled girls can be find shops for their clothing all over Shibuya and Harajiku (The "Baby; The Stars Shine Bright" is an actual label, but quite a few of the "Raggedy Anns on crack" make their own clothes just as Momoko did).
To me the Momoko and Ichigo characters were like so many Japanese girls I have met, and the ordeals that they went through were like re-tellings of personal stories I had heard so many times before.
I loved this movie so much I had to buy it just so I will know I will always have it when my own Japanese-American daughter grows up, but this movie is a must see for anyone who wanted to know anything about Japan or wants to see a touching movie about 2 girls who come into their own.
Movies this insightful are rare, and this is the best "coming of age movie" for women I have ever seen in any language.
The Sopranos (1999)
Despite being truly misunderstood it's still great.
The irony of Soprano's is that it's not a good family drama, but rather an excellent bad family drama. I have been a fan of the show from it's inception, and have watched almost every episode in a near religious fervor, but I make sure that my kids are not in the room when The Sopranos is on the tube.
It's a funny sad phenomenon to watch 30 to 40 year old men idolize, and attempt to emulate Tony Soprano, and it's a disturbing spectacle to see Catholic ministers tout moralist praise upon the show.
If Tony Soprano were an actual person, I think he would discourage anyone from actually using him as role model, and I seriously doubt that the creators of the Sopranos intended for anyone to find any moralist value within the show (though I may be wrong).
I love, and watch the show, not because I want to be a gangster (or even act like one), but because I enjoy watching the inner conflicts of the characters involves, and because I am enticed by the intense, elaborate, intelligent plots of each episode, and the long running sub-plots that intertwine the characters.
The show is restricted entertainment at it's best, with flawless acting, great character development, and because it gives realistic thought provoking imagery played out in a criminal world that rational minded people would want to view only from the safety of their home entertainment systems. Why can't people leave it at that? Why do people project more on this show than it actually contains?
The best way to view this show is to think of the characters as people you would rather not be associated with, and as family examples that you would try to avoid, which the show does excellently. People may think I am giving the Sopranos a bad review, quite the contrary I LOVE THE SHOW, but I am mature enough to see The Sopranos as what it is; restricted entertainment at it's best.