Review: Recount

2008/R/Drama

Recount is the dramatization (based on actual events) of the fight for Florida during the 2000 Presidential Election between Bush and Gore. **Spoiler Alert** Al Gore looses. This movie, produced by HBOFilms, stars Kevin Spacey, Dennis Leary, Ed Begly Jr., Tom Wilkinson, and Mitch Pileggi. If the mere fact that this movie was made didn't communicate it, the fact that it's HBOFilms starring these people made it more than apparent prior to viewing that this movie would lean left.

Recount was everything I thought it would be an nothing I'd hoped it would be. Lean left? Yeah, if you can call a boat that's capsized "leaning." While I expected a bias, the extent to which the filmmakers went was surprising. What I found was had the bias been less exaggerated, I might have been more receptive to some of their talking points.

How bad was the bias? I'll list just a few comparisons in regards to how the portrayed the competing sides:

The Candidates:
While neither Senator Gore nor Governor Bush was fully portrayed, they were represented throughout the movie. Gore was in charge of the legal proceedings that his team of lawyers was pursuing. He was compassionate, concerned with the American people and his image. Bush was absent. His team was run by the head lawyer. Gore's people were on the phone to him repeatedly. No one ever checked with Bush regarding the actions they were taking. The only time we heard Bush was when he was snooty to Gore on the phone. We hear Gore several times leading and directing his troops.

The Lawyers:
There are several ways the director and writers chose to expose their bias through these characters. There is a very telling scene that bounces between the two camps as the set their strategy when it first appeared that Florida was going to become a post-election battleground. The Democrats would say something that sounded gentle and altruistic. They'd follow it up with a comment about something they certainly couldn't do on moral or ethical grounds. Cut to: The Republican lawyers proclaiming they needed to do the exact verbatim thing the liberal lawyers just said they could never do. This was done not once, not even twice, at least three times throughout the course of the movie. While it garnered a laugh, even from me, it moved this piece from fictional retelling to melodrama.

The Design:
I debated which heading to use for this section. "Design" encompasses lighting, costumes, and set. The lawyers for the two sides were purposefully portrayed as polar opposites. The democrats were in business casual: respectable yet approachable. The republicans were in business suits: stuffy, stodgy, rich. Gore's team was headquartered in a comfortable, brightly lit, campaign-style storefront filled with big windows, folding chairs, campaign signs, and folding tables. The Bush team was in a dark, enclosed conference room filled with heavy law books, heavy curtains, and a big heavy table. The Liberals were lit warmly, attractively, comfortably with key lights and fill lights. The conservatives were consistently back lit with a single harsh cold light.

There was a moment when they almost made the Republicans appear to be human. However, when juxtaposed with some of the things the Democrats said, even that was slanted. A fellow lawyer asked the Chief Republican attorney why he switched parties, as he was once a Democrat. The man replied that at a difficult time in his life, a politician was very kind and understanding: G. Bush I. "Oh, how sweet." Right? Consider this: Following their loss, a few of the Democrats were saying that they didn't even like Al Gore. What am I getting at? The Democrats are doing what they are doing because the believe in the party and it's platforms. The only reason the lawyer was a Republican was due to friendship. No intelligent person would ever be a Republican based on the party platforms (unless you are rich.) Even in their "pet the dog*" moment, they still bashed the right.

In the end, some of the Democrats are sitting around opining that hopefully, the right man was in office, even if it wasn't their guy. While they are discussing this little hints are being dropped: Brown appointed as FEMA chair on a newspaper, Iraq mentioned in a broadcast. They don't go so far as to drop any foreshadowing of 9/11, but their feelings on the overall situation is clear (as though we needed to be reminded how the makers of the movie truly felt...)

We all remember the questions surrounding the Florida election of 2000. In my extensive studies on the counts and recounts I still cannot say for certain who won the state. The filmmakers certainly had a very compelling story with valid points on both sides. The fact that they couldn't simply tell the story and felt they need to spin it (more than spin it: catapult it) to the left negated any points either side had. Basically, the inability of the writers, director, and producers to suppress their own political viewpoints made this movie a waste of time.

The message of the movie is unmistakable. So, even though it was completely counter productive, they were successful in communicating their purpose. They get a half star for that. The acting, constrained as it was by the script and overall bias, was fairly decent. One star for that.

Overall 1.5 out of 5 stars.

* A "pet the dog" moment is when you have your stereotypical villain pet a dog, or do something else humane, to show that he isn't all evil. A good example of this would be when Nicholas Cage's character cares for his brother in Face/Off. This ability to care shows he's somewhat human.

Once, Twice, Three Years a Daddy

Today Full House turns three.

THREE!

I cannot believe that so much time has passed.

I don't often take time to express fatherhood thoughts. I'd like to take a few minutes to do so now.

I love learning about my son. I love finding out what he likes and dislikes. What he thinks is funny. How he likes to spend his time. What excites him. What he has learned that we intentionally taught him and what he's learned that we did not intentionally teach him. I love his disposition, his intelligence, his athletic ability, his personality. I can't wait to see how our relationship will grow as he does (Well, I don't want him to be grown tomorrow!) I love my son.

I've learned that parenthood is backwards from any other relationship. Consider the majority of other types of relatioships: friendships, marriages, parents, colleagues. Let's assume that every interaction I have with them is positive. We express mutual respect. We compliment each other. In most of our interactions we are positive. In those relationships, if something cutting, negative, or biting is said, it almost completely wipes out all of the positive and good that has happened before. With parenthood, one could have a brat. One's child could be the worst, most disrespectful kid on the block. This parent could have the most infuriating frustrating child and have all of that angst and stress pent up as they are trying to get this hypothetical child to go to sleep. And this child calls them in for the 8 thousandth time to his room and says, "Daddy, I love you." And everything else goes away! Nothing else matters. Suddenly, said child is an angel. Full House is an amazing little boy. I honestly wonder why I was blessed with such a fantastic kid. This is not a commentary on him in the slightest. Simply that, there are times when I, as a father, usually unwarranted, get frustrated with him. He says something sweet, innocent, brilliant, funny, whatever... it all melts away. This would never happen in any other relationship.

I don't like the term "Father." I learned this fact when I was playing with Full House in a public place and an older gentleman asked him, "Do you like playing with your father?" "Whoa," I thought, "I'm his Dad." I had a visceral emotional reaction to the moniker "father." I am blessed to be Full House's (and Wild Card's) dad.

I'm trying to be intentional as his dad. We have a game plan before we play football. We story board before we shoot a film. We prepare for an interview. Why don't we have a plan for parenthood. I call him "Little Man" to remind myself that it's my job to raise him to be a Godly man. I'm intentionally laying a foundation on which I can build as he grows older to instill in him habits that I never had. Prayer. Reading the Word. Studying the Word. Modeling the proper servanthood leadership in the home. Displaying how to love and respect a woman. I don't want to fly by the seat of my pants. I want a game plan. Hopefully it will get even better as I grow in experience as a dad.

So, my little man, my buddy: Happy Birthday. Thank you for three years of laughs, smiles, games, insight, surprises, and love.

I love you, buddy!

Father's Day

I was running around my yard with my son hoping that my love and attention would help him grow into a man that I, my wife, and even he, would be proud of.

In the midst of this I had a thought: Who would I have been if I had a father who wanted to be a Dad? I've always said and known that I am a better man because my father left. I wouldn't be half the man I am if I'd had his example of what it meant to be a husband or a father. God obviously placed specific men in my life at specific times to shape me into the man I am today. For that I am inexpressibly grateful!

But still, sometimes I wonder...

Seeing Stars

No, this isn't a post about my years in Hollywood. And I haven't seen a cartoon character take a mallet to the head recently. I'm talking about big gaseous balls of fire in the heavens.

I've had a few encounters with stars within the past few days. The story of Abraham and the promise that his descendants would outnumber the stars. I read a Shakespearean sonnet that referenced them. And I'm watching a BBC program called Hyperspace, billed as covering "From the beginning of the universe to the end of our world" and these have gotten me thinking...

When I read the story of Abraham, I'm never really impressed that his descendants will out number the stars - out numbering the sands astounds me - but not so much the stars. And Shakespeare talks about the number and beauty of them... ehh. Don't get me wrong, they are amazing and I love gazing at them, but... And then I remember:
We do not see the same stars they did!
I'm not saying that the stars themselves are different, but our planet has gotten so visually loud that we see so many fewer stars than they did. Consider this:

This is basically what we see now:

Imagine seeing this:

I was driving across Wyoming (not many people can start a sentence that way!), it was night, the highway was empty (anyone surprised?), the land was so flat I could see the horizon as though I was at sea. Wyoming doesn't believe in streetlights. I had a realization. I pulled my car over, turned off the lights, climbed up on the hood, leaned back on the windshield and marvelled! Suddenly I understood the promise to Abraham. I saw the majesty Shakespeare attempted to capture in words. I'd never seen the night sky so filled with stars.

Which brings me to my other thought: Hyperspace has been using some fairly ironic words. Obviously this BBC production isn't acknowledging the existence of God and yet they are using such words as "creation" and talking about things being "brought into existence."

The first episode mentions "the beginning of time" and takes us back to the Big Bang. Of course, most of us know that scientists generally agree that time existed before the Big Bang, we just have no way of knowing what was there. That was just something that made me go "huh?"

Anyway, the episode talks about how everything that is was "created" by stars. The only element that existed during the Big Bang was hydrogen, that became stars that became denser and created helium, oxygen, calcium, etc all the way to lead as the star died. Dying stars spewed their "star stuff" that became planets and the super nova-ing stars created black holes. All I could picture is God watching this thinking, "I know! Isn't is so stinking cool?! Doesn't it just blow your mind what I came up with! I'm so proud of you that you figured it all out. I love this stuff too!"

To bring this post together, Hyperspace gave a statistic: For every grain of sand on earth there are 1 million stars in the universe. I guess I need to swap which promise to Abraham amazes me!

I will continue to be astonished by the beauty and creativity of the stars.

International Politics

I think it's a rare event that JMO delves into the realm of international politics, but there are two issues that have burst onto the scene of current events on which JMO has an opinion. (Surprise, surprise, right?)

Newsline: North Korea
Two American Journalists entered North Korea illegally as they covered a story regarding North Korean refugees fleeing to China, the country they entered from. They were arrested in March and only just recently were sentenced to twelve years hard labor. The Obama administration is very concerned regarding this verdict.

I have three thoughts on this situation. First, honestly, twelve years is getting off easy. Let's consider the other possibilities. If I'm North Korea, I'm arresting your for espionage. You are in our country illegally, you are from a country with which relations are currently strained and you have recording devices. Espionage equals death. Twelve years vs death? I'll take the twelve years.

Second, what were these journalists thinking? North Korea won't care? They'll be treated with leniency because they are women? Nothing like giving ammunition to the enemy of your country. If nothing else, these two journalists are now bargaining chips for the North Koreans with the US government regarding their nuclear program.

Third, the Obama administration has stated that they are very concerned with the terms of the sentence. This should come as no surprise to anyone! Of course the Obama administration is concerned. They don't care about people coming into this country illegally, why should other countries enforce their own laws?

Newsline: Iran
I was shocked to hear that Iran was holding elections! That lasted for about 4 seconds. Then I remembered that Iraq used to hold elections, too. It was the only country in the world where the President was elected having received 100% of the vote and where 100% of the vote was greater than the eligible voting population.

Therefore, I was even more surprised to hear that Ahmadinejad won by "a larger margin than expected." I expected it to be 100%. That means that in rigging the election, they actually allowed the other candidates to receive some of the votes! Looks like reform is coming to Iran. Maybe next time it will be a tie, and they will have a run off election before Mahmoud declares himself the winner.

So, that's my opinion. What's yours?

Dismantling Food

Recently, I admitted to myself that I have a strange eating habit. I dismantle food (If this confuses you, you'll understand more as you read). I used to think this was localized only to one or two snacks. However, the more I reflected on this abnormality, the more I concluded that, when it comes to dismantling food, I practically do it whenever possible.

I first started to consider this issue when Reese ran their "There's no wrong way to eat a Reese" campaign.

How do I eat my Reese Peanut Butter Cups? I bite off the chocolate around the circumference of the cup. Then I see if I can get the chocolate off the top. Then I eat the peanut butter. I dismantle it - bit by bit.

Anyway. This all came to a head on Friday when I had a few different snacks in relative rapid succession.

I had a Pop Tart. (I bite the edges off, then try to slide apart the middle so I have the frosting and the filling on the top and bottom.)

I had some Combos. (I try to isolate the filling by biting off the pretzel or breading from around the outside. Then I pop the middle in my mouth)

I had some Kit Kats. (I bite off the ends and then I lift off each level of wafer with my teeth as I devour the candy bar).

I stopped mid Kit Kat and realized that within five hours I'd dismantled four different foods! (I'd already had a peanut butter cup). Then I thought about other foods:

Swiss Cake Rolls: I eat the chocolate coating off and then unroll it as I eat it.

Reese Sticks: I eat these the same way I eat Kit Kats, biting off one layer at a time.

Think it ends there? I wish! In fact, not only does it not end,it gets worse! I have trouble eating an Oreo without opening it and licking off the filling. I even try to nibble off the candy shell of Reese' Pieces and eat the peanut butter by itself!

Think that's crazy? While this one is not as consistent as all of the others, I've even been known to chew off the breading from Mozzarella Sticks if they've gotten a little cool and the cheese has congealed inside them!

Even as I wrote this I found I was realizing even more foods I do this to! (Don't worry, I added them as I went). But what does this bizarre eating habit say about me? Do I even want to know?! I may be opening Pandora's box but ... I am inviting you to offer your opinions on what this says about me, or what part of my personality you think is being reflected. Fire away!

(Ok, but I am not as bad as my college friend who used to rip off the "fry butts" and eat only the middles leaving a pile of amputated fry ends on her plate! ... Right?)

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
And one other thing: Congratulations to the QofH for reaching the milestone of her first 100 posts on It's Called Guilt. If you haven't yet, be sure to check out her insightful blog on motherhood!

Review: Premonition

***Spoiler Alert***
Seriously, I'm totally going to give the movie away
I'm not even kidding, if you want to watch the movie and be surprised, stop reading now

(But let me say this: it's really not worth skipping the review to watch the movie. If you have to pick one, pick the review)

2007/PG-13/Drama

Premonition is my movie. And when I say that, "my movie" is a movie that never got made, for good reason. I'll explain:

For my final project in film school, we had to pitch a movie idea to the producers (Professors). They'd select which five movies would be made out of the twelve that were presented. I pitched a movie called Photo Finish. The very short synopsis is: Due to the consequences of his own actions, fate gives a man a Polaroid Camera. The camera begins to lead him to strangers who, unbeknownst to him, are about to die. He takes their picture and when it develops it turns out to be a picture of their death, which is imminent. He decides to try to do good and the each time the camera leads him he tries to save the person's life. His actions end up causing their death, and when he does nothing, they still die. Finally, the camera leads our anti-hero to a mirror. He takes his own picture and sees how he will die moments before it happens. The movie ends with an apparition of our hero passing the camera off to the person who was responsible for his death, and they cycle continues.

This is the movie I pitched. The producers didn't like the fact that there was no redemption for the main character. They told me my movie would be made, but I had to rework it so that his actions saved people from their imminent demise. What the producer says goes and Photo Finish was made.

What does this have to do with Premonition? If you've seen the movie, I hope you'll see the correlation. First, let me say that I didn't like this movie. It had so many things that annoy me. Not the least of which was some supernatural plot gimmick that had no explanation. Why is Sandra Bullock living the days of this specific week out of order? Was the priest supposed to provide some type of explanation? Hardly! So, basically, this was a time travel movie without being explicitly marketed as one.

Having said that, this time travel movie suffers from the same problem that many others do. In fact, it is the exact same complaint I have with Minority Report (Which was a much better movie). Her premonition is the direct cause of his death. If she did not have the premonition he is still living so what caused the premonition? He's not dead. (With Minority Report it was the Pre-cog's vision that causes the dominoes to tumble eventually ending with Cruise's character committing the murder the Pre-cog saw. No Pre-cog, no murder) No premonition, no death.

How did this movie get made? In my movie, the camera leads the anti-hero to a place where he causes peoples' deaths. In Premonition, the foreknowledge of how and when her husband dies causes Sandra Bullock to take actions that cause his death. If she lived the day he died like any other day, then he lives.

The producers who green lighted Photo Finish with their required changes made my movie better. The producers who green lighted Premonition (especially with it's clearly altered audience tested moronic ending) should not have made their movie.

Even though Bullock, Shyann McClure, and Courtney Taylor Burness (the girls playing her daughters) put forth fairly remarkable performances, considering the subject matter, they still weren't able to rescue this movie from its own storyline. (And what is with Sandra doing all these movies with weird time plot gimmicks? See The Lake House.)

Taking into account the acting: 1.5 out of 5 stars.

I Can't Believe This Exists

This may become a regular (or semi-regular) installment on JMO. If that does become the case then here is the first episode:

I can't believe that this exists:


That's right! Remember, you saw it here first: Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde the musical starring David Hasselhoff! Be sure to show some restraint. Don't all rush out to buy one.