Based on the true story of a notorious depression-era bank robber, Public Enemies brings the crime spree and police hunt of John Dillinger to the silver screen. In a film that desperately attempts to provoke any emotion, Public Enemies fails to capture the imagination, create emotional dimension or shock the senses.

In 1933, during the height of the Great Depression, John Dillinger (Johnny Depp) and his crew crisscrossed the country, robbing banks and became folk heroes. During an evening out, hiding in plain sight, Dillinger meets the beautiful Billie Frechette (Marion Cotillard) and immediately dedicates himself to her, and she to him. The agent in charge of the Bureau of Investigation into Dillinger, Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale) doggedly chases the gang cross-country, but his bumbling agents become more inept as the chase drags on.

Chase after chase, shoot out after shoot out, arrest after arrest, action is the plot in Public Enemies. The same action-driven events repeat copiously and the redundancy lacks irony, tragedy, or serendipity. It just cycles endlessly between poorly choreographed gun fights, car chases and police failures. Consequently, Public Enemies left me feeling like I had a drawn out case of déjà-vu.

There was little time between the action for verbal interaction between characters and what writing there is is shallow and does not deepen the connection between characters. The relationship between Billie and John is shallow and unconvincing. Depp and Cotillard don’t have the sizzling chemistry required to make their love-at-first-sight believable and the writers, Ronan Bennett, Michael Mann and Ann Biderman didn’t put any meat on the relationship’s bones. Billie and John’s relationship is a template for the rest of the relationships in the film. The most useful verbal communication is the old fashioned news radio broadcasts used as cheap narrative tool.

Just like Dillinger, characters like Baby Face Nelson (Stephen Graham), Melvin Purvis , John ‘Red’ Hamilton (Jason Clarke), Homer Van Meter (Stephen Dorff) and Pretty Boy Floyd (Channing Tatum) are introduced, but they are given so little time to develop, they are nothing more than Tommy Guns with different faces attached. The writers might as well have left the supporting characters unnamed. The writers gave more specific details about the cars than they did the characters based on real people.

There was a beautiful attention to detail when it comes to the architecture, fashion and automobiles in Public Enemies. As a girl, I learned how to restore cars of this era and my family was a member of a car club, so I grew up around antique cars. I know what it takes to make the cars of this time to be as perfectly restored as the 1920’s and 1930’s cars in Public Enemies. The attention to details by the people who lovingly restored the cars, instead of turning them into a penis enhancing hot rod, needs to be commended. They are rolling pieces of American history during the Desoto, Dodge Brothers, rumble seats and three window coups period.

The most brilliant character has got to be the architecture. The banks featured in the film glisten like a young starlet in her prime. Gold banisters shine amongst marvelously detailed molding and marble counters. The prison in the opening scene is imposing, stark and fascinating.

In fact, if Public Enemies could be reviewed on visuals alone, it might have won my heart. Creative use of camera angles, lighting, and scenery make the audience feel a sense of awe. The shaky camera work can make the audience nauseous, but in many scenes, it adds an overall sense of chaos.

Public Enemies is as beautiful as a Playboy centerfold and as substantive as a Hustler article. It is only worth looking at, not worth watching.

Click here to go to Associated Content and I will get paid for this review

Grief stricken, anger stricken, cancer stricken, My Sister’s Keeper, based on the Jodi Picoult novel, is one of the most stricken movies I have seen in recent memory.  My Sister’s Keeper sloppily jerked tears in spite of inconsistent acting and overly edited writing.  

When their oldest daughter Kate (Sofia Vassilieva) is stricken with leukemia and no match can be found, Sara (Cameron Diaz) and Brian (Jason Patric) make a morally dubious choice of manufacturing a perfect donor baby.  After years of invasive procedures, side effects, complications, and pain, Anna (Abigail Breslin) hires a lawyer, Campbell Alexander(Alec Baldwin) to get the legal right to her own body.  Enraged Sara spins out of control, frantically trying to force Anna to save Kate by donating a kidney against her will.

My Sister’s Keeper opens with a droning explanative dialogue given by Abigail Breslin.  Not only does it go on for too long, but it offers little information that we don’t learn otherwise during the film, and Breslin sounds like she is reading from a piece of paper for the first time.  Emotionless and cold, the first few minutes set the tone for the rest of the movie; situationally heart-breaking but, lacking in the execution to make My Sister’s Keeper anything more than a good momentary cry.

The first few minutes are not Breslin’s only wobbles.  She, and the rest of the cast for that matter, cannot seem to get a grasp on the emotional nuances required for their roles.  Teeter-tottering between stale and sincere, their performances made me feel like a dog on a choke chain; trying to run in the moment but always being pulled back right when I might get my stride.

It took me a while to realize, but it wasn’t entirely the cast’s fault.  The writer/director Nick Cassavetes, writer Jeremy Leven, the editors and nine producers were obviously trying to force the viewers to obey their emotional commands, most predominantly being: “Cry, damn it!”  They languish in scenes with no plot significance, no dialogue, no special attention to acting, set, or surrounding, just to watch a dying girl look like she is dying and extract tears they did not earn.   It often feels like a run of the mill Lifetime Network movie with the occasional kitten drowning or live baby burning shoved in for emotional effect. We are nearly strangled on tears for ten minutes at a time but it is just topical grief without emotional attachment.  As soon as the tears dried up and the drive home was finished, the movie didn’t mean anything anymore.

It is obvious, even before you learn there are nine producers of various kinds, two writers, one director, editors and a novel to start from that there were too many alphas trying to train the audience.  The editorial bloat coming off My Sister’s Keeper rivals any mental bloating I have ever felt.

I don’t want the editorial bloat to think their use of music went unnoticed by me either.  Instead of demanding exceptional acting from the cast or editing scenes to fill the screen with deep feeling, the bloat used music to precipitate affect.  The melodic accompaniments can be stirring, but in the end they are just worthless vitamin supplements for the My Sister’s Keeper junk food diet.

Even though I knew I was eating empty calories, I could not stop crying.  I don’t know if it is because I am very close to my sister or if I have personally witnessed a mother lose her daughter to cancer, but I was inconsolable during parts of the movie.  Instead of feeling touched at the end though, I felt manipulated and a bit peeved at the bloat.

In the event a male member of the family needs punishment or you need an excuse to cry, rush out and see My Sister’s Keeper.  Otherwise, donate the money you would have spent to Shriners Hospital or the Leukemia and Lymphoma Foundation; it will be a better use of money and the sentiment will be more heart-felt.

When a subway car is taken hostage, it’s left to the dispatcher to save the passengers from the gunmen.  Packed with action and sprinkled with emotion, The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3, based on a book of the same name by John Godey, is a satisfying action-packed escape.

Walter Garber (Denzel Washington) is directing motormen through the tunnels of the New York Subway when armed men take control of a train.  Ryder (John Travolta), the leader of the team of gunmen, reaches out to Garber through the train communication system and makes his demands.  Both Garber and Ryder are underestimated by the NYPD and the MTA.  Both prove what they are willing to do to get what they want.

Ryder (Travolta) and Garber (Washington) incrementally elevate the tension through cunning use of diffusion.  Ryder raises the heat and Garber turns it down, just in time for Ryder to turn it back on.   As the stand-off continues, the characters (and the audience) are unaware that they are being boiled alive like a frog in slowly heated water.

The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 relies heavily on the relationship between Garber and Ryder.  If either doesn’t complete trust the word of the other, lives are lost.  It demands that both characters and actors be completely sincere with each other.   Washington and Travolta feed well off each other’s performances and convince the audience of the danger on the rail car.

The biggest surprise for me was James Gandolfini.  His performance is brief and a bit shallow in the beginning, but at the end, there is a surprisingly earnest moment of humility.  The writing is not great but the performance sold the moment.

The heart and soul of The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 is not the acting or the writing, it’s the action.  In the first few minutes there are gunshots, screaming passengers and blood spattered faces.  From the time we are introduced to the villains until the plot is resolved, the action almost never stops.
It’s a good thing there is so much action, because some of the plot details left me wanting.  Writer Brian Helgeland does great job of writing the dialogue for the main characters, but it all falls a little flat after that.  He introduces characters on the train, establishes important details and then lets them go limp on screen.

There is one scene with a sniper that really pissed me off.  Most police snipers are trained by the military, and the sniper in the movie just flat ignores basic training taught to military snipers.  It could be that he does not know requirements to be a sniper, but a bit of basic research and he wouldn’t have made such a ridiculous mistake.

Even with the story issues, The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 is an immersive, gun-shooting, train-wrecking, blood-splattering, terrorism action flick that will distract a viewer from even the worst day.  

PS (and unrelated to the movie):  Hi Felch!

The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 (2009) Review
The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 is good action based fun.
http://www.associatedcontent.comarticle/1837631/the_taking_of_pelham_1_2_3_2009_review.html

Dr. Rick Marshall, bent on proving his crock-pot theory, is literally dumped into a land with dinosaurs, distant primates and evil alien overlords.  Land of the Lost suffers from a lack of comedic timing, outdated effects, pitiful editing, and painfully shallow writing, but offers plain silliness as a consolation prize.

Disgraced and outcast, Dr. Rick Marshall (Will Farrell) is inspired to finish his work by graduate student Holly Cantrell (Anna Friel).   Using the newly finished Tachyon Accelerator, they head for a portal to where all of time and space converge – a middle of nowhere cave attraction.  Their guide, Will Stanton (Danny McBride) is sucked into a world of T-Rexs, missing link primates, and ice cream trucks.  They pick up Chaka (Jorma Taccone), a man-like ape inhabitant of the world.  While trying to find their way home, they come across alien prisoner Enik (John Boylan), who warns them about dangerous alien leader, The Zarn (Leonard Nimoy).

An attentive viewer of Land of the Lost would find an endless number of editing issues.  There is a scene where one of the characters is trying to make shorts of their jeans by tearing them, but there is a line of skin right above where she is tearing, exposing the movie trickery – a film no-no.  The water in the beginning has improper sound editing.  Many of the scenes last too long, challenging the audience’s attention span.

Peppering the lingering scenes in Land of the Lost are sexual jokes of the sophistication of a junior high schooler.  Poor Anna Friel, her breasts are honked in ways I haven’t seen since I was making out with my first boyfriend.  If her breasts had a horn attached, the movie would have sounded like a clown college. 

For most of the movie, Will Farrell gallivants about, finding different ways to injure or potentially damage himself.  Farrell doesn’t add much to Land of the Lost.  Farrell, nor any of the other actors, added any special comedic timing, just a wiliness to completely embarrass themselves – a trait that doesn’t transfer well on film.  Any cut rate comedic actor could’ve been substituted in his place and the movie would not have been impacted in any way (except maybe for curly chest hair).

The backgrounds, the sets, and the digitally created creatures might as well have been cut and paste paper objects flung around the sound state on strings.  Hand puppets and marionettes wouldn’t be downgrades either.  I suggest that director Brad Silberling, visit a local sixth grade class for his set decoration if they have a sequel.

BUT!  Land of the Lost satisfies the need for uncomplicated, unabashed, unashamed, pointless, mindless tom-foolery.  Land of the Lost reminds me of American Cheese.  I don’t know if it is the intention of the poor effects and shallow writing, but it all sort of blends into a cinematic concoction not displeasing to the watcher.  It has negative nutritional value, it barely passes of food, but the taste sent me back to more innocent times.

I wouldn’t pay full money to see Land of the Lost.  I might not even pay a matinee price.  I would however, sneak in if I needed a little pick me up or leave it on if it were on TV.

Land of the Lost (2009) Movie Review
Review of movie Land of the Lost, staring Will Farrell.
http://www.associatedcontent.comarticle/1816506/land_of_the_lost_2009_movie_review.html

Every so often, a movie comes along that inspires the audience to live a better way, to take risks, and stop making excuses.  I was stunned that this inspirational, physics defying film comes in the form of Pixar’s Up, a animated wonderment about an old man wracked with grief, a yellow dog, a chubby little boy and a huge flightless bird, in a floating house.

Inspired by the great adventurer Charles Muntz (Christopher Plummer), retired balloon salesman Carl Fredricksen (Edward Asner) planned an adventure to Paradise Falls in South America for his entire life.   One day, after his circumstances change, at age 78, he decides to not wait any longer.  He, and his house, head off for Paradise Falls.  Little does he know that young Russell (Jordan Nagai), a scout trying to get his assisting the elderly badge, accidently tags along.

Writer and co-director Pete Docter masterfully lays the story out before the audience, just one bejeweled brick at a time, leading us down a path we cannot see but can’t wait to stroll along.  The actors, primarily Edward Asner and Jordan Nagai act as guides, telling us what to look at along the way.  The first ten minutes of the movie play like a short film with emotional dips and rises occurring in well-timed succession.  Emotional restraint was impossible for most of us in the theater.  I was so touched that I had laughed out loud and cried to myself quietly during the first few minutes of Up.

The deeper meanings of Carl might be lost on small children, but the character Russell definitely won’t be by most American children.  His charming innocence is tempered near the end of the movie.  There is a good chance that anyone under thirty-five will relate to Russell’s hang-ups.

The last half-hour of Up resonated deeply with me.  Each of the character’s personal struggles, even Dug (Bob Peterson), a dog with a collar that speaks his thoughts, felt like it was taken directly from my life.  The length of reach and depth of heart is astonishing.

If Peter Docter is a brick layer and the actors guides, then the animation team are expert brickmakers.  It doesn’t matter how great the writing is, the voice actors are, or the quality of the direction of the audience can’t suspend disbelief and submit to the story.  The animators don’t just do a beautiful job: the animation is exquisite in Up. 

There is a scene at the beginning of the movie which shows all of Carl’s ties, when the animators just plain show off.  In about 15 seconds they give an amazing demonstration of light, texture, color and movement.  There are no lapses in quality, no shortcuts, no moments where the animators said “that’s good enough.”

My one complaint is about the 3D, which could have been done better and caused me a great deal of eyestrain and a bit of nausea.  It is unnecessary and adds nothing but problems.  Pixar should ixnay the eedeethray.

Days after seeing Up, I’m still thinking about the gorgeous animation, the resonating characters and emotional story.  Before Up, I had never seen a movie with potential to speak to and entertain people of all ages in such a meaningful way.

Man or woman, elderly or child, young or middle aged, Up has a message sure to last long after you leave.  Do not miss this opportunity to do something with the children, grandparents and parents in your life.  Plan sometime this weekend, get together with the people you love and see Up.  If you don’t love it, I’ll suck a helium balloon. 

PS:  The short film in the beginning, “Partly Cloudy” is a truly adorable bit of film making.  Make sure to be settled by the time it starts.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1793994/up_review_the_length_of_reach_and_depth.html?cat=2

Today, I am ashamed to be a Californian.
Today, our courts did not have the bravery to ensure equality for all citizens.
Today, the court made me complacent in a crime to which we will be held accountable by the next generation.
Today, the California Supreme Court returned the institution of marriage back to its stone-aged meaning, turning straight women into heifers.
Today, the court tore apart all Californian’s First Amendment right to be free from an established religion.
Today, my struggle to be a tolerant atheist is being tested. 
Today, I am angry.
Tomorrow, I get even.

In the world of changing business, when everyone is slapping the word Green on the side of their packages, Ray Anderson, CEO of Fortune 500 Company Interface Carpets, is setting the example for substantive change toward sustainability in business.  The self proclaimed recovering plunderer, motivated by his epiphany of wrong doing, turned his high polluting, petroleum-based carpet company into a beacon for the direction of future business.

In a talk given at the 2009 TED Convention, Anderson said his company has doubled its profits while cutting its net greenhouse gases by eighty-two percent in absolute tonnage.  In addition, its water usage was down seventy five percent, fossil fuels down sixty percent per unit of production, twenty five percent of the materials in the product are recycled materials, and that renewable energy accounts for twenty seven percent of their energy usage.  Interface Carpets has proven that the dilemma between commerce and environmentalism is a false one.



http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/ray_anderson_on_the_business_logic_of_sustainability.html



Anderson speaks a lot about “take-make-waste” philosophy in business today.  Companies take things out of the ground, make something with it and it is then thrown away or burned.   Essentially, business is creating pollution in a three step process. 

Interface Carpet has the goal of completely ending their negative impact on the environment by 2020, called Mission Zero.  They would like to control the entire cycle of their carpets so that they don’t become waste.  At the end of their use, they could be recycled into new carpet.  In fact, Anderson goes as far as eventually wanting to mine landfills for old carpets to be recycled so no resources have to be taken from the earth that cannot be renewed.  They have diverted seventy four thousand tons of carpet from landfills already.

Under Anderson’s leadership at Interface, eighty-five million square yards of climate-neutral carpet, called Cool Carpet, has been made under the Flor brand name.  They have done this by closing the loop, making the end of life for one carpet a new life for another, making no waste and recycling products again.

Anderson even credits the survival of his company during the 2001-2003 recession to his company’s reduced costs because of the sustainability mission.

His profound experiment to make his company sustainable and profitable has been a resounding success and he is not keeping quiet about it.  As an insider in business and a leader of industry, Anderson has been calling out other CEO’s.  Anderson is not above shaming himself if it shames the other business owners as well.

Ray Anderson and Interface Carpets have proven that the “why should we?“ discussion is no longer even relevant and the “how do we do it?” conversation is the only dialogue worth having.  Ignoring the web of life is not just environmentally repugnant; it is self-destructive to business.  Green isn’t just a word, it’s a result.  Moreover, it’s an advantage to committed companies.  Businesses that choose to continue old practices will be left like horse-drawn carriages, stuck in the progressive mud.


What Can You Do?

Watch The TED Talk by Ray Anderson and be inspired.

Next time you think about buying carpet, think about Interface Carpets.  Supporting businesses that are working towards sustainability should be part of our goals as consumers.  Voting with your dollar works.

Watch the movie The Corporation.  It’s one of the most cited, most interesting, and most insightful documentaries every produced on the nature of corporations.

Read The Ecology of Commerce, by Paul Hawken.  It inspired Ray.  Maybe it will inspire you too.

If you own a business, take the time to see how you can follow the Interface example.  Assess your waste, your take and your make for places where recycling, reclamation or careful consideration could save you money, increase your profits and help the earth.

The Corporation



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcRDUIbT4gw



More Ray Clips





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7bFlEB97rc





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvdjt-w6p-M&feature=related






http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gmR57pqq6k







http://www.interfaceglobal.com/Sustainability.aspx

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1781278/pioneer_in_sustainability_economic.html?cat=49

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Anderson_(entrepreneur)

Terminator Salvation is a pre-sequel (or is it a se-prequel) to the previous three movies in the Terminator series.  Atrocious writing, shoddy effects and lackluster acting made me wonder why they bothered to make Terminator Salvation at all.

Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington) is recruited by Dr. Serena Kogan (Helena Bonham Carter) while on death row to be part of a mysterious experiment.  Years later, Kyle Reese (Anton Yelchin) and Star (Jadagrace) are leading the Los Angeles branch of The Resistance.  John Connor (Christian Bale) survived the near complete genocide of humanity perpetrated by machines and has become the prophesized leader of the resistance.  He and the real leaders of the resistance find out about a weakness in the machines that might end the war forever.

I am all for using action to drive a story, but Terminator Salvation uses action as a plot substitute.  It is nothing more than director McG’s excuse to blow IT up.  What is IT?  Well, airplanes, machines, convenience stores, children, kittens, flies, unwed mothers, dirt, fuzz, whales, ants, microbes and grilled cheese sandwiches.  Anything in McG’s eyeline was dynamite fodder.

Nearly two thirds of the movie is something fighting, exploding or being chased, and almost all of those are created by computer.  The light color, direction and shadow are so off kilter that the CG is so painfully obvious that suspending disbelief is nearly impossible.  It is obvious that McG is using action to distract the audience from story.

If the plethora of substandard explosions weren’t bad enough, when Terminator Salvation gets around to the plot, I wished McG would make suicide bombers of the characters.  John Connor’s entire motivation in the movie is to save himself, because he is the most important person in the world.  He’s willing to sacrifice nearly everyone because he’s convinced of his own self-importance.

He doesn’t just sacrifice people, but tosses equipment around like it’s valueless.  There are fighter jet crashes, helicopter crashes, and even more expensive war crafts.  In a time when people probably couldn’t remake these things, it would be important to preserve them as well as their pilots.

The writers, John D. Brancato and Michael Ferris, rely heavily on the previous movies for character development and don’t bother to attempt any development of their own.  There are implications about the characters made through visual cues, but they are left as elephants in the room instead of being addressed.  In the beginning of the movie, one of the characters doesn’t know what’s happened to the world, and the other characters in the scene don’t seem bothered by this obvious problem.

Moreover, there are lines that are so senseless as to be downright boggling.  For example:   “If the machines are a problem for you….”  If?  IF?  IF!  The whole movie is about how the machines are trying to wipe out humanity.  The only humans who don’t have a problem with the machine are the corpses of the dead.  Ironically, the corpses are the most likely to enjoy the acting in Terminator Salvation.

Christian Bale used his whisper voice through most of Terminator Salvation.  When he whispers, he sounds like he’s smoked ten too many cigarettes.  The rest of the characters seem like they are trying to act while doing their beginning karate class.  Everything herks, jerks and the momentary action is a distraction from acting.

 I was looking forward to an action movie with just enough plot to justify the action.  Unfortunately, all I got was enough free testosterone to grow a mustache.  For the next week, I’ll be shaving Terminator Salvation off my face.

Terminator Salvation Review
Review of Terminator Salvation Movie
http://www.associatedcontent.comarticle/1774966/terminator_salvation_review.html

Three weeks after saying he would release the pictures, President Obama is moving to prevent the press from obtaining the pictures of the confirmed acts of torture.  The courts have already ruled that any “secrecy” considerations are insufficient to overrule the first amendment right to free press.  Obama, ignoring the court and taking a play, from the Bush Administration’s playbook, said today he would try to block the release of the pictures.

President Obama said, "My belief is the publication of these photos would not add any additional benefits to our understanding of what was carried out in the past by a small number of individuals.  The most direct consequence would be to further inflame anti-American opinion and put our troops in greater danger." 

Our soldiers take an oath to uphold the constitution from all threats foreign and domestic.  It is their duty to protect the system that President Obama is now impairing.  To protect them from a theoretical threat, to make their service nothing more than a vanity, is a disheartening disgrace. 
Having another American leader devalue the crimes of the previous administration does not make our soldiers safer.  The only way to make deflate the anti-American sentiment is to de-escalate the situation by taking responsibility for our previous actions.

 Sen. Russell D. Feingold (D-Wis.) said, “Keeping the American people in the dark for no other reason than to shield misconduct, avoid embarrassment or other reasons not pertaining to national security."

We must come completely clean, show the pictures, and let the American people feel the shame of their passive agreement, the cost of the apathy, and the damnation of letting fear make policy.  Only when we are brought face to face with our failure will we make sure torture will never happen again.  Afterwards, we must begin to venomously prosecute the people who perpetrated internationally recognized acts of inhumanity; the people who approved it, who wrote legal briefings about it, who passed the message along, or who knew about it and did nothing to stop it. 

“A small number of individuals,” as President Obama said in the same conference, is a term that is not only blatantly false but maliciously irresponsible.  We cannot allow comments like “I thought it was legal” to be an acceptable excuse for a torturer or Representative, President, Senator, soldier or contractor.  The expression, “I was just following orders” should fall hallow on the ears of prosecutors and juries. Relative morality will not protect our soldiers from anti-American sentiment because it is the breath the terrorists breathe.

Only when we cull the corrupt gangrene from our government and military will we begin to restore our reputation in the world.  Anything less is passive agreement and letting fear dictate policy; a new car on the same road. 

If President Obama does not reverse course, his actions will disgrace our soldiers.  To stand strong and prosecute torturers, come forward and show dignity through honesty is to make their oath meaningful, powerful and substantial.  Obama’s choice to willfully cover up the crimes of the Bush Administration,  call for the suppression of evidence to the press, does not live up to his oath to protect the constitution by ignoring his duty to comply with the press clause of the first amendment. 

Let us not let the Bush Administration’s attack on our rights spill into another presidency.  Clamor, cry and call out to Obama to live up to his promise of change.

What can you do?
Write, call, or email the President and let him know how you feel.
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414
FAX: 202-456-2461
http://www.whitehouse.gov/CONTACT/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Bill_of_Rights
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8049178.stm
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/13/obama-employ-legislative-tactics-block-release-detainee-photos/
http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKTRE54C54T20090513


Obama Turns Back on First and Fifth Amendments and the Judiciary Branch by Refusing to Release Torture Pictures
President Obama violates his oath of office and refuses to obey the nations first law.
http://www.associatedcontent.comarticle/1746080/obama_turns_back_on_first_and_fifth.html

The Brothers Bloom unwinds the story of two confidence men, an Asian sidekick and their rich but isolated mark. The Brothers Bloom is a charming off kilter dramedy about love.

Bloom (Adrien Brody) and his brother Stephen (Mark Ruffalo) work as confidence men with their explosive sidekick Bang Bang (Rinko Kikuchi). Tired of the life, Bloom tells his brother he’s done. His brother talks him into one final con agains Penelope Stamp (Rachael Weisz.) Penelope is a rich, excentric shut-in who has yet to live. They take advantage of her loneliness in a scam meant to satisfy her need for adventure.

Rian Johnson sees the world in The Brothers Bloom the way an archer fish sees bugs. The archer fish hunts bugs above the water’s surface by shooting water at the bug from below the water line. When looking up from underneath everything looks like it is one place but actually is in a slightly different place because water refracts light, changing the view for the submerged. The archer fish has to see things slightly cockeyed in order to get the archery right. Rian Johnson took a slightly crooked approach to get the cinematic physics just right.

Penelope Stamp is the Robin Hood of cinematic archer fish. Everything about her life, her development, and her emotions are delightfully off balance. She isn’t brilliant but she had dedicated herself to learning how to do many strange and obscure things. It wasn’t good enough for Rian Johnson to make Penelope interested in pinhole cameras (a camera made by putting a piece of photo paper in a light-tight container and poking a pin hole in it to expose the paper), it had to be a pin hole camera made of a watermelon. Johnson made sure Penelope is beautiful, but by casting Weisz, made her an interesting beauty.

It isn’t just the nature of the characters, but also how they talk. Johnson commits so fully to this strange-ified world, that dialogue that would warrant a call to the loony bin in real life, seems natural in the world created in The Brothers Bloom.

The downside to making the characters fit so naturally in their world is jokes or emotions that might resonate deeply in our world sometimes fall a little flat in The Brothers Bloom. There are no gut busting jokes but occasionally the audience finds themselves chuckling. Cheeks will not be soaked in tears, but occasionally a frog may find way into the throats of the viewers.

The Brothers Bloom is an endearing quirk-filled film sure to whisk the audience away on a flying crime filled love carpet.

The Brothers Bloom Movie Review
The Brothers Bloom is a charming off kilter dramedy about love.  
http://www.associatedcontent.comarticle/1129495/the_brothers_bloom_movie_review.html