Ouch!

Check out this hilarious Onion article on Gigli focus groups.

Worst Movie Ever?

Here's a little story from IMDb about what could possibly turn out to be the worst movie of all time:

Sony Pictures and Revolution are hoping that the popular appeal of Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez -- "Ben & Jen," as they have become known -- will offset a torrent of negative publicity and disastrous test screenings of their movie Gigli, which opens Friday. Today's (Wednesday) Los Angeles Times observed that the two companies "are now nervously awaiting the film's reviews, fearful critics will do battle to be the meanest." Several "unofficial" reviews have already appeared. FoxNews.com's Roger Friedman this week put the film at the top of his list of all-time bad movies. "Witless, coarse, and vulgar, Gigli is worse than its advance buzz could have indicated," he wrote. "The film -- if you can call it that -- is a total, mindless disaster." Today's New York Post quotes Good Morning America critic Joel Siegel as saying tersely following a screening Monday night, "I was shocked."

Well now I have to see this movie! ha!

Super Troopers (2001)

Super Troopers is a movie that has taken a life of its own since its release in 2001. Word of mouth has done wonders for this little comedy about the lives of state troopers on the Canadian border.

The first thing to be said about this movie is that the very first scene is one of the funniest scenes I have seen in a while. It is so bizarre and hilarious that you don't know if it's supposed to be a drug-induced hallucination of one of the characters, or whether it's actually happening in the story. In either case, what makes it so fresh and enjoyable is the fact that you can envision it happening to you. Especially along the Canadian border! It is a brilliant practical joke, and we all know there are people crazy enough to do it.

Unfortunately, the movie takes a deep nosedive after that initial scene, and is left with a hackneyed love story, one of the most unbearably annoying characters in all of cinema (Farva), and an infinitely predictable outcome. Of course, we shouldn't lose ourselves in the details: This is, after all, a comedy. But even if we just focus on the comedic aspects of the film, we find that there are very few instances of comic genius in the rest of the movie. Other instances that attempt to channel the first scene turn out to be rather uninspired (like how many times one of the troopers can say "meow" during the issuance of a speeding ticket).

The rest of the movie drags on like a bad Police Academy movie, full of insipid shenanigans and churlish bickering. It's good for a few laughs, especially at first, but it ultimately leaves you pondering how a movie with such potential could turn into such a mediocre flick so quickly.

I'd give Jay Chandrasekhar's Super Troopers a C.

damn squatters.

Here's another internet commerce case: Air France won the right to take over a website that used a garbled version of its name apparently to steer business toward other travel companies and some finance firms. The infringing site was Arifrance.com.

Other "typosquatting" cases that have been successfully arbitrated include Nasdasq.com and Wallsreetjournal.com.

Interestingly, the defendant in the Air France case made no submission in his defense.

the dinosaurs roam the earth...

Who owns "spam"? Interesting case about trademark infringement of the SPAM name (canned-meat vs. unsolicited email). I doubt Hormel would prevail, since confusion is unlikely due to the fact that the industries of the two companies in question (meat industry and software industry) are completely different.

Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life: Jolie's Exercise in Futility

I was impressed by how unimpressive Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life really was. About the only movie that I've seen this summer that rivals Cradle of Life's redundant inanity is Legally Blonde 2.

Cradle of Life is the second installment of the Tomb Raider series, starring the oh-so sexy Angelina Jolie. I'm not much of an action fan, but I am somewhat of an Angelina fan. Somewhat.

I thought her stint as a psycho-bitch in Girl, Interrupted was well deserving of her Oscar. However, ever since then, Jolie's work has been less than spectacular (The Bone Collector, Gone in 60 Seconds, Lara Croft: Tomb Raider). One can understand Jolie's reluctance to be typecast as the druggie psychotic a la Gia and Girl, Interrupted, but she has now fallen in a sort of action-movie bad-girl mold that really isn't doing much for her.

The problem with action movies is that they are rarely about individual characters. Usually, they are about deadly schemes, or gangs of wrongdoers, or people trying to save the world. They are always larger and more ambitious than they should be, and this hardly ever bodes well for their stars. Indeed, most of the scenes that people consider the "really good" scenes in an action movie probably don't involve the star of the movie at all, but rather a silly stunt double.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that action movies are bad per se. I'm just saying that the focus of an action movie is usually not on the actors or the acting. Insofar as that is the case, perhaps people with huge acting potential should steer clear of these roles.

In any case, Jolie embraces her role as Lara Croft once more, and does as mediocre a job as could be expected. However, I don't think this is a critique of Jolie's performance, but rather of the form of the action movie itself, which would not allow her to be anything but mediocre. Attempting to be anything more than that would be an exercise in futility. Alas.

I'd give Jan De Bont's Lara Croft Tomb Raider: The Cradle of Life a D+.

thunder wishes it could be the snow...

And the cultural war over the display of the Ten Commandments in state buildings rages on: This time, Congress is stepping in, and attempting to withhold funds to prevent enforcement of the federal appeals court decision declaring the display of the Ten Commandments unconstitutional. What an interesting, and dangerous, turn of events.

Even though I disagree with the decision of the federal appeals court, I think an appeal to the Supreme Court would fare better for all involved. At the very least, it would preserve the judiciary's legitimacy, and Congress' integrity.

"naturalist ethics" as oxymoron? i think not!

Got a thumbs up from Denise Howell at Bag and Baggage. Things are looking up...

let them bleed...

9th Circuit rules that domain names are no different than "plot[s] of land." And the telos of abstraction continues!

Seabiscuit: A Tribute to the Little Guy

Gary Ross' Seabiscuit is a predictable little movie about how the little guy wins. Literally.

The movie is a kind of docu-drama, presenting a mini-history of the booming 1920s and the aftereffects of the Depression in the 1930s. While I'm all for learning about history, I thought this was misplaced in a movie about a boy and his horse. The unintended effect was that it removed the movie from its sentimental story about particular human beings, and placed it on a historical, objective, and impersonal footing from the very beginning.

What added to the feeling of cold removedness was the fact that the director chose quick cuts to further the story line from the time of the booming 20s to the depression of the 30s. This kind of fast-forwarding certainly didn't help the audience establish any meaningful connection with the characters. As a result, when we finally get to the movie's present time, we may know an awful lot about the characters' histories, but nothing about who they really are.

I suppose the second half of the movie tries to acquaint us with who these characters really are. But it's an awfully roundabout way of doing so. Indeed, the movie as a whole seemed rather slow on account of this.

Aside from these technical problems, Seabiscuit is like any other movie about the underdog (or underhorse, as the case may be) who wins in the end. However, the movie was probably a little better than the usual fare because of the solid performances by Tobey Maguire, and especially Chris Cooper. Coming off his Oscar-winning performance in Adaptation, Chris Cooper was remarkably restrained and self-disciplined as Tom Smith, the horse's trainer. Both he and Tobey Maguire showed true empathy for the horse, thereby turning Seabiscuit into a character with its own idiosyncratic personality that the audience could appreciate on a more human level.

If this movie tells us anything, it's that Chris Cooper is the supporting actor par excellence. Given that this role was in stark contrast to his stint as a toothless orchid thief in Adaptation, one can only marvel at what this man is capable of.

I'd give Gary Ross' Seabiscuit a B-.

Heavenly Creatures: A Flawed Picture of Paradise

Peter Jackson's Heavenly Creatures (1994) is a movie about two teenage girls who have an "unhealthy" relationship with each other. The suggestion is that they are lesbians, but I think such a jump to conclusion is misgiven. After all, they're just 15.

In any case, they're creative types who are bored and disgusted with the mundaneness of the everyday world. In order to escape their cages, they invent a world of their own, rife with kings, queens, knights, and royal scandals. They start out by making clay figurines in an attempt to give life to the world in their minds, and soon enough, the clay figures take on a reality of their own. Because the two girls are both integral parts of the world they have created (one imagines herself as the queen, the other imagines herself as the king), they become inseperable in the real world. Their imagined world manifests itself in the real world through this intense, "unhealthy" relationship.

The ideas presented in this movie are genuine, interesting, and worthy of one's contemplation. That much is undisputed. However, I thought that Peter Jackson showed remarkably little restraint in the making of this film. The scenes where the clay figures come to life are rather silly and awkward, and the first few scenes involving the two girls just running and laughing, and running and laughing, and running and laughing, were just too much for me to handle.

The two girls are played by Kate Winslet and Melanie Lynskey. Neither of their performances are noteworthy. I always felt like they were acting, and not living, the roles. I didn't find that the chemistry that their roles required was present in their portrayals. Also, the inflections in Kate Winslet's voice were rather disconcerting. Her voice sometimes reminded me of the voice of Linda Blair while possessed by Satan in The Exorcist.

This movie is worth watching only for the ideas that it attempts to present, but not for the actual presentation of those ideas. There's a sense that these girls have such a creative spirit about them that they transcend the morality of the everyday world. They are akin to Nietzschean overmen in that sense. Indeed, the girls' final, harrowing act together confirms this. However, there can be no such claim to greatness for the film itself. The greatness lies only the story.

I'd give Peter Jackson's Heavenly Creatures a C+.

way up north, i took my day...

Holy crap! I simply must go again. Damn them and their clever gimmicks.

won't someone invite them? they're just taller children...

That case I'm working on has been been garnering much attention. Here's yet another story about it from The Daily Texan, UT-Austin's newspaper; and another one from the NCAA website. The court of appeal's unprecedented decision has some really serious ramifications for college and university sports programs all over the nation. (Indeed, the case implicates UC-Berkeley, UT-Austin, the NCAA, and a two-time Olympic swimmer.) Through my research and preparation for this case, I am convinced that the Texas Supreme Court will overrule this decision (if it decides to hear the case). There are some serious Equal Protection issues implicated in the court of appeal's seemingly good-intentioned ruling. (And I stress seemingly!)

the magpies have come!

Here is a painfully weak argument for why the Ten Commandments shouldn't be displayed by state governments. It's full of conclusory statements that never really address the issue at hand. ("when the government displays the Ten Commandments, the unconstitutional endorsement of a particular religion is patently obvious").

Part of her argument centers around the notion that the Ten Commandments are not all of one kind:

Were the President to give a speech (which he, of course, would not) that reminded Americans to obey the first four commandments--there shall be only one God, there shall be no graven images, keep holy the Lord's day, and do not take the Lord's name in vain--there would be a huge uprising in opposition. Those are not messages this government may say, and thank God for that.

However, the issue is not about the government endorsing these values. Rather, the argument on the other side is that the government is merely respecting our history as a nation. These principles--indeed, especially the first four commandments that Marci Hamilton raves against--are precisely the values that our Founding Fathers held near and dear. She is never able to escape the fact that the Ten Commandments necessarily constitute a historical document, regardless of their religious value.

She also makes this ridiculous statement:

First, the most reviled minority in America is characterized neither by race nor sex nor religion, but rather by a lack of religious belief. When nonbelievers challenge government-backed religious messages, they are typically treated with contempt and often face threats and harassment as well.

Wow. Apparently, this woman isn't in touch with contemporary culture. If nonbelievers are not the majority nowadays, they are pretty close to it. Science has taken over the function of religion in today's society. People's notions of Truth no longer lie in a naked man on a cross. They lie in an electron microscope. Wake up.

Finally, she argues that the Ten Commandments have not lost their religious connotation:

The second argument that has muddied the waters for courts is the claim, recently repeated over and over, that the Ten Commandments can be displayed by the government, because they have lost their religious connotation. According to this argument, the Commandments are nothing but legal history.

No one has ever claimed that they have lost their religious connotation. The Ten Commandments are still a very religious symbol. However, they are also a historical symbol. Insofar as they are relevant to our nation's history, they should also be fit for display by the state.

Indeed, yesterday I was at the University of Texas at Austin, a public university. I noticed that their law library was decorated with lots of Native American symbolism, much of which was no doubt religious. However, no one in their right mind would suggest that the State of Texas is promoting or establishing any Native American religions. The function of the displays are clearly only for historical purposes, even though they still remain very religious symbols. Anyone with an inkling of Texas history knows why such displays are appropriate.

Likewise, anyone with an inkling of United States history should know why displaying the Ten Commandments in a state building should not be construed as anything more than respect for history.

are you a super lawyer?

sweet jesus christ!

what do you mean, "protected interest"???

I'm currently working on a motion for rehearing on this case. How exciting...

the midget ended up in the pool!

And now for the most ridiculous item of the day:

Sean Penn's actor brother Chris Penn was booted out of hip Hollywood spot the Skybar - for fighting with a midget. The Reservoir Dogs star was involved in a brutal punch-up with a much smaller man, according to American tabloid the National Enquirer. The paper reports that after drinking with pals at the poolside, 5 foot 10 inch tall Chris was fighting through the crowd of patrons when he collided with a man who measured just 3 foot 5 inch. The publication quotes a source as saying, "Four-letter words exchanged, then they started pounding each other - and the midget ended up in the pool. It was surreal... Chris, who weighs over 200 pound, savaging this tiny man!" As guards dragged him away, he reportedly roared, "Let me knock out that midget!" before his opponent spat, "F*** you and your entire family, loser!" Onlookers say a furious Chris was swiftly ejected from the hotspot.

That's Hollywood for you...where not even the midgets are safe!

Introibo ad altare Dei

Sean Walsh, the director of the upcoming movie bl,.m, has informed me that he's hoping for a 2004 U.S. release of his film to coincide with the centennial of Bloomsday (June 16th). I think that's a wonderful idea, and I look foward to seeing this most ambitious of projects on the big screen.

In the meantime, you can visit the "news" section of the bl,.m website here.

By the way, need I mention just how cool it is to have the director of bl,.m send me an email??? :)

reputation as a liberty interest?

Vault.com has released its 2004 rankings of the top 100 most prestigious firms. Wachtell is now more prestigious than Cravath, according to the survey. Utterly earth-shattering, isn't it? ha.

i think the good book is missing some pages...

Here's an interesting op-ed about Marilyn Manson. MTV.com argues that he is the only true artist today. However, I think most people would scoff at the very suggestion. But as far as I can discern, MM certainly has the most distinctive image out there today. There's a reason why he is the only artist that continues to be banned in venues all over America. (He was not allowed to perform in NJ this year for OzzFest.) I kind of adhere to that one adage: "If everyone loves you, then you're doing something wrong." There's much in the way of virtue in a little bit of chaos.

we're the low art Gloominati, and we aim to depress!

My new addiction: Netflix. Damn them and their expansive library.

Oh, and they have Peter Jackson's Heavenly Creatures. Finally, my wait is nearly over. This movie better be something else! That's all I'm saying.

Yesterday, I saw a really creepy movie: May, directed by Lucky McKee. I won't give it a full review because it was only a DVD rental. However, Angela Bettis was oh-so creepy and sweet as May, a social reject whose only friend is a doll inside a glass box. I didn't like the ending though, as it was much too contrived and over-the-top. The movie started out as a neat little foray into the world of a melancholic miscreant, and slowly turned into a run-of-the-mill slasher flick. Eh. B-

Swimming Pool: Braving the Killer Waves

Swimming Pool is a sexy psychological thriller that is at all times grounded in the mundaneness of the everyday. And I say this because this was unmistakeably intentional on the part of director Francois Ozon. He uses the banality of the first half of the movie as a contrast and foil to the second half of the movie, which is full of odd mind games.

This movie proceeds at a snail's pace, and the plot doesn't really kick in until about the last half hour. Needless to say, this movie has a very specific target audience in mind: patient brainiacs. For example, during one beautifully subtle scene in the beginning, we find the protagonist, a writer of crime novels, taking out her computer from her suitcase and proceeding to plug in the power source. That's all of the scene. It's something we have all done, and can all identify with. And it's also something rarely seen in film. Most films don't have the time or the patience for such minor detail.

But life is about minor details. I for one enjoyed the first half of this movie quite a bit. That is, the half of the movie that had no plot. Go figure.

The second half is where Ozon tricks us in order to convert this movie into a "psychological thriller." Personally, I didn't think his trick worked that well. It has been done much more artfully in the past by other directors of note (Clouzot, Hitchcock, Shyamalan, Amenabar). So I didn't much care for the second half.

The cinematography throughout the film was excellent. Lots of pastels contrasting with dark and bright reds, so as to suggest a dissonance in a place of seeming harmony. Shot in the South of France, the views and set designs are quaint yet distinctive, giving the movie a very intimate feel.

Finally, Charlotte Rampling is convincing and comfortable as Sarah Morton, and the lucious Ludivine Sagnier is simply brilliant as the sexually tenacious Julie. Their interactions, especially in the first half of the movie, are sincere and utterly engaging. Sagnier's performance will not easily be forgotten.

I'd give the first half of Francois Ozon's Swimming Pool an A, but the second half a C. Hence, the movie as a whole gets a B.

Adena--The High Priestess of Pity

Ah, what is it about pity that makes me cringe at the very mention of the word? Nietzsche famously derided and rejected Christianity as the "religion of pity." (For what is more pitiful [that is, full of pity] than "The meek shall inherit the Earth?" Indeed, God sacrificed his very own son so as to save the world from itself. This can easily be interpreted as the most extreme act of one who is awash with feelings of pity for those below.) Indeed, Nietzsche saw the feeling of pity--perfected in Christianity--as the epitome of nihilism, of weakness, of degeneration, of anti-nature. Why? His reasoning involved a two-step process, in which everyone associated with the feeling is rendered weak--both the one who pities, and the one who is being pitied.

Nietzsche claimed that pity has the effect of multiplying suffering, and robbing us of our vitality. That is, the one being pitied is already in a state of suffering. But the one who then pities places himself in a position where he contemplates that the other's position could very well be his own, and hences suffers along with the one being pitied. So suffering becomes endemic, and as such, creates a feeling that the world inhabited by the sufferers is somehow unworthy of them. For after all, what is suffering if not the feeling that one does not deserve such a state of being? And out of this suffering is born the will to Truth--which is simply the will to death, the will to otherworldiness, the will to escape the everyday for something more magical, more spiritual, more deserving of the one who suffers. In Christianity, the will to Truth is manifested in the Kingdom of God, which posits that our current state of being is merely a transitory, flawed, and ultimately disposable life, and that the Real Good Life lies above, and beyond.

The second effect of pity is to place weakness on a pedestal for worship. Pity "preserves whatever is ripe for destruction," Nietzsche says. How so? The one who pities gives strength and support to the one who is so weak as to be overwhelmed by life, so weak as to be unable to live without being condemned by life. In this sense, pity is also--as Nietzsche so cleverly puts it--anti-evolutionary. The one who pities actively strives to maintain the botched life, and as such is inherently nihilistic, for he implicitly despises all that is life-affirming, strong, and full of health. Instead of affirming the strong, they affirm the weak--that is, they affirm what must be overcome.

Yes, pity is a most serious allegation. To describe someone as one who pities is to reveal a deep-seated disgust with their values, and how they have chosen to live their lives. It is to declare their lives worthy of disposal. It is to declare them utter nihilists. It is to kill them with words.

And what is the Irony of all Ironies? A Christian who labels a Jew and an atheist as people of pity.

Pot: "Kettle, thou art black!"

and they say lauren killed herself...

Today I was re-reading the first scene of James Joyce's Ulysses. I was rendered speechless once again. Such a vibrant work, it oozes with a life of its own. I felt intimately connected with the characters almost immediately, as if they were real people that I knew. Usually, when I'm in the process of reading a book, I feel like I give life to the characters through the act of reading. That is, when I put down the book, the characters just stop living, stop existing. When I pick it up again, they resume. That is not so with Joyce. Ulysses is perhaps the only book that has made me feel like I was peripheral to it. I am rendered a mere voyeur, and denied my fanciful notion of being the director or creator. What fun! Only Joyce can do this. And perhaps Dostoevsky. Ok ok...maybe Faulkner as well. But that's all! I promise.

I've been looking for a savior...

Former Texas Attorney General Dan Morales pleads guilty to fraud charges. He's now off to prison for four years.

Texas Democrats--what a congenial bunch!

This suspense is killing me! I hope it lasts.

bl,.m (pronounced "bloom"), the new movie adapted from James Joyce's Ulysses, and directed by Sean Walsh, is now completed! See the TRAILER now! (Note: The trailer is an mpeg file and is 12Mb in size!)

i've got to be a sacrifice

Best news i've heard all week. Science can justify anything, given enough time. Ha. Also, the absolute most puzzling and funniest quote is contained in the last line: "Men have many ways of using their prostate which don't involve women or other men." Is that a good thing?

Now if you'll excuse me...

where were we?

A federal judge struck down a new Pennsylvania law that would have required public and private schools in Pennsylvania to begin each day by having students sing the national anthem or recite the Pledge of Allegiance. While the judge agreed that the state had a compelling interest in providing a full educational experience for children, including the teaching of patriotism and civics, he also found that the law was not narrowly tailored because it did not employ the "least restrictive means" for advancing that interest.

The judge analogized this case to Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, as the law in question forces private schools to express certain views by requiring the recitation of the pledge or anthem, which are contrary to the schools' educational philosophies, and therefore restricts their right to engage in only the expressive activity in which they wish to engage. In Dale, the Supreme Court held that the decision of whether or not to accept homosexuals into the Boy Scouts of America was an expressive activity, and therefore protected by the First Amendment. Forcing the Boy Scouts to accept homosexuals would interfere with their beliefs. Indeed.

tell me what you think they'll do...

Quentin is back. I saw the trailer for this movie last week. It was bizarre, and strangely engaging. Uma Thurman looked like she was having fun. Looking forward it...

you best jump far!

Says a fellow Texan living in Claudette's path: "I don't think we're leaving unless things get worse. But if they get worse, we can't leave anyway." How funny...

in a sense, you know you're alone here...

Outspoken white supremacist is denied admission to Illinois bar for failing to pass the character and fitness exam. (Note: the link is to a PDF file.) The 7th Circuit held that his appeal to the federal district court was barred under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, which prohibits federal courts from acting as appellate courts for state judicial decisions. I mention this only because I am writing a 5th Circuit brief precisely on this issue right now!

Whale Rider: A Test of Will

Whale Rider is a neat little movie about cultural revival, and the personal sacrifices that people have to make to account for it. The movie presents us with a paradox: sometimes, the revival of history and tradition requires a jolt from new, unpopular, progressive, and even dangerous ideas. It was this dichotomy of looking towards the future in order to preserve the past that held me captive thoughout the film.

The story is quite simple. The Maori tribe of New Zealand expects their leader's grandson to lead them out of their time of cultural crisis according to legend. However, the boy dies at childbirth, but his twin sister survives. The movie details the girl's struggle to prove herself to a very conservative, aging leader (her grandfather!) who holds her personally responsible for her brother's death and the tribe's demise.

It sounds a little cheesy, but the performances are quite commendable. Keisha Castle-Hughes, who plays the little girl, is surprisingly sincere and versatile as an actress. (She's like 10 years old!) Plus, the woman who plays the grandmother in the film is perfect as the grandfather-leader's foil. She is emotionally and spiritually healthy as the loving woman behind the scenes, while he is (ironically enough) the bitter unbeliever who has lost control over his tribe, his culture, and his own identity. Indeed, sometimes strength comes from the lowest ranks.

This movie has been described as a "crowd pleaser" by many critics, and surely it is that. However, it is also something more. It is a testament to the power of people to redeem themselves through sheer will. And what is will if not the most fundamental aspect of faith?

I'd give Niki Caro's Whale Rider a B+.

i hear the eternal footman approaching...

A death row inmate is claiming that he is genetically predisposed to violence, given that his father and grandfather were also violent criminals.

That's a new one...

but i could have told you...this world was never meant for one as beautiful as you...

"Why dost thou awake me, O breath of spring? Thou dost woo me and say: I cover thee with the dew of Heaven! But the time of my fading is near, near is the storm that will scatter my leaves! Tomorrow the wanderer shall come, he that saw me in my beauty shall come. His eyes will search me in the field around, and will not find me."

I mourn for this free spirit.

Legally Blonde 2: Ugly in Pink

I just saw Legally Blonde 2: Red, White & Blonde. Wow. What a disaster.

This movie showed absolutely no restraint at all. Everything was over the top, excessive to the point of torture, and not very funny at all, to boot. This is, without a doubt, Reese Witherspoon's worst movie to date. And I'm a Reese Witherspoon fan! (She was absolutely brilliant in Election, a real gem of movie.)

The first Legally Blonde movie was like a burst of fresh air. Perhaps I was taken by it because I was in the midst of applying to law schools when I first encountered it. The movie was a commentary on the American dream, but unlike American Beauty, it was not as bent on declaring it a sham. But neither was it intent on shamelessly fawning over its possibilities. There was always a sense of sacrifice and loss attached to Elle Woods' success. (She lost her love, her place in the world in L.A., her blissful ignorance, her innocent outlook, etc. And what higher price is there to pay than one's innocence?) Therefore, we never felt cheated by her success, as if it were too good to be true. So many movies focusing on the American dream fall to this cliche of insincerity.

Legally Blonde 2 is not about the American dream. It is about gay dogs. And purile politics. And of course, stuffy office-mates who lighten up in the end. There is nothing original, nothing to be learned, nothing to talk about. Eminently predictable, this movie trudges along tiresomely, as if going through the motions of a movie simply because the producers knew that any sequel to Legally Blonde, no matter how awful, would make some money at the box office. And they were right.

Legally Blonde 2 is an example of form over substance. Unfortunately, the form is so unavailing and unredeeming that I question whether it can hold itself to be "over" anything at all.

I'd give Charles Herman-Wurmfeld's Legally Blonde 2: Red, White & Blonde a D.

[This review has been cross-posted at Blogcritics.]

T3: A Welcome Change of Style

Whimsically playful. Gracefully self-aware. Sentimentally lighthearted at its core. What movie am I talking about? No, not Legally Blonde 2 (although I have yet to see it). I'm talking about T3. That's right--the third Terminator movie.

This movie is full of one-liners and self-referential puns, at all times self-conscious of its past. It's a kind of Scream for the action genre. And it works.

I was afraid of watching T3 for several reasons. James Cameron's T2, its masterful predecessor, is a hard act to follow. Plus, the Terminator movies have become such an ingrained part of our popular culture, that making another one is risking an unintentional distortion of that image that we have of the other two movies, and thereby jeopardizing our respect for them. And most importantly, I was afraid to watch because Arnold is approaching senior-citizen-discount status.

But T3 manages to pull it off for one very simple reason: it is conscious of these concerns, and hence adapts itself to them. Instead of being an overtly serious movie a la T1 and T2, it pokes fun at itself and its predecessors. Indeed, T1 and T2 are decidedly darker, more "adult" films. While the original two films sought to establish an impending sense of doom with a tension-laden atmosphere, T3 concerns itself much more with character development and interaction. A lot of it focuses on the friendship between John Connor (Nick Stahl) and the Terminator, and the budding romantic relationship between Kate (Claire Danes) and John Connor. This was a welcome change in style, for there was a danger of simply repeating what the first two movies had already accomplished quite successfully. I think that was the problem with The Matrix: Reloaded. It took itself way too seriously after having established an iconoclastic style that just didn't seem very iconoclastic the second time around.

One of my favorite scenes is when Kate reveals to John that his was her first kiss. It's a very touching moment, and it is cleverly interrupted by a very dry and sardonic comment by the Terminator. These little, subtle interactions that are so full of heart make the movie a worthwhile follow-up to what is perhaps the best action movie of the 1990s.

I'd give Jonathan Mostow's Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines a B+.

[This review has been cross-posted to Blogcritics.]

i was afraid...

Here's an interesting story about the trials and tribulations of independent filmmaking from the Austin Chronicle.

put me on those keys...

Interesting case involving free speech and abortion, in which a federal judge ruled that Louisiana's system for specialty plates violates the First Amendment because it allows anti-abortion plates but does not offer one for the opposing view.

The judge reasons that "[i]f the state built a convention hall for speech and then only allowed people to speak with whom they agreed with their message, the state's actions would be in contravention of the First Amendment. There is no significant difference in the case before the court."

There is something to this logic. The license plate itself is not a forum akin to the convention hall. But it could be argued that the system of specialty plates implemented by the State of Louisiana is a forum for speech. But this argument rests on shaky First Amendment grounds at best.

Traditional public fora are open for expressive activity regardless of the government's intent. But systems of specialty plates can hardly be characterized as traditional public fora. Traditional public fora include things like convention halls and public streets.

Alternatively, the government is free to open additional properties for expressive use by the general public or by a particular class of speakers, thereby creating designated public fora. But there is nothing to suggest that the government intended to open up the system of specialty plates for expressive use by the general public. In fact, because there is no "choose choice" plate available, I would argue that the government's intention was clearly not to open up the system of specialty plates to the general public.

Where the property is not a traditional public forum and the government has not chosen to create a designated public forum, the property is either a nonpublic forum or not a forum at all. This would probably be the case here. The system of specialty plates is very likely not a forum at all. But let's say it's a nonpublic forum for the sake of argument. If that's the case, that doesn't mean that the government can thereby exclude all speech. The government can restrict access to a nonpublic forum only "as long as the restrictions are reasonable and [are] not an effort to suppress expression merely because public officials oppose the speaker's view." Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Ed. Fund, Inc., 473 U.S. 788, 800 (1985).

Without knowing more about the details of the case, I cannot comment on whether the restrictions are merely an effort by the State to suppress the pro-choice view. But the fact that the system of specialty plates is very likely not a forum at all, or alternatively merely a nonpublic forum, really makes the case quite difficult for the pro-choicers.

i'm never going back again to crucify myself

Nemo is the Antichrist. I'm really disturbed by this.

can you say that?

Former Texas Attorney General Dan Morales in jail. Too funny...the article's title was hilarious as well.

it's grim but never dubious...

Since when is The Matrix a negative influence on children? I had no idea... This is even more ridiculous than the whole blame-Columbine-on-Marilyn-Manson fiasco. I suppose everyone needs a scapegoat. People are just afraid to admit that our society is one in which things like this happen not so much because of the influences in the media, but because of the everyday interactions (or lack thereof) that one has with people. The problem lies with the family and the community, not with the silly media.

People retort that the media is espousing certain negative values to the youth culture, and that kids are simply acting out accordingly. Well it's certainly true that television isn't the best place to look for values. But even so, the media is still not the problem. The problem again lies with the lack of moral guidance in the everyday lives of these kids. For most of these kids (and indeed, a growing number of kids in general), the family unit is either no longer in place (due to divorce, etc.), or has been rendered farcical by the lack of attention afforded them by their parents.

Kids are nothing if not hungry for something to believe in. Because of this enthusiasm to snap up whatever values come their way, it is necessary for them to be able to come home at the end of the day and see that the most important values of all are the ones that remain close and constant. It is only this sense of structure and foundation that will save them from themselves. And us, too.

c'est la vie

Scalia: views of other nations unimportant.

I think this is largely correct. America, of all places, has never taken its cue from other nations (especially regarding matters of morality), and I doubt it intends to start doing so. I think Kennedy's reference to the rulings of foreign courts can fairly be interpreted to merely suggest a moral trend in other democratic nations. It would be a bit of a stretch to say that he would attach any precedential value to such rulings. Insofar as that is the case, Kennedy's reference to foreign courts is truly unnecessary dicta.

It's also just bad argumentation. I've never been a fan of the everyone's-doing-it-so-why-don't-we rationale. Power in numbers is limited by power in conviction.

thank god for the house

See what all the hoopla is about in Austin right now.

he was going to kill them all...

And the culture war rages on!

I love this country.

never sure what she means to me...

I just noticed that a mad tea-party is pointing at me. Hi there!

Also, I think the latest post about "Linking advice" is directed squarely at me. (Or maybe I'm just really narcissistic.) Either way, point taken!

not right now in a little while...

Here's a story about the split in the 3rd and 11th Circuits regarding the question of whether the Ten Commandments may be displayed in or on a courthouse.

Also, here is a story regarding Scalia's animus towards the "law-profession" and the "intellectual elite" in general.

hey kid, i've got a ride for you...

"Dear friend, I am lost! She can do with me as she wishes."

So speaks one afflicted by love.

Masochism: a symptom of love.

if the hippies cut off their hair, i don't care...

O'Connor to stay at least another term.

if you want me, i'll be in the bar

So I have the Stanley Kubrick Collection on VHS. How tragic. I don't even own a VCR anymore. Ugh.

Have you ever noticed how the things that you enjoy become less enjoyable when you find out that a bunch of other people enjoy them too? Especially when those people are strangers you'd rather not hang out with. I don't know how many people I've met in the last 2 months that have told me they think A Clockwork Orange is one of the best movies of all time. Of course, I agree with them. But it's disheartening at the same time.

I guess it's a completely irrational feeling. But nonetheless, it's there. You know it well, I'm sure. It makes one feel like less of an individual. And in this society that is so focused on individuality, that's a big deal.

On the other hand, I suppose it's a way of connecting with people--sharing the same interests like that. But I'm not sure I want to connect with so many people! Of course, this is probably all misplaced, as the type of people I meet are self-selected to have my interests in the first place.

And speaking of obscure interests, I've been trying to hunt down a copy of Peter Jackson's Heavenly Creatures. I've looked everywhere, but to no avail. How odd... It looks like the kind of movie I'd be interested in. I hear it's about psychotic lesbians! Wonderful.

if the sun refused to shine, i don't mind...

Sandra Day O'Connor nearly killed in Philadelphia.

Happy Fourth.

it will burn inside of me

Quick run-through of the Supreme Court's major rulings this term can be found here. Dean Kathleen Sullivan opines, among others. Beware, it's a RealPlayer audio file (NPR).

what child is this?

spent three hours in traffic driving back home from Austin. wow. could have killed myself.

also, bought some DVDs: Adaptation, The Hours, The Big Lebowski, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, and From Hell. All quality. It feels good, too. Happy fourth to me.

However, I still feel incomplete. I need Gangs of New York, About Schmidt, and Talk to Her as well. Next time for sure...

you used to be so sweet to me...

ahhh....beware the lonely heart. does it love out of adoration, or out of loneliness? i fear it is all-too-often the latter...

i am as constant as the northern star...

Posted a link to some top 10 lists of films I've seen on the menu to the right. Obviously, the later the year, the better the list. I just wasn't watching too many high-brow films in 1983, when I was 3. Go figure.

Also, the link is from an old website of mine. Hence the difference in style. I'm too lazy at the moment to make a whole new one.

it's uncanny...

Last week, the 3rd Circuit rejected an effort to remove a Ten Commandments plaque from a state courthouse in Chester County, Pa., reasoning that the plaque should remain because it has primarily historical, and not religious, significance.

That was precisely my reasoning in response to the 11th Circuit's ruling that the Ten Commandments monument had to be removed from the Alabama Supreme Court building (see below). How funny...at least I now know that I'm not completely insane.

maybe i'm the afterglow?

And the culture wars continue...

if mountains crumble to the sea....

The Eleventh Circuit, in what promises to be the silliest ruling this week, has ruled that a monument of the Ten Commandments must be removed from the Alabama Supreme Court building.

Sure, I'm all for the separation of church and state, but I fail to see how a slab of stone in the lobby of a federal building infringes on anyone's religious freedom. Especially in the state of Alabama!

The court uses a slippery-slope argument to justify its ruling, claiming that if they allowed such a monument, they would also have to allow religious murals and religious quotations all over the Supreme Court chambers.

Right. Let's step out of la-la land for a while. Humor me.

We are all aware that Christianity is no longer as powerful as it used to be, and that everyone has their own value system, their own religion, and blah blah blah. But a monument is not something that encourages or advocates any religious values at all. Indeed, a monument is supposed to serve as a rememberance of things past. Christianity's time has certainly passed. But because it was such an influential part of the formation of this country, it is rational to want a sort of rememberance like the one at issue.

Surely a monument of the Ten Commandments expresses a certain value: that Christianity, as a symbol of our past, is deserving of respect. A monument of Buddha, however, would express very different values, for there is no historical basis on which to ground the justification for such a monument. The only conclusion to be drawn from such a monument would be that the state is somehow respecting an establishment of the Buddhist religion in contravention to the First Amendment.

It is therefore our history, and more precisely, our rational urge to remember that history, that justifies the Ten Commandments monument in Alabama. It is not a conflagration of church and state, nor is it an establishment of religion. It is simply a recognition of the reality of our past.

The court's slippery slope argument about allowing even more religious murals and quotations, can easily be addressed using my argument. If religious murals and religious quotations were to some day adorn the walls of the whole building, then obviously those murals and quotations would no longer serve the purpose of rememberance. They would cease to be tokens of our past, and instead occupy an obnoxious place in our present, forcing the people of Alabama to look at these symbols at each turn. At that point, history could no longer be used as a justification. My argument stresses the functional aspect of any use of religious symbolism in the realm of state action.

I imagine that it's pretty easy to simply walk by without even noticing the Ten Commandments monument at issue, and certainly without reading it. Insofar as it is not forced upon the people who have business in that building, then it should be just fine.

And further, the claim that the monument infringes on anyone's right to religious freedom is patently absurd for obvious reasons.

smells like pie...

The Ninth Circuit has extended crucial First Amendment protections to do-it-yourself online publishers. What does this mean? I can't be held liable for libel for my republishing activities on this thing. Well, at least not in the Ninth Circuit. I guess I have to wait until I go back to the west coast in September before I start badmouthing everyone!

are you talking to me?

The Seventh Circuit (Posner) has ruled that Aimster, the peer-to-peer song-swap service, must remain shut down until it can prove that its system can provide for substantial non-infringing uses. This ruling is in stark contrast to the California cases of Grokster and Morpheus, which allowed those services to continue since, as in the case of Sony , they do not control what is traded over their networks. In Sony, it was held that videocassette makers should not be held liable if their users tape copyrighted shows.

Interesting dispute. It should be noted that Posner's decision was premised on the fact that Aimster's tutorials encouraged users to download copyrighted songs. Sounds like there might be a potential conflict in the circuits. However, I guess this is expected, since the Seventh and Ninth Circuits don't play well together to begin with!

some people just don't know when to stop...

I was just reading this other story on the Intel spam case. Hamidi, the guy who sent all the emails, vowed to resume his spamming of Intel's employees now that the court is behind him. "I'm going to do it to the max," he said.

That's hilarious, and completely obnoxious...

i thought that i heard you scream...

Thanks are in order to JD2B.com, which has kindly provided a link to this site. Very cool...