The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian

This movie despite the critics low ratings hits the mark. In this sequel, the sons of Adam and Eve return to Narnia 1,300 years later to find their lands in tatters. The story follows the young Prince Caspian (Ben Barnes) fight to tack back his throne from the evil King Miraz (Sergio Castellitto). This movie features the same fantasy features of the Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe. I think it is great what Disney has done with C.S. Lewis’ greatest stories.  In Disney’s classic style, the story works seameasly with the graphics. I never once found my self saying “oh, that lives action with bad green screen work.” Here, we see must less of the beloved Aslan.  The story is a great one of faith for children, we can see High King’s Peters stuggle to figure out how to lead his people, and Lucy ability to keep pointing at what he should but never actually saying it. This is quite hard to translate onto screen from Lewis’ book. Disney does so almost seamlessly. To fill out this all star cast from the first movie we have the addition of Ken Scott as the cute Trufflehunter, and the great Eddie Izzard as the Reepicheep the most honorable of all mice.  

Over All Score (3.5 / 4.0)

Graduation

 

To: JCHS Class of 2008

From:  Patrick Class of 06

 

I am not sure what has made me think that I have the right to sit down and right this letter, but I have nonetheless decided to do it. It is not so much because I have advice to give, but because I have something that I would like to share. I have little to share in actuality, as I have only placed the longest hair of my big toe into the pool of life (I am, of course, no Aggie Schell). In September 2006, United States District Court Judge Joan Humphrey Lefkow came to visit Knox College for Convacation. While at Knox, she spoke about citizenship and the role it must play in our generation’s life. What she said has sat and molded its self in the back of my mind for almost two years.  Judge Lefkow stated that our generation has the highest rates of volunteerism ever seen, yet the lowest amounts of political involvement, perhaps because we “see [the] polarized jockeying for power at the highest levels and a sense that neither major political party is dedicated to the common good…[yet] as important as community volunteerism is, I submit to you that it does nothing to affect policy choices that truly change lives.”

 

Furthermore we are likely to believe that we have little power to effect change in our government, but please let me share with you a fact, “according to the 2000 Census, more people under the age of 25 live in America than people 45 or older.” It is now our time to stand up and vote.  We have a responsibility to stand up and vote in November or sit down and shut-up for the next four years. This land is your land, and don’t ever forget it.

 

This coming November, the highest of all civic duties is coming, and you must all stand up for what you believe in: Immigration?  The environment? Sexism?  Economic equality? Ending the War?  Protecting our soldiers?  You have the right as a citizen to not only know what you believe, but also to hear your elected officials’ opinions on these issues. Ask them, and they will answer. In 50 years, how do you want your American government to be?

 

Our Che Guerra t-shirt wearing generation must take a stand against political grandstanding; we need to take the reigns of this country and realize the power that we hold.  If I have not yet convinced you to vote, then perhaps Abraham Lincoln can:

Fellow citizens, we cannot escape history…The dogmas of the quiet past are Inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves and then we will save our country.”

[Annual Message to Congress, December 1, 1862]

 

Nonetheless, our DotNet generation must never forget the opposing side in our march to take back this country. Part of being a good citizen is respect, and we must always listen, learn from our parents (oh wow does that hurt), and most importantly, reach agreements. In Lincoln’s second inaugural address, with the end of Civil War near he echoed these very thoughts:

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation’s wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.

[Second Inaugural Address, March 4, 1865]

 

 

DAVID SEDARIS

DAVID SEDARIS

Is one crazy ass person. I have never written about him about on the blog, but he is perhaps one of the reasons why I still love listening to the radio. The idea the spoken word can quite literally have me on the ground rolling in fits of laughter is just….welll. COOL. So, if you haven’t heard of David Sedaris I will attempt to tell you just a little bit about him. He is an openly gay man (sorry Christian Zealots, he’s not for your kids [dumbasses]) that has homes in both London and Paris with his lover Hugh.  He can be regulary seen on TV,The New Yorker,  and more importantly on this This American Life. If you don’t listen. You should.  I am attemting to put some links to some of his stuff below. I hope they work. 

He has recently published a new book When You Engulfed in Flames continuing his ability to take the inane details of life and turn them into hilarious essays. 

 

Sedaris Bares Body and Soul

#mce_temp_url# (This American Life, I cannot it to put the title)

#mce_temp_url# (This American Life)

 

 

 

Cloverfield…Not a Four Leaf Cloverfield

Yeah. It’s bad. So if you want to stop reading I will completely understand, and there will be no hurt feelings. The movie is sort of like the 21st Century version of the Blair Witch Project. If you get nausea very easily then you might not want to watch this movie.  The movie takes place in the “former” Central Park in the great NYC.  It is really quite unreal the whole movie. The movie suffers from Abrams inability to let people die. I mean people die, people die you don’t think are going to die. The normal Sci-Fi doesn’t show images of things that say  ”Dam, you gotta be dead you’ve had a piece of rebar stuck through you heat” then not only is she alive, but she can manage to spit the distance of the city, and not be in any pain. If that didn’t happen I think that this movie could have gotten easily an 80% good rating, perhaps loosing points for lack of originality, and poor audio. The later is a complaint that is new to me. I have never had trouble hearing and understanding people in film, but this film. I had to stop go back and re-listen at least three times because it is so muttered. Perhaps, this supposed to be a part of the aesthetic of the movie. I didn’t work for me. Cloverfield aside from a few flaws is basically a good film, it is with out a doubt a huge step over the Blair Witch Project which I found tedious.

 

Overal Score: 3.5 out of 5   

 

Lions for Lambs

A Quick Yahoo! Movie search of this film has yielded that this movie is supposedly a “D+” I cannot disagree more completely with these ideas. The performance that Streep gives is perhaps one of the greatest that she has given in years. The movie is dull as many of the critics complain or lifeless, but instead has what I would call rhythm. The movie is basically a threefold story that takes places over just about one hour.  Sort of like vantage point, but a whole different level. The movie doesn’t seem to quite so repetitive as with vantage point because here none of the characters are related at all except that they are all telling the same story. 

Streep’s character is a high-powered TV news persona who is in a meeting with another equally high powered US Senator.  She skillfully demonstrates the emotions that they many in the new media must at least think about when the government feeds them a line. How much do I believe what is that I do with information. How do I decided whether to take the story and run with it? How do I decided how much analysis should I do before I but this story on the air? I don’t I think I know enough is her final conclusion with slightly stronger ambition.  

Cruise plays the high powered US senator who is trying to feed Steep the line of bull, Cruise here does what he does best which is his “A Few Good Men”  you cannot handle the truth line type stuff. To me this character is washed up for Cruise and it would be have been to see one else in the role, but he plays it just right nonetheless with all the right smoozy winks and nods in just the right place! Cruise demonstrates clearly what the life of two-faced senator must be like! I mean he takes a story that no one can believe especially after Streep shows how this is just a 21st century version of Vietnam, and just plays it from every angle. Is this what the goverment looks like? Is this how their decision making process must happen? I don’t know. I wish that I knew. 

Redford plays the quintessential liberal arts college.  We see him in just on place for the whole movie, and his owns. His eyes peer right through the camera, and out at you. You can feel his presences as he bullishly ask the fresh 20-something some tough questions about life. I cannot say how important it is for us to really stop and take a look at what is important here to see that the question he brings out about adulthood are not just for our pre-teen little selves but for everyone. Anyone who cares about this country should see through his questions for they are all pointing at. Where do we take this country next? I don’t know. I don’t think anyone knows. I wish that I new. I wish that we all knew.

I am not sure what the critics didn’t like about the movie. I think that Roger Ebert got it the most right by saying it is good movie that just doesn’t quite make it full circle. It should nonetheless not be blown off. It is good. Streep deserves an oscar that she won’t get. 

 

                 

 

 

School is done!

So as you can tell…I have just finished my finals!!!!! Well, I finished them yesterday.  God am I happy to be done! This term was crazy for me! I felt like I was on a roller coaster for most of just trying to get things done, and then never ever really being able to do much! 

Tonight is the senior “Tour of Galesburg” it is going to be amazing on so many different levels! I will post pictures don’t you worry!

Do you know what that means though? I have to start looking for applications for graduate. I have to organized about that shit. OH.  I don’t really want to do it though because of all the other associated work that I have to do along with it! 

Last night I watched the movie Dazed and Confused, and well I will write a review of it, but first I have to get my senses back first.  Does anyone know what happened to CCR??? I have been listening to their music so much lately. They have such a great sound! Wow that just made me sound like the Jazz muscian that I am…

Also, Pandora is hiring! WOOT! I wish that I was a CS major. It would be awesome to just sit around do some code, and listen to freak’in awesome music all day. 

 

R&R

I need some.  I want some. I wish that I was Hermione Granger, and had a time stop. Oooh. I would go back to all those times that I have been able to sleep in.  Argh. Bio finals.

DNC

It scares me.

One group of people holding some much power in time with he decision making process should be completely left up to the American people. In a time when our country is in perhaps the greatest need of change since perhaps the times of New Deal Politics, we should have the final say. Not a group of people sitting in a conference of some smatzly DC hotel.

For me, this crosses the Obama, Clinton battle. I feel like the DNC is sort of saying “no” to the American people. Sort of like, your boss broke the rules, and therefore so did. That juxtaposition never works. I don’t care so much about the final decision, but more of the message that the decision is sending to the American (as a side note, I am not sure there is a way to do what they have done that would have not causes) which you can vote, you can vote legally. In the end, the power is still in our hands. It would be interested to know how many times the DNC has had to have these types of discussions?

Right now, we are essentially at the stage of the came we were in the 2006 election. One candidate is ahead in the popular vote while the other is ahead in the “electoral” vote. And the DNC committee has just decided the outcome, much like the supreme court. Just because the outcome has been decided though doesn’t mean that war is over.

Unlike Florida 2000, some of the circumstances are a little different. When we think of the demographics of that races it might have some easy conclusion to come to. One, major metropolitan cities will go for the D over the R , but the more rural areas will go for the R over the D.

Here we have a case though were the candidate that is ahead has done so by winning big-time in the urban vote, and  the one loosing seems to do better with rural vote.

So, wouldn’t it make sense for the candidate that can get the rural vote ( which as of recent history the party has had trouble with) to be the nominee? The urban vote will just tow-the-line. They more than likely continue to vote for the D over the R.

This all make perfect since if the all the DNC cares about is winning. So what other factors do we need to think about?

Image?

History?

Success?

Leadership?

Knowledge?

Experience?

This is where the problem gets SO much harder to understand. We have candidates that essentially split alot of this important traits right down the middle. For example, Clinton has better foreign policy / policy experience than Mr. Obama. Obama though has much better “experience” he knows what it is like to take something from the ground up. Something, Mrs. Clinton has never done or dealt with (at least to my knowledge).

So who do we vote for? How do we decide?

I don’t know.

CO-PRESIDENTS?

I am just saying that I am getting really tired of people trying to call and end to the race. Saying that is bad for America, and that it is bad for the party. Since when is bad to have a discussion? When is it bad to have two candidates that are so strong they can essentially win the election. Is that what FDR’s fireside chats were about? Discussion essentially?

I don’t know, but for me I would like to see Obama and Clinton to have a really dialogue for once. Sit down and talk about what is important to America’s and for Americans. Don’t debate just talk like you do with your co-workers and friends.