GHOST OF GIRLFRIENDS PAST:A NUTSHELL REVIEW

Uncle Wayne salutes the "Good Life."

Conner Mead and aide, Sandra
This movie faithfully followed the storyline of Mr. Charles Dickens’ A CHRISTMAS CAROL. It was so blantant that protagonist Conner Mead, toward the film’s end leaned out a second floor window and in the best of spirits yelled to a passerby, “Is It Christmas?” Well, it’s not “Merry Christmas” exactly, but the sound pattern is close. In this retelling of Dickens’ tale the vice to consider is hedonism rather than miserliness. To be more focused sexual libertinism is the fault.
The film opened with famed photographer, Conner Mead (McConaughey) demonstrating his skills with a camera and at the same time with beautiful women. [This film gave minor roles to a large number of pretty women.] He was enjoying himself. Then, here came a downer. He was obliged to attend a weekend wedding rehearsal, as the groom was his brother Paul (Meyer), and Conner had agreed to be best man. His self-centered ways came close to spoiling the wedding plans of Paul and Vonda. She was given to “spells,” anyway, and her father, the sergeant, is both granite-faced and a bit weird. There was an old untouched flame attending by the name of Jenny Perotti (Garner). Throwing everything out of Earthly orbit was the appearance in this film of a Marley correlative, Uncle Wayne (Douglas). He had been Conner’s mentor in the “love ‘em & leave ‘em” school of wooing. “Enjoy yourself, Conner, because you’ve got only one ride through the park” being a reasonable interpretation of his playboy philosophy. Since Uncle Wayne was dead, his appearance to Conner at the old Mead Estate in Rhode Island was an unexpected event. Death hadn’t changed him much. He warns Conner that he will be visited by a “Ghost of Girlfriends Past” and also by a Ghostly Gal of the Future. At the rehearsal Conner tried to rekindle something with his childhood girlfriend, Jenny, who, after all, had not been conquered by him. There is potential competition from Brad, who is a doctor. She’s a medical doctor now also, certainly was no fool, but, yes, still had a place in her heart for Conner, if he’d just change. She had been his past, was now free in his present, but would she be his future? The combination of ghostly re-introductions to his past, a better understanding of Uncle Wayne’s life, and a ghostly revelation of his likely end, given his past and present, had a way of opening Conner’s eyes. He saw that a life full of love-making was not the same as a life full of love. As with A CHRISTMAS CAROL, this is a film with a positive conclusion.
The film attempted a variety of comedic moments from very witty (Barnard College) to slapstick (wedding cake disaster) with better than anticipated results. However, humor is subjective. Yet, this light romantic comedy should appeal to many. Don’t expect any of the actors to be nominated for an Academy Award. The film was directed by Mark Waters.
Players: Matthew McConaughey as Conner, Jennifer Garner as Jeremy Perotti, Michael Douglas as Uncle Wayne, Breckin Meyer as Paul Mead, Lacey Chabert as Sandra, Robert Forster as Sergeant Volkom, Anne Archer as Vonda Volkom, and Daniel Sunjata as Brad.
All rights reserved. Gobigfoot, 2009
t5qmzbcvwf
t5qmzbcvwf
THE INFORMERS (2009): A MOVIE SNAPSHOT

William & Laura have tete-a-tete.
This is a slice-of-life look at Babylon West in the year 1983. It is a rather detestable, tedious film. It is part of an emerged body of movies belonging now to their own genre, the Gay genre. This is not to say that there weren’t pleny of pretty women lolling about. That’s a pretty exact description, too. These people are frequently seen in bed, sofas or chaise lounges, often enough in threesomes or even foursomes. Besides this they take a lot of drugs and drink a lot of booze. Some, throughout the film, appear to be “stoned.”
There is some satire woven into the flick. Also, I predicted the inevitability of male frontal nudity in Hollywood films, when I reviewed Boogie Nights on community television. Now, they are getting “artsy” angles to boot. Pornography is dead; only “doubting the Holocaust” is considered pornography nowadays – and even that may die.

Graham & Chrissie attempt a vertical moment.
As with the Eagles’ song. Hotel California, this “could be heaven or this could be hell.” One of the apparent problems was stated by Graham (Jon Foster) , “if people don’t teach you, how are going to know what is right or what is wrong?” He should know a lot about the latter but doesn’t. The closest he gets is an uneasy feeling that: What it is may not be right.
Graham has a very attractive girlfriend, Chrissie (Amber Heard), who is very laid-back (literally). She’s kool to threesomes, which is good, because one or both are frequently in bed with a third man, who may be a male prostitute. He and Graham apparently deal drugs also.
So it goes with all the cast. William (Billy Bob Thornton) plays a practiced dissembler, adulterer, fornicator and absentee father. Cheryl Lane (Winona Ryder), who is a TV reporter, is one of his love interests. She looks a bit like Betty Boop on “chrank.”

Peter contemplating "easy-street" as he sells new "product."
Peter (Mickey Rourke) is a career criminal presently making some money by kidnapping boys (possibly girls too) and selling them to a gang that is going to exploit them, apparently. Take your choice, but this film is so solidly set in the movie-TV-music scene that – on a bet – that is the area of exploitation which will befall them. Laura (Kim Basinger) is “uninspired,” spending her money on pills, alcohol and a male prostitute, when not “bummed out” and brooding. All the young crowd seemed to gravitate to “sex and drugs and rock & roll,” led by Graham & Chrissie.
This film is directed by Gregor Jordan. Its screenplay writers include Bret Easton Ellis & Nicholas Jarecki. They have condensed the cultural imperatives of the late 70s and early 80s into a brief period of casual, tolerant, stoned, sexually-swinging human interactions. Put differently, this is a Los Angeles Malpaso.
The film opens with shots of the Los Angeles freeways at or near dusk. Their headlights were soon adding color to the roads. It doesn’t take long for a lass to flip through some current television, and at one channel encounter a story of a strange new illness that seems to affect homosexual males, primarily. She watches a few moments, doesn’t find it appealing, and changes station.
Folks, this is your flash clue to where this film’s heart resides. At the end of this film the moviegoer finds Chrissy on a stretch of Malibu beach. She’s very sick, her body is dotted with the “Kaposi’s sarcoma” type of cancer. Her boyfriend has been called by someone, goes there, doesn’t really know what to do or say, exhanges a few brief words with her, kisses her, and rises as if to leave. Fade to black.
The film is filled with “pretty, pretty boys that she calls ‘friends.’” Near the beginning one is run over in the parking area of a location hosting a party. It may have been a “hit” hit. In the end the moviegoer is left with the image of a beautiful, shapely woman in a bikini on a Malibu Beach beach, dying of a disease that is almost exclusively the province of homosexuals. It seemed such a waste, until one recalled the previous 90 minutes of film. Perhaps Mother Nature was merely collecting her “vigorish” from another loser in life’s foolish gambles.
I believe this film is meant to gain some sympathy for the plagues that seem to afflict those who’ve entered into that other “kind of love.” However, the film milieu is one that soon induced contempt. There are capable actors in this film, but none are capable of making their various characters appealing. Some may see this movie as a plea for tolerance. Since no one in the film is moral, why demand an impossible standard?
Aleister Crowley is said to have said from the heights of Satanism: “The whole of the law is this: Do what thou wilt.” Or, as the dudes of the 60’s & 70’s put it: Do your thang!
In this case the best thang to do is skip this film.
All rights reserved. Gobigfoot, 2009.
MAX PAYNE : A MOVIE REVIEW

Max picks up party gal at snitch's wingding.

Max Payne and Mona Sax are a firepower-packing duo.
This film has a stylized, often slightly metalic look to it. This has a certain resonance with the protagonist’s name and modus operandi. Mark Wahlberg has been virtually type-cast as a toughguy maverick. He may be an outlaw or an officer of the law, but in either case he takes care of business according to his rules. Hence, even as an outlaw, he is merely outside their law–not his. As an officer of the law, he does not let legal or police department procedures get in the way of his personal rules of justice. Max Payne is a sort of vigilante within the police department. In this he calls to mind the Al Pacino/Robert Da Niro duo in Righteous Kill (2008). In the Max Payne case the moviegoer is coaxed into sympathy, as his wife and child were murdered, while he was out writing parking tickets (or some other mundane police work). This hurts. This embitters. This induces the thought of seeing that justice is served upon the malefactors.
Max Payne has himself transferred to the hidden-away room where the “cold cases” are maintained. As dedicated as a monk to reams of ancient scriptural parchments was Max Payne to the “cold cases.” He was certain that the one overlooked clue needed to solve the murder of his wife and child resided somewhere in the dry, cold pages in the secured room behind his desk. Max Payne was a man on a mission. He barely tolerated the presence of his fellow cops, and they did not welcome his company.
Mark Wahlberg looks like he might be a cop. However, he doesn’t act much like a cop. He’s not loud and full of wisecracks. He doesn’t clump together like cheerios with other cops. He’s at odds with his old partner, whom he partially blames for allowing the murders to happen.
All of these elements would tend to make the film seem to be a “dark study” of an injured (in the heart) cop and how he “works out” the problem(s) that haunt him. However, this film is one that is suffused with spiritism. You see, folks, Max Payne has visions. In an “other-worldly” lighting he sometimes sees and “discusses” his situation with his deceased wife (Marianthi Evans), as she cares for their deceased child, usually in a homelike setting. The issue usually is: Should he give up the flesh and join her or abide longer? She usually counsels him, “Not yet, Max.” There are some loose ends that have to be properly tied by Max.
Parenthetically, why does Max see his wife in a familiar, homelike setting? Well, that is where he knew her and felt that she belonged and where he felt she was most happy. At any rate, who can envision Heaven?
Besides this seemingly authentic vision by Max, there are other visions which others experience, which have the character of delusions blended with para-biblical demonology and Teutonic mythology.
Now, a parallel storyline, which will bend and converge with the mission which engages Max Payne, involves a large corporation name Aesir. It is likely to be the sort of company that has its fingers in many pies, but for this film its mainly depicted as a member of the “military-industrial complex,” of which D. D. Eisenhower warned his fellow citizens. You know the kind: filled with Richard Cheneys and Donald Rumsfelds. This company, Aesir, has worked to develop a biological mechanism which would unleash the super-warrior lurking within “G.I. Joe Mensch.” Naturally, the chemical proves to have side effects. In perhaps 1% of men the chemical does produce a stronger, faster, quicker-healing soldier. However, for the rest, the chemical proves to be a “bad trip.” The inoculated men have hallucinations, become suicidal, and extremely edgy. Invariably, they begin to “see” dark, winged beasts–dubbed “valkyries”–but which are also likened to angels of death.
There is also an associated myth involving the “proper way of the warrior.” Men who die ignobly are taken away by the demons to a place one may call ‘hell.” For those men to whom the chemical proves transforming into an ultimate warrior, this associated myth reenforces mentally and spiritually what was physically achieved by the chemical. Incidentally, the Aesir company logo is stylized black wings. The “valkyrie” or “angels of death” also sport prominent black wings. Furthermore, all the superwarriors, “failed projects,” and sundry associated people and things wear this logo as tattoos or designs. I will note that Stephen R. Hart, the actor playing the tattoo artist/shopowner, executed a memorable, allbeit brief, scene.
This is an urban based film. It opens with a narration inwhich Mark Wahlberg tells of his present situation and hints of dark deeds. Meanwhile, the moviegoer sees a man struggling at the surface of a body of water, He is tied and weighted. He seems to give in, submitting to the inevitable: he would join the army of dead at the bottom. Indeed, as he sinks, the bodies below make a seemingly eerie welcoming committee. Then, there is a camera cut to Max Payne’s city. He there. He’s a cop. Don’t get in the way of his mission.
The Film Capsule: A detective named Max Payne enjoys his job as a police detective. He enjoys a good relationship with his partner of some years. Then his life is derailed, and nothing will ever be the same again. He comes home to find his beautiful wife and child murdered. He blames his partner in part for this in the sense of not finding the killers and breaks up the team. He is obsessed with finding them and bringing “justice” down upon their heads. He eventually gives up his former police deparyment work for command of the “Cold Case” Department. He devotes his time to sorting through the data in the cold case files in a pen behind his desk. He knows that somewhere in here is the clue that will solve the murder of his wife riddle. There is a seemingly unrelated story going on involving a company named Aesir. It is run by a cold, ruthless sort of woman, whose behavior seems similar to a crime-family boss who wants the dirty deeds he orders to be done to be very remote from and legally untraceable to him. She has a security chief to shield her. Her company makes “modern super-warriors,” actually. Their mission is to design ultimate fighting men for sale or lease. Unfortunately, to find a few good men, they have to filtered out a horde of men of a lesser cut. These human debris live marginalized lives in the urban jungle, trying to deal with the “bats in their belfries.” Well, strictly speaking, they’re angels of death. Or Valkyrie. Or demons. Or something–hmmm–ELSE! They are black, winged and demonic-looking. Maybe they are real, or maybe the are hallucinated visions conjured by brains that stepped off the plane years ago. Whatever. As Max Payne goes out on the solo to pound and pressure informants (snitches) into redoubling their efforts to find him a lead, he stumbles across a gaggle of hoodlum types at a party thrown by one of his snitches. One is Jason Colvin (Chris O’Donnell), who is shirtless, allowing the moviegoer to inspect his low bodyfat which is partially obscured by tattoos. Among those dark lines of body graffiti he discerns a pair of stylized, graceful black wings. He’s not the only one. Present also is “Natasha” (Olga Kurylenko). She is a tall, shapely gal in red. She’s a pretty woman. Moviegoers may remember her from Hitman (2008), in which she played a similar party girl. She takes a fancy to Max, and goes forth into the night with him. She can’t imagine that he won’t “check her out” real closely. To help him out, she gets nearly naked. Max, suddenly thinking of his wife on that same bed, tells her to get out, which she does, while taunting him with her incensed, mocking horselaugh. At the party Max had also met Natasha’s pistol-packing sister, “Mona Sax” (Mia Kunis). They will team up, after Natasha is killed/suicided. Folks, she was lapping up the blue elixir of Aesir, too. Names such as BB Hensley (Beau Bridges) and Alex Balder (Donal Logue) crop up, as Max’s pursuit of his wife’s killer(s) gets warmer. On one of those solitary occasions in the “Cold Case” Department’s file room, which is his official beat, he notices some papers by his wife’s hand, he sees the logo of Aesir. Darn! Didn’t Michelle work for them? Before Max can get too far along, he is captured by hoodlums and thrown into the drink, which is the scene we encountered at the opening of the film. This time we hear Max’s wife tell him: “It’s not time, Max.” He promptly struggles his way back to the surface, as the disappointed dead reach up to him in sad farewell: “Max, we hardly knew you!.” Almost frozen from his swim, he fishes out a vial of blue elixir which he had “impounded” earlier, and gulps it down. Guess what? He a 1% man. This stuff makes him superduper-tough. Of course, there are those darn demon critters he’s now hallucinating, but–hey!–you got to take the bad with the good. Right? Yeah! Max goes to Aesir headquarters to pistol whip a young executive who knew Michelle and some other people of interest, too, so Max could get the right answers. Well, the private army of Aesir is called into the fray. Max Payne is armed with a handgun, possibly a 45 caliber, 15-clip, semi-automatic. Hence, an army of super-warriors armed with fully automatic, 50-clip handheld weapons would have little chance. The intense battle works itself to the roof, where Max–now backed up by Mona–confronts the Aesir boss lady (said by some to be modelled on Katherine Meyer Graham and by others on Myra Lanski Boland). It takes a whirlybird, some demons, Mona and Max to sort it all out. Suffice it to say that at the end of the film, there weren’t as many people as there had been a little while ago.
All rights reserved. Gobigfoot, 2008.
TWILIGHT: A MOVIE REVIEW WITH COMMENTARY.

Vampires in the Global Village

Bloodlust? Or stone-cold love?

"Hobo" vampires enter the Cullen clan's space.
In a small town in the State of Washington a surprisingly disparate collection of inhabitants struggle to get along with each other. There are forks in the road that challenge more than a few of them. Choices! They sometimes can’t be finessed. In this film some made very bad choices. Folks, there are animals running loose in the woods. The Green Revolution has returned The Children of the Night to cool, cloudy Washington, as well as other parts of the great Northwest. If they kill, it’s because they were born that way. Nature! Love it or leave it! Don’t be cold to a heart that’s cruel. It’s just doing it’s thang.
Well, I’m going over the top a bit here. The moviegoer, in fact, sees in this film valuable lessons in “getting along” with others. They honestly try, even when part of the community appears to be unusually white, cold-to-the-touch, creepy-looking and clannish. So, who’s perfect?
Speaking of which, this film has a counterpoint to The Cold Ones in the form of a clan of Quileute Indians. From a member of this Quileute clan, Jacob Black (Taylor Lautner), the heroine, Isabella Swan (Kristen Stewart) and the moviegoers learn important facts about the first group, the Cullen clan. Even the name of this Indian suggests incompatability with the pale Cullens, as the color black is the absolute opposite of the color white. Yet, the moviegoer learns of an ancient modus vivendi which was established between these two groups. It is a positive touch, which the writer(s) added. Yet, as it is clear that they detest each other, one may be granted leave to wonder how much longer can this tense entente continue.
Now, the heroine, Bella, once she reaches the critical mass of curiosity, behaves in a very standard (and handy) horror flick mode: she researches vampires. One might also observe that her childhood friend, Jacob Black, as well as his father, Billy (Gil Birmingham), serve as a collective Professor Abraham Van Helsing, who are not easily fooled in matters vampire. Incidentally, notice that both the professor and the Indian lad have first names that conger up ancient Hebrew patriarchs. They are righteous blocks of granite before the Unnatural Ones.
Speaking of which, the Cullen family, arriving at highschool, or the like, have a truly weird “air” about them, suggesting a group of “stoned” homosexuals ready to check in at Club 54. This may have been directorial humor – or malice of a cineme verite kind..
Another curious and, perhaps controversial, matter issuing from this film is that the name “Cullen” is spoken in such a way that it suggests the word “Cohen.” Being unfamiliar with the author or nearly anything else about this film, I was not familiar with any names which would be encountered. Hence, it took several pronunciations for me to establish firmly in my mind that the word was, indeed, “Cullen.” This may have been intended, as it has been the hard lot of Jews to be compared to vampires in folk tales, drama, books, films, et al. It is founded largely on the twin issues of “draining a host nation of its blood” (money), which has led to numerous expulsions from various European nations–often more than once, and allegations of ritual murders. Probably, rumors about golems didn’t help to still troubled waters.
The vulgar minds of most nonJews would not perceive the connection. One of the reasons that the first film Blade was a guaranteed classic, as well as cult film, was that it introduced this issue again, not just once, but in two antagonistic sets of vampires that might be likened to Capitalists and Revolutionaries, which were metaphorical proxies for Jews and their primary known role(s) in the world.
Be that as it may, the Cullen family seemed to suggest an “our crowd” sort of social attitude.
A weak point in the legend of the Quileute clan’s discovery of and relationship with the Cullen clan involves the initial chance encounter in Quileute hunting grounds of the two groups. Why did they not “get it on” right then and there? Were the Quileutes a basically peaceful tribe of hunter-gatherers? As we learn from Edward Cullen, he (and presumably all vampires) were made to be the greatest predators, blessed as they were with strength and speed. The awkward confrontation with the Quileutes might have easily been settled by attacking them, ripping off their heads (literally), and possibly getting drunk on their human blood. Possibly? Well, the reader should be apprised of the fact that these are “modernists” vampires who have voluntarily committed themselves to animal blood only. For them to drink human blood would violate their pledge of abstinence. Edward quips to Bella that they were the “vegetarians” of the vampire people.
People, the Cold Ones really just wanted to be part of the community. No more moving from one place to another, as villagers hunted them with pitchforks and torchfire. Being ”consciousness-raised” vampires, the Cullen’s only sought their own home in the Global Village. “Dr. Carlisle Cullen” (Peter Fascinelli) even provided needed medical skills, which the folks appreciated. He could also identify a vampire kill as a ”death by animal” case. In such cases it usually a meant “hobo” vampire had traveled through the Forks vicinity. No sense in Dr. Cullen being too explicit or detailed in regard to the “animal.”
Who was the weirdest member of the Cullen clan, according to appearance? For my money it was Jackson Rathbone, playing “Jasper Hale.” He almost catches the weirdo look of bleached-out zombies blended with Dustin Hoffman’s character in Rainman. Were these “people” similar to what the moviegoer sees, before they were “turned” by diluted venom-vaccine from the “choppers” of another vampire? Or is the vampirization process something of a complete body make-over? I can’t say.
This is not to denigrate Robert Pattinson’s “Edward Cullen,” who could certainly strike up an outre appearance. He can hit the moviegoer with the creepy-eyes, too. It is a “look” that engenders a startled & stunned state of mind in others initially. But – Hey! – the kids got use to it. However, I never saw any of the school clowns mimicking one of the Cullens before their peers. I would certainly have done that. There is a sense that maybe you keep such things to yourself. Sort of like what you might do in the presence of 1970s Dallas Cowboys running back, Duane Thomas, when he leveled his “stare” (he was pretty cold, too).
Yet, Pattinson has a classic, good-looking appearance which is unusual in leading roles in films today, especially in Hollywood movies, where men such as Ben Stiller, Jack Black, and Kam Penn abound. He is something of a throw-back to the James Dean type. In fact this film has some resonance with the film Rebel Without A Cause. One can see in Kristen Stewart’s role some of the same qualities and motivations as did Natalie Wood’s character in the teen classic just referenced. “Fitting in” can be a bitch.
I believe that there is an almost zany Romeo and Juliette aspect too. Yet, for all the elements in this film that might have been turned into “howlers” in another film which put a different spin on the story, Director Hardwicke was able to develop a credibly romantic tale. I thought that she was skillful in weaving in stock characters in such a way that the film might be comsidered a perfect homage to filmland’s trite strategems for explaining motivation or bridging plot gaps.Imagine what a Mel Brooke might have done with it! The performances by Stewart and Pattinson in their roles were sufficiently good to smooth the irritations caused by the prickly points along the film path.
Essential to this accomplishment was the fact that “Bella Swan” did not fit too well into her social environment. Although she lived until the age of four with her father and mother in Forks, Washington, she now lived in Phoenix, Arizona, with her divorced and recently remarried mom. She likes Phoenix, as it’s warm. Mom’s husband, the coach, is taking a job in Jacksonville, Florida, and they will soon move there. Uncomfortable with the newlyweds and not desiring to go to Jacksonville, she makes the decision to return to Forks and make a new home with her dad, Charlie Swan (Billy Burke), who is the sheriff there. Dad has given his approval.
Part of our understanding of this attractive teen is provided by her by means of narration. She shares some of her feelings, most telling of which was that if she had to die, doing so in behalf of the person she loved wasn’t such a bad route. This concept gets to play out at least twice, 1) to save her mother and 2) to be with her lover.
A Big Capsule: A teenage woman, Isabella, makes the decision to return to Forks, Washington, when her divorcee mom decides to remarry and head east to Florida with her new hubby. She will join her father, who is a strong, silent type. He’s not pefectly at ease with the situation and shows a bit of awkwardness. She’s “kool” with her father because he doesn’t “hover.” Her father is joined by “Billy Black” for a football game on TV. His son, Jacob, is with him, and the lad greets his playmate, Bella. It isn’t long before Billy sells his old red truck to the sheriff, as a getabout gift to Bella. She goes to the local school in her truck. She doesn’t know anyone really. Jacob Black goes to school at the reservation, so he won’t be there. Nevertheless, as the daughter of the sheriff and living in a small town, she must be known to the others, however thinly. At school, she is promptly greeted by “Eric Yorkie” (Justin Chon), who functions as a film type that apprises Bella of the new school environment, its personalties of note, and the general “lay of the land.” She is both alert to him and aloof from the school’s major personalties and interests. Yet, from the moment that Eric points out the mysterious Cullen clan’s student body contributions, especially Edward, she is attracted to him and finds herself stealing glances at him. At such times he often seems to be glancing at her. Chance places them together at a lab table as “partners in science.” He is acting a bit uncomfortable with her. What gives! Then he just vanishes for a couple of days. The damp, cloudy climate might be depressing to a sun-loving Arizona expatriot, such as Bella, but she takes to it. As a cute gal, she has most of the boys well in hand. Her mood is presently reflective, and the lush, moist, somber environment fits it well enough. There is a camera cut, as she first returns to Forks, that depicts a solitary deer picking its way through verdant terrain. It startles at something and begins to run. After bounding through the woods, spurred by fear, it is captured by what appears to be a bipedal creature–possibly even a human, who takes it down to the ground for the predator’s kill. Although her name suggests “beautiful swan,” her story in this film is more like that of this pretty deer. Of interests to the moviegoer is who that “predator” was and is. Is there a “Beauty and the Beast” aspect to this film? Her relationship with Edward really “warms up,” after he returns from his two day absence. He has changed somewhat and becomes more “forward” in his approach to Bella. Her curiosity makes her open to his placating advances. It’s not long before he confesses that he “can’t resist her” any more. At an earlier point he had warned her about involving herself with him. Now, he won’t take no for an answer. So, the moviegoer witnesses the attraction bonding them. In her narrator role she confesses to being in love with him (even though his hands are mighty cold). Edward has proven to her that he can be more protective than “a caveman” cause he knows she “wants a brave man.” He literally stops an out-of-control van from crushing her by extending a hand in a “stop” gesture. He also saves her “honor” from a potentially dangerous situation involving some “high” Frat Boys. Edward can read the minds of others (except Bella’s) and was incensed by the Frat Boys’ “impure thoughts.” After they escape in his “hot wheels,” he tells her he feels like going back and ripping off their heads (which the moviegoer comes to realise he can literally do). Now, sometime in this period, Jacob Black counsels Bella, and she comes to learn of the Quileute Legend. She goes to a handy Quileute-run library where she purchases a book on the legends, myths & facts about what the Indians call “Big Tooth.” With this and Google she gathers enough circumstantial evidence to convince herself that she was hopelessly in love with a vampire. Bummer? Not really. Bella is a little different herself. Well, then, are the moviegoers going to be forced to witness “star-crossed” lovers? An unexpected event occurs at an almost all-Cullen baseball game. Bella is there, too, and has been reasonably well accepted by Dr. Cullen’s unnatural brood as part – sort of – of their crowd. A lightning-graced storm has given the Cullen’s clan the sports field all to themselves. They are a trip to watch, due to their techniques, speed and power. Suddenly, they see three strangers ambling out of the woods, as if summa cum laude graduates from the Mark Wahlberg School of Tough-Guy Walking. Two men and one woman confront and are confronted by the Cullen clan. The young black vampire, “Laurent” (Edi Gathegi) , who is 3oo years old and seems to have a Caribbean lilt, acts as the trio’s spokesperson. He is respectful and conciliatory toward the Cullen clan, noting that they were just pacing through and wouldn’t disturb the Cullen’s “kool” with the Forksian folks. However, the moviegoer has already witnessed them drain a local restaurant owner and town favorite. Bella is half hiding behind Edward, as the Cullen’s hoped she wouldn’t be discovered by “peopleotarians.” The other male, “James” (Cam Gigandet), who is a young white vampire, wearing his hair in a modified, Thomas Jefferson-style, begins to inhale deeply. The more perceptive moviegoers realised that he was on the scent of Edward’s “chick.” “Fie! Fi! Fo! Fum! I smell the blood of a hu-man!” Where once there was discussion of the trio joining the baseball game, suddenly they all are at war (excepting Bella). Vampires know how to kill vampires. No peasant superstitions here; instead, they rip off heads and tear bodies apart. Bella is with Edward, but James is tracking the scent. If she goes home, he’ll kill dear old dad. Bella is caught in a tough situation. Edward is planning to drive her to a safe spot. However, James has tracked her to mom’s, who is now being held as prisoner. Either Bella comes to Phoenix (mom has returned, alarmed about news from dad), or mom gets drained. “Alice Cullen” (Ashley Greene) has “seen” the future and predicts that Bella will die. She has drawn a likeness of the spot. It looks like a room in her old high school! That must be where James is holding mom. The potential moviegoers well may imagine how the two sides gather there for a “show-down.” Let me tell you that things get bloody. There’s a lot of venom between the two groups. How will our dear Bella fare? It can be a cold world. Love helps.
All rights reserved. Gobigfoot, 2008.
BURN AFTER READING : A MOVIE REVIEW
This is the latest addition of the Coen Brothers’ Great Americana Circus, in which various American regions are held up for satiric inspection. As is usual with the CoBros, off-beat humor is readily available. For Americans who would like to travel around America “just to see it all” but just can’t find the time, the CoBros’ DVD film oueve may provide a possible answer, albeit a caricatured one.
As is usual for the CoBros (but certainly not from all other directors), they get good performances from their players. Frances McDormand, not surprisingly, is featured in this film (she’s married to one of the directors) and very amusing as the woman who wants to be more than she can be–with a little help from her cosmetic surgeon. George Clooney reappears, rhis time as a variety of federal bodyguard. Brad Pitt appears as a physical therapist associate who chews gum to the tune of his Walkman. He is showing signs of being beyond “young man roles,” so that he appears to be not quite right here. Still, he has the looks and acting ability to pull the role off. Ever since I saw him in The Army of the Twelve Monkeys, I’ve known that he could act. Still, the role belonged to a young Brad Pitt or to someone such as Ed Byrne, who played “Kookie” in 77 Sunset Strip. The best performance was rendered by John Malkovich as the C.I.A. official who is being eased into “nowheresville” in the pecking order at Langley. Richard Jenkins turns in another amusing role as a sort of lovesick superior to Frances McDormand’s character. I might add that Katie Swinton was nearly perfect as the cool, tough wife of Malkovich’s character, Osbourne Cox.
Parenthetically, one of the most interesting things in this movie was a brief, discreet shot of the C.I.A. emblem, which occurred during one of the scenes at Langley. I had never seen or noticed it before. While I’m aware that the U,S. governmental seals and emblems are sometimes composed of occult symbols, the one shown in the movie was more suggestive of real allegience. It was a white background field in the form of a shield that hosted a red star. This “red star” has been associated with Edom-controlled nations, corporations, products, and–as we see here–the nation within a nation known as the C.I.A., which has diplomatic relationships with congress, the president, and other intelligence-gathering organizations. It has its own gross-national product and balance-of-payments issues. Drug-running became an industry for the C.I.A. to increase its available funds whereby to increase its reach. Shady-doings are now de rigueur in the United States governmental branches, so there is hardly a raised eyebrow about crimes in government today. The nice thing about the C.I.A. is that it doesn’t let you know that it is an ongoing criminal enterprise. That way, people are free to suppose them to be on “our side.” No organization that bears the “Red Star of Edom” is ever anything other than ruthless, brutal, avaricious, and international.
The locale for this latest CoBro film is the Washington, D.C., Metropolitan area. For all practical purposes the scenes take place in or about Georgetown and adjacent areas, the Mall, and Langley, VA. The social milieu is composed of people of the middle level (or lower), who are stuck in the turf of the wannabes and feel a little desperate that they may be sinking–or maybe missing out on opportunities. Using others, betraying others, and even criminal acts may seem justified, due to needs of the moment. With no real God or moral order, it’s anything goes under the obscuring shelter of “family values” and “national security.”
The Film Capsule: In a “slice of caricatured life” in Washington, D.C., rendered through the lives of different sets of people, who, initially, for the most part don’t know one another. As the film proceeds through numerous scene cuts, these people’s lives are made to converge in an array of deadly ways. (The CoBros must have blood–it’s that simple.) The film begins (and ends) with an orbiting “bird in the sky” view of the Langley, VA, and adjacent Potomac river area. The “birdseye” zooms in, until the moviegoer finds himself in a room with a handful of men. One of these men is Osbourne Cox (Malkovich). He is being officially informed that he was losing a respectable slot for a significantly lesser one. For a fairly senior official and son of Princeton University, this was hard to bear. One of the pretects is that he drinks “too much.” He notes that one of his accusers is a Mormon and that any drink was “too much” for him. Anger not availing him any, the clean-pated Cox goes home. He is going to resign from the C.I.A. and write a book. Meantime, his wife, Katie (Swinton) is having an adulterous relationship with Harry Pfarrer (George Clooney). About Osbourne, she’s cool and no-nonsense. She’s got divorce not too far from the front burner. She expects to marry her adulterous partner, Harry, who is also married to a woman who also writes. Hence, she’s conveniently away on book tours or closeted with her word processor. They seem happy. One infers that Harry is perfectly content to stay married to wife, Sandy (Elizabeth Marvel), and also to indulge in as many extra-marital relationships as he can squeeze in. He seems to be good at it, and Washington appears to abound with women of a kindred spirit. One of these is Linda Litzke (McDormand), who, as with Harry, cruises the internet for dating websites. She has signed up on at least one, as the moviegoer observes her on a couple of dates, the last of which is with Harry Pfarrer. She works at a DC spa. Her supervisor is Ted Treffon (Richard Jenkins), who clearly has romantic eyes for Linda, and just as predictably, she is barely conscious of him as a romantic interest. Her friend and associate at the spa is Chad Feldheimer (Brad Pitt), who is a peppy, gum-smacking sort–a bit lightweighted in the dome, who gets drawn into her machinations. She is obsessed with a body makeover, which will cost a bunch of loot. How to get the loot? There are funny renderings of her at the telephone, trying to make contact with insurance people, etcetera, about financing the surgery. Meranwhile, Osbourne Cox, who is very frequently seen to be drinking, is proceeding with his book. He has an agent and provides him with a DVD draft of his book. This agent loses it at the spa. When Chad gets it to Linda, she perceives it as highly classified material and attempts to blackmail Osbourne Cox for the money to have her operation. Chad is drawn into her extortion scheme. At this point the moviegoer may wonder if the CoBros have ripped off the basic concept from Dog Day Afternoon, directed by Sidney Lumet. It seems that committing a felony to finance cosmetic surgery (never without risks) is evidence of temporary insanity. That’s pretty much what Osbourne Cox tells Chad Feldheimer when they rendevous for what Chad thinks is going to be a bag of cash, paid for the missing DVD. Pitt and Malkovich are pretty funny here. There’s a struggle for the DVD, and Chad gets it back to Linda. She then decides to try to sell the DVD to the Russians at the embassy. She has only one DVD and lets them take a look, implying that there are more where that came from (there are not, of course). This fiasco goes nowhere, but McDormand is funny as she deals with the Russians. For her surgery she’s willing to play for high stakes. She hasn’t gone unnoticed by the C.I.A., as she has visited the Russian Embassy. Also, she has a date with Harry Pfarrer through their mutually used website. All of her first-time webdates seem to end in bed, and so it was with Harry. These two get along well. As all these sets of deceiving, angle-playing people converge, things begin to play out in unexpectedly deadly ways. None of these people are what today’s crowd would consider “bad people.” Harry Pfarrer in his government work is allowed to carry a concealed handgun, which he jokes about openly, saying that he had never had to shoot anyone in twenty years, or some such. But times, they are a-changing! Katie has changed the locks on the doors of her townhouse, thrown Osbourne’s clothes & stuff out, and with her attorney’s help been able to rip-off all Osbourne’s bank-based loot. It makes for disappointing trips to the ATMs. Plus, someone is tailing Osbourne. He is really bent-nosed about all that’s has happened recently and he’s in no mood to take anymore. Harry visits Katie at her townhouse. Finding himself alone, he showers. Meantime, Chad has broken into the Cox townhouse to locate and steal Osbourne’s other DVDs. Seeing that Harry is in the bathroom of the upstairs bedroom, Chad seeks to hide in the closet. It’s safe to conclude a symbolic side to Chad’s move. As things happen, Harry goes to the closet, discovers Chad, reaches for his gun excitedly, and blasts Chad in the noodle. It’s pretty messy and shocking. what to do with the body? He bags it and drags it to the trunk of his car. He’s being tailed also. The moviegoer learns later from a scene at the C.I.A. that he dumped the bag of Chad in the Cheasapeake Bay. The C.I.A. chief concluded that it was best to just forgetaboutit. Meanwhile, Linda has pressured Ted Treffon at the spa to use his skills and break into the Cox home, downloading files to offer for sale to the Russians. She’s still obscessed with her surgical procedure–the makeover that will permanently change her life for the better. Ted is discovered by the already deeply angry Osbourne, who demands to know who he is and what he is doing. This bit of violence leasds up to Osbourne, steaming, going outside his townhouse with a hatchet, furious at someone near his car. Oh, brother! O. Cox gets shot down like a dog. The C.I.A. opinion: It’s best–close the file. The Russians tell Linda, “No thanks.” Harry just wants his “momma” to come home from her tour. He’s been a bad boy. The Washington scene hasn’t changed much. Some players fade away; others rise up to replace them in this modern-day “memorial on the Potomac” to Vanity Fair.
All rights reserved. Gobigfoot, 2008.
WORDPRESS CENSORS AT IT AGAIN
I’d like to mention how frequently my posts are published without any notice given by WordPress on its list of “Latest Posts.” They have now decided to “stifle” my book review of “IN THE SHADOW OF LIONS” by Ginger Garrett. How fearful these people must be, if my words cause such desperate acts of censorship, as the many failures to officially note my posts indicate is happening. Let the sun shine in!
Gobogfoot, 2008.
IN THE SHADOW OF LIONS: A BOOK REVIEW
I must admit that I was initially confused, when I began reading Ms. Garrrett’s historical fiction, In The Shadow of Lions. I fully expected to immediately enter sixteenth century England. However, Ms. Garret has chosen to enter upon the body of her romantic adventure by means of a ”story within a story,” which is made to have continuity by the devices of spiritism, parallel and genaeology. For the protagonist, Bridget, her special history lesson, conducted by the Scribe, becomes a touchstone. It will help her to decide whose hand she will take at the border. Ms. Garrett is an imaginative lass.
Although the idea of “guardian angels” for individuals is ancient, Ms. Garrett introduces the idea of guardian angels for families, as well. And, yes! They do influence events. Far-fetched? Perhaps, but the idea of an “invisible hand” shaping events and destinies is also ancient. Hence, the reader may not be entirely surprised to discover that a prominent element in this story is the Scribe’s “Book of Destiny,” touching upon Bridget, Rose, Anne, and others who will be met along the way. Nor is the Scribe the only “not strictly Earthly” being. Beware the Selasals!
One can promptly observe influences from predecessors who have developed variations of this device for relating a tale. Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales, Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol, Lewis Carroll’s Alice In Wonderland. L. Frank Baum’s The Wizard of Oz, and Tales from a Thousand and One Nights [numerous authors] are just a few of the imaginative forerunners to Ms. Garrett. As a matter of inference, I have no doubt that the “guiding vision” in this story, Scribe, was inspired by none other than Shaquille O’Neal in the film Aladdin.
Allow me to make a grammatical criticism. At chapter ten on pages 104 and 105, I noticed two instances in which the expression “different than” appears, rather than “different from.” This being so, there are probably other instances as well. As this is incorrect usage, it should not appear. One can forgive a writer slip ups here and there, but how could the book’s copyreader not edit out this mistake? It’s not an issue of style.
So, having initiated my read of this book, I found myself in a hospice, where a patient (Bridget) is rendering a first-person singular statement of “life on the border.” The hospice catered to the needs of terminal cancer patients. These are patients who are frequently treated with strong painkillers, such as morphine. They tend to be elderly, also. Hence, not only were they converging on the border of life and death, material and spiritual, but doing so with minds that are now lucid, now cloudy, and now again hallucinatory. As one dies, reality is annihilated. Hallucinations are a human’s last attempt to make sense of it all.
Thus, from the outset Ms. Garrett draws us into this strangeland. It seems to be an unlikely “looking glass,” yet the reader feels compelled to enter. Enter for the mystery of it. Enter for the adventure. Enter for the challenge. Who are these women? I believe that readers will find the mystery worth pursuing. I did.
It isn’t too long before the reader is removed to “jolly old England.” Through the eyes of a young woman named “Rose” the reader is introduced to a strange ritual cleansing conducted by a cardinal of the Church and a gentleman, who was called “Sir Thomas” and “More.” Rose herself had only recently given birth to a bastard lad, and she was still weak, confused, shamed, and depressed. In the rainy April darkness she crept as near as she dared to watch the disenterment of a priest who had “cast pearl before swine.” As the last embers cooled about the remnant of the stake, the men went to their horses to gallop their separate ways. At that very moment Rose hurled her body before the uncoming hooves. Her desperate act of destruction oddly resolves itself in a kind of rebirth within the warm and ample abode of the man called Thomas More.
Parenthetically, ambivalence by the primary women in this story in regard to simply living becomes a recurring emotional attitude that is worth noting.
The reader understands that Rose conceals a secret, which somehow involves a priest and the Church. Further, there seems to be a kind of standard that is operating here, as well as through time, that small deceits are permissible in ordinary intercourse for purposes of persuasion. Few are immune to its allure.
With this dreary, strange introduction Ms. Garrett leads her guests into a fascinating and important period in English history, as well as in the unfolding Christian idea of itself and its mission. The English characters in this novel are heavily influenced by Christian thought, however aberrant, as well as the pecking order of power. An obligation toward duty is magnified, serving also as a shield and brace for the vast majority of people who exist in a weak, submissive condition. This allows an unjust fate to be rationalized by asserting that one has done one’s duty. Mercy is typically the province of Heaven alone. There is little use for it in Tudor England. In fact aberrant theology may conclude that torture, rightly understood, is a mercy! For the reader it is unnerving to see a nation ruled by aberrant theology, superstition, and insidious rumor-mongering. Yet, this seems to be the case in the England of Henry VIII. Less you be mortified, let me say that it still happens in our thoroughly modern times. It is simply not a cultural imperative.
The contemporary colloquy between Bridget and the Scribe, as Bridget transcribes relevant pages from the Book of Destiny, introduces us to Anne Boleyn. In the telling of the tale Ms. Garrett is wonderfully informative, delightful in her imaginative elaborations of scant historical data, sometimes compelling and always from the female perspective abiding. One must recall how important perspective is at determining the truth of something. Truth must be hemmed in, corralled, triangulated–and even then it may defy precise understanding. Ms. Garrett’s addition is very helpful.
In her tale the meeting of Henry VIII and Anne Bolleyn gets personal under shady circumstances and partial anonymity, as if Zeus had hidden himself in a humble human shape to engage a comely woman. The interlude, however, is characterized by pain and compassion, rather than lust. Yet, one thing leads to another.
Rose and Anne are women from different cultural planes in English society. However, as their lives unfold, they converge. The twin vortexes of national sovereign and religious sovereign each forcefully drawing them and compelling them to choose. The reader gets a good insight into the general life of women during Tudor England, as well as the major figures caught in the wake of that great ship of state–Henry VIII. Sir Thomas More, Lord Percy, Cardinal Wolsey, Catherine of Aragon, Jane Bolleyn, Jane Grey, and many others are woven into the developing image as Bridget and the Scribe “burn the midnight oil.” There is no music playing in the background, save the unsung words of the old coal-mining song: “Whose side are you on, whose side are you on.”
Seemingly unimportant characters in Ms. Garrett’s book can become, in retrospect, more influential than one would ever have suspected.
“I want a home where books do not matter as much as love.”
I believe that this line spoken by Margaret More holds true for all the women encountered. Tension, however, is created by the context, which for all must be lawful. The law springs from either Scripture or the minds of men. For the Tudor-era women love has not been perfected until sanctioned by formal wedlock. Even Rose, who is sexually experienced, does not confuse this unlawful experience as love. In some noticeable degree the legal/familial duties that create dramatic opposition between Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn recapitulate the conflict between King Creon and Antigone. In both cases civil law challenges a “higher” law, which is of a moral or religious order. In both cases the kings attempt to misrepresent their orders as also being of a higher order. This makes compromise or concession difficult. Where neither can concede, tragic conflict become inevitable.
In this tale Anne Boleyn’s family isn’t really lofty, but might be compared to that of an upper middleclass woman today, who had been well-educated, had taken a year’s study at the Sorbonne, and had returned to the U.S. to take an executive position advising David Rockefeller, while sending dust flying with her wit and decollete’, and thus provoking spiteful rumors. In such a scenario the only missing ingredient is the permeating Christian faith, as well as Reformist challenges to it, that characterize sixteenth century England and the Continent.
On the other hand Ms. Garrett’s Rose is alone and a “street person,” hustling her youth and wits to make her daily subsistence wage. For Sir Thomas More, a very prominent and ”enlightened” figure at King Henry VIII’s court, Rose becomes a “social experiment,” which resonates with the Pygmalian tale and, of course, My Fair Lady. Sir Thomas and Henry Higgins have similar goals, differing primarily in the crucial idioms of their cultures, which each attempts to recreate in a lesser specimen. For God, for science, for country and for vanity do they proceed with their “enlightened” (and speculative) experiments.
At least Rose finds and offers companionship within the More household. She finds it in Sir Thomas’ daughter, Margaret. Sir Thomas proves to be a kindly patron also. Through Rose’s eyes, primarily, are we provided with the contrasting, sometimes contradictory, characteristics of Sir Thomas More, which make him finally the most intriguing figure at a court which includes not only Henry VIII but Cardinal Wolsey, the spymaster Cranmer, and the queen, Catherine.
On the other hand Anne Boleyn seems strangly alone. She has a family that possesses a degree of prominence. Yet, they recede in Ms. Garrett’s tale to a hazy reality which is not given much more than passing mention. Anne’s brother George is mentioned a few times, yet he is hardly more than some generic kid. Allusions to George’s misdirected libido are made, and the reader is informed that the power of the sovereign’s sword falls most certainly upon heretics and “doers of unnatural acts.” Still, it is not her familiai influences that we note as shaping her character so much as religious faith and feminine imperatives of that time– and perhaps all time.
Ms. Garrett provides the reader with one year in the life of Anne Boleyn. That year, however, begins with Rose. In fact the reader doesn’t encounter Anne until the fifth chapter.
The Tudor tale by Ms. Garrett is framed by and interacts remotely with a contemporary colloquy between a woman in a hospice and a “vision,” which I have mentioned above. These opening pages in which “Bridget” expresses herself did not please my ear, altogether, due to vocabulary and obscurity. Bridget was a literary agent/editor, who loved, envied and sabotaged her most promising client, “David.” Perhaps these initial pages suggested why she was an agent/editor and not a writer. Nevertheless, as Bridget, her visitor, and the Book of Destiny settle in the reader’s mind, her story, although somewhat thin soup, becomes more savory. By the end of this tale Ms. Garrett achieves an unexpectedly moving conclusion to her story of Anne, Rose and Bridget.
I certainly encourage others to give this book a try, because I think you’ll like it. I think that this is especially true for women.
Lastly, not to be overlooked are the notes by the author in regard to her tale, which are found immediately after the epilog. All in all, In The Shadow of Lions is a very satisfying way to spend a winter’s day.
All rights reserved. Gobigfoot, 2008.
This is a guest page. Occasionally, I encounter a post or page that seems worth passing on. This is such an occasion. This is a page that appeared in the Israel Christian Group site on Google. Please consider.






