Regardless of whether they support or oppose U.S. Intervention in Syria, those who believe in the rule of law and limited government were awarded a stunning victory when president Obama announced that he would seek authorization from congress to use force against Syria. Obama should be commended for not turning his back on a major campaign promise, and for respecting congress' constitutionally mandated power to declare war, something that many of his predecessors have unfortunately neglected over the past half century. One may even wonder why Obama himself did not seek congressional approval for limited airstrikes against the regime of Muhmmar Gaddafi in Libya during the early stages of the Arab Spring. Much like Syria, this was a United States lead intervention in which the the goal is punitive airstrikes with no expectation of “boots on the ground.” So why the sudden decision to seek approval from congress?
Obama made it clear during his Rose Garden speech that his decision was not based on any legal requirement “I believe I have the authority to carry out this military action without specific congressional authorization.” Instead he submitted a more pragmatic political reason for passing authority to congress, stating “I know that the country will be stronger if we take this course, and our actions will be even more effective. We should have this debate, because the issues are too big for business as usual.” It is interesting that Obama seems to think the country would benefit from this debate before going to war now, and not two years ago in Libya. Obama neglects to mention another reason why he might think he needs congressional approval. The former secretary of defense Leon Panetta stated in congressional hearings that if the there was a UN or NATO resolution to use force against a country then the administration believed that was sufficient authorization of force. In the case of Libya there was a U.N. Resolution, but today with Syria there is not.
Perhaps another reason for seeking congressional approval now, is that unlike Libya in 2011 Syria is not strategically isolated and has several allies that closely support it. Russia has not only given military support to Assad and spoken out against any potential use of United States force, but also has a naval base in Syria. Iran is also a close ally of Syria, and backs Hezbollah which could launch attacks against Israel in retaliations for any U.S. Strike. While somewhat remote the potential for a large scale regional war exists. Given the risks it is prudent for Obama to seek authorization from congress in order to share in and deflect responsibility if airstrikes cause a new Mideast conflagration.
Furthermore, Congressional authorization would establish better grounds for a protracted campaign of sustained airstrikes against Damascus. Given that a single volley of cruise missiles is likely to do little to change the strategic situation for the rebels on the ground, authorization from congress would be an upfront circumvention of the War Powers Resolution which limits Presidential use of force to a sixty day time period. While ostensibly, regime change is not on the table, the previous Secretary of State was on the record stating “Assad must go,” and Kerry himself has been at the forefront of pushing for war against the Assad regime. It seems that regime change is likely a ulterior motive for attacking Syria.
Saturday, August 31, 2013
Sunday, July 3, 2011
Green Lantern (2011)
Walking into the Green Lantern almost completely cold, I came to the conclusion that some super heroes will never translate well into live action form. The Green Lanterns are a group of galactic space cops who patrol the galaxy and defend its inhabitants from danger. Their primary weapons are a green ring that allows its users to forge almost anything their imagination can conceive out of pure green energy. If this sounds like ridiculous concept out of pulpy 1940s sci-fi you would be right on the money
The most interesting super hero films are the ones that are able to ground themselves in a plausible reality. Films like X-men and Batman are interesting because while their characters have extraordinary abilities, they exist in a world that is much like our own, and the conflicts are grounded in a reality. In Green Lantern, our hero must use his “will” to defeat a giant yellow tentacle space alien that is the embodiment of “fear.” It is so completely out there that it lacks any sense of tension, or reality to get me invested. Of course, Green Lantern doesn’t really take itself too seriously. It is DC’s attempt at an Iron Man, and instead of wise cracking Robert Downey Jr. we have a wise cracking Ryan Reynolds as Hal
Jordan, a test pilot who is recruited into the lanterns after discovering the ring.
From here we get the usual sequence of super hero origin story. He learns to harness the power of the ring, overcome his fears, and takes on evil. Along the way he has to deal with love interest Blake Lively , in scenes that only serve to slow down the movie without adding much character depth.
The villain Hector Hammond (Peter Saarsgard) is a scientist infected by the alien menace. Aside from looking pretty creepy, he really doesn’t have much to do in this film aside from walk around brooding and scheming… to kill all the humans on Earth… or something. He is a far cry from Heath Ledger’s Joker or even Michael Fastbender’s Magneto from this summers X-Men: First Class.
The brightest spot of the film is the colorful visuals of the movie. The home world of the Green Lanterns looks great and is populated by a myriad of bizarre aliens. You get a Episode IV Mos Eisley Cantina vibe from these scenes.
I am sure there is much more to the character of The Green Lantern that doesn’t come across in the movie, but that’s why the movie failed. It doesn’t make the character interesting or appealing to someone who isn’t familiar with the comics
The most interesting super hero films are the ones that are able to ground themselves in a plausible reality. Films like X-men and Batman are interesting because while their characters have extraordinary abilities, they exist in a world that is much like our own, and the conflicts are grounded in a reality. In Green Lantern, our hero must use his “will” to defeat a giant yellow tentacle space alien that is the embodiment of “fear.” It is so completely out there that it lacks any sense of tension, or reality to get me invested. Of course, Green Lantern doesn’t really take itself too seriously. It is DC’s attempt at an Iron Man, and instead of wise cracking Robert Downey Jr. we have a wise cracking Ryan Reynolds as Hal
Jordan, a test pilot who is recruited into the lanterns after discovering the ring.
From here we get the usual sequence of super hero origin story. He learns to harness the power of the ring, overcome his fears, and takes on evil. Along the way he has to deal with love interest Blake Lively , in scenes that only serve to slow down the movie without adding much character depth.
The villain Hector Hammond (Peter Saarsgard) is a scientist infected by the alien menace. Aside from looking pretty creepy, he really doesn’t have much to do in this film aside from walk around brooding and scheming… to kill all the humans on Earth… or something. He is a far cry from Heath Ledger’s Joker or even Michael Fastbender’s Magneto from this summers X-Men: First Class.
The brightest spot of the film is the colorful visuals of the movie. The home world of the Green Lanterns looks great and is populated by a myriad of bizarre aliens. You get a Episode IV Mos Eisley Cantina vibe from these scenes.
I am sure there is much more to the character of The Green Lantern that doesn’t come across in the movie, but that’s why the movie failed. It doesn’t make the character interesting or appealing to someone who isn’t familiar with the comics
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Battle: Los Angeles (2011)
About halfway through Battle: Los Angeles we are treated to a news report of scientists who are speculating on why the aliens are attacking Earth. Apparently, the aliens are draining the earth’s oceans, and from this the scientists conclude that they must be after our water. After all, Earth is the only planet with liquid water near its surface according to one scientist. Now, I am not an expert on these things, but I find it hard to believe that these aliens who have traveled across the galaxy to invade another planet could not have collected some ice from comets, or simply just synthesize water from hydrogen and oxygen. It is a very nitpicky point, but when you are faced with a movie as dull and lifeless as Battle: Los Angeles these small points become hard to ignore.
The film begins with a series of meteor showers near major populations centers around the world. It turns out the meteors are actually a part of a large scale invasion force to conquer Earth. In Los Angeles, a group of U.S. Marines is deployed to evacuate civilians and defend against the alien onslaught. This is essentially Black Hawk Down with aliens, and we spend the whole time with this squad of marines giving the viewer the feeling of an “embedded” journalist following a group of soldiers.
Aarron Eckhart plays the leader of the squad, and his performance makes the film much more bearable. He looks, and acts well in the role of a strong and gung-ho Marine leader who is also dealing with the regret of losing men under his command. His character spouts a lot of clichés throughout the film, but Eckhart does a great job of making them sound convincing and a bit inspiring.
The rest of the characters are a parade of clichés, and there is no emotional or visual impact as they are picked off over the course of the film. In fact I can barley say who died and who survived in this film since all the deaths are quick and bloodless to fit the PG-13 rating. The action in Battle is also poorly done. With too much shaky cam, and a lack of engaging action set pieces, the firefights are confusing and ultimately pretty boring.
The aliens themselves are also a disappointment. We pretty much learn nothing about them, and their design is pretty uninspired and basic looking. The film builds to a pretty predictable conclusion as the squad assault the alien mother ship in LA.
All in all I don’t have many good things to say about Battle. It is pretty much a paint by numbers war film which features aliens, and a whole bunch of gunfire and explosions, but not a lot of depth or great dialogue. With all the alien invasion movies out there to choose from it wont be hard to find something better.
4/10
The film begins with a series of meteor showers near major populations centers around the world. It turns out the meteors are actually a part of a large scale invasion force to conquer Earth. In Los Angeles, a group of U.S. Marines is deployed to evacuate civilians and defend against the alien onslaught. This is essentially Black Hawk Down with aliens, and we spend the whole time with this squad of marines giving the viewer the feeling of an “embedded” journalist following a group of soldiers.
Aarron Eckhart plays the leader of the squad, and his performance makes the film much more bearable. He looks, and acts well in the role of a strong and gung-ho Marine leader who is also dealing with the regret of losing men under his command. His character spouts a lot of clichés throughout the film, but Eckhart does a great job of making them sound convincing and a bit inspiring.
The rest of the characters are a parade of clichés, and there is no emotional or visual impact as they are picked off over the course of the film. In fact I can barley say who died and who survived in this film since all the deaths are quick and bloodless to fit the PG-13 rating. The action in Battle is also poorly done. With too much shaky cam, and a lack of engaging action set pieces, the firefights are confusing and ultimately pretty boring.
The aliens themselves are also a disappointment. We pretty much learn nothing about them, and their design is pretty uninspired and basic looking. The film builds to a pretty predictable conclusion as the squad assault the alien mother ship in LA.
All in all I don’t have many good things to say about Battle. It is pretty much a paint by numbers war film which features aliens, and a whole bunch of gunfire and explosions, but not a lot of depth or great dialogue. With all the alien invasion movies out there to choose from it wont be hard to find something better.
4/10
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Monsters (2010)
Life goes on, even after an alien invasion. That seems to be the basic message of the 2010 film Monsters. In the film, a space probe returning to earth crashes in
The monsters in the film are always in the background, and we more often see the indirect effects of their existence through increased security, destroyed military hardware, and the distant roar or jet fighters and explosions. Most alien invasion movies depict the invasion as a momentous life changing event for the characters, but Monsters much like 2009’s District 9 focuses more on the day to day grind of having to live your life in a world where aliens are here, and are simply just another fact of life.
Monsters is a film that deals with two people meeting in a strange and alien environment, and developing a fleeting relationship. In this way it is not much different than Lost in Translation, but with
The film District 9 had a direct parallel to South African apartheid, and some have claimed Monsters is an obvious commentary on Mexican-American relations and immigration. The comparison is pretty apt as the Mexicans and Americans in the film are jointly working together to combat the aliens, while the United States is desperately trying to keep the chaos and violence from crossing the border to the north. All you have to do is substitute aliens for drug cartels and you pretty have much have the current state of affairs on the border today. But, the allegory of Monsters is even broader in scope.
While watching Monsters I kept feeling like all the visuals and sights the characters witness on their travels were pretty much things you would commonly see on any news report about a third world country. The fighting and conflicts over the last two decades in the Balkans, Middle East, and
Monsters is a pretty boring movie. But, it has a nice relaxing, soothing boring that I enjoyed. I feel like I could almost watch the movie on mute and enjoy it just as much as if it had sound. It is an odd movie.
7/10
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Darkon (2006)
A group of average suburban youths live out a medieval fantasy by engaging in Live Action Roleplaying or "Larping" in the 2006 documentary film Darkon.
Darkon is a fantasy game where competing tribes battle it out for supremacy. What makes it different from your average D&D session is that the participants actually act out the battles using padded swords and shields, and throwing nerf dodge balls to cast magic spells. The fate of the nations are played out on the battlefields of state parks, and community soccer fields.
A documentary with such an especially nerdy subject is bound to have some hilarious moments, and Darkon does provide a bunch of these. It is hard not to laugh when the film makers show us one of these players practicing his swordsmanship in his backyard, and explaining how participating in Darkon is going to give him the confidence to talk to girls.
But it seems as if there is almost too much seriousness in what should be quirky subject. While a movie such as King of Kong explored a nerdy sub-culture with an interesting mix of humor and drama, Darkon is a film that seems far too concerned with making its subjects seem deep and relevant in order to justify itself. A lot of time is devoted to exploring the psychology of the participants, and what motivates them to engage in such a strange hobby that is bound to get them ridiculed. The film tries to provide answers ranging from the need to escape the drudgery of suburban life, to the longing for respect and comradarie, or the simple fact that we all need to "roleplay" in some aspects of or life.
Some of these themes are interesting, and even may be true to an extent, but they all feel like an attempt to give "larping" a profoundness that I am not sure really exists. One particularly silly scene has members of one of the warring factions making battle plans in their living rooms while a tv set plays a news report about the battle fallujah. The implication being that larping and the war in Iraq are somehow deeply connected, which is an idea that had me rolling my eyes.
Darkon does have a couple interesting human stories, and it is interesting to watch these people play out this complex and interesting game, but I still wish the movie would have just a bit more fun with its subject matter.
6/10
A documentary with such an especially nerdy subject is bound to have some hilarious moments, and Darkon does provide a bunch of these. It is hard not to laugh when the film makers show us one of these players practicing his swordsmanship in his backyard, and explaining how participating in Darkon is going to give him the confidence to talk to girls.
But it seems as if there is almost too much seriousness in what should be quirky subject. While a movie such as King of Kong explored a nerdy sub-culture with an interesting mix of humor and drama, Darkon is a film that seems far too concerned with making its subjects seem deep and relevant in order to justify itself. A lot of time is devoted to exploring the psychology of the participants, and what motivates them to engage in such a strange hobby that is bound to get them ridiculed. The film tries to provide answers ranging from the need to escape the drudgery of suburban life, to the longing for respect and comradarie, or the simple fact that we all need to "roleplay" in some aspects of or life.
Some of these themes are interesting, and even may be true to an extent, but they all feel like an attempt to give "larping" a profoundness that I am not sure really exists. One particularly silly scene has members of one of the warring factions making battle plans in their living rooms while a tv set plays a news report about the battle fallujah. The implication being that larping and the war in Iraq are somehow deeply connected, which is an idea that had me rolling my eyes.
Darkon does have a couple interesting human stories, and it is interesting to watch these people play out this complex and interesting game, but I still wish the movie would have just a bit more fun with its subject matter.
6/10
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Survival of the Dead (2009)
It must be a mixed blessing to make a movie that helps to start an entire subgenre of horror. It is probably even worse when your follow up to that film is widely considered one of the best horror movies of all time. Those are pretty big legacies to live up to. So it is no real surprise that over forty years after creating Night of the Living Dead, George A. Romero’s latest zombie films have been a disappointment. His latest entry, Survival of the Dead, is probably his worst Dead film yet, and is probably enough to convince even the most strident of Romero’s fans that the aging director should probably throw in the towel.
As with all the Dead films, Survival takes place in a world in which the dead have risen and have begun feeding on the living. Society has been destroyed, and the last remnants of humanity are attempting to hold out against the undead. The film follows a group of AWOL soldiers who are looking for a safe place to ride out the apocalypse. When their leader, sarge learns of a possible safe island off the coast of Delaware the group sets out for the island. But when they arrive, they find that the small island has been embroiled in conflict between two feuding families. It seems that the O’flannigans want to kill off all the undead, while the Muldoons want to keep the undead alive, and hope to find a cure to the outbreak. Sarge and his men quickly become drawn into the conflict.
Survival is heavily influenced by the western genre, and with its premise tries to set itself apart from other zombie movies, but I found many of the films elements to be wildly out of place and shoehorned into the plot. I found it curious that this small island off the coast of Delaware was home to cowboy hat wearing Irish Ranchers. The fact that the Muldoons want to save the undead is equally baffling. There is no indication of why they think the undead are salvageable, and their entire plan seems to hinge around trying to train the zombies to eat horses, rabbits, and pigs which doesn’t really mean the zombies will become functioning members of society, or stop eating humans along with farm animals. It is even hard for me to see how a small island inhabitanted by two families would even have very many zombies on it.
One could argue this could just be more of Romero’s often talked about “social commentary,” and that may be true, but the problem is that Survival spends far too much time on this poorly developed family feud, and the zombies simply take a back seat as simple plot devices rather than central antagonists. In Night and Dawn, the zombies were true forces to be reckoned with always trying to close in on the survivors. In Survival, the zombies are simply there, never really posing a threat or creating any tension. Romero’s direction doesn’t help things much. The film jumps around a lot, and often times things just happen for no apparent reason. The film is plagued by terrible cgi gore that looks like it came straight from a syfy channel original movie.
Survival of the Dead is not even a movie that is enjoyable on a basic level. The film is poorly plotted, unscary, and amateurish. Perhaps this is not completely Romero’s fault. It is clear to me that the budget for this movie was not huge, but neither was the budget for the three original dead films. What we have here is a film maker who seems to have gone of the rails, and is content with putting out second rate, mediocre films.
1/10
As with all the Dead films, Survival takes place in a world in which the dead have risen and have begun feeding on the living. Society has been destroyed, and the last remnants of humanity are attempting to hold out against the undead. The film follows a group of AWOL soldiers who are looking for a safe place to ride out the apocalypse. When their leader, sarge learns of a possible safe island off the coast of Delaware the group sets out for the island. But when they arrive, they find that the small island has been embroiled in conflict between two feuding families. It seems that the O’flannigans want to kill off all the undead, while the Muldoons want to keep the undead alive, and hope to find a cure to the outbreak. Sarge and his men quickly become drawn into the conflict.
Survival is heavily influenced by the western genre, and with its premise tries to set itself apart from other zombie movies, but I found many of the films elements to be wildly out of place and shoehorned into the plot. I found it curious that this small island off the coast of Delaware was home to cowboy hat wearing Irish Ranchers. The fact that the Muldoons want to save the undead is equally baffling. There is no indication of why they think the undead are salvageable, and their entire plan seems to hinge around trying to train the zombies to eat horses, rabbits, and pigs which doesn’t really mean the zombies will become functioning members of society, or stop eating humans along with farm animals. It is even hard for me to see how a small island inhabitanted by two families would even have very many zombies on it.
One could argue this could just be more of Romero’s often talked about “social commentary,” and that may be true, but the problem is that Survival spends far too much time on this poorly developed family feud, and the zombies simply take a back seat as simple plot devices rather than central antagonists. In Night and Dawn, the zombies were true forces to be reckoned with always trying to close in on the survivors. In Survival, the zombies are simply there, never really posing a threat or creating any tension. Romero’s direction doesn’t help things much. The film jumps around a lot, and often times things just happen for no apparent reason. The film is plagued by terrible cgi gore that looks like it came straight from a syfy channel original movie.
Survival of the Dead is not even a movie that is enjoyable on a basic level. The film is poorly plotted, unscary, and amateurish. Perhaps this is not completely Romero’s fault. It is clear to me that the budget for this movie was not huge, but neither was the budget for the three original dead films. What we have here is a film maker who seems to have gone of the rails, and is content with putting out second rate, mediocre films.
1/10
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Feast (2005)
A group of strangers become trapped in an isolated hole in the wall desert bar by a group of bizarre killer monsters in Feast, a gross out horror film that seems to love showering its main characters in torrents of blood, slime, and monster ejaculate. Feast appears to be produced by Ben Affleck and is apparently the product of his reality TV show, Project Green Light. I haven’t seen the show, so I will just focus on the finished product itself.
Feast is a film that wastes no time on characters and even less time on plot. You never really learn what the heck is after these people, and none of the characters of the film are even named. Instead each character gets a quick title card freeze frame laying out their name (the hero, the drifter, the bartender etc), an interesting fact about them, and their life expectancy. This is a strange, quirky way to start out the film, and makes you feel like you will be in for something different and unique. However, Feast is a fairly typical creature feature, with a huge body count and lots of gore. The cast is an assortment of silly horror clinches, the best of which is a motivational speaker who tries his best to keep the groups spirits up, with humorous effects. They all pretty much exist though to be killed in brutal ways, and are quickly thinned out over the course of the movie.
One thing I will say about Feast is the monster attacks are fast and frantic with plenty of people getting killed in mid sentence, and the monsters usually strike in a chaotic blur of blood and claws. In fact, I don’t think there is a single character that sees their death coming in this movie. It does a good job of keeping you on the edge of your seat.
The monsters themselves are pretty creepy looking, and have an interesting twist. They seem to have hyper active sex drives, and reproduce very quickly. Yes, this film contains a monster sex scene, a monster penis, and monster ejaculation. Another great aspect is the fact that most of the monster effects are done using conventional effects with a few cgi shots here and there. Overall, the monsters are pretty well realized, even though the viewer doesn’t really learn much about them.
Apparently there are two sequels to Feast, and I will probably check them out as the film just ends and leaves you wanting a bit more both because of confusion and because you really never figure out where these monsters came from. Overall the first Feast is a slightly above average horror film that could have used a bit more story and plot to make it something truly special.
6/10
Feast is a film that wastes no time on characters and even less time on plot. You never really learn what the heck is after these people, and none of the characters of the film are even named. Instead each character gets a quick title card freeze frame laying out their name (the hero, the drifter, the bartender etc), an interesting fact about them, and their life expectancy. This is a strange, quirky way to start out the film, and makes you feel like you will be in for something different and unique. However, Feast is a fairly typical creature feature, with a huge body count and lots of gore. The cast is an assortment of silly horror clinches, the best of which is a motivational speaker who tries his best to keep the groups spirits up, with humorous effects. They all pretty much exist though to be killed in brutal ways, and are quickly thinned out over the course of the movie.
One thing I will say about Feast is the monster attacks are fast and frantic with plenty of people getting killed in mid sentence, and the monsters usually strike in a chaotic blur of blood and claws. In fact, I don’t think there is a single character that sees their death coming in this movie. It does a good job of keeping you on the edge of your seat.
The monsters themselves are pretty creepy looking, and have an interesting twist. They seem to have hyper active sex drives, and reproduce very quickly. Yes, this film contains a monster sex scene, a monster penis, and monster ejaculation. Another great aspect is the fact that most of the monster effects are done using conventional effects with a few cgi shots here and there. Overall, the monsters are pretty well realized, even though the viewer doesn’t really learn much about them.
Apparently there are two sequels to Feast, and I will probably check them out as the film just ends and leaves you wanting a bit more both because of confusion and because you really never figure out where these monsters came from. Overall the first Feast is a slightly above average horror film that could have used a bit more story and plot to make it something truly special.
6/10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
