Movie Review: War of the Worlds (4 of 5)

War of the Worlds was incredible. I know, I know, alien invasion movies are so old and stupid, why bother seeing another one, right? Wrong. For one thing, this isn't your typical alien invasion story, the chief difference being that humans don't figure out how to stop the aliens. For another thing, most alien invasion movies are low-budget, bad, cheesy, and just trying to entertain you with violence, and this is none of the above. But more importantly, this story was based on an 1898 novel by H. G. Wells---which may have been the first alien invasion story of all time. It's all the other stories that are the copycats and reruns. This is original.

I have both read the book and seen the 50's version of the movie, but, suprisingly enough, I have little to complain about the transformation. It was modernized yet again, but it was done very well. (And this time the aliens weren't accompanied by radioactive hums and obviously fake heat blasts) A lot was changed, obviously, but the fundamental plot remained the same. And some of the changes actually made things better. For example, they added two children to the main character. Instead of just trying to survive on his own, he has two kids to worry about---an accurately portrayed rebellious teenager and a claustrophobic vulnerable little girl (skillfully played by the ubiquitous Dakota Fanning). This adds to the tension.

I do have a few nitpicky problems. The movie didn't explain enough. They don't mention that the sticky red patterns are supposed to be Martian ferns (my girlfriend eerily thought it must be human blood). The story is told wholly from Cruise's perspective, so you don't know what the government's trying to do to stop these things (contrary to the 50's version), although you get a few glimpses of tanks scrolling by. I thought they could have done a better job explaining how the aliens were defeated. The narration at the beginning and the end was informative, and I'm glad they left the word "God" in there, but it was random, because that was the only place there was any narration. And... well, I don't want to give anything away, but when a character survives something, it has to be obvious how they didn't die, or at least implied that there was a possible way they could have survived, or at the very least explained. Otherwise it's not believable.

But overall, War of the Worlds was a very good movie. The plot sequence and unfolding of events was smooth and carefully done. Spielberg intended the aliens to be a modern symbol of terrorists (which I think is a mistaken analogy), but the movie is better at exploring questions of how far one must go to survive, even if it means theft or murder, and the importance of obeying your parents even if you don't know exactly why at that exact moment (and the ignorance of trying to do your own thing). The special effects were first-rate, but a different first-rate than Star Wars. Star Wars was cool because made-up ships are flying around and exploding. War of the Worlds is cool because streets are cracking and airplaines are crashing and buildings are exploding---these things really exist, but it looks real, like it's actually happening. And there is plenty of tension and suspense---it's pretty scary and creepy.

War of the Worlds is much better than the cliche alien invasion movie. It's very well done, and it's based on an original story, and yet it's a rare instance in which the movie is as at least as good as the book. Read the book, watch the 50's version, and see the new one---they're all worth it.

Edmond the Hun

Supreme Court: Taking Away a Freedom

The Fifth Amendment states that private property can be taken for public use only with just compensation.

Homeowners in Connecticut went to court after "being told they had to sell their homes so pharmaceutical giant Pfizer could build a new research plant." The Supreme Court ruled yesterday (5-4) that it was constitutional for these private homeowners to be forced to sell their homes so the private industrial group could build things there, because it was for the purpose of "economic gain."

The majority opinion said, "Quite simply, the government's pursuit of a public purpose will often benefit individual private parties... Any number of cases illustrate that the achievement of a public good often coincides with the immediate benefiting of private parties." In other words, it will benefit society. It's for the greater good.

This is outrageous! The Supreme Court has basically ruled that you can be forced to give up your private property if somebody else wants to build something on it that will make more money. Now, how many homeowners make money on their property? Not many. Houses are for living in. That means that any commercial business of any type is going to produce more "economic gain" than your house is producing right now. If I'm understanding this ruling correctly, that means that right now any business owner could come to your house and say, "Sell it, because I want to build a shop right here. You have to do it---the Supreme Court said it's constitutional because it's for economic gain." That's obviously not right!

But the problem is not with the Supreme Court justices. The majority actually supported the wording of the Constitution. If "public use" is interpreted as any commercial business, then a businessman is upholding the Constitution by taking away private property for public use.

The problem, then, is with the wording of the Amendment itself. "Public use" is too vague. There is an obvious difference between the government forcing people to sell their homes because they really need to build an airport or a highway or a school somewhere---that is a legitimate case of sacrifice for the greater good---and a private business forcing people to sell their homes. That's going too far.

The Constitution needs to be changed. "Public use" needs to be defined.

Edmond the Hun

Entertainment: Why Can't Tom Just Cruise?

I rarely comment on celebrity gossip. It's just a bunch of actors and actresses who marry and divorce each other in circles over and over again. But in light of nothing else being in the news, except the same old stuff, of course, I have something to say about Tom Cruise.

He's starring in a movie that comes out next Wednesday that I'm really looking forward to seeing, and, of course, he won't stay out of the news in the weeks leading up to the opening of War of the Worlds.

First, there's the whole deal with Katie Holmes, whom he's marrying after only a couple months of dating, getting engaged just in time to help promote his movie. But it's his third marriage... who cares about that hollywood cycle?

Second, there's this new deal about a prankster who gave Tom a supposed microphone at an interview that actually squirted water in his face! Humorous, no? Not to Tom. He got mad, yelled, "You're a jerk!" and now apparently he's going to take action.

I think he's overreacting just a little bit. Couldn't he just laugh and say, ha ha? Nope. He has to threaten a lawsuit. I'm not chanting conspiracy or anything, but it's only too convenient that his name keeps appearing in the paper, always accompanied, of course, by the appositive "the star of the new movie War of the Worlds."

Too bad I'm not that gullible. Imagined conspiracies are so fun...

SPIELBERG: Sorry, Tom, we're short on the marketing budget for the movie. You're gonna have to do stuff to stay in the news.
CRUISE: Um... OK, Steve.
SPIELBERG: First, find a girl. Fall madly in love with her and ask her to marry you. You can do that in two months, can't you?
CRUISE: Look at my face...
SPIELBERG: Good point. But the love angle isn't enough. The media thrives on controversy. Just watch them attack Bush. So, if anyone does anything even slightly mean to you, be sure to overreact. That'll get you some good publicity.
CRUISE: All right, boss. Thanks!
SPIELBERG: See you later.

But I'll still go see this movie, overreacting actor and overeager media and all.

Edmond the Hun

Fellow Bloggers:

I would like to propose a joining of forces. I began my blog, http://edmondthehun.blogspot.com, several months ago with the intention of commenting on politics and current events, revealing the truth that the media might ignore. I am generally pleased with my blog, but my readership consists of only two loyal friends, and I feel disappointed whenever I write a post that I believe is very good, but I know virtually know one will read it.

I have heard about like-minded bloggers joining forces in order to gain a greater readership. If you share my moderately conservative views (i.e. I don't support abortion or homosexuality and know most of the media is liberal, but I'm also not afraid to criticize Bush when he deserves it) and also share a desire for a larger audience, please let me know by e-mailing me at joshedlund@msn.com.

I will be looking up and sending this message to many bloggers that were categorized as "Republican"on an Internet blog catalog. Later we can work out logistics about how the website would function, but initially I'm just trying to get an idea of who's interested.

Josh Hedlund

War on Terrorism: Handling the Prisoners

And What Makes Us the Good Guys

There has been a lot of criticism lately about the treatment of terrorist prisoners in the Middle East, who have been (in a very few but highly publicized cases) subjected to numerous forms of torment and humiliation, ranging from being deprived of sleep and bathroom privileges to being forced to listen to Christina Aguilera (heavens, no!). Many believe that interrogators have gone too far in trying to get information.

Some from the right believe that it's perfectly OK to humiliate terrorists, especially if we can elicit information that will save precious lives. Besides, they're terrorists. They don't care about the classic Geneva rules and all that honorable war junk. Basically, they argue, terrorists don't deserve to be treated humanely, because they're hardly human. Some from the left, on the other hand, don't think it's right to treat any prisoners inhumanely, and that we need to honor the rules of the Geneva convention, and they also somehow find a way to link this mistreatment as the president's fault.

So, who's correct?

When it comes to terrorists, the good guys are always at a disadvantage. Why? Because of what defines them as good guys: they treat all human life as valuable. Terrorists don't, and that's what makes them bad guys. For example, they use civilians as shields. The good guys don't do that. That's why they're the good guys. Yes, it makes things harder for them, but if they didn't do it that way, they wouldn't be the good guys.

This kind of logic carries into the treatment of prisoners. No, these terrorists don't care about human life at all. Forcing them to listen to Christian Aguilera isn't even close to being a good enough punishment for them. But that doesn't mean we can treat them as less-than-human. Because we're the good guys.

The view of the radical right is very enticing---that terrorists are nasty, evil people who can't even be called humans. But we still have to treat them correctly. If we start saying that terrorists are less than human, if we start saying that their lives have less value than other humans, then we're starting to take away the very thing that makes us the good guys. If we treat terrorists inhumanely, then we're starting to become terrorists ourselves.

Since we're the good guys, we have to treat our prisoners with respect. Even if they're terrorists. Even if it makes things harder for us. Because we're the good guys.

Edmond the Hun

War in Iraq: Democratic Deception

A secret pre-war memo has come to light, and Democrats are using it to continue their unfounded accusations against Bush. Apparently, the memo says (although I have yet to read direct quotes from the memo) Bush's administration believed that war with Iraq was inevitable and they were going to use intelligence about weapons of mass destruction to justify it.

In accusing Bush of deception, the Democrats are creating three deceptions of their own. Unfortunately, the media is swallowing it.

Deception #1: The memo is incompatible with other statements by Bush. Bush said that going to war was a last resort, but now the memo says he thought it was inevitable and they began planning it a long time ago. Ah ha! Bush must have lied to us! No, no, no. It is possible to believe something is inevitable but still try to use it as a last resort. Diplomacy had been tried --- and failed --- several times over recent years with Saddam, and Bush even dutifully tried it again, but to no avail. So, war was inevitable, AND as a last resort. No incompatibility.

Deception #2: It is a fact that there were no weapons of mass destruction. Even some extreme conservatives (such as Michael Savage) have swallowed this one. Liberals claim that now we know there were no weapons, and that Bush tricked them into war by telling them that there were. Saddam was given plenty of free time to move or hide any existing weapons, and it is a great possibility that weapons were destroyed in the great amounts of bombing that took place in the opening hours of the war (remember all the shock and awe stuff?). So how do we know for certain that there were no weapons of mass destruction? Besides, if Saddam didn't have any WMDs, why didn't he let our inspectors in?

Deception #3: Since there were no weapons of mass destruction, the war was unjustified. Even if there weren't any weapons of mass destruction, the war is still justified. I've said this many times before: the war was a matter of logistics! We told Saddam to let our weapons inspectors in, or we'd attack him. He didn't let our weapons inspectors in. So what did we do? We attacked him. If we didn't stay true to our word, then any future demands on anyone anywhere would carry no weight. Weapons had nothing to do with the real reason for going to war. We went to war because Saddam didn't comply with us.

The Democrats have skillfully combined these three deceptions as their supporting statements to prove this "fact": Bush deliberately deceived Congress to force war. As I have shown, all three of these premises are false, and it is ludicrous to think that Bush deliberately deceived anyone. Not only because of the facts, but even from a philosophical level. What motive did Bush possibly have for wanting war in Iraq? Even liberals can't provide an answer. Why? Because there is none. Bush went to war as an inevitable but last resort, because Saddam wouldn't let us see if he had weapons or not. Case closed.

The only people deceiving anyone are the Democrats. And it's getting on my nerves that people are believing them.

Edmond the Hun

Sports: New Track Record

Here's some light-hearted simple news for you until I get around to deciding if I want to write about deeper things like acquitted singers and vegetative autopsies...

The old record for the 100 meter dash was 9.78 seconds, in 2002 by Tim Montgomery.

The new record is 9.77 seconds, set Tuesday by Jamiaca's Asafa Powell.

Not really that much of a difference, except that setting a new record is always exciting, especially since Tim's record was dubious due to possible use of illegal substances. But now it doesn't matter, cuz there's an even better record.

Really, though, a one-hundredth of a second... there's so many variables that could affect that... and there's no guarantee that he'll get that same time the next time he runs, so, yeah, not really too exciting.

But, hey, it's a new record.

Edmond the Hun

Current Events: The Confederate Flag

Missouri governor Matt Blunt's decision to fly the Confederate flag to honor dead soliders has generated much controversy. There is controversy over whether the flag is a symbol of valour and honor, or whether it is a symbol of slavery and hatred, or whether it is a symbol of anything at all. There is controversy over whether it is appropriate to honor dead soldiers with the flag, or whether honoring dead soliders who supported slavery is appropriate at all.

The main question here is not whether Matt Blunt was right or wrong in deciding to fly the flag. It's not a question of what the flag stands for, or what it's perceived as standing for, or any of those complicated logistics---everyone has their own opinion and it's impossible to reach a consensus.

The real question is whether or not Blunt displayed wisdom and discretion in making this decision, and I don't think he did. It's fairly obvious that anything to do with a Confederate flag is going to generate controversy, so it might have been wiser to just avoid the whole thing altogether. On the other hand, one might argue that Blunt apparently had no problem with it, and he was showing integrity by sticking to his values and not being influenced by what other people want, as too many politicians are.

It's not a question of right and wrong, but of integrity versus discretion. I guess it would have been better not to display the flag, simply because of the controversy involved. But I can understand his point of view as well.

So, let's stop arguing about what the flag means and debating its history! It obviously means different things to different people, and going over this again and again isn't going to help anyone. If you're mad at Blunt for what he did, then tell him that you think it would have been wiser to stay away from it. But don't waste your time telling him why the flag is evil.

That's all I have to say.

Edmond the Hun

Politics: Kerry's Just Average

Remember last election when Kerry refused to release his academic records? No. Remember when the media griped and complained and went on and on about Kerry's incompetency because he wouldn't release his recrods? No, because only the first incident actually happened, which, if the media reported at all, I didn't notice. But the liberal bias of the media is nothing new...

What's new is that Kerry's records finally got out, and it turns out that he's not much smarter than Bush, who, as everyone knows, thanks to the media, only got C's in college, or more specifically, an average of 77. Granted, it was at Yale, but still, not exactly the cream of the crop.

Well, Kerry, it turns out, had an average of 76, a full point lower than Bush's! He certainly appeared more intelligent than Bush, mainly because he's blessed with better speaking abilities, but it looks like inside the head where it matters he's not any better than Bush.

As if I should even be surprised that this didn't come out before the elections...

Edmond the Hun

Letters to the Scribbler: Confederate Flag

"So, what do you think about the whole state confederate flag dealy? I think that it is dumb and they shouldn't be allowed to, but lets hear what you have to say. You normally have good opinions."

Well, thanks for that last sentence compliment, but to be honest I haven't really been following that case too much, except for reading a couple editorials, which are obviously strictly biased and factual :) but there's a whole page of reader letters about the incident in today's paper, so I'll read them all and get back to you. With my very loose knowledge of the subject, I'm probably leaning toward the nice, safe, predictable angle of, "well, it wasn't really inherently wrong, but it probably would have been wiser not to."

Edmond the Hun

Movie Review: Madagascar (4 of 5)

No theme. Extremely funny.

Is there anything else to say? The rest of this review will just expound on those four words. From a critcial reviewer's standpoint, this film is not a piece of literary greatness, and it won't win very many Academy Awards. And while there is a continuous, unfolding, inter-related storyline (unlike, say, Napoelon Dynamite), there's not really any point to it. There's no relevant moral or theme or overall statement. The ending isn't really a concluding resolution of a climax. In fact, I'm not really sure what the climax is.

That said, there are still parts of the story that are compelling and interesting. Will the animals escape to the wild? Will Alex succumb to his carnivorous instincts? Will they get along or draw lines in the sand and argue over who's on the fun side of the island? There may be no purpose to the plot, but there is definitely a plot.

However, the real purpose of the movie is one word only: funny. And funny it is. The majority of the humor is not stupid funny (a.k.a. Napoleon), or crude funny (a.k.a. Shrek), or witty funny (a.k.a. a piece of literary greatness), but *drum roll* RANDOM FUNNY, which can produce the greatest laughs of the four kinds, because it is totally unpredictable, yet is still just as entertaining the second time around.

This category does not only include random and unexpected acts and events, such as an old lady beating up the lion with her purse or the giraffe getting stuck in a box because of his unfortunate propotions. The Random Funny category also includes random and unexpected personalities, such as the Mafia penguins with their escape plots or the distinguished British monkeys that want to throw poo. Random personalities can be exploited for multiple laughs with each appearance of the characters, and Madagascar exploits it well.

In other words, Madagascar avoids overly using stupid, cheezy, lame or crude humor, and goes for the random humor that kept me laughing almost the entire time. I won't give everything away, but I will say that if you can watch lemurs dance to techno and not break out into hilarious fits of laughter, then save your money. But if you like random humor, Madagascar is totally worth it.

Edmond the Hun

Current Events: Same Old News

I haven't blogged about any late-breaking news stories in the last few days. Maybe it's because nothing's really new. Flipping through the front-page section of today's paper, we merely find rehashings of old stories with new names or numbers.

For example, fighting continues in Iraq with more deaths and explosions, with one note of logistical progress: hundreds of arrests have been made recently and there is the possibility of negotiations between the new government and the insurgents. But the media continues to spin and analyze death totals and statistics to make it look like things aren't getting better, as if it's a surprise that people die in wars.

But wait... what's that? Negotiating to end fighting? Tell that to Israel, which continues to be assaulted by the Palestinians who still want them to give away some settlements in a few months. Fortunately, the Israelites are good at defending themselves by now, as yesterday they survived a missile and seven rockets with damage but no injuries, and a few days ago they foiled several potential attacks against Israeli citizens (or, more accurately, the media reported that they foiled attacks). Unfortunately, this constant thwarting of attacks helps the Palestinian's media image, because it doesn't look like they're killing as many Israelis. It's lose-lose for Israel: either let your people die or let the Palestinians look good. But this has been going on for years.

And then of course, there's "Hillary Clinton accuses Bush of abusing power." What? You mean there's Democrats that actually don't like everything that Bush does? If you think that's new news, you really need wake up from your coma.

OK, so there was that deal about voters rejecting the European constitution, but I don't know much about that, so what's there to say? European leaders were trying to unite Europe further in an end-of-the-age-ish eeriness, and they just now realized that their citizens didn't want to lose their identity. End of story (for now).

The sad thing is there are people who really don't know these things, or care. But then, that's not news, either...

Edmond the Hun

Current Events: Sticky Stem-Cells

This Stem-cell business is not as simple as I first perceived. The wording of the bill passed by the House was that researchers could use stem-cells from fertility clinics that "would otherwise be discarded." So it's not that the bill provides for making babies, experimenting on them to find cures for diseases, and then killing the babies they don't use.

It's the fertility clinics that are already making the babies (I think they combine sperm and egg outside the womb for parents who can't have kids the, uh, normal way), and they just "discard" the ones they don't use (what a callous word for "murder"), so the researchers figure, hey, you're not using them anyway, let us use them to find cures for diseases.

From a purely practical level, this bill makes a lot of sense. Might as well put the useless babies to good use, instead of throwing them out with the trash, right? This bill by itself is not the root of the issue. The fundamental problem is the fertility clinics that want to "discard" the babies they don't need.

So, the question is not, "Shoulder we murder babies or not?" The question is, "Is it better to mess with babies that are going to die otherwise, or just let them die?" What's the lesser of two evils?

I don't know hardly anything about fertility clinics, but the root of the problem seems to be they create babies they don't have womb for, and then there's no place to put them. Let them die? Use them for research? What a bothersome, horrible situation...

Edmond the Hun

P.S. I've used the term "babies" instead of "embryoes" because it's essentially the same thing, but because our society has ascribed more worth to the former term, using it instead of the latter makes it more obvious that discarding is actually murder, a fact that everyone seems to be ignoring.