Movie Review: Saving Private Ryan

The American War Movie

Well, what can I say? Graphic? Sentimental? This is the American war movie. I don't know how anyone could top it. There is graphic violence, a motley cross section of American society, a sentimental mission and a courageous "Alamo" of a last stand using good old American ingenuity.

We all know the plot, we all know the story, hell, we've all seen it five times. The problem is, this is a franchise. We saw this movie when we watched The Guns of Navarone, The Devil's Brigade, and others. The opening scenes are epic, but unlike A Bridge too Far, the movie is not epic. It turns the minor - a side show of a side show into an epic. Classic Hollywood!

The characters are none too heroic, they are just doing their job. In fact some are completely un-heroic. Of course, they come from all over the USA and they all long for the life back home.

The film turns into a giant allegory. The small platoon is out to risk their lives so that some other might live. It is a great sacrifice, and the band of brothers would not be doing it if the cause wasn't so great. Of course they are reluctant, but in the end they see the nobility of the cause.

One cannot escape the graphic opening scenes. They are so graphic that they are unreal. A friend of mine, who landed at Juno Beach, told me that he laughed at the opening scene. He said "bullets don't make a mess like that, they go through you, make holes and you fall down." These protests aside, the sense of violence, destruction and chaos is unequalled.

Putting this all together, it doesn't say too much about war that is not tivial or the self-congratulations of a Johnny come lately. Violence and noble sacrifice are very important parts of war. Saving Private Ryan just reinforces the obvious to such an undeniable extent.

Well filmed, good acting, and half decent characters. Not bad. The best of one genre of a genre.

On the official Chris' Choice scale Saving Private Ryan gets four stara.

****

Movie Review: Das Boot

The German War Movie

Ouch! Why would you even bother with war after seeing this one.

The characters aren't so important. The life, the excitement and the action are what's important. The fact that this is a Nazi submarine that we are being shown is not important. Very little mention of politics enters into this film. For a German film, I guess that is to be understood, and its good for our purposes as well. There are other wars than the Second World War.

>> I'm just going to spoil this one!

Of course, I don't really know much about German war movies. I've only seen one other. Unlike other war movies this sub is out for adventures and for glory. The martial -teutonic - virtues seem alive and well, and they deserve them. Ahh, but we forget that life is a tale told by an idiot. The message is: why bother? The things we value get destroyed.

Das Boot tells us that war is cruel and unjust, it destroys the things we love. How can anyone argue with this. Coming from the Germans who ought to know. This is undeniable. The crew and the ship go through so much together. They suffer, find salvation and survive together, only to be kicked in the groin.

The visuals are spectacular. You feel as though you are on the sub. The sea is a truly awesome force, and you feel its strength, its infiniteness and its brutality. For the visual experience alone this is a film worth seeing. If you like submarine movies this one is the mother of them all. U-571, Crimson Tied, The Hunt For Red October are all judged in comparison with this one. But this is a war movie. I will judge it as such.

As a war movie, it is cannot transcend the German perspective. Not all wars are as futile as this one was for this particular sub-crew. This was a stunning movie, but still it doesn't say it all.

On the official Chris' Choice scale Das Boot gets four stars.

****

Movie Review: Regeneration

The English War Movie

This is not the kind of war movie people are used to, however, it does its job better than any other movie I have seen. It doesn't take place during the Second World War, but the first.

The movie is set in Scotland in, like so many modern films, hospital. This is not just any hospital, but one for shell-shocked British officers. There are three principal characters, all of whom are real historical figures. The doctor, Rivers and two poets Sassoon and Owen form heart of this film. Sassoon is a gallant officer. He's brave and cares deeply about his men. He cares so much that he has taken to protesting the war. As a result Horse Guard's has declared him shell shocked and in need of treatment. Owen is quintessential sensitive poet. Rivers is a caring and hard working physician who wants to see his patients actually recover.

Rivers must treat Sassoon, and this forms the central action of the film. Of course, Sassoon is not shell shocked. So we think anyway. Rivers can't stand it, there are others in the hospital who are actually suffering, but he holds back his feelings. Sassoon is completely contemptuous of his situation and those trying to silence him. Like all movies set in hospitals like this the question of who's crazy is central.

The war is not seen so much as it is remembered. The world has been turned inside out. Everything is backwards. Nothing is as it should be and this is all the fault of the war. War is the driving force of the movie. It is all that can be talked about and for the poets its all that they can really write about.

The war is driving Rivers to shell shock, and he has never been shot at. War, not love is the source for the greatest poetry. Sassoon may actually be shell shocked. Officer's are commanding young children. The most effective healing is done outside the hospital. Doctors torturing patients.

The power of war is evident throughout the film. It doesn't just blow things up. It kills souls. You don't even have to be at the front to be killed.

The violence in this film is psychic, and what could be more disturbing than that? The film is not devoid of hope. The name is after all Regeneration. The characters overcome, but once they overcome, their fate is to return to the war. So enters Futility.

Heroism is also evident. The strength of character of each patient, and Rivers is apparent. But these men are officers, and leaders ultimately their willingness to heal themselves is also a willingness to return once more into the breach, for dear friends. They are moved by concern for others, for their troops. There is an honour amongst these men.

This movie has it all, and it is all done with gently with words, characters and plot. There is no need for the obvious. War is violent enough. The violence is belittled if it only seen to be a physical violence. In Regeneration the physical violence mnifests itself psychically in the patients, in the language of the poets and aesthetically in the reversals. In the end life regenerates and the human spirit triumphs.

The film is on all accounts excellent. Though characters and plot are central it is beautifully filmed. A superlative film!

On the official Chris' Choice scale Regeneration gets five stars.

*****

Movie Review: K-Pax

Good movie. This joins the ranks of other great movies set in mental institutes. For some reason movies about crazies work well these days. Perhaps because, as one English prof used to say, nobody is quite sure "who's crazy." That's just about the jist of it. Spacey, again, proves himself an excellent actor. Though, I am not sure he has yet transcended Hollywood. (one of my beefs is that Hollywood actors play themselves and not their characters. Contrast Peter Sellers, the perfect example of non-Hollywood acting, and Mel Gibson, the Hollywood actor)

In any event, a very good film there is a lot of emphasis on light and things are nice visually, but the great achievement is characters and character development. The film wants you to believe that Spacey is an alien, and the crazies really start believing him. Then, so do a bunch of rocket scientists. The idea is that you must take a leap of faith and admit like medieval church Credo quia absurdum est. (I believe because it is irrational). It may defy explanation or the way we see the world, but it would truly be the best way to explain things. This goes against so much of the things the modern world holds to be so. And if you are truly a modern, there is an easy explanation for you. The romantics, those who leave room for doubt, or those who have faith in the point of view and decency of others, in short, - the crazies - have a harder time. Maybe I'm saying that because I'm either sympathetic with or a crazy myself. The lever in the plot is Jeff Bridges - the shrink. He is the one that must be convinced that Spacey is from the planet K-Pax.

The ending is good. It leaves open the question of who's crazy. I like it. Nicely filmed, good story and great characters. Not that original though.

On the official Chris' Choice scale K-PAX gets three stars.

***

Movie Review: Unbreakable

Unwatchable!! Don't watch this movie! From watching ads and trailers for this one you would not know that it is about comic books, but it is. Actually its about a psychotic comic book collector and Bruce Willis who survives a train wreck, in fact it turns out that Bruce has never been hurt. The comic book collector connects comic books, Bruce, and the fact that Bruce has never been hurt. Guess what the conclusion is. In fact, you can guess a lot about this movie. But don't worry, don't watch it. It's not worth it. The movie haad potential, but squandered it with a laborious pace and complete predictability. There are some neat scenes that are like comic book tableaus. It takes a great deal of skill to bring comics to the big screen. Go rent The Phantom if you want to see comics done right.

On the official Chris' Choice scale Unbreakable gets one star.

*

Movie Review: Pi

PI
(3.14...)

This is a good, but puzzling movie. Basically this math genius locks himself in his apartment with a whole whack of computer equipment and tries to solve the chaos around him. He keeps telling us his premises so that we believe that he is still rational. They are the premises of chaos theory:

(1) that mathematics is the language of the universe,
(2) nature can be expressed in numbers, and
(3) there are patterns everywhere in nature.

Visually, the film is a study in chaos theory, with almost still shots of nature and its recurring patterns, then the dynamics of coffee and cream. Moreover, there is a certain recurrence and self-similar quality to the whole film and its downward spiral. The film moves from genius to madness. The old sage character in the film, the stars old math professor reminds the star that there is a fine line to drawn between mathematics and numerology. It is never clear just where that line is drawn. Two forces are out to pull the genius from the true path. Some religious fundamentalists are looking for numbers and patterns in sacred texts, while a wall street firm is trying to get a hold of any discoveries in order to turn a serious profit.

Pi is a good movie, but will leave you puzzled about just what the hell is going on, and leave you asking "what is this all about?" Good question, and maybe that's the point. It is a good movie, and says a lot visually, perhaps too much.

On the official Chris' Choice scale Pi, gets three stars.

***

Movie Review: American Psycho

American Psycho

Yikes! A truly chilling movie about the narcissists around us! But it is also sickeningly funny. There is a perverse sense of depraved irony that floats, like everything in this movie, on the surface. The movie is all about the surface, of skin, business cards, credit cards etc.

The yuppies that populate this movie are so obsessed with themselves and their status that they are all at some level nuts. The real nutcase - Bateman goes around killing people in an orgy (literally in some cases) of self indulgence and vain glory. Whenever he is forced to recognize someone as a person, as in some way like him he feels the need to kill that other person. There is a twisted way that this is related to business. At a night club he says "murders and executions" instead of mergers and acquisitions.

Gloriously twisted, this film does well on all accounts.

On the official Chris' Choice scale American Psycho gets four stars.

****

Scotch: Glendronach: 15 yr Sherry

There are some thing out there that just don't seem to fit into moulds. I don't know, maybe some things refuse to follow the laws of nature, but it just seems as though ALL Scotch is good. According to our scale, some scotch, statistically speaking, really should be bad! I just have not found any! I know that it is out there, and I guess that I'll just have to keep buying more scotch so that I can satisfy the natural distribution upon which the official Chris' Choice scale is based. I guess you could call this a statistical duty!

So, on to the task at hand! What a pleasant task it is! The Glendronach is not just another great Scotch! The extra years make this one very smooth. Really, the first thing you notice about this one is the colour. It is a dark red gold - very distinct. The aromas are fruity, citrus, maybe even of oranges. The taste is smoky, nutty, very much like Bristol Cream sherry. There is a light peat (as the box said there would). Sherry, however is present all over this malt. Too much sherry could be its only fault! But I like sherry! Once you move past the sherry there are hidden tastes of spices, coffee and toffee! And it is so smooth! What a special scotch. This one is a must have! It will occupy a pride of place among my other Scotches!!



Stats:

Name:The Glendronach 100% Matured in Sherry Casks
Region: Highland (Aberdeen)
Aged: 15 Years
Alcohol: 40%

Rating:

On the official Chris' Choice rating scale, The Glendronach 15 Year Old rates a:

+3

Scotch: Chivas Regal 12 yr Blend

Well, here is another blend. Not so bad really. First some things must be said:

1. I stand by my previous statements about blends and single malts
2. I will not rate blends. There simply are not enough blends out there to make the whole project meaningful.
3. Also, all blends are pretty good. Presumably they were blended this way or that way for a reason.
4. If the blend really stinks I'll let you know. It's possible, but chances are it would never make it into my glass.

On to the Chivas. This is a well known blend that has been around for quite some time.

Aromas of heather butter and a bit of wood. Being from Strathisla the flavour of peat and smoke are present. Flavours of coffee can also be found. The scotch is light and unassuming. Like all decent blends its smooth and well balanced.

If you prefer your Single Malt Scotches to be like Laphroaig then this one should be in your decanter. Otherwise, it's a nice smooth whisky that goes down well - a good blend. Again, the peat and smoke flavours distinguish it from other blends.

Stats:

Name:Chivas Regal
Region: Speyside (Keith Strathisla)
Aged: 12 Years
Alcohol: 40%

Movie Review: Serendipity

Serendipity

Well that sucked! Yawn! Groan... Hey Christa - guess what's gonna happen next!

Those are just some of the things that you might have heard had you been in the same theater as Christa and I. First of all, I did not choose this movie! It is not my fault! I am just warning others here.

Maybe I should put a spoiler warning here. The movie is about fate, destiny, whatever you want to call it (crap?) So, it's about fate, and love. Well, guess what happens? The whole damn movie is on auto pilot. And not a very good auto pilot at that! Really, I don't know if I should go on. I like John Cusack, he's done well in the movies I have seen with him.

I might suggest that this is a good movie to see with a girl, but its not even that. Really, I think this point is more important than any review of the plot. The girls I have spoken to really like this film, they thought it was great. Heck, Cranky Critic gave it his highest possible rating! Astonishing! For some reason some people think that is romantic and nice to believe that some cosmic force is out there, bringing people together. This is not appealing, hell, its dangerous. Guys, listen to me, if you go see this movie with a girl read this review! Fate, soulmate, Mr Right, all that crap can only lead to doubt and second guessing in a REAL relationship. Does anyone know with any certainty the mind of God? In philosophy we talk about epistemic responsibility. What kind of criteria is there to know that fate has brought you together?? This kind of attitude can only lead to doubt and questioning and the kind of sad heart breaking stories that the two other people in this movie would have told if we were not so fixated on the two main characters. Really, the question is for the people who find this fate crap appealing: do you really want to be chosen by some impersonal force? Would you not rather be chosen because some person you care for has decided for a multitude of special reasons that you are the person they want to spend the rest of their life with? Ultimately, it means that the persons making the decision are the ones responsible for that decision. Here, there can be no doubt who is accountable to whom. The persons making the decisions, though more fallible than fate know the reasons for the decision, and know that they are also responsible for the outcome and maintenance of the venture they have jointly undertaken.

I have said too much really. This is a bad movie and I have better things to do than go over it in any more detail. If you want a good summary of the film go see Ebert. He is a smart guy and has written a good review. He is getting paid, I am not. I'll leave the boring job of going over this movie to him. So now all that remains is giving it a a rating.

Really, it is not ALL BAD. It does seem to have been a higher budget movie. So in that respect it has a redeeming feature. In these slower economic times it might help stimulate the economy and help some of my investments. Further some smart guy might read my review and be able to score some points with a girl. Who know my friend Spanky might end his dry spell thanks to me. Well, that might be pushing it

On the official Chris' Choice scale Serendipity gets one star.

*

Scotch: Scapa Single Orkney Malt Scotch

This is a tasty Scotch!! But, before we get down to business some background is required. This Scotch comes from Scapa Flow in the Orkney Islands, the most northerly region of Scotland. My Scotch book tells me that the Scapa distillery shut down in 1993, but there seems to be some discrepancies. Anyway, I've got a bottle. From the box, bottle, and shelf at the BC liquor store, I find it hard to believe that this is some kind of independent bottling. Maybe I just misunderstood the Scotch book, but this seems to be a readily available Whisky.

This scotch is a dark yellow gold. It smells of honey and sweet salt sea air. It has a smooth body, and tastes of honey, oak and heather. There is a definite sweetness to this scotch. The finish is warm and comforting.

I don't know what to do with this Scotch. It can be, at once, sweet and refreshing and warming. It certainly does not have that tough earthen flavour of Laphroaig. It is definitely a drinking Scotch and versatile enough to be both refreshing and comforting for either warm or cold nights.

This is an excellent, tasty Scotch!!

Stats:

Name:Scapa
Region: Orkney Island
Aged: 12 Years
Alcohol: 40%

Rating:

On the official Chris' Choice rating scale, Scapa 12 yr Old Single Orkney Malt rates a:

+2

Movie Review: 15 Minutes

On the advice of Mr T.J. Button, Esq I have discovered an excellent film. I certainly would not have picked out this movie if it wasn't for his recommendation. After watching 3000 Miles from Graceland on Tim's advice (a one star movie and not worth the expenditure of my reviewing energy) he has redeemed himself.

The story concerns two East-European men who come to America to pick up some money. They end up with a video camera and going on a bit of a crime spree of murder and arson. Enter one celebrity NYPD detective and a fire department arson investigator (a fireman with a gun). Both have something to prove. Enter the news media and in particular a tabloid news program that likes reality TV and has a relationship with the cop.

Our two criminals have been saturated by American talk shows and tabloid news programs. They believe that they can get away with their crime spree by insanity. I don't really want to get into much detail of the plot. Suffice to say that these criminals are at once insane and completely rational. This is the beauty of the film. The premises on which the criminals reason is based are so faulty that they appear insane. Unfortunately, you cannot really blame these two guys. The talk shows and trash journalism that make up their idea of America, was given to them by Americans. It is difficult to fault them for having the twisted view that they have.

On the other side of the coin are the cops. Like all copps and robbers movies, one cop is a hardened veteran the other is naive and idealistic. Unlike all of the other movies of this ilk, 15 Minutes does not look at good cop, bad cop with respect to procedure. The veteran is a veteran television star. He knows how to do things right in front of a camera. The naive idealist doesn't think that such things are important. This whole aspect is just as interesting as the criminal side. Both sides are insightful, well done.

The movie sticks to the genre of action detective films. It does not really on irony or satire to make its point like Wag the Dog or Bob Roberts. Don't get me wrong the whole movie is ironic, but this is not a comedy. It is an action movie. There are some minor problems with the film. The fresh approach and unique vision of the film well make up for these small problems. This is a very good movie.

On the official Chris' Choice scale 15 Minutes gets four stars.

****

Movie Review: Artificial Intelligence

Artificial Intelligence

Real Hollywood

Well, it's Tuesday so I went to see a half price movie. There has been a bit of talk on the newspaper about Artificial Intelligence, the new Steve Spielberg flick, so Christa and I went to see what it was all about. The comments that I had read were concerning the movie's suitability for young children.

I can't really say what my thoughts were going into see the movie, but the combination of Spielberg, some sort of collaboration with Kubrick and warnings about unsuitability for children sort of make me think they weren't that bad. Anyway, the film starts off interestingly enough. It begins in a futuristic classroom like setting, where what the movie's framework seems to be set up. A bunch of engineers come up with a plan to make a robot child that is capable of loving. They imply that this has never been done before and will represent a new and possibly revolutionary development. In other words words this will be the most intelligent form of artificial intelligence, one that capable of emotional learning and personality development. They treat the question like any bunch of engineers. The problem is to program emotional love which becomes a technical question. One young lady in the classroom asks an interesting question, but in the end it is a marketing question. And so the engineers go off and solve the problem of making a robot love.

The first act of the movie is quite interesting and we are taken with what seems to be the central theme in the movie. The robot, David, is created and given to a couple who's real son has a terminal illness and has been cryogenically frozen and will remain frozen until he can be cured. Some emotional scenes follow where the human family struggles with whether they can accept David. Soon the real son is miraculously cured and the real son competes with David for the Mother's affection. We are occupied with the idea that if it is possible to create an object that loves us what if anything do we owe to that object. This idea is, however abandoned quickly. The answer is apparent. Though one might become strongly attached to David, when the real son is threatened David is tossed. David filled a need, but is only seen instrumentally as something capable of loving when you need to be loved.

In the second act we hit some really interesting stuff. David, who has been abandoned, tries to become 'real.' That is, he wants to be a real son in order to gain the love of the lady who was his mother, who he was programmed to love. During this act we are asked: what would make David real, something we would consider a person? Throughout, David is drawn by his love for 'his mother' and the belief that the Pinnochio fairy tale is real. So, he searches for a blue fairy to make him real. In typical American style David wanders. He meets some memorable characters and moves off to a dangerous frontier. Oddly enough he heads east, to Manhattan, a ghost town that was flooded when the ice caps melted. In Manhattan David was supposed to be turned into a real boy.

I will not spoil how the ending turns out, it is enough to say that it will spoil itself. It is a typically Hollywood ending. The possibilities questions that the movie starts with never realize themselves. Instead, what begins as a movie that seems to ask hard and interesting questions turns into a teary, emotional, made for Oprah mother - son moment. Even that wouldn't be so bad had the second, and central theme been realized. There is a moment, the climax, when we see a Hegelian/Hobian consciousness dialectic emerging. Unfortunately, it does not realize and David remains a slave to his programing. The third act is really pointless.

Maybe I missed something. Maybe I simply don't buy into the idea that emotional love equals humanity, that love is our one defining trait. I thought self-consciousness had at least something to do with it.

This movie, however had beautiful and haunting images and all that technical stuff, but the story failed. The max this movie can get is 49%. Therefore it gets

2 1/3 stars. ERRATUM

Using the scale recently developed with Mr J.J.E. Imber, Esq this Movie gets: ** (2 Stars)

Blends and Single Malts

Blends and Singles

After singing the praises of blended Scotch, I don't want to seem biased or overly stuck in my ways. So, the other day I picked up a bottle of Single Malt. I had heard that Scotch aged in sherry oak casks was something to try, so I tried it.

First, we should talk about the Single Malt experience. It is very much a different experience than drinking blended whisky. First of all, let's get one thing straight, you cannot compare blends to singles. I won't say that it's like comparing apples and oranges, really, its more like comparing a night out with the boys and a night out with one of the boys. You like going out with the gang because their is a certain comfort and familiarity, but when you and a buddy go out there is a certain connection - a unique experience that cannot exist when you are out with the gang. The difference between singles and blends is comparable, in my humble opinion.

The Single Malt

The Single Malt has that unique edge to it. It has personality and qualities that you don't see everyday. You probably don't want to drink Single Malt everyday. As far as I'm concerned, the great strength of a blend is that you can drink it everyday. It is a something that you won't get tired of, it's something you can rely on. A Single Malt, however, has to fit the occasion. You can't put it in the decanter, like you can a blend, no, the individuality of a Single Malt is ruined if it leaves the bottle. Single Malts must be kept distinct, in their bottles, as part of a collection. The true Single Malt lover keeps the tube or cylinder that the bottle comes in.

Single Malts, by definition are at least three years old, forty per cent alcohol, from malted barley, aged in oak and distilled in a pot still. Most importantly they must have been produced from one single distillery. Naturally there are many varieties of Single Malts out there. The peculiarities of the region, land, water and distillery all help to fashion the unique taste of each malt. Hopefully, as my collection expands, you will see many of the Single Malt varieties reviewed here.

It is hard to know just how the reviews will go. There are many fine Whiskys out there and many of the characteristics are unique and special making it hard to judge deficiencies and qualities. Further, Single Malts are harder to sample than wines. In order to sample the singles you have to buy relatively expensive bottles of Scotch, and I'm cheap! Nonetheless, in the interest of saving you from the scourge of poor taste, I am determined to let the world know what is good and what is bad so that you don't have to find out on your own. I will rate and I will judge so that you will know what is Chris' Choice.

Scotch: Glenmorangie Sherry Wood Finish

So, this is what I think of Glenmorangie Sherry Wood Finish:

When you get a hold of the aromas of this scotch you are sent back to those carefree meadows of your childhood, where the sun is shining, the flowers are out and the woods are not to far away. The sweet grassy aromas are balanced nicely by floral and wood-nut scents. A delightful nose leads to a creamy mellow, but strong mouth. The flavours are strong and nutty with a bit of oil. The aftertaste lingers for some time. This is a 'classy' drink. The dark colour and lingering flavour will no doubt help you fool someone into thinking you have taste. So long as you follow my advice and drink this whisky you won't need taste, you'll have me to guide you!!

Stats:

Name:Glenmorangie Sherry Wood Finish
Pronounced: Glen m-orange-ee (sounds like the fruit orange)
Region: Northern Highland
Age: Not indicated on the bottle or tube, but is part of the line of 12 year old Glenmorangie products
Alcohol: 43%

Website: www.glenmorangie.com

Rating:

On the official Chris' Choice rating scale, Glenmorangie Sherry Wood Finish rates a:

+2

Movie Review: Requiem for a Dream

Another disturbing movie about drugs. Look folks, I don't get drugs and I don't normally get movies about them. But, I liked this movie, though it could have been better.

The movie follows two parallel plots, with parallel tragedies. The similarities are a matter of form. Plot A deals with an elderly lady whose husband, I presume, is dead. She lives alone and ritualistically drags a lawnchair out to sit on the sidewalk with a gang of other old ladies. Her son, the main character in Plot B, is a junky although she loves him dearly. The majority of her life is spent in front of the tele. She watches an annoying game show. Then one day she is selected to attend the game show. She is filled with ideals and visions, all of the sudden she is the most popular lady in her group and she wants to wear her favourite red dress. Of course, she can no longer fit into her red dress. She goes on a diet, then unsatisfied by the diet she visits a little man in a white coat. And the descent begins.

Plot B is about the son, who we know from the onset is a junky. His life is spent pawning his mothers television for drugs. His mother then, without fail, buys back the television and the ritual continues. The son and his friend 'Tyrone' get the idea that they could start selling the junk in order to fund their habit. They are quite successful, so successful that the son buys mom a big screen tele. The third character in this plot is perhaps the most tragic. The son's girlfriend, a junky from a well off family, seems to really love the son. The two of them plot of one day running a business. They want to sell the clothes the girlfriend designs and will make. All seems to be going well. Then, all of the sudden, the supply runs dry. And the descent begins.

What is remarkable about this movie is the movement and the photography. The whole movie moves according to the seasons. Summer, described above, is full of dreams and possibility. Fall begins the descent to winter. This, of course, is not all that thrilling. Beneath the macro movement of the seasons is the micro movement of the characters. Both plots go round and round in parallel in the search for the next fix. Each sequence begins with a disturbing set of close up pictures of drug-doing.

What really got me, was the lingering of the dream and the haunting images that capture the idea of the dream. The movie has pictures of great beauty made more beautiful by the images of great horror that capture the descent and ultimately the underworld that the characters descend to.

I have to comment on the characters themselves. They were, for a movie about drugs, quite human. It was their dreams and aspirations that made them so. The drugs were what made them subhuman. The constant reminder of the dreams helped to keep us aware that these were people and maintains the sympathy needed for us to keep watching the movie through the horrible winter season.

This is not a meditation on a theme, or the exploration of an idea. Requiem for a Dream really is a requiem. It is a tragedy in the grand sense. It sings out to the soul of the lost dreams and ideals that have died because of human stupidity. There is a certain gruesome naturalism that tries to tell the dreams to rest in peace, to forgive these humans, they know not what they do. The movement of nature only reinforces this idea.

Requiem for a Dream cannot really be a tragedy in the grand sense, I lied. Don't get me wrong it is tragic and tries to be a tragedy. The problem is that there cannot be a character like Antigone, Oedipus or Hamlet. The junkies are not being tossed around by nature. My conservative right wing sensibilities tell me that doing drugs is a choice. Drugs is not a part of the tragic nature of man. It is part of the stupid nature of some stupid people. My idealism tells me that some people can reach their dreams, in fact that many people can - even people that have done drugs. Dreams in this movie make junkies human, it is the junk that stops the junkies from being human. Sub-humans, to carry on the metaphor, cannot be the subject of proper tragedy. Tragedy must appeal to our universal human nature. Look to the Greeks or to Shakespeare for tragedy, not Hollywood.

This is a good movie, but I am bound by my rating scale. The movie passes, but the film suffers from the deficiency that I've just mentioned. The movement and photography ought to give this film four stars, but I cannot in could conscience ignore the official Chris' Choice scale. Requiem for a Dream has surpassed my expectations of a movie about drugs, but it has problems. It does not meet my expectations of a tragedy. The problems weaken the pass,

On the official Chris' Choice scale Requiem for a Dream gets two stars.

**

Movie Review: Magnolia

Huh?!?

I saw this movie a long time ago. I've made a lot of judgments about it and commented on it ad hoc for some time. The other day I put it on and really tried to figure it out.

Most movie reviews that I have read try to give a summary of the plot and characters. In the case of Magnolia I do not think that this is appropriate. This is a very different movie. Really, it is quite smart in some ways. The elaborate interconnections set out in the preface tell us that there is an elaborate force that brings people together. The plot and characters in the movie are not immune from the cosmic interconnection. Any real elaboration of the plot would ruin the fun of trying to figure out just what the heck is going on.

Really, Magnolia is all about trying to figure out what the hell is going on, it is what makes it a fun movie. It also makes writing a review quite difficult. There is so many complicated things going on, and it tries to appear as a deep film that anyone commenting on the movie does not want to appear to be an idiot. Everyone says, "I loved it, what a great film" but my hunch is those people do not want to look foolish.

There are some really cool things that really got me going. For instance, there is a scene reminiscent of the end of 2001: A Space Odyssey where Earl Partridge (the dying old man) is lying in bed, then the theme from 2001 starts up (Thus Spake Zarathrustra) and the scene changes to Frank T.J. Mackie (Tom Cruise the sex therapist) and one of his speeches about inner strength and dominating what is around you, linking the 2001 theme to the meaning of the original song as an interpretation of Nietzche's poem about the 'superman'. I thought that was cool. Things of this nature help to get us to believe that this is a deep and meaningful film.

The characters are all in some sort of crisis. The narrator tells us "things don't just happen" and "this is not just a coincidence." Some of the characters speak in verse. There is a young kid who says that he will tell us what it all means. He tells us in rap. The old quiz kid (Donnie) tells us that "it is ok to confuse children with angels." Of course the children in the film end up appearing to be more wise than all of the adults. Of course, since everything is connected, the speeches of the children are of cosmic significance. The children probably are angels.

OK, the whole thing is terribly confusing. There are a few things that one ought to know and will help to make sense of the movie.

• The music is very important
• The children ARE smarter than the adults and are keys to unlocking the plot - they are angels
• The weather forecasts are messages from God
• The cocaine addict is the main character.

>> SPOILER WARNING

So Chris, what does it all mean? Maybe I'm too stupid to understand the whole thing, but there is no deep meaning in the traditional sense. The movie does not ask any questions like other movies (see my review of The Virgin Suicides). It does not explain some fact of life. Instead, the movie is insulting. Magnolia is a polemic. It tells us what to do. "But if you refuse to let them go. Behold, I will smite all your territory with frogs." (Exodus 8:2) The movie is about the past and its hold on our consciousness. Just about every character in the film says "we may be through with the past, but the past aint through with us."

The movie isn't reflecting about forgiveness as the cop would have us believe. He says "sometimes people need to be forgiven, sometimes people need to go to jail." The movie says: you must forgive lest you be plagued by bad things! My objection is that a movie should reflect and ask questions. They ought to be reflective. Although it was fun to try and sort out everything that goes on, to figure out the the intersections and complications the movie is unsatisfactory. There is a deep paternalism, a warning about forgiveness from someone who is supposed to know more than us. The movie makes you dig and forces you to sift through a lot unnecessary complications. It tricks you into thinking you are smart and that the movie is deep. It is not deep. It is simple pedantic moralizing with flashy marketing. This is not new. This is not innovation. It is insulting. I don't go to the movies for a lecture. I can think on my own thank you very much.

<< END SPOILER

This movie gets two stars on the official Chris' Choice rating scale.

**

Movie Review: Sunshine

Sunshine
Maybe a Little Cloudy

I'm not a big fan of movie reviews that get into all the details of the cast, production crew and those sorts of things. As a result, you won't see me dropping many names in any of my reviews. Incidentally, I've never studied film and do not intend to.

So, what about this Sunshine movie? Well it certainly is a long movie. It lasts about 3 hours. It is not an action movie. For these reasons alone it is doomed to be ignored by mainstream movie goers and people in or just out of high school who scream like chimpanzees to simply be 'entertained' (these are the people who have seen both Scary Movies and demand a third). This movie is not about entertainment per se. Sunshine has epic aspirations.

The epic hero Odysseus is exchanged for a family, the Sunshine family (it is pronounced differently, but I won't try to spell it). Our hero does not wander about the Agean trying to find home, but wanders through time.

Basically, the Sunshine family gets established in Budapest during the 1840s and we follow the lives of three generations of the Sunshine men. Incidentally all of the three men are played by Ralph Fiennes. They struggle to find their place in society.. None of them are content to accept the traditional Jewish role of the outsider. The first becomes a highly educated and very successful judge in the Austro-Hungarian Empire. In order to do so, he must change his name from Sunshine (which using the proper pronunciation does not sound Hungarian) to Sors.

The real action begins at midnight at the dawn of the 20th Century. Everything before this is setup. The story of Sunshine is the story of the last century. The century's tragedy is the tragedy of sunshine. The first Sors is a strong supporter of the liberal/nationalist Emperor. He is heartbroken that the First World War is over. He wanted to win. His marriage to his sister/first cousin (another story) fails at the same time as the war. At this point a cycle begins. Revolution and regime come and go.

The story is not hard to follow. Generation after generation of the Sunshine family get caught up in each regime and swept away in ideology. There are communists, nationalists, Stalinists, and revolutionaries. The constant backdrop is the last century. A Sunshine goes to the 1936 Olympic Games in Berlin as the Hungarian Fencing Champ. The Second World War sees the Sunshine (recent Catholics) hoping for exemption from the Jewish Laws. The hope was in vain and a Sunshine is lost in the Holocaust. Communism liberates Hungary at the end of the war. Their are reprisals. Then Stalin dies and the purges come. Then Hungary revolts against communism. Then the Soviets crush the revolution. And so it goes.

The Sunshine family tries to fit in. They change their name, abandon their faith finally they lose their history. The three generations of Sunshine are linked together by Valerie. The first cousin of the Judge who was raised as his sister. They marry against their parents wishes. She is perhaps the most enigmatic of all the characters. It is said that she is the only Sunshine that was ever able to breath freely. That is what the movie is all about. Being able to breath freely. Being able to be yourself.

The movie achieves its goal and it is a fascinating movie to watch. The period pieces are done with incredible beauty. Thematically you feel as though you are being pulled into a whirlpool as the century progresses. Round and round you go from regime to regime, and from generation to generation the same mistakes are made and the same fate awaits.

BEGIN SPOILER WARNING >>

My problem with the movie was personal. I didn't like the thematic substance. It belittles politics by portraying it all as extremist and flawed. It does this quite well. I won't hold this against the film. As far as I'm concerned, a movie should be reviewed and judged on form not substance. Anyway, when one of the Sunshines is dying (the judge's brother, and a communist) asks Valerie "what was the purpose of this wretched life?" to which she responds "life itself, we were happy once." To me, this is unsatisfactory. To others this is revolutionary. It is a bury your head in the sand mentality. And, of course, this is what Valerie does. She is content to survive. None of the critics I know have pointed this out. Valerie survives the liquidation of the Budapest ghetto. The many loves of her life have died. She has betrayed some of them. Her husband/brother/cousin who she convinces to love her ends up doing just that. Valerie cheats on him, we find out near the end, but when divorcing him she uses the argument he gave at the beginning. It is her joy, that is important to her. She does things with good reason. In the context of the movie her reasons are justified and act as a foil to contrast the ambition and obsessions of the men. She is content to love and be loved, and failing that she is content with the memories of joy and happiness. To me, the Sunshine men have a much more noble goal even if their goals are flawed. At some level they all seek to secure a place for joy and happiness to exist. Valerie's virtue is she can find some joy despite the misery around her. Fine, but does that make her life a paragon for others? The film does not deal with my problems, and that's fine. What the film does show it that Valerie is content having been happy and trying to photograph life (find good things in life without changing it). She preserves the times when things were beautiful and happy. She wants to go on trying to sing her way through life. And she does. The last male Sunshine finally accepts his grandmother's philosophy and tries to find himself. His redemption is not complete, but then time has not stopped. It is a good ending to a good movie. It is his acceptance of his grandmother's creed that legitimizes the creed. As a virtue of the survivor Valerie's ideals have value, but beyond the ordinary life they are problematic. They are the virtues of acquiescence and subjectivism. Assuming we are meant to be disgusted with the men and their regimes then we are left with Valerie. Hopefully the last Sunshine will be able to come up with some 'golden mean' between the two. It, however seems unlikely.

<<>

It is not a revolutionary movie. The Red Violin is better at using time as a setting and throwing away the focus on single character Heroes Technically the photography seems to be well beyond the average. It is very well acted and the plot and themes are well developed.

On the official Chris' Choice scale Sunshine gets four stars.

****

Movie Review: The Virgin Suicides

The Virgin Suicides

Who is this about?

I guess that is really the question. Who, or even better what is this movie about? You would expect this movie to be about the girls, the virgins. In a way it is, but only in a superficial way. I don't really know, but I think that this movie can be seen as a female version of Fight Club. That is, where Fight Club wanted to show men dealing with anger, disillusionment and violence, The Virgin Suicides wants to show young girls dealing with pain, disillusionment and love. I thought that, and maybe its true at some level, but I think that misses the point.

The difficulty that I think some people might have with this movie is the "Thin Red Line/Private Ryan" problem (send me an e-mail and I'll explain the problem explicitly). Though this movie has a narrator, and the time settings are not difficult to follow this movie is not a narrative, but an allegory. THIS IS A MOVIE ABOUT SEX and how we kill our own ideals and our own innocence.

The question you ought to ask yourself is not "why did they kill themselves?" but "what has changed now that they are dead?" Maybe I missed something, but I don't think you will find a satisfactory answer to the first question. And, sorry ladies, but if you look for an answer to the second question the most important characters are no longer the troubled teenaged girls who write bad poetry, but the seemingly one dimensional boys. Oh, and the girls' parents - not important. They are just as annoying as any set of parents might seem to any set of teenagers.

In order to understand this movie you have to understand the proper characters - who they are and what they represent. The movie is a reflection about a sexual ideal (the girls) in an Eden (suburbia). To begin with there is no knowledge (experience) only a perfect idea (the girls). The story is about original sin, about getting forbidden knowledge and finding out that it might not be what we thought. Again, why these girls killed themselves is not important, only that they did. If this was a movie about characters, properly speaking, it would fail miserably. The girls don't really develop, the older one does a bit. The boys are inarticulate and abscessed. And, abscessed people don't change. In the context of an allegory these are important points, and do not detract but enhance the power of the film.

This is a good movie. I like it because it appears to be trendy, but I don't think a lot of people will get it. They will leave asking the wrong questions, questions that ultimately are not answered by the film. Those same people will leave saying "yeah that was cool because it was so messed up" The movie was too well done to be left at that. It had to be taken to the next level, a level where different questions get answered successfully. Further, it is not a movie that holds you by the hand, but relies on the viewers intelligence to grasp the intelligence of the film (this is not something Hollywood does very often).

I give this movie a four stars (****) on the official Chris' Choice movie rating scale.

Scotch: Blends

Misconceptions: Blends vs Single Malts:

Don't even start. I know someone is going to start up on how wonderful single malt Scotch is and that only it deserves to be appreciated by true connoisseur. Well, too bad, if that is your attitude you can stop reading now.

Unfortunately, blended Scotch has been getting little attention over the last couple of years. Single Malts are all the rage, such that it is hard to walk into a restaurant or bar that doesn't mention its wide selection of Single Malt Whisky (often Glenlivet, Glenfidich, and some other (likely Highland Park). Scotch, however, is best suited to be consumed among gentleman, and a gentleman, as far as I can tell,does not buy a round in a bar or sip single malts before dinner in a dining room. This is far too expensive a venture for a gentleman, and much too distracting.

The best place for a Scotch is in a gentleman's sanctuary, his office, study or den - often in a comfortable chair with his favourite music playing softly in the background. A gentleman's Scotch ought to be within arms reach. This precludes getting his Scotch from his well stocked bar. No, the man's Scotch ought to be close and in a crystal decanter. Since one just does not keep Single Malts in a decanter, we ought to pay the blend some much deserved attention.

The Blend

Blended Whisky has been the norm until the mid eighties I am told. Instead of being produced solely form malted barley, blends contain a variety of malts but most importantly they contain less expensive grain whisky. Blenders scour the countryside tasting the various malts combining them with the grain whisky to produce a constant, smooth product. They often attain their goal. Of course, not all blends are created equal.

All this being said, one can understand why blended Whisky is the appropriate drink of a gentleman. It is consistent, smooth, refreshing and consequently it is much more drinkable than a single malt. One does not get the same variety, but then a blend can be counted on, just like a good retriever can depended on to bring back a grouse, a blend can be depended upon to be the same time and time again.

Sure, go to the single malt if you want to sit around and talk flovours and scents all night. Go to the blend if you want to sit back and enjoy the evening with a close and trustworthy friend.

Scotch: The famous Grouse

The Famous Grouse

The Scotch itself comes in two varieties. The one I have is the normal blend. There is also a 12 Year old Gold Reserve which, of course, is not carried by BC liquor stores. The Famous Grouse is bottled by Matthew Gloag and Sons Ltd in Perth.

When you approach this whisky the light grassy aromas let you know that you are not tasting any ordinary blend. You know from the start that this is going to be a quality Scotch. There are no harsh scents of alcohol here. As you move the glass back to taste your nose is hit by smells of butterscotch. The taste is smooth from the beginning. A light hint of nuts at first, but it goes down smoothly, yet always with that bit of a kick you want in a Scotch. This is a very smooth, Scotch with simple flavours. There is no peat here. It goes down easily and is a pleasure to drink. I like it.

Oh, and check out their web site, very cool. http://www.famousgrouse.com/