jeffyoung1

One of my vivid memories in October 2008 watching the live news coverage of the Mumbai terror attack against the world-renown Taj Hotel was of a newsman saying that the Indian authorities were fighting a terrorist inside the hotel but the problem is that they didn't know how many terrorists were inside. This movie answers the question, more than one of course. I'm suspicious of the many, low, one-star ratings posted on imdb which leads me to suspect a clandestine campaign to undermine the movie for opaque reasons. As a moviegoer from last night, I can definitely tell everyone that HOTEL MUMBAI had me sitting on the edge of my seat. Contrary to negative reviews, I didn't encounter any tedious, slow points in the movie. Everything was well paced if it didn't pertain to the actual terrorist attack itself. When the terrorists strike Mumbai and then the Taj Hotel, the movie moves into high gear and you're on a fast-moving amusement park ride which you cannot get off. You experience almost first hand the terror of the guests and hotel staff, many of which could not avoid their violent deaths, so sudden was it. It is a tale of survival against the odds and the ability to cope with such a life-and-death situation in which impromptu leaders have to be agreed upon and quick decisions have to be made that result in either survival, even if just for the time being or instant, violent death. There is no time for the movie to go into character development and that was not its purpose, but to give a quick snapshot of the lives of ordinary people, celebrities, the wealthy, and the hotel staff just trying to earn a decent living in an overcrowded, smog-choked, polluted Indian city with a long historical past. The movie, I believe does its best to avoid clichés while being forthright about how people would behave in such a life-and-death situation. You feel sympathy for the main character, an experienced, polished Sikh waiter played by Dev Patel, a man living in the many overcrowded Mumbai slums with his wife and infant son, doing his best to eke out a living, lucky to have a good job as a high-end waiter in a five-star Mumbai hotel, thinking only of his wife and child all the time. The movie even makes you feel sympathetic for the wealthy British Iranian woman, Zahra, who is initially presented as a stereotype spoiled, rich diva, who gets her bath water temperature measured precisely at 48 degrees by hotel staff but we quickly learn is a nice diva, not a nasty one. She married out of love for a tall, blonde, blue-eyed American architect, David, obviously below her social station and her love is deep and true as will be her tragedy. So I write, disregard the suspicious naysayers with one-star ratings and short reviews that are one sentence or less. See the movie for yourself. I go to movies for the entertainment, not to be bedazzled by some, deep-thought, existential, cosmic Hollywood wannabe that critics feel obliged to rate highly. If I walk out the theater feeling entertained, then the movie succeeded. A movie can succeed in its intent to disturb and HOTEL MUMBAI will no doubt leave you disturbed by the violence and malevolence of its portrayed, heartless terrorist killers, that were accurately described by one reviewer as, being like the android terminators of Hollywood.

By reading the synopsis and other poster's comments you know just about everything in this movie so there really are no spoilers. Plus Wikipedia tells the whole story. So I'm not going there. This movie dates back to 1978 and everyone who is interested in this movie knows the entire storyline. This post is about why Polly was so unloved by her parents. In fact her father, Harry disdained her and the mother was indifferent. Yet the younger sister was deeply beloved by the parents who showered attention, love, and physical affection. This shows the complexity of human nature when it involves, love, affection, and caring for one's offspring. Psychologists and researchers have long known that parents are not always equal in how they feel and show love to their offspring. Often the individual parent cannot understand themselves why they feel more love for one child over the other. In another Hollywood movie, the father loved his eldest son, who died in a car crash, over his youngest son. I think the movie's title was, Stand By Me. In, 'The Summer Of My German Soldier', Patty learns the horrific truth from her father behind his coldness towards her. The father, Harry, related to Polly how much his late, mother-in-law disliked Harry and never wanted her daughter to marry him, even though both families are Jewish. In return, Harry despised his mother-in-law. When Polly was born and grew up, she reminded Harry of his despised, late mother-in-law. As a result, Harry felt similar emotions towards his own daughter and could not love her. Polly was the innocent victim of two people's deep animus towards each other. At the end of the movie, Harry tells Polly that she will live at their home until he is no longer legally responsible for her. That means age 18, after high school. Then Polly will have to leave home forever. Your heart really goes out to Polly. You want to hate the father, Harry, as a real bast**d, but somehow you feel a twinge of understanding for his mindset. What if the mother-in-law had liked Harry a lot? Some husbands are lucky like that. Polly's life would have been radically different.

The title reads cynically but the whole background story of detective Frank Serpico is one of cynicism. During the movie a fellow detective objects to Serpico, "How can we trust you if you're not on the take?" You see the word, 'trust' perverted from the mouth of a corrupt law enforcement officer who had long ago justified his actions as perfectly ethical. You have to watch the movie several times to realize the obvious. Besides Al Pacino as Frank Serpico, the whole New York police establishments served as the second, main character of the movie. You then begin to perceive then realize the corrupt police detectives are cynical, demoralized, and possibly filled with some measure of self-loathing. You ask yourself, why? What set the New York police force down the long road of self-rationalizing institutionalized corruption? You see something extraordinary. The corrupt police detectives seem to have an almost clinical obsession with collecting and hoarding paper money, far, far in excess of what they could possibly find use for it. Yet collecting more and more criminal money has become their daily obsession, not their jobs at law enforcement. Again, one has to ask, why? The answer might be discerned in the physical environment in which the police work. The move depicts the buildings and offices of the New York police departments as literally decrepit. The police are working out of what looks to be slum buildings including cheap, old, worn-out office furnishings. To the police working in such abysmal conditions, their mindset must have devolved to, so this is how low the city and state government considers our social value, so low as to merit the poorest of working conditions. In essence the police felt they were treated as poor people little worthy of consideration and that is how they began to see themselves, as an underpaid, underclass ignored by the upper tiers of society and the government. As a result the accumulation of wealth, accomplished by graft and corruption, to climb above their perceived low social economic standing, became their daily primary mission. Law enforcement itself took a back seat and even then as the straight avenue towards collecting those ill-gotten gains from the vast, disparate criminal elements of New York City. In 20/20 hindsight, had Frank Serpico truly understood the entrenched, institutionalized sub-society he was entering, then he might have thought twice about a law enforcement career. It doesn't take long to understand how the New York borough corrupt detectives view Frank Serpico. Serpico is the corrupt one, not them. Everyone is playing 'fair and honest' by the established social system, mores and behavior of their police sub-culture which is rationalized that stealing from criminals is not wrong nor unethical. In the 1960 horror movie, "Last Man On Earth", vampire hunter, Vincent Price, discovers in the end that the vampires consider him the real monster, a fiend who awakens at daylight to hunt them and slay them in their sleep under the sun. The vampires are the new population. Price, the vampire hunter, is the monster that must be hunted and taken down. In the corrupt, decrepit hallways of law enforcement that Serpico entered, he found himself perceived as the 'monster' come to destroy their sub-culture and brotherhood of common graft.

I'm going to tell you why I gave this movie a 9. I contemplated a 10, even though there are other superior science fiction films. Soylent Green hasn't aged well and its depicted technology was an anachronism for the year 2022. The book and the movie did not attempt to depict what technology could have been in the year 2022 because that wasn't the point of the movie. The movie was an environmental warning. I gave this movie a 9 because every pre-teen in America should be made to watch this movie. I believe watching Soylent Green makes a young person possibly more responsible for the environment and far more appreciative of the food his or her parents work so hard to put on the table. As a result of watching Soylent Green as a young teenager, I now appreciate all food served to me, whether by my mother, friends, or purchased. I could go to a friend's house and be served the toughest cow meat by the mother and I would relish it as if it were filet mignon. Soylent Green makes one appreciate the real, delicious food we take for granted in our lives. Everyone knows what Soylent Green is about. It's a national movie icon so I'm not giving away anything that nobody knows. Everyone knows without spoilers that the movie is about everyone having to eat mass-produced, synthesized food squares. Now I won't go further into the story. Other people have already done it. In this dystopian future, only the very wealthy can afford real food. Most Americans under age 35 have never eaten real meat. The scene where the local food grocer shows Shirl and her bodyguard a rare slice of raw, uncooked steak will make a lasting impression on your mind. You'll never forget it. You will become hungry watching this movie. You will come away from this movie as a nouveau-environmentalist. You will NOT waste food again. You will be less picky and less finicky about your food. You will be far more appreciative of the good fortune today to eat real food and meat everyday upon demand. In short, SOYLENT GREEN has the capability to make everyone who watches it a more responsible, more ethical citizen.

I have seen so many movies filmed in British Columbia but the movie storyline is set in a northern U.S. state that I have long since lost count. I am not complaining, rather I find it remarkable. For some reason Hollywood likes to film in British Columbia but the storyline is set in Washington State, Minnesota, or New England. In an alternate universe by Hollywood, British Columbia is Washington State or else Washington State is much larger than it is in reality. The Washington State of Hollywood (as depicted by British Columbia) is a rural state filled north-to-south, east-to-west with forest-covered mountains and hills. Small, cozy towns and villages light up in a delightful kaleidoscope of lights and decorations for Christmas movies. But there are not-so-nice mountain towns, often decrepit looking for the crime action and mystery movies. In-between, normal looking mountain towns are for drama and science fiction and monster movies. At this point maybe the U.S. and Canada should just share B.C. and give the people there dual Canadian-U.S. citizenship.

In the end it really doesn't matter. If you always go to Star Wars movies, you'll go to, SOLO: A STAR WARS STORY. Either way, the Hollywood studio makes it money whether you loved it or not. That's where I come to here. Perusing the reviews, it seems viewers either liked SOLO a lot or found it mediocre. I didn't see many haters. People either gave the movie a 9 or a 6, meaning, very good or, fair. Using the traditional Hollywood four star system, viewers gave SOLO either a 3 or 3.5 star rating, or they gave it a two star rating which means, fair, worth a look. That would be my rating, two stars. But of the last three Star Wars movies from 2015, I give three stars to all of them. The movie was dark, literally speaking and it hurt my eyes that the lighting was so dark for most of the movie. I don't know what the director had in mind with such low set lighting. He even managed it for the ending desert beach scenes. I didn't like this youthful Han Solo. He seemed to be a caricature, cartoonish character, always deceptively smiling throughout the movie. That was not the personality of the cynical, deadpan Han Solo from the first Star Wars movie. The young Han looked and talked so slippery that it was impossible to identify with him. I would have preferred the personality of the first Han Solo, who seldom smiled and you felt you could trust him and indeed want to be near him. Of the young Han, I'd stay a mile away from him. This is the first Star Wars movie where I feel little to no interest in purchasing the future DVD. If this movie was never made, it would have made no difference to me.

If you're a purist Roman historian, you'll likely find yourself somewhat disappointed. The director deliberately took some historical liberties to flesh out an intense historical human drama. But it's not all that bad. It is interesting. The movie follows historical events of 180 A.D., sort of. There is no historical record that Marcus Aurelius intended a pan-Roman peace as the movie indicated. In fact, Marcus far-reaching ambition was to create two, new Roman provinces after defeating the Marcomanni, Quadi, and Sarmatians. The concept of pan-Roman citizenship became reality in 211-212 A.D. when emperor Caracalla extended Roman citizenship throughout the empire. In 180 A.D., Marcus was preoccupied with the survival of the Roman empire itself. After 22 years of almost total peace and prosperity throughout the Roman empire under the sage emperor Antoninus Pius, his successors, the co-emperors Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus found themselves almost immediately beset by attacks on the empire from Parthia in the east and the warlike Germanic Chauci and Chatti tribes. With difficulty both threats were met and neutralized but that was only the beginning. Historians think that westward migratory movements by Gothic tribes in eastern Europe started a chain reaction of Germanic tribes moving west and south west into Roman empire territory. The Marcomanni had always been known to Rome since the time of emperor Trajan. This powerful, large Germanic tribe had, with few exceptions, usually stable relations with Rome. But over 60 years later, population growth affected not only the Marcommani but almost every major Germanic tribe. New lands were needed by everyone. But Europe was now thoroughly settled. Nations could not expand without coming into conflict with another. After one punitive expedition to repel a Germanic invading tribe, Verus died, leaving Marcus to deal with the most serious threat that Rome had faced from foreign invaders in centuries. The Marcommani, Quadi, and Sarmatian tribes poured into the Roman empire and the Romans suffered serious military setbacks and at one time Marcus and his army were surrounded by the Quadi and defeat was near. The fighting was desperate and often hopeless but against all odds, Marcus and his legions prevailed, barely at the price of immense casualties. All three tribes were thoroughly defeated and had to sue for peace. It was at this point the exhausted Marcus, never a robust man, is thought by historians to have died of stomach cancer. There is no historical record that Marcus intended to replace his son Commodus nor is there any record of Marcus' thoughts and conversations to that effect. Historians still thought it odd because Marcus' four emperor predecessors selected their successor and it was not a son or relative. Marcus broke the chain of emperors selecting a qualified man as successor and this bore serious consequences for the empire. Nonetheless, history records that Commodus tried to rule justly and competently in his first six years of rule. Commodus must have listened to Marcus' advisors because he abandoned the plan to create two new Roman provinces from the lands of the defeated Germanic tribes. The realism Commodus faced was that the Roman army was depleted. Two new provinces would require at least three Roman legions apiece for minimum military occupation, manpower that Rome didn't have. Nor did Rome have the financial resources after a dozen years of continual warfare. Rome was financially spent. Given the realities of the situation, Commodus abandoned his father's plans for two, new provinces. Another poster was puzzled that the Roman legionaries carried their swords on their right side as this would make for awkward withdrawal with the right hand. But this is true. Roman legionaries carried their gladius swords on the right side, according to orders. Only the centurions and higher officers could wear their swords on the more convenient left side, which they did. Historians are still not certain as to the reason but it was military regulation for the typical legionnaire to carry his gladius on the right side.

First of all, I look for great entertainment. I'm not looking for a movie with mystical, metaphysical, existential, deep, artsy fartsy meaning. In other words I'm not a wannabe, pretentious Hollywood movie reviewer who will only give high reviews to those kinds of artsy fartsy movies that may be dramatic and cerebral but few people want to watch. My standard is, am I greatly entertained, yes or no?

A lot of people who like BRITANNIA compare it to Game Of Thrones, and while they intended a compliment, it's not accurate nor fair. This kind of genre, sword and sorcery, or, sword and sandals, existed in Hollywood dating back to the mid-20th century. BRITANNIA never aspired to be the next Game Of Thrones and nor should it be. It stands on its own as a thoroughly entertaining historical fiction/magic/sorcery hybrid, in essence, another sword and sorcery film, albeit on a more advanced level just as, yes, Game Of Thrones was. Yet you could say the same for the British 1980 fantasy film, "Hawk The Slayer", which closely followed the board game, Advanced Dungeons and Dragons. BRITANNIA differentiates itself from Game Of Thrones because it is historical fiction. GOT is sword and sorcery fantasy. Based on the historical Roman invasion of Britannia in 43 A.D., Britannia loosely follows the path of the Roman invasion as seen mostly through the eyes of the British tribes heavily influenced by the mysticism and sorcery of the Druids

I'm an avid reader of ancient Roman military history. The minor drawback is that I can detect inaccuracies but I don't let it spoil my enjoyment because in BRITANNI it is minor. The mini-series' director made some notable effort for Roman military accuracy, and it would be so, for 80 A.D. The Roman helmets are accurate but more from around 80 A.D. The nice-looking throwing pilums are accurate, for around 80 A.D. Around that time, someone in the Roman military top brass got the smart idea to shorten the length of the throwing pilum javelin to a handier length. But in order to retain the armor-piercing characteristics of the heavy pilum, a round lead or bronze weight was added to it, just above the wood shaft and below the metal shank. Around 43 A.D. the pilum would have been longer and without the weight. Many of the legionnaires are depicted accurately wearing chain mail, yet I recall a number are wearing the newer segmented cuirass, the lorica segmentata, which again, came out around 80 A.D. Therefore the legionnaires depicted in BRITANNIA are somewhat anachronistic, from 40 years into the future. If you want to be super accurate according to the very latest British research on the Roman legions stationed in Northwest Europe around 43 A.D. the soldiers would not quite have the uniform appearance depicted in BRITANNIA because it is a historical fact that the Roman Army did not recognize the concept of obsolescence. If military gear was serviceable, it was still used until it completely wore out and could not be repaired. Hence, in a Roman legion formation you notice helmets of different styles, metal, and preceding time periods. A legionnaire might be wearing an old bronze Coolus-style helmet that dated to 50 B.C. The clothing would be roughly the same given contemporary fashion but again might differ in color and cut because legionnaires were issued different clothing and in different colors depending upon where they were previously stationed and what military clothing factory supplied them. The shields are admirably accurate but are seen as totally uniform throughout the legion. Legionnaires took their equipment and kit with them wherever they were transferred. You would see different patterns on the shield faces and some might be a different shield style, meaning, rounded curves instead of straight. More, you don't see the ROMAN AUXILIA. This was a parallel Roman Army, the auxiliaries, trained in the same as the citizen army. The auxilia contained only non-Roman citizens although it was not against the law for a Roman citizen to enlist in an auxiliary legion. Roman general Claudus would have had several auxiliary legions with him. But in the grand scheme of things, this is minor to the mini-series as only individuals like myself would notice the anachronisms and still I don't let it detract from my enjoyment.

If you know Western civilization history then you can pretty much predict the path of the second season. The Roman invasion of 43 A.D. is a spectacular Roman success and that cannot be changed. Briton kings and queens who submit to Roman rule can expect more benefits than costs although misrule and abuse will lead to a serious Iceni rebellion over twenty years into the future. Those who intrigue with the Romans over their tribes can expect to be handsomely rewarded as we saw in the last episode of season one.

I'm totally surprised that the show's producers, SKY and AMAZON, didn't prepare for a second season. They waited to assess the public reception of the first season. Upon seeing its big success, the screenwriter received the green light for the second season scripts and he was told that the show needed it all written like, yesterday so the writer had to scramble. If you're like me, you can't wait for the second season. I binge-watched the first season in two nights.

First of all, I look for great entertainment. I'm not looking for a movie with mystical, metaphysical, existential, deep, artsy fartsy meaning. In other words I'm not a wannabe, pretentious Hollywood movie reviewer who will only give high reviews to those kinds of artsy fartsy movies that may be dramatic and cerebral but few people want to watch. My standard is, am I greatly entertained, yes or no?

A lot of people who like BRITANNIA compare it to Game Of Thrones, and while they intended a compliment, it's not accurate nor fair. This kind of genre, sword and sorcery, or, sword and sandals, existed in Hollywood dating back to the mid-20th century. BRITANNIA never aspired to be the next Game Of Thrones and nor should it be. It stands on its own as a thoroughly entertaining historical fiction/magic/sorcery hybrid, in essence, another sword and sorcery film, albeit on a more advanced level just as, yes, Game Of Thrones was. Yet you could say the same for the British 1980 fantasy film, "Hawk The Slayer", which closely followed the board game, Advanced Dungeons and Dragons. BRITANNIA differentiates itself from Game Of Thrones because it is historical fiction. GOT is sword and sorcery fantasy. Based on the historical Roman invasion of Britannia in 43 A.D., Britannia loosely follows the path of the Roman invasion as seen mostly through the eyes of the British tribes heavily influenced by the mysticism and sorcery of the Druids

I'm an avid reader of ancient Roman military history. The minor drawback is that I can detect inaccuracies but I don't let it spoil my enjoyment because in BRITANNI it is minor. The mini-series' director made some notable effort for Roman military accuracy, and it would be so, for 80 A.D. The Roman helmets are accurate but more from around 80 A.D. The nice-looking throwing pilums are accurate, for around 80 A.D. Around that time, someone in the Roman military top brass got the smart idea to shorten the length of the throwing pilum javelin to a handier length. But in order to retain the armor-piercing characteristics of the heavy pilum, a round lead or bronze weight was added to it, just above the wood shaft and below the metal shank. Around 43 A.D. the pilum would have been longer and without the weight. Many of the legionnaires are depicted accurately wearing chain mail, yet I recall a number are wearing the newer segmented cuirass, the lorica segmentata, which again, came out around 80 A.D. Therefore the legionnaires depicted in BRITANNIA are somewhat anachronistic, from 40 years into the future. If you want to be super accurate according to the very latest British research on the Roman legions stationed in Northwest Europe around 43 A.D. the soldiers would not quite have the uniform appearance depicted in BRITANNIA because it is a historical fact that the Roman Army did not recognize the concept of obsolescence. If military gear was serviceable, it was still used until it completely wore out and could not be repaired. Hence, in a Roman legion formation you notice helmets of different styles, metal, and preceding time periods. A legionnaire might be wearing an old bronze Coolus-style helmet that dated to 50 B.C. The clothing would be roughly the same given contemporary fashion but again might differ in color and cut because legionnaires were issued different clothing and in different colors depending upon where they were previously stationed and what military clothing factory supplied them. The shields are admirably accurate but are seen as totally uniform throughout the legion. Legionnaires took their equipment and kit with them wherever they were transferred. You would see different patterns on the shield faces and some might be a different shield style, meaning, rounded curves instead of straight. More, you don't see the ROMAN AUXILIA. This was a parallel Roman Army, the auxiliaries, trained in the same as the citizen army. The auxilia contained only non-Roman citizens although it was not against the law for a Roman citizen to enlist in an auxiliary legion. Roman general Claudus would have had several auxiliary legions with him. But in the grand scheme of things, this is minor to the mini-series as only individuals like myself would notice the anachronisms and still I don't let it detract from my enjoyment.

If you know Western civilization history then you can pretty much predict the path of the second season. The Roman invasion of 43 A.D. is a spectacular Roman success and that cannot be changed. Briton kings and queens who submit to Roman rule can expect more benefits than costs although misrule and abuse will lead to a serious Iceni rebellion over twenty years into the future. Those who intrigue with the Romans over their tribes can expect to be handsomely rewarded as we saw in the last episode of season one.

I'm totally surprised that the show's producers, SKY and AMAZON, didn't prepare for a second season. They waited to assess the public reception of the first season. Upon seeing its big success, the screenwriter received the green light for the second season scripts and he was told that the show needed it all written like, yesterday so the writer had to scramble. If you're like me, you can't wait for the second season. I binge-watched the first season in two nights.

My post is not about Con Air per se but about the movie's beginning. For every honest, decent, honorable person who has studied martial arts for the respectable purpose of self-defense, Con Air presents a realistic scenario of how everything can go wrong for the law-abiding citizen who defends himself.

For starters, the laws of this nation defining 'self defense' have long been established by lawyer politicians and judges who never studied self-defense and more, have never been in a self-defense situation. It's possible a few have served in the military but that doesn't mean they experienced combat. Therefore the laws defining what the law-abiding citizen can and cannot do have been written by politicians who harbored only a vague sense of what legal self-defense should be. They never took into account just how fast and chaotic any life-and-death self-defense situation can be and the victim is not always in the position to determine just what constitutes enough self-defense that a 'reasonable' person would be expected to commit. This term, 'reasonable' and 'reasonable of amount of force' comes up repeatedly in the laws defining self-defense and deliberately cultivates an element of subjective uncertainty that is left up to the jury and judge to decide. The victim is still considered to be a law-abiding citizen and therefore is subject to strict compliance with the subjective laws of self-defense while the criminal aggressor of course is free to use whatever means of violence he chooses. Also bear in mind that the politicians and judges who framed our nation's laws of self-defense; many, not all, greatly disdained violent responses to personal attack because to them it broke the laws of civilization, introduced the law of the jungle and regressed society to the Old West frontier. While you can't pass laws restricting the criminal's violent crime they could pass laws restricting the law-abiding citizen's ability to defend himself.

The set-up in Con Air is pretty stereotypical. Decent man, former US Army ranger, Cameron Poe, celebrates his return home with his beautiful wife in a local bar. And there's the stereotype villain, an obnoxious, drunk, horny, local white lowlife, dressing, looking, and speaking the part. And he has two, silent, lowlife buddies with him to give him courage. Drunk white trash lowlife makes obnoxious, lewd comments to Poe and his wife. Poe and wife put down the idiot and do the right thing, leave the dive. Since the white trash drunk lowlife has two buddies with him, he feels invincible in deciding to thrash the impertinent, clean-shaven Army boy, and maybe get in some rape fun with his wife. Well, that's how it is with bullies, isn't it? They always need to have a couple of guys backing them up. Had the slob been alone, he may have thought twice about going out in the rain to confront Poe (Nicholas Cage). Now the laws of self-defense in almost every state declare that Poe and wife retreat from the scene but it doesn't look like they have much opportunity to do so. A guy by himself could try to duck and run but with a woman on his arm that's out of the question, unless he plans on leaving her behind. As might be expected, the lowlife takes a sucker punch swing at Poe, who, counterattacks with fast, well-placed military combatives hand strikes, one of which, the palm heel strike to the nose, kills the lowlife. His two buddies immediately desert the scene.

At the trial comes the nightmare. You hear nothing from Poe's lawyer, who stands silently like a store mannequin ten feet away from Poe as if he had some communicable disease. You get the sense Poe's defense lawyer was worthless to a tee. Then comes the judge who immediately shows his left-wing liberal views on self-defense by declaring Poe the aggressor and the criminal, simply because he had military combatives training and, "...should have known better." Should have known better, what? How was Poe to know? Men have died from a single punch to the face/head from an untrained assailant and it's happened twice in southern California over the past five years. During a fracas at local baseball park in southern California, a normal, healthy 5'10" man took a punch in the face from another fan. The man collapsed and died two days later.

Now the laws of self-defense being what they are, when you kill someone in self-defense, a lot has to go into consideration. Typically killing an assailant armed with a deadly weapon usually (hopefully) ends with no prison time provided there was no escape option for the victim. Most of the time these situations involved house break-ins with armed burglars. But out in the street, fist-to-fist, it gets murkier. Killing someone in what the judge considers a bar brawl is not self-defense in his mind. You might blame the defense lawyer for not being eloquent or persuasive enough with the judge and jury. When you kill someone in a fistfight often the law declares you guilty of negligent homicide, be it manslaughter or second degree homicide. So you are going to jail. But the jail term should not be as long as Poe received, ten years. The judge could have sentenced him to three years to seven years. With time off for good behavior, Poe could have been out of jail in as little as 18 months to 3 years. Poe would still be vulnerable to a wrongful death lawsuit from the dead man's relatives but that's another worst case scenario.

As you contemplate self-defense, know from the experts that it is chaotic, unscripted and thousand things can go wrong. But in the split seconds that you have, you take the risk, especially as in Poe's case, he could have been badly injured, even killed by three men, with the possibility of his wife been sexually assaulted afterwards, which in this movie was a distinct possibility given the lust the drunk lowlife exhibited to Poe's wife.

These reviews of the documentary mini-series, MADOFF, range from very good to excellent, with but a few average ones. Many of the people are perceptive and far-thinking in their evaluation of the mini-series, the character, Madoff, the real-life Madoff, and the true-life events around him. I am not going to repeat these great reviews.

My addition here is the cautionary tale of dangerous sociopaths among humanity. How do we spot them? What can we do? How can we protect ourselves?

The answer is that it's not simple. If sociopaths had not been able to hone their pathological lying skills to a fine edge, they wouldn't exist. The fact that they are successful so often underlies their evolutionary chameleon behavioral skills through the Darwinian process of evolution. Even highly intelligent people who have been rooked by Madoff-types beat themselves over the head for being, 'stupid' yet this self-criticism is largely undeserved. Successful con-man Madoff types evolved their slick-talking, smooth-talking sophistry and verbal deception with perfect bodily and facial cues to match to deceive people of high intelligence. After all, it's usually the very smart people who have the money.

Remember Lance Armstrong who so vociferously and compellingly denied his doping accusers that even I at first believed him that he was being set up by jealous peers. Remember infamous Susan Smith of 1993 who drowned her two boys in secret and then standing next to her ex-husband, sobbed and pleaded in front of the new cameras for the kidnapper to return her two, cherished, beloved young boys? One news source later dryly added that Smith should have been recommended for a Hollywood Oscar for her bravura performance.

I myself have personally witnessed a man who harbored a conscious, Jekyll and Hyde dual persona. To his employees he waved his finger in front of them, bellowed, accused them and demeaned them. To non-employees or potential clients, he portrayed an extremely convincing, soothing, Oprah or Dr. Phil personality as if he could be the best confidant that they could rely upon. He was extremely convincing. Such people are so convincing and they don't emit otherwise negative vibes that might alert the listener that something is amiss.

What can you do? Be cautious and do your homework when the promises seem too good to be true. In the case of Madoff, a Wall Street analyst, nearly two years before Madoff's downfall, did suspect that there was something unconvincing about Madoff's investment business model. He ran the complicated math algorithms several times and every time he came up with the same result: Madoff's investment business model could not logically produce the investment gain results that he was publishing. There would have to be an external infusion of funds from outside the business model to make the results plausible. But he was a lone voice in the wilderness. He was a nobody on Wall Street and he had no powerful Wall Street support that could take his results and confront a powerful man that Madoff was at the time. As one imdb poster added, Madoff's white-collar crime actions had ripple effects and domino effects that affected many other people, often innocent. It was his own two sons that contributed to turning Madoff in and cooperated with the SEC and I believe also the FBI, but am not sure. Both men were cleared of being complicit with their father although one did get into some trouble for unknowing helping his father in the Ponzi schemes, but he didn't go to jail. Yet both sons suffered terribly. From well-respected, well-to-do men who once were afforded high social positions in the highest social and economic strata of the rich and powerful in Manhattan, New York City, they found themselves overnight as unemployed, unemployable, social outcasts and pariahs. The health of the eldest son deteriorated and he passed away. The youngest son, at the young age of only 44, separated from his wife, one afternoon went to visit his young son. As the son napped in his bedroom, the father hung himself in the living room. I have no doubt in my mind the father succumbed to the blackest despair that his life was truly over and irretrievable, leading him, in the old term, to, "...take the honorable way out." I don't know if he was even mourned at his funeral.

In summary, it is very, very difficult to spot and deal with sociopaths. Often there are, 'functioning sociopaths' who reach high positions in companies, corporations, organizations, the government, even the military. They know who to flatter and how to do flatter while attaching themselves to rising stars. They might be apparent in this overt fashion but their game is good because the people they flatter are convinced the sociopathic flatterer is one of the best talented extroverted people they've ever met. It's one thing to avoid a dangerous sociopath who might harbor intentions of physical harm on you and it's another thing to cope with a functioning sociopath who desires advancement by flattering you, or, if you are not in a position to help him or her, then you are either a nothing to them or worse, a possible competitor. The sociopath's superior lying skills often work successfully in undermining the good, honest employee because the people he or she flatter are convinced he or she is telling the truth.

Lastly, I will comment on Madoff that I agree with one poster, Madoff did have sincere feelings of affection and camaraderie with friends, family, and close associates. Sociopaths can and do feel genuine affection to some. In the mini-series Madoff covertly expresses his desire to protect his secretary by declining several times to invest her $200,000 inheritance. He can't reveal the truth to her so he can only shine her on with unconvincing advice which leads the secretary to press him even more, finally accusing Madoff of lacking loyalty and true friendship to her. If I recall, she's even on the brink of tears, baffled as to why her long-term, affectionate employer that she faithfully served for years should not want to take her measly $200K, invest it and make her a millionaire as he's done for so many people. Realizing his secretary has pushed him up against a wall, Madoff realizes it is safer to give in and take her money rather than continue refusing. I felt a lot of sympathy for the secretary. How could she have even suspected that she was literally pouring what could have been a huge chunk of her retirement down the drain, never to be recovered.

A QUIET PLACE is an excellent, well-scripted and well acted science fiction/horror hybrid movie, in the vein of Alien. You don't see too many movies of that unique Hollywood niche too often.

I'm not going to rehash all the great things about this excellent sci-fi/horror hybrid movie that everyone mentioned. You can read it for yourself. I'll discuss more about the movie's monsters.

SPOILERS:

The movie begins after the creatures have wrought their world-wide destruction and virtually depopulated the planet. The movie never explains where the apex horrid monster predators originated. That was part of the storyline suspense theme. It's possible that in the movie the unfortunate citizens and their governments never discovered the creatures' origins.

For my money you can rule out, 1) supernatural origin, and, 2) earthly origin. There's nothing to indicate some supernatural or preternatural character of the monsters. They operate equally well in daylight and night. The creatures are shown late in the movie to be completely biological fiends. There's nothing to indicate the creatures originated from earth. It would have taken millions of years for such creatures to evolve but more, the biological structure of the creature has no evolutionary antecedent from whence it could have evolved. The physiology and biology of the creatures do not fit any earth lifeform biological architecture, meaning, it couldn't have evolved here. That leaves the last, logical explanation. The monster creatures are of extraterrestrial origin. But that is never confirmed in the movie because the premise is that it doesn't matter where the creature monsters originated; they're here on earth and they've killed off virtually all humans but also prey on animals as well.

As you're sitting in the theater, you can piece together the unexplained beginnings in your own mind, that predate the starting date of the movie, "89 days". Looking at all the missing people signs and scattered newspapers give you an idea of what happened over 89 days ago. That is when the monster creatures arrived/appeared on earth, perhaps accidentally introduced from a crashed alien cargo spaceship. The creatures are sightless and rely almost solely on their extreme keen hearing, as much as humans rely on eyesight. At first the creatures keep out of sight and stay low. People begin disappearing here and there and missing people signs go up. At some point in time the creatures are probably more numerous and more bold when they discover just how easy prey humans are. The creatures emerge from the shadows and openly attack people, day and night. The world's governments are caught totally by surprise. The creatures prove extremely difficult to kill, their exoskeleton is armored, they possess extreme speed and agility and their bodily limbs and structure are a whirling mass of sharp, knife-like claws and razor sharp teeth. Humankind has encountered an apex predator far above them. It's impossible for humans not to make sounds and in little time the cities and towns have been extinguished of people by these monsters.

I can't help but feel the same as another poster here. The concept of the blind, keen-hearing monster creatures seems very derivative of the creatures from the TREMORS movie series. The first creatures were subterranean and hunted by sound and vibration. The next evolved generation of those creatures emerged from underground and had developed two legs and hunted by opening the tops of their heads and detecting by heat signature. The monster creatures in A Quiet Place do the same and that shows the weak spot in their armored carapace. Not only do the monster creatures open the sides of their heads to expose their auditory organs for better hearing, they often open up their heads like a flower pedal for optimal detection, but it exposes the soft, vulnerable inner parts. I won't give away more but you can fathom the creatures' ultimate weakness and how it's finally used against them. My advice. Go watch the movie and find out for yourself.

Chappaquiddick is something that means anything to any American over the age of 55. Or else this is an interesting, little-remembered but not forgotten incident from the political history of the United States back in the sixth decade of the 20th century that has interest for college students of American History or Political Science. Chappaquiddick marked the practical end of the Kennedy family political dynasty that was marked by the tragic assassinations of President John F. Kennedy in 1963 in Dallas, Texas, and in 1968 that of his younger brother, the aspiring Presidential candidate, Robert Kennedy, the former, formidable U.S. Attorney General. Robert Kennedy enjoyed such a tremendous margin of popular support that his election as next U.S. president in November 1968 was considered a sure-thing, a shoo-in. It wasn't even considered necessary that Robert Kennedy even bother to campaign but campaign he did and was assassinated in the Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles in the summer of 1968. This is one of those seminal events that U.S. historians call a change in the course of history of the nation. It led to a change of American history in the November election of Republican Richard Nixon instead of the expected President Robert Kennedy. The Democrat Party and the Democrat sympathetic national mass media, Hollywood, national celebrities, et al, desperately looked to Ted Kennedy to carry on the Kennedy tradition, romanticized as, American Camelot, and become the de facto President Robert Kennedy that should have been. Their faith and trust proved misplaced. Ted Kennedy was not of the right stuff his elder brothers had been, leading credence to the family rumors that Ted was the family black sheep. Ted Kennedy avoided legal liability for breaking the law of leaving the site of an accident that he was directly involved in and also not contacting the authorities immediately after an accident. The American people were treated first hand to the reality of how family political power and wealth can cirmumvent legal justice. They would not witness something similar until the criminal trial of OJ Simpson almost three decades later. Yet in the ensuing decades, Ted Kennedy not only avoided political oblivion but succeeded beyond all imagination of becoming one of the most powerful U.S. senators in Congress. Ted appeased everyone by embracing any and all liberal causes and with the Kennedy family name and still formidable political power and wealth became an unbeatable U.S. senator that could never be realistically challenged by any fellow Massachusetts Democrat let alone any Republican foolhardy enough to try. Ted Kennedy became above all political reproach in Massachusetts as a congressional senator and only his death ended his political career once and for all. Yet the incident of Chappaquiddick would stain Ted forever and preclude any hope of attaining the U.S. presidency, which many regarded a good thing as any U.S. president must be a man or woman with unquestionable personal courage, judgment under stress, and appropriate judgment. After senator Ted Kennedy's death in 2010, Republican Scott Brown successfully campaigned to take Kennedy's vacated senate seat for the last two years of the late senator's term. During the abbreviated senatorial campaign, Scott Brown felt it necessary to lionize Ted Kennedy in all his campaign speeches to avoid antagonizing Massachusetts voters. Chappaquiddick the movie will prove how unnecessary it was Scott Brown to do so. Ted Kennedy was the last man to deserve it.

I'm not going to repeat what other fans have been saying over the past 32 years. I'll admit that the film has a distinct charm of its own and in that respect with hindsight should have done better at the box office back in 1986. But hey, BLADE RUNNER was a mediocre box office presentation in late 1982 but look at the giant cult classic it became? Here's my two cents. At the time I pooh-poohed the idea of a, 'green-eyed Chinese girl' and thought that was Hollywood hokum. Yet as I later learned in the 21st century, green-eyed Asian women do in fact exist! You just have to visit CENTRAL ASIA to find them. Between 136 B.C. and 900 A.D., Central Asia was the crossroads of the historic, international, "Silk Road". Westerners and Easterners met and mixed in Central Asia for the purpose of invasion, war, religion, and profitable, commercial trade. The long-term biological result included Asiatic-looking people with green eyes. While watching documentary videos of the Silk Road on YouTube, I saw, yes, green-eyed, black-haired Asian women dressed in colorful Central Asian garb, dancing to cultural music. They were stunningly beautiful.

I relish a good, dark, atmospheric suspense, thriller, mystery, horror story set in the claustrophobic confines of a plane, a train, the limits of a circus and in this mini-series, two, early 19th century British exploration wooden ships. This story has a slight variance. Because both ships become stuck fast in unrelenting, Arctic ice, there is also action and suspense out on the ice and the land. I knew from watching the preview that this was going to be a riveting, entertaining yarn based on real history, the disastrous British Artic Northwest Passage Franklin expedition of 1845-47 in which both exploration ships disappeared along with their men without a trace. This was clever. Why invent a new tale when a writer can simply invoke history for the overall plot story? It worked to me. True, the storyline here offers little real mystery. It's a mythical monster movie meshed with a disastrous British exploration naval expedition story. But if you want to know what happens, you have to watch it. So far the characters in the mini-series are very good. It's early in the series but so far no one, major or minor character, shows any stereotypical villainous traits. There's disagreement and friction of course, but no back-stabbing and everyone generally works together, which is something rare in these kinds of movies where human conflict is introduced to ramp up the tension and storyline. In reality people will tend to cooperate for their mutual survival and this is what I see. It proves important because they will be fighting for their survival, not just from the hostile climate and terrain, but from a deadly, ferocious animalistic force given shape and form out on the dark, barren ice. Can't wait to see the next episodes. I even watched the rerun that followed the conclusion of the two-part introduction. For those who enjoy history even with a twist of the paranormal, The Terror's storyline plays closely to the actual historical, disastrous Franklin Expedition of 1845-47. You see a far more modern and professional British navy than 50 years ago where treatment of sailors and discipline were amongst the most extreme. There are no captain Blighs here in the near mid-19th century. The British Admiralty promotes men to ship captaincy still on professionalism and as much now on their ability to lead and motivate men based on sound leadership that is more respectful and caring of their men's welfare, and not by the cat o' nine tails lash in the last century. British society still retains its strict class distinctions as shown on the British ships, but all the naval officers are humane professionals that care for the welfare of the enlisted sailors and lead by professionalism and being out in front. You won't find a single sadistic officer in this mini-series so far. All the men, officers, noncommissioned (petty) officers, and enlisted (ratings) share a common bond of adventure, danger, and impending disaster, that thus far keeps them together. The storyline, from its very first episode, hints and predicts the breakdown of even the best organized ship crews when overwhelming disaster strikes and tears apart the strongest bonds among men. When it becomes every man for himself, the end is truly in sight. The Terror essentially tells you from the first episode what's going to happen. The entertainment is waiting each Monday to see how the unfolding disaster plays out to the men and ships of the Artic expedition, all to disappear without a trace. Over the past eighteen years, bits and pieces of the actual, vanished exploration have turned up. National Geographic back in the early 2000s did a feature story of the discovery of the first few victims, who perished early in the expedition before disaster overtook it entirely. The burial showing the deceased sailor, David Young, depicted him down to accurate detail as was shown in the actual coffin unearthed in the pages of National Geographic. Several years ago, radar wave mapping of the ocean floor discovered what scientists think is most likely one of the two vanished British exploratory ships.

This movie, WIND RIVER, is definitely worth watching. The cast is excellent and one of the main actors, Game and Fishing official Cory Lambert played by actor Jeremy Renner is superb. But my hat goes off to Elizabeth Olsen as FBI agent, Jane Banner. One of the reasons I held off on watching Wind River was my original concern that Elizabeth Olsen was going to be unrealistically portrayed as some kind of FBI superheroine agent who kicks 6-feet tall bad guys around. First, I was wrong thinking Olsen is 5'3". I was surprised to learn that she's actually 5'6" although in the movie she did look very short to me. I really loved Olsen's FBI Jane Banner because she WASN'T a phony superheroine with super strength and martial arts master skills and a crack shot. Her FBI character was completely believable and likeable. I'll tell you why. 1) FBI agent Jane Banner is a desk-bound, FBI agent based out of Las Vegas. Banner is well-trained, professional, but young and inexperienced. 2) Jane Banner is obviously no Wonder Woman and she clearly understands her own limitations and lack of field experience. Yet she doesn't make excuses and puts in the required time and effort and we see that she does her best given the mere perfunctory response the FBI lends to a ho-hum homicide on a little-known Indian Reservation out in the boondocks vastness of Wyoming. 3) Jane Banner is a likeable person. She has no overt personality flaws and no ego hang-ups. She is polite, courteous, and tactful and doesn't bulldoze her way onto the reservation murder investigation. Yet she skillfully deploys her federal (FBI) authority to defuse a dangerous confrontation between the oil rig security guards and the local sheriffs. 4) Jane's FBI training shows when she immediately realizes the danger of a suspicious, drugged-up Indian suspect starting to reach inside his own clothing which is justified when the tweaker pulls out a spray canister of pepper spray. 5) Jane's youthful inexperience shows when she knocks on the front door of the murder victim's boyfriend's quarters. At the time they suspected the boyfriend as the murderer and didn't know the boyfriend was also a murder victim himself. But not knowing that, Jane should have kept to the side of the door when knocking on it. The real killer shot Jane through the door. Luckily Jane, following her FBI training, did not neglect to wear her bulletproof vest. 6) Jane Banner does not turn out to be a superheroine and she doesn't save the day but she gets her licks in and helps bring down a few of the bad guys. It's Cory (Renner) who is the main hero who saves the day and saves Jane. But Jane's FBI character is still central to the storyline. She is the character who ties in together the other main characters, the reservation sheriff and Game and Fishing official hunter tracker, Cory, as the official investigative team's de facto leader, being the federal authority. 7) A flashback shows the actual crimes. It was a sick tragedy that was orchestrated by one, obnoxious, intoxicated (alcohol always seems to be part of it) security guard team member. Had he not been there to incite his fellow security guard teammates, the rape and murder would never have occurred.

I watched parts of this television mini-series long ago. I did like Lesley Ann Warren's role as Marja, later as Madame Marianne. Lesley Ann Warren is in fact the real one main character throughout the tv mini-series. The part I remember most is of Marianne as a young woman trying to make it on her own during the Great Depression. Jobs and opportunities for women are scant. Despite her best efforts, Marianne will find herself on the long road to becoming an escort agency madam. In the early days, Marianne takes up with a couple, the husband being the manager and his wife a burlesque dancer. For a while Marianne and the wife make a living doing burlesque dance shows as a team, from place to place. One day the couple suggest to Marianne that they make the burlesque dance routine more risqué which Marianne rejects. The morning after one of their nightly burlesque dance shows, Marianne awakes in their shared downtown hotel room to find that her partners have quietly deserted her, taking everything, including her clothing. All that's left is the red, cotton robe Marianne slept in and the unpaid hotel bill. The hotel manager shows up at the hotel room door to inform Marianne that her partners departed, leaving the room bill unpaid. Worse, Marianne learns that her male partner had lied about pre-paying the room bill. Marianne informs him of her misfortune and lack of money. The hotel manager, to his credit or maybe not, remains calm and cool, doesn't threaten her and doesn't force anything on Marianne, clearly she's broke and calling the police won't help anything. But Marianne is a beautiful shapely woman so the dodgy hotel manager offers her a deal. He'll overlook the unpaid hotel room bill and even give $20 to Marianne for sex. It takes Marianne but few seconds to understand her predicament has only one way out. She drops her red bath robe (she's naked underneath) and tells him, "You're the boss." The dodgy hotel manager rushes forward and hugs Marianne, kissing her on the side of the neck, as Marianne struggles to restrain her repulsion and humiliation. You may find yourself grossed out watching that scene. But I felt pity for the Marianne character. She had no other options and it was the only one she could take. It solves her predicament and in the next scene she's back home visiting her ailing mother. The $20 - a lot of money for the 1930 - allowed her to purchase a decent dress to wear.

I'm not going to say much about the sequel other than it's a well-trodden, Hollywood formula slasher-horror flick and if you like that kind of thing then the movie is okay. I'm going to discuss something else that this movie evoked in my mind. People may find it interesting and useful in their lives. THE STRANGERS: PREY AT NIGHT, like its predecessor, makes you contemplate about how you would react in a sudden, unexpected, life-and-death-situation. Face it. Most of us are well-domesticated, civilized, and safe human creatures. Unless you are a veteran coming back from Iraq or Afghanistan, or grew up in a gang-ridden neighborhood, you almost never had to fight for survival. You never dealt with a psycho, dangerous person coming at you with a hand weapon. What would you do? Books on self-defense written by martial artists abound in libraries and bookshelves over the past forty years. Many of these books contain interesting and useful chapters on the psychology of self-defense and others contain useful legal information to avoid prison and costly litigation. Almost all of the information on the science of self-defense starts with, avoidance and observation. For the purposes of this discussion we can skip that because the family in this movie were not looking for trouble. They thought they were driving to a safe trailer park camping ground. We skip to the chapters on sudden, unprovoked attack. One self-defense writer observed that when the object of unprovoked attack is, 'thrill', you have no recourse but to fight, and fight hard. Pleading and talking will not save you. The family was immediately in that position and worse, they were taken by surprise. Self-defense includes the early step of, 'escape', before physical confrontation which tends to be the last step/option in self-defense. When escape is not possible, then physical confrontation becomes inevitable. At that point you need to arm yourself with whatever hand weapons may be available. The movie shows how little use a pistol was because the father and the son were reluctant to use it and the son had no prior experience with firearms. The movie does show how the survivors took up expedient hand weapons for self-defense and the most important, became WILLING to defend themselves, of course out of desperation. I write that because other victims might curl up and submit themselves to death. When the process of self-defense escalates to the unavoidable physical confrontation then that is what it becomes, fight or die. Kill or be killed might be the only option but bear in mind the law and the courts places restriction on, kill or be killed in just about every legal jurisdiction. There are very limited situations where a victim can use lethal force in self-defense. Step outside those narrow strictures and in the eyes of the court you go from self-defense to manslaughter. Tread carefully but at the end of the day, it's your life and the life of your loved ones on the line.

I took the time to read everyone else's review before writing mine. Therefore I feel comfortable awarding DEATH WISH (2018) seven stars, which I did based on strict entertainment value. As another poster wrote, don't take the movie too seriously and you won't be bothered by the loose ends and plot holes. When it comes to Bruce Willis the actor, I tend to be neutral-plus. There are times when I like Willis otherwise I'm not a hard core fan. Yet I feel that Willis did okay for the role of Paul Kersey, rather than selecting Stallone or the others. Willis needed to look believable as a trauma surgeon, which I'm not sure Stallone could have pulled off. For those who watch Bruce Willis movies or else have good memories will find something in DEATH WISH (2018) that is derivative of Willis' earlier, 2005 movie, SIN CITY, where he played the role of, Hartigan, an extremely violent vigilante who stalked and killed off violent, heinous, and sociopathic criminals using mutilation and torture. It near crossed the moral line into using evil to fight evil, never a good choice to make even in desperation. Hartigan dismembered alive a teenage sociopathic serial murderer of young women, played by none other than Elijah Wood, the beloved Frodo Baggins. Hartigan castrates another serial killer of young women with his big revolver before shooting him dead. Dr. Paul Kersey in DEATH WISH 2018 tends to follow a similar MO. DEATH WISH (2018) generally follows the storyline of its 1974 original although it can't be faulted for not being able to introduce something new as the 1974 did in stimulating ethical and moral dilemma debates on street justice. There are a few differences which I appreciated such as the greatly toning down of the depicted violence against Mrs. Kersey and her daughter which was graphically shown in the 1974 version. Director Eli Roth did a superb job in seamlessly integrating 2018 computer technology and prevailing social media tech and practices. I loved the YouTube-like instructional videos that Dr. Kersey relied upon. You can learn almost anything by watching YouTube today and I literally saw how an appendix operation was done on YouTube, not that I'd ever want to try it myself on someone. The words, YouTube, are never shown on Dr. Kersey's computer monitor screen though, probably for legal and copyright reasons. But Dr. Kersey learns how to operate, disassemble, clean, and reassemble a bootleg Glock semi-automatic that fell from a gunshot patient's pants while in the trauma surgery room, which is one of those slightly unbelievable plot points because something like that would not happen in real life; paramedics normally inspect a patient in the ambulance and nurses and assistants remove the patient's clothing, but in the movie it looks believable enough. Probably due to budgetary reasons, the widespread police reaction to the vigilante "Reaper" appears much more limited in the 2018 remake than the 1974 original. Most of the investigation falls upon the overworked and harassed shoulders of two, Chicago detectives, who really still care and avoid police cynicism, whom I felt a large measure of sympathy for during the movie, even if the depiction of both was another one of those weaker storyline points. There are a few, no doubt intentional moments of black humor that will make you laugh, such as onlookers looting the ice cream wagon of a seedy neighborhood drug dealer extortionist, just moments after Willis shot him multiple times, the others you'll have to see for yourself. This is all typical, classic Willis black humor action typical of his violent action movies. In summary, if you visit the theater seeking pure entertainment and entertainment only, you won't be disappointed. Just don't look for anything more.

"Saving General Yang" turns out to be a very watchable, very good historical drama based on the historical Song general, Yang Ye, of the Northern Song dynasty. This is refreshing from the earlier historical Chinese dramas that distracted with incredulous kung fu flying stunts and such. Here the warriors, good guys and bad guys, are ordinary mortal men. Think of, "Saving General Yang" as a East Asian version of, "Vikings" from the History Channel. Yes, it's that violent but at least much more realistic. The movie is based only but one historical interpretation. The storyline blames colleague Song general, Pan Li, for treachery and cowardice by refusing to come to the aid of the ambushed and outnumbered general Yang Ye. But another history account tells it differently. The first Song dynasty emperor relied on three, experienced and highly competent generals to conquer the remaining, independent Han Chinese states, thus reuniting all of China since the time of the T'ang Dynasty. These men were, Cao Bi, Pan Li, and Yang Ye. All three proved highly effective senior generals, each man commanding subordinate junior generals. Cao Bi was a righteous, modest man who eschewed riches, wealth, rejected bribes and prevented his soldiers from plundering. Pan Li was an experienced battlefield tactician who knew how to attack Song enemies at their weak spots and weak moments and proved good at motivating subordinates. Yang Ye was from a more refined social class and upbringing and was also an astute battlefield tactician. Operating separately, the rest of China succumbed and Song China reunited the entire country, except for the far northeastern 16 prefectures which were lost in 950 A.D. by a previous, short-lived, rump Chinese dynasty, to the foreign Liao Dynasty, known as the Khitans. The second Song emperor dispatched Cao Bi, Pan Li, and Yang Ye north to reclaim the 16 prefectures from the Khitan. The three invading columns moved independently and were not coordinated with each other. The Liao armies attacked and defeated each Song Chinese army, starting with Cao Bi, then Pan Li, finally Yang Ye. Pan Li had been attacked and was unable to support Yang Ye. The failure of the Northern Expedition infuriated the second Song emperor. He demoted Pan Li three ranks. Cao and Yang were dead. The Chinese have become rediscovering and reassessing the heretofore ignored Song Dynasty because militarily and diplomatically it was the weakest of all the major Han Chinese dynasties. But a historical reassessment reveals China underwent a technological, scientific, agricultural, cultural, economic, and social 'golden age' under the Song, especially during the Northern Song era. Even when the foreign Jin Dynasty (Jurchens) conquered the northern 1/3rd of China, the remaining 2/3rds under the Southern Song remained prosperous for another 150 years until the Mongols finally violently liquidated the Song. The Song dynasty proved wealthier and more advanced than its glorious T'ang predecessor. Song China is considered a time of scientific and technological invention, many of which still exist today, such as the compass and paper money.

BIG SPOILERS. Don't read this review if you haven't seen the movie yet and don't want to know what happens.

The Last Jedi is earning mega-bucks around the world and yet is garnering particularly vicious reviews here on imdb. Something is going on and I suspect some kind of angry troll campaign to trash the movie. I judge movies on entertainment value. Did I feel entertained when I leave the movie theater? The answer here is a resounding yes. Watch The Last Jedi and judge it on its own merits for yourself.

SPOILERS*******SPOILERS********SPOILERS So what is the current situation in the Star Wars Galaxy?

The Last Jedi can be applauded for trying its best to avoid clichés. You expect some daring gamble to work out and it doesn't. The story doesn't truly end on a happy note.

The Resistance has basically sacrificed itself to slow down the First Order, but that is it. By movie's end, we know we have been set up for another big sequel. The Resistance destroyed the First Order Death Planet in the first movie back in 2015. The Resistance destroyed a First Order dreadnought battleship, assassinated Supreme Leader Snoke (indirectly), destroyed Snoke's massive flagship, large numbers of tie fighters and scores of stormtroopers. But as shown, the First Order can absorb these losses and is only delayed, if slightly. The First Order still possesses its small fleet of Star Destroyers. It presumably has reserves of stormtroopers, and Supreme Leader Snoke proved replaceable. Kylo Ren quickly assumed leadership. General Hux survived the battle and the First Order has firm, experienced leadership. The Resistance has lost all of its star ship assets, almost all its manpower and is down to a handful of people, counting General Leia and Rey, the key people, plus the obsolescent but still functional Millenium Falcon. The Resistance is down to...nothing. My guess is that the sequel will show the Outer Rim planets building and funding a new rebel Alliance. The First Order still possesses the winning hand. The New Republic is finished. Its senate, government center and main, inner planets that comprise the important leadership of the New Republic have been incinerated in the first movie. A third Republic will have to be created by the surviving New Republic planets, most located far away from the galaxy center and near or at the Outer Rim. It all makes for a good suspense sequel since basically the Resistance has been defeated and destroyed. The New Republic has been liquidated. More, the Jedi Order has finally come to an end as it used to exist, the last master, Luke Skywalker passing away and the Jedi Tree and its books, now considered irrelevant, are burned to the ground by the spirit of Yoda. The First Order, despite some significant losses and the death of its leader, is still very much alive and dangerous. The First Order is still in a position to move back into former New Republic space and restore the Empire. There's nothing to stop them. So stay tuned for the next sequel in late 2019. Everything will be completely different. If you're like me, you can't wait even though the movie has yet to be even written.

It's not easy to choose which of the many film adaptations of 'Scrooge', or, "A Christmas Carol" is the best. It's better to say, which does a fan like the best. For me I like this 1970 adaptation the best followed by the 1984 version and the Patrick Picard version. I do not include the animated cartoon versions for comparison. I am not a trained psychologist for starters although I have read something of human psychology in college and on the Internet. Fans throughout the ages pondered just what was the problem with Ebenezer Scrooge's pathological greed? The answer is in the word, 'pathological'. When applying the psychology of the malevolent personality 'Dark Triad' to Ebenezer Scrooge, the man's pathology reflected mostly narcissism and probably some nonclinical sociopathy. In all the film adaptations you clearly hear Scrooge openly think of himself as a generous, honest man who is taken advantage of by thieving, cheating humanity, whom he despises, being the consummate misanthropist. But the catalyst of Scrooge's personality neuroses is his 'fetish' with money. His obsession with wealth overextends to the actual physical possession and touch of gold specie where it has now become a fetish. You see Scrooge constantly touching and counting gold coins far beyond the necessary time to handle it. Indeed, Scrooge's classic greed is just the overt manifested system of neurosis, narcissism, nonclinical pathology, fetishism, misanthropy, and ultimately his own unrecognized self-hatred projected and channeled externally onto others as their fault, not his. Therefore the one tragic scene where Ebenezer coldly breaks up with his fiancé, Isabel, is not a tragedy at all. It was the best thing that could happen to both people. Ebenezer was already down the dark rabbit hole when Isabel (never dismiss woman's intuition) realizes for both of them that happy marriage is an impossibility. The breakup between both people no doubt prevented future misery, unhappiness and possible tragedy. Isabel was smart enough to call it quits and Ebenezer, in his last act of unknowing compassion let her go. Ebenezer's final redemption and rebirth into humanity and compassion is his successful psychological therapy which restored the benign personality of his youth. Of course there's much more to that as the original intent of, "A Christmas Carol" was spiritual and Christian. Applying 21st century psychology to it makes Scrooge more understandable even if not more sympathetic.

The World War II historical event of the British evacuation of it's army from the French beaches of Dunkirk has been covered from the military aspect several times over the past decades. DARKEST HOUR fills the void over what transpired in the British government over that time period, how Great Britain teetered between an armistice with Nazi Germany that would have been a de facto negotiated surrender and continued national resistance. As the movie depicts, it was a close thing. First of all, the television commercial preview gives a somewhat misleading perception of 'Darkest Hour' as a more traditional war movie. But that is not the case. The movie is almost wholly human drama back in London amidst the center of political power encompassing Parliament, the House of Commons, the intrigue between its most powerful men, and the involvement of King George V. This movie is not suited for perhaps for younger people but for older fans of historical drama. Make no mistake, it is a high-quality human drama theatrical production and well-worth watching. It would be too dull for children, teens, and young adults. As the historical drama unfolds, the populace and the government of Great Britain are shaken and fearful in May 1940 as the German Wehrmacht steamrolls over Western Europe, crushes the numerically superior but poorly-led French Army, and forces the British Expeditionary Army reeling back against the sea at the beaches of Dunkirk. But that is just the backdrop for the real movie. Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, a secretly dying man, his appeasement policies towards Nazi Germany a catastrophic failure, is forced from power. In hindsight, the history books might be too harsh on Chamberlain as an appeaser. Closer examination of contemporary history shows that he was highly supported by the British government, the populace, and the king in the two years leading up to war. In the late 1930s, the once highly nationalistic and jingoistic British and French are a thing of the past. The human meat grinder of WWI have wholly transformed both nations into pacifists, almost at any cost. Despite rearmament by the U.K. and France, both are still unprepared for major war in late 1939. A highly respected, experienced and powerful statesman, Viscount Halifax, is considered by many to be the natural successor. In historical hindsight it was fortunate for the United Kingdom and for the world that Halifax declined the prestigious job of prime minister. Had it been peacetime, no doubt he would have accepted. But it was desperate national times. Halifax, and many in the British government at the time saw things pessimistically and for legitimate reasons. It was true, Great Britain was still unprepared and underequipped to oppose Nazi Germany. Logically, some kind of peace agreement did make sense. True, but as Great Britain had suffered a serious military defeat on the continent, any peace treaty then and there would no doubt be disadvantageous. Hitler would undoubtedly have demanded harsh terms from the British government. Why not? He was the winner at the time. Halifax, one of the leading members of the peace settlement with Hitler, understood this better than anyone besides Chamberlain and Churchill. An ambitious, highly intelligent man, Halifax was astute enough to recognize history would hold him responsible for any negotiated surrender with Germany, which is what any 'armistice' would have been in May 1940. Halifax did not want that. He declined the prime minister job which went to second choice, compromise candidate, Winston Churchill. Had Churchill agreed with Halifax's demand for peace terms with Hitler, it would have been Churchill's entire fault in the history books. And history would have been changed forever. The movie dramatically shows how even Churchill himself wavered at the critical moment, when he stood alone in defiance of Nazi Germany. Churchill held to his instincts, his natural stubbornness, his unwavering faith in the greatness and power of Great Britain which he witnessed and participated in as a young man, the timely moral and political support of King George V, and his well-advised talks with the British common people. By accident, Churchill's earlier reluctant 'implied' assent to Halifax and Chamberlain to explore peace negotiations through mediator, fascist Italy, got both men off his back temporarily, giving Churchill more breathing space and room to act. The crowning moment arrived in the House of Commons when Churchill rallied all parties, essentially the entire government, behind him to continue the war against Nazi Germany. Chamberlain gave his quiet assent (he would pass away 6 months later) and Viscount Halifax fell from power, later to be dispatched by Churchill to the USA to purchase armaments and supplies for the national war effort. And the rest is destiny and final victory on May 8, 1945.

Many people unabashedly love, "Santa Claus Is Comin' To Town" because it and others like, 'Rudolph The Red-Nosed Reindeer', 'Year Without Santa', 'Charlie Brown Christmas', 'How The Grinch Stole Christmas', 'Frosty The Snowman', represent everything that was warm, comforting, and loving about our collective childhoods. The message of love, compassion, charity, and redemption never outgrows us and remains relevant for our entire lives.

Still, why continue watching these beautiful Christmas specials your entire life? It's because it's nice to be happy and positive with yourself and towards others if only during the holiday season. No one should be content becoming and remaining a miserable adult. There's a lot to be said about keeping your inner child alive all through your life, as demonstrated at the end of Santa Claus Is Comin' To Town when it shows adults saying, 'humbug'. These people totally missed the message of Christmas.

It's impossible not to see Santa Clause Is Comin' To Town with adult sensibility today in 2017. Would there be criticism depicting Germans as mean-spirited bad people as shown here? But remember when this animatronic special was created, the year, 1970.

In 1970, World War 2 has been over for only 25 years. The ugly memories of Nazi Germany, and the necessity for destroying the Third Reich at great cost and sorrow remains strong in the minds of the adults who collaborated to produce this classic great, Santa Claus Is Comin' To Town. Hence you see references to German tyranny as a metaphor for evil still in the world. If produced today, it would be a totally different production with different, more neutral villains.

I read the paperback book, "The Godfather", when I just became a teenager. The book and the movie are rare for both being excellent, which is why both received high awards.

I found the book riveting and I couldn't put it down. But being an innocent young teenager I was horrified by the violence that men can do to men. The character of Luca Brazzi was terrifying, even though it was just fiction. Even the actor who played him, a former, 6'6" wrestler, was perfect for depicting the quiet, smoldering malevolence as a family 'company' man who took care of the family's enemies in frightening, brutal ways. It was no literary surprise when the Brazzi character met his own brutal karma end.

It's easier to gain an assessment of Don Corleone's three sons, Sonny, Fredo, and Michael watching the movie while the book does go into better detail.

In the book/movie, Michael, the reluctant son, proves the most capable in the intelligence, cunning, and amorality of his father as his two older brothers fall by the wayside. Yet the whole tragedy is that Michael wanted to be a good man of ethics and morals and would have been a very decent man in a normal family. Fredo, the middle brother was also born in the wrong family. Portrayed as the weak brother, Fredo's weakness was that he completely unsuited mentally, psychologically, and emotionally for life in a crime family and to do the kinds of evil and violent things that would be expected of him. Both men, Fredo, and Michael, would have flourished in normal, middle-class to upper middle-class families. It was the eldest son, Sonny (Santino) who possessed the strength, charisma, apparent leadership ability but not the deep intelligence, foresight, perception, self-control or wisdom to lead the Corleone family.

For me the tragedy is not so much the violence or the Corleone family but the two younger brothers, Fredo and Michael, both of whom sincerely and strongly desired to be good men. Fredo's inner weakness led him to betrayal and his ultimate end. Michael's love for his father and family led him to sacrifice the life of a good man for that of an evil crime boss who could give the orders to kill enemies without hesitation and emotion and no regrets.