Here is an interesting article from http://www.debbieschlussel.com/ reviewing some of the movies that came out over the past weekend. This follows this post about some of the movies from last week and THIS POST about some movies that have been released over the past few years that you might have missed! This all follows this post about guidelines to choosing good movies to watch yourself!

Weekend Box Office: Burnt, Our Brand is Crisis, Room

By Debbie Schlussel

I would not spend ten bucks-plus and two hours of my life on any of the new releases in theaters today. Here’s why:
* “Burnt” – Rated R: I (and probably you, too) have seen what seems like a zillion addict-redeems-himself-and-makes-a-comeback movies. This is the latest, and definitely not the best. It’s not the worst, either. But it seems like I’ve seen what’s in this over and over again. The guy has a relapse. He blows it all and hurts his friends and lovers, but then he doesn’t really blow it all and gets back on the wagon. And so on. Check, check check. It’s all in this movie. (A protagonist for whom we root to overcome his addiction and make that comeback . . . well, not exactly, as the lead character here isn’t all that likable.)
I’ve also seen plenty of chef and cuisine movies, and this also isn’t the best of those, either. But, again, not the worst. It’s somewhat entertaining in that respect. I’d have to say that my favorite recent chef/food movie is last year’s “Chef” (read my review), which is far superior to this and a much better chef comeback movie on all levels. It’s funnier, heartier, relaxing, and much more pleasant to watch.
This stressed me out a little. I have no use for melodramas that are overly melodramatic just to hit me over the head over and over again with it, and for no legitimate reason. This did that. We’re treated over and over again to chef Bradley Cooper’s in-kitchen tantrums and scream-fests. It seems like he’s channeling a real-life chef who gets off on this overdone ranting, Gordon Ramsay. But that act has been worn out by Ramsay and is unwanted noise here. The guy is screaming just to scream (as Ramsay does), and it’s unnecessary.
The story: Cooper plays a world-class gourmet chef who was on top of the world at a fancy French restaurant. But he was a drug addict whose addiction ended his career and ruined everything, but not until after he’d earned two highly-coveted Michelin stars for the restaurant he helmed. After rehab, Cooper is working in a self-imposed penance of shucking a million clams at a dive restaurant. Once he’s reached the magic number, he sets out on his comeback, this time in London. Cooper convinces his former maître d’ (Daniel Brühl), the man he believes to be the best in the biz (and who also happens to be the son of a fatally ill, wealthy hotel owner), to open a new restaurant bearing Cooper’s name. Through dirty tricks, some groveling and even posting bail, he also gets the top restaurant staff with whom he used to work.
Cooper’s cooking style is considered “old-fashioned” because it’s five years old (who knew the styles of haute cuisine change that quickly?). But he’s striving to beat a rival to getting that rare, third Michelin star rating for the new restaurant. While he does that, he must overcome competition, resistance and revenge from his staff, and his own ego (something he doesn’t overcome even once in this movie).
The thing is, pretty much every other character in this movie is infinitely more likable than Cooper’s. They are all people for whom we feel sympathy and commiseration. For instance, the always excellent Brühl’s maître d’ character is the most likable (and the most taken advantage of by Cooper). Sienna Miller as a semi-romantic partner and sous chef is also a sympathetic character, but Cooper has no empathy for her, and yet, she makes out with the jerk and stands by him. Why (other than that a lot of women like jerks)? And, so, as I mentioned before, there is no desire on the audience’s part (or shouldn’t be) to hope for Cooper’s comeback. He’s just an egomaniacal jerk and bully. And his story is nothing new. This movie is being mentioned as an Oscar vehicle for Cooper. Not in my book.
As I noted, this movie is somewhat entertaining, but overly melodramatic for a movie about a chef. It’s just food. Not brain surgery or rocket science or winning World War II. Not even close. The best thing about this movie is that the ending is ambiguous and sudden–and I generally like that in a movie. If only the rest of the movie matched this master stroke.
By the way, with all of the scenes of food, sauces, cooking, tasting, and eating in this, if you do go to see it, don’t go on an empty stomach.
ONE REAGAN

Watch the trailer . . .

* “Our Brand is Crisis” – Rated R: I really liked the first 85% of this movie, and was getting ready to write a great review, but then, as often happens, this flick let me down and turned into a bait-and-switch, far-left, anti-American sh-t-show. If you like politics and campaigns and their funny, clever, dirty tricks, then you, too, will like the first 85% of this movie. I thought this was going to be about how political advisers and their machinations can turn a campaign around, and for most of it, that’s what this was. In the end, though, this movie turns out to be about how the “evil” American gringos help prop up capitalist elites in poor countries and betray and rip off the poor, indigenous peoples. You know, the usual Hollywood hate-America narrative. Even worse, they don’t even tell or show you that the evil American gringos who did this were . . . liberal Democrats, including Clintonista James Carville. In this movie, they reverse the true story and make the Carville character into the adviser of the “honest man of the people.” And the fact that this is produced by lefty liar George Clooney has everything to do with that.
This movie is very loosely based on the 2005 documentary of the same name (it’s an annoying trend–documentaries remade as fiction movies), which followed American political consultants James Carville, Stan Greenberg, and Bob Shrum–all of them liberal Democrats–as they advised the campaign of “conservative,” wealthy, American-born Gonzalo Sánchez de Lozada and helped him win the 2002 Bolivian Presidential election over uber-Marxist America-hater Evo Morales. The left-wing documentary makers tried to sell their movie as an anti-Bush movie, pimping the absurd notion that Carville et al sold Sanchez de Lozada as an extension of America selling the world on the war in Iraq. Huh?
In this movie, Sandra Bullock plays a character that is essentially the composite of Carville and his minions. Her role was originally a male character. A bald Billy Bob Thornton is the Carville-esque adviser to the Evo Morales-esque candidate, who in this movie is an honest, likable man of the people, and not at all shown to be the evil, America-hating Commu-Nazi that Morales actually is.
Most of the movie is fun and enjoyable, as the film depicts the various dirty tricks and zingers traded back and forth between political operatives and their candidates–the same kind of stuff that goes on in the U.S. in election campaigns. And the Wile E. Coyote/Roadrunner frenemy relationship between Bullock’s and Thornton’s characters is amusing and entertaining.
But then it veers into “evil America,” “Down wit’ da Latin America-hating struggle” territory. **** SPOILER ALERT ****: After Bullock’s candidate wins the election, a young peasant who has been helping the campaign gets disillusioned. He sees that their candidate, who is now President, was a liar–that he told Bolivian peasants and farmers that he would not bring in the IMF to interject itself into the Bolivian economy; but now he’s done exactly that as his first act of office, saying the peasants are too dumb to understand why it needs to be done, so they needed to be lied to. Apparently, in Hollywood’s view, this is the first politician on earth to lie. Amazing. Who knew they lied?
When confronted with this, at first Bullock tells the young campaign worker that her job is not about morality or truth-telling. She was hired to win a campaign, and the world moves on. But, then, she decides this is wrong, quits her job, and joins the anti-capitalist Occupy Bolivia protesters in the street (no, they don’t call themselves “Occupy Bolivia,” but same difference here). And after that, she founds the “Latin America Solidarity Network” to fight this horrible American capitalist “conservative” gringo liar she’s just helped elect. Yup, now she’s down wit’ da struggle. Viva La Hollywood!
In case you were wondering, the title of the movie is taken from the campaign strategy Bullock employs for her candidate (and which Carville et al employed for theirs) in order to win the election. The thinking is that, when your candidate has previously held office and is older, wealthier, and thought of as the establishment guy versus an upstart, younger, revolutionary candidate, your candidate’s brand must be “Crisis.” The only way to win the election is to paint the country as in a crisis–economic, national security, or whatever–and your candidate as the only one with the experience and toughness to get the country through it. Otherwise, the thinking goes, the electorate will pick the younger, newer, more revolutionary guy. By the way, my brand is American patriotism. And if you don’t like America, maybe you should take your movie and shove it you know where.
If this review were based on the first 85% of the movie, I’d give it THREE REAGANS or so. Most of the movie was funny, clever, and smart–not to mention, accurate as far as what goes into a winning campaign in contemporary Wesern elections. But since I’m reviewing it based on the whole thing . . . and the fact that Hollywood lied to you and me in marketing it as a campaign comedy (when it’s really more anti-American crap), I have to give it . . .
TWO MARXES PLUS TWO OBAMAS

Watch the trailer . . .

* “Room” – Rated R: This movie is being raved about (and talked up for the Oscars) by most movie critics because, like them, it is dark, pretentious, and liberal. And unnecessary. America has this growing sick obsession with darkness and tragedy, and it’s a reflection of the growing nihilism of our ever-more areligious, amoral, liberal society in which anything goes and there is no god whose name isn’t Kim, Kanye, Kylie or Caitlin. Anything goes now, and we are so bored that we need the ever more dark and macabre to interest us. And so it goes with “Room.”
I note that Emma Donoghue, writer of the best-selling novel from which this movie is taken, insisted that all of the names of the places and items occupying the small space where a kidnap victim and her son live, not be preceded by adjectives, articles, or indefinite articles. So, no “the room” or “the door” or “the rat.” This pretentous author insisted that everything be called, “Room,” “Door,” “Rat,” etc., as if these are proper nouns. Any director interested in making her book into a film, who used adjectives or articles was immediately dismissed. That’s part of the pretentiousness of Donoghue, her book, and, now, this movie: they (she and the filmmakers) think they are much more important and magically insightful than they actually are. Instead, this is a tawdry, cheap tabloid story pretending to have some great message or contribution. It has neither.
The story is one you and I have seen in the headlines a few times already, and there was no point in fictionalizing it into a movie. It only adds to what I’ve coined the “Kidnapped Like a Kardashian” culture (or is that, “Kulture”?), in which kidnap victims, once freed, don’t go quietly into that sweet night and live their lives. Instead, they become instant celebrities, with Elizabeth Smart gracing the People mag cover several times and going on high-paid speaking engagements. Jaycee Dugard, not content with the $20 mill she got in a settlement with the State of California, sells products online bearing her name. They’ve branded themselves in a burgeoning industry of kidnaphood. “I’ve been kidnapped and raped. Now, buy my stuff!”
In this movie, the first half shows us a young woman (Brie Larson) and her five-year-old son in a room. Oops, I mean, “in Room” It turns out the room–Room!–is a shed in the backyard of the woman’s kidnapper. The woman is a 24-year-old (or so) who was kidnapped in her neighborhood at the age of 17, when a child molester neighbor tricks her into helping him with his non-existent “sick dog.” The man has held her captive for seven years in the shed, and she has the five-year-old as a product of the nightly rapes she must endure. The son watches the rapes through the slats in a wardrobe where he is hidden.
Desperate to get out and realizing her son is now old enough, the woman comes up with a plan to escape and enlists her son, in the plot. He doesn’t know anything but the room–Room!–and must be convinced that there is a real world out there beyond “Room.” Since trailers for this movie show it, I’m not giving anything away by saying that they do escape.
Once mother and son get out, then the melodrama multiplies geometrically. And it’s not realistic or accurate. In contrast to most real-life kidnapees, the woman is not ecstatic to be free. Her parents are now divorced, with her father living in another city. Her father refuses to acknowledge the son that is the product of rape. I doubt that would ever happen in real life (unless the father were Muslim–in which case, Hollywood would whitewash that and make the guy the most loving rape-victim dad ever!). The woman is depressed, negative, sullen, and constantly moping, stewing, and yelling at everyone. She blames her mother for being kidnapped and losing years of her life, telling her that “it’s your fault because you told me to be nice to everyone.” But since I was a little kid, parents haven’t told their kids to be nice to everyone. The exact opposite, in fact. “Don’t talk to strangers” is a mantra which is decades old and something most parents in America have taught their kids since at least the ’70s. Ditto for “stranger danger!”
Also not real: the woman does a TV interview for money and the news anchor who interviewers her, blames her for having her son and raising him in captivity. Puh-leeze. No media personalities are ever the least bit challenging or accusatory when they interview kidnap victims (not that I’m saying that they should be, but someone needs to ask about the endless, overboard branding of female kidnap victims). On the contrary, they go overboard in the other direction. They fawn over the kidnapees, gushing over them effusively, and wrongly calling them “heroic” and “courageous,” when they are simply very unfortunate victims who managed to survive. I mean, has anyone missed Diane Sawyer and others fawning over Elizabeth Smart and Jaycee Dugard, and Robin Roberts slobbering over the captives of Ariel Castro in Cleveland (and each of their unnecessary books)?
The ending features an unnecessary revisit to the scene of their captivity (which also is without the “Inside Edition” cameras you know would be there in real life, for yet another paid interview). And the mother takes her son there. That’s hardly motherly, nor “closure.” And if it is, that’s pathetic and says a lot about American victimhood.
The only parts of this movie that interested me were the moments of hope and nail-biting suspense, when the escape attempts (and success) happen. That was the only part of the movie that resembles more traditional and less tawdry and dark kidnap rescue movies–the type liberal movie critics pan (because they aren’t dark and negative enough and the victims are rescued and happy about it). Other than that, the one highlight of the movie is nine-year-old actor Jacob Tremblay as Jack, the five-year-old son and the product of the rape. He’s a great actor and very cute. But Tremblay, who was seven or eight when this movie was shot, shouldn’t have been exposed to the subject of rape and the material in this movie. His mother is the Teri Shields of this generation, and she should be arrested for child abuse. She took away her son’s childhood all for money, not via the force of a kidnapping child molester.
The movie ends on an ever so tentative, ever so slight positive or redemptive note. But it’s not enough to justify this cheap, dark exercise in the unnecessary.
TWO MARXES

Watch the trailer . . .

Wknd Box Office: Gravity, Parkland, Runner Runner, Inequality for All

Here is an interesting article from http://www.debbieschlussel.com/ reviewing some of the movies that came out over the past weekend. This follows this post about some of the movies from last week and THIS POST about some movies that have been released over the past few years that you might have missed! This all follows this post about guidelines to choosing good movies to watch yourself!

Wknd Box Office: Gravity, Parkland, Runner Runner, Inequality for All


By Debbie Schlussel

One fabulous new movie in theaters, this weekend, as we get closer and closer to the better movies in the Thanksgiving and Christmas season.

* “Gravity“: A great movie adventure. The best thing about this movie is that it is visually stunning. Although I saw it in 2D, this is one of those that is worth shelling out the extra few bucks for 3D and/or IMAX. It makes it even more real when space debris is traveling at the astronauts in this movie (and you) at 100,000 miles an hour. The worst thing about this movie: the male astronaut, who knows exactly what he’s doing and does everything right, isn’t rewarded. The female astronaut, who is in a panic, doesn’t listen, and doesn’t stop talking, is.

The story: George Clooney and Sandra Bullock are American astronauts up in space to repair satellites. Suddenly, space debris from a destroyed satellite is traveling at them at very high speed and velocity, putting them in danger. Soon, they are stuck floating in space alone and without help, as their space shuttle is destroyed, and everyone on it is dead. And they are unable to communicate with NASA or anyone else but each other. They have limited oxygen supply and need to find a way out and home.

George Clooney is only in about a fifth of the movie. The real star is Sandra Bullock. I like this kind of movie, where survival is the goal and those trying to survive are all alone in an environment in which they must rely on brainpower and wit to stay alive. So, I enjoyed this. Add to that, space and beautiful visuals and special effects, and you have a great movie.

I didn’t need to hear or know the tragic sob story behind Sandra Bullock’s life on earth, but that’s very brief and a tiny part of the movie, and doesn’t really take away from it much.

This is the first of Oscar-hyped movies about survival. The next one, which is very similar, is “All is Lost,” coming out later this month, with Robert Redford playing a man trying to survive while lost at sea in the Indian Ocean. The movies have interesting similarities and differences and make great companion movie viewing about survival in different atmospheres. Stay tuned for my review on that one.

And, for now, go see this. It’s fun, thrilling, suspenseful, and entertaining. A great escapist movie. Odds are that you’ll enjoy it, as I did.

THREE-AND-A-HALF REAGANS



* “Parkland“: This is about the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, the days surrounding it, and the hospital, Parkland, to where the bodies of both the dead President and his assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, were taken. At first, I expected to hate this movie and wondered what it could possibly show us. After all, half of Kennedy’s head was blown off, so I wondered, what is there to show? As we all know, efforts to revive the President were futile, and even if they were able to, were we gonna have a President walking around with half of a head? But I was pleasantly surprised, and the movie–even if overly sad and melodramatic–was much better than I expected, and it made me think a lot, including about angles that weren’t covered in it.

In an age where many Americans know only the history of the Kardashians and/or the Jay-Z/Beyonce Knowles Carters but not actual, real American history, this is a nice tutorial on the JFK assassination, the 50th anniversary of which takes place this November. However, for the rest of us, you won’t learn much new stuff, but the movie does explore interesting points, such as the reaction of Oswald’s brother and his encounter with the assassin sibling at the police station after the shooting. One glaring omission: the movie never mentions Jack Ruby, though there is notice of the assassination of Lee Harvey Oswald, and it never explores or even quickly asks why Ruby killed Oswald.

Still, I found the movie interesting and entertaining, and American history buffs will probably still enjoy it. One caveat: there are more men crying onscreen in this movie than at a showing of “Brokeback Mountain” in West Hollywood. It’s a little unsettling.

Paul Giamatti is probably the most memorable actor in the movie, as his portrayal of a morally centered and deeply affected Abraham Zapruder, the Jewish immigrant clothing maker who took the only film of the assassination. In the age of TMZ, it is touching to see his negotiations with LIFE Magazine, in which he insists that LIFE not publish stills from his movie that show “a dignified President in an undignified position.” Today, those pictures would be all over the place, as we now live in undignified times where anything goes and all gruesome death photos are published, except the ones of the only man we’ve (actually Obama has) raised as more holy than the rest of us, Osama Bin Laden. Zapruder talks about how his father took them away from Europe to escape certain death, and he is extremely sensitive to the situation in which he finds himself now.

If you are looking for conspiracy theories here, you won’t find them, except for the crazed, delusional ravings from Lee Harvey Oswald’s mother (Jacki Weaver), who insists that her son was a trained CIA agent and is deserving of full burial in Arlington National Cemetery.

The movie is a little maudlin and macabre at times. We see Mrs. Kennedy giving an emergency room nurse a piece of the President’s skull and brain that landed on her during the assassination. And there is a scene in which Secret Service agents struggle to get Kennedy’s coffin onto the plane and have to cut out sections of it.

But there are touching moments and interesting ones, such as the scene in which Catholic Secret Service agents kneel and pray at the President’s coffin on the plane in mid-air, and the scene contrasting the funerals of the President and his assassin. (Billy Bob Thornton co-stars in this as a senior Secret Service agent.)

The movie is based on the book “Four Days in November: The Assassination of President John F. Kennedy ,” by Vincent Bugliosi. I wondered about the accuracy of certain things. Is it true, for instance, that the FBI received a bomb threat from Oswald, ten days before the JFK assassination and ignored it? Is it true that, after Oswald was assassinated, agents in the Dallas FBI office burned the bomb threat letter, destroying all evidence of that?

The postscripts in the movie are interesting, telling us what happened to the doctors who tried to revive Kennedy, the Secret Service agents on his detail, Oswald’s mother, and so on. But the postscripts are lacking. They don’t tell us what happened to Oswald’s wife and kids, who remained in Texas. Check out the video interview of Oswald’s daughter, June, below; I don’t agree with her conspiracy theories, but the interview is interesting, nonetheles). The postscripts also don’t tell us that the Zapruder family got $16 million from the federal government as compensation for the feds taking the Zapruder film under eminent domain laws. And, again, Jack Ruby is just never mentioned anywhere.

Still, if you like history, you’ll probably like this, as I did, if you can ignore the overwrought melodramatics. And, as with me, it might inspire you to look further into the matters covered in the movie.

TWO-AND-A-HALF REAGANS







* “Runner Runner“: Two annoying words: Ben Affleck. I hated this movie, and I felt like I’d seen it a million times before, including the first time, when I saw the movie, “Wall Street.” This is a different setting, but it’s basically the same story, minus the “Greed is Good” speech. The movie was long, boring, pointless, and I struggled to stay awake, as it moves very slowly.

Justin Timberlake plays a working class student at Princeton University who is an “affiliate” of an online gambling site owned by Ben Affleck. The site primarily specializes in poker. An affiliate has customers (gamblers) he brings to the site (using coupons and other enticements), and he earns a cut of the action or some other form of payment. One day, Timberlake decides to gamble his $17,000 tuition money on the site and loses it all, even though he’s an excellent poker player and knows the precise mathematical odds for each move. He discovers that the site conned and cheated him, knowing his cards in advance.

Timberlake goes to Costa Rica to confront Affleck. Affleck apologizes, returns the money, and ultimately hires Timberlake. Then, he has Timberlake, a naive guy who thinks everything is aboveboard, do his dirty work. Timberlake pays off officials with bribes and soon finds friends missing. His life is threatened, as is his working class gambling father’s life, and he wants to get out, after finally realizing Affleck is a crook, a mobster, and a scammer. Believe me, I’m making it sound more simple than it actually is, as the movie is confusing, nonsensical, and ridiculous.

The movie is incredibly violent, and in one disturbing scene, Affleck and his henchmen pour chicken fat over public officials they’ve handcuffed. Then, they dump them in the water to be eaten by alligators. Or is it crocodiles? I didn’t care which, because I was so disgusted and already so bored and annoyed by sitting through this 1.5 hour pointless bore that seems like 5.5 hours.

Skip this.

TWO-AND-A-HALF MARXES





* “Inequality For All“: Should have been called, “Inequality For You Compared With Hypocrite Multi-Millionaire Fraud Robert Reich.” This is a “documentary” by and about Robert Reich, Bill Clinton’s Labor Secretary. The diminutive Reich explains why he is short (he has a disease, and his parents are normal-sized). And that is about the only explanation that is reasonable in this highly skip-able lecture of a movie. If you get orgasms over Occupy Wall Street, which is highly lauded in this movie, this is your flick. For those of us who are not Neo-Marxists, stay away.

Robert Reich tells us that the economy is bad and getting worse because of greedy shareholders who don’t work hard and just sit around and collect millions. He doesn’t tell us about his shares in the stock market and how greedy he is. Or about how he doesn’t work too hard giving once a week boring lectures as a highly-paid professor at UC Berkeley, although he does show us that he is a professor there.

Reich shows us some multi-millionaire original investor in Google (or Facebook, I can’t remember which and don’t care either). The guy tells us how his family is very wealthy from making pillows and investing. But, then, the guy whines that you only need six pairs of pants in life and that he has too much money because he’s made so much by investing. Well, then, give it to me, instead of hypocritically whining about it and imposing your left-wing, anti-free-market principles on the rest of us, while you continue to sit on your gazillions. Fraud.

The rest of the movie is Reich’s socialist clap-trap and fakery while he jets around America like the rich capitalist hypocrite limousine liberal that he is. He shows us some Hispanic people in California, whining about how hard life is for them because they live in a generously sized apartment (not a house–sad sad, too bad), and they might not be able to afford to continue to give their kids iPhones so their kids can call them in an emergency. Wow, that’s poverty?! Hilarious. Cry me a river. I don’t have an iPhone, but I don’t use that as an excuse for why the government should impose socialism and tell shareholders how much money they can make. Reich does.

There is only one good point in this movie, which is that when American workers make less or have less jobs, they don’t buy things, and, therefore, businesses die, and the economy sinks. We have turned into a purely service and consumer economy, not a manufacturing economy, and if we don’t manufacture things, we will die.

But he doesn’t point out a big reason a lot of people are losing their jobs and can’t afford to buy things and keep the economy humming: his precious ObamaCare. This is the biggest reason that people are either losing their jobs or being reduced to part-time and not making enough to survive. It’s glaring that this is never addressed in the movie. But, then, that’s what socialists do. They focus on the problems with capitalism, rather than the disasters they impose on our already weak economy.

If you want to get a survey of Marxist theology, better to read Das Kapital than to pay ten bucks to left-wing capitalist hypocrite Robert Reich.

FOUR MARXES PLUS FOUR OBAMAS

Is There Life On Other Planets?

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about life on other planets. This follows this post about breaches with others, such as family members. For a free magazine subscription or to get the book shown for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.

Is There Life On Other Planets?


NASA's Martian rover, Curiosity, has not detected anything to confirm possible life on Mars. What does the Bible tell us of the possibility of life on other planets?

[Darris McNeely] One of the oldest and most challenging questions that scientists have had in recent years: Is there life on other planets? All kinds of experiments and observations have taken place and continue to go on to answer this critical question. Are there other forms of life on any other planet besides what we know here on Earth?

There has been on the planet of Mars just within the last year or so a rover sent there by NASA called Curiosity, and it has been taking samples of soil and the atmosphere on the planet Mars in order to again learn more about the planet, but also to continue searching for an answer to this particular question. Now because of the presence, they thought, of certain levels of a particular gas, methane gas, which to them could indicate the presence of some type of microbial life on Mars, scientists were hopeful in recent weeks that the Curiosity rover would gain some detectable evidence of high levels of methane gas, which then would lead them to again perhaps a further conclusions or proof or closer to proof that perhaps some type of life was there because methane gas is normally given off by decaying bacteria or vegetation.

Well, just recently the rover's results that have come back to the scientists have indicated that the levels of methane gas to indicate any form of life there are pretty much not there. There's just not the level of gas there to indicate any type of life and no other means by which to determine this. So they're disappointed on that particular part of the discovery of what has taken place on Mars with this rover in recent days.

So, again, we're still asking the question, they are: Is there life on other planets? It's an interesting question. It will continue to fascinate scientists.

There is perhaps a bit of an indication in the Bible that might help us to understand and answer, to come to an answer, on this because as we understand what the Bible tells us about God and the creation and the unique creation of life on this Earth as God has created it. The Bible doesn't tell us everything scientifically that we would like to know. That it seems to be is left for science to discover. But what the Bible does tell us sometimes gives us indications of perhaps what the ultimate answer even to a question like this might be.

In Isaiah 45:18For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

See All... it says this from God, "For thus says the Lord who created the heavens, who is God, who formed the Earth and made it." Again a direct statement corroborated by Genesis 1:1In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

See All... that God formed the Earth and He made this planet. He's made all the other planets too, but this is the one that has life as we know it. "Who established it, who did not create it in vain, who," this God, "formed it to be inhabited."

Did you catch that? God formed Earth to be inhabited. Isaiah 45:18For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.

See All.... Could it be that this is God telling us that this planet, this one planet Earth has been formed to be inhabited by life and especially the highest form of life created by God in His creation of man? And so if we were to take that, then it's a step toward understanding what the Bible does eventually tell us and reveal very clearly as to the purpose of all life and especially human life created in the image of God.

The Bible does give us certain answers, and it's those answers that we can cling to as a foundation to understand and begin to reason our way toward other answers to other questions that in a sense are eternally there.

That's BT Daily . Join us next time.

Wknd Box Office: White House Down, The Heat, Redemption (Hummingbird), Dirty Wars

Here is an interesting article from http://www.debbieschlussel.com/ reviewing some of the movies that came out over the past weekend. This follows this post about some of the movies from last week and THIS POST about some movies that have been released over the past few years that you might have missed! This all follows this post about guidelines to chosing good movies to watch yourself!


Wknd Box Office: White House Down, The Heat, Redemption (Hummingbird), Dirty Wars


By Debbie Schlussel



The new movie I liked best this week isn’t the one with a lot of hype. It’s a small Jason Statham film with release in fewer theaters. But all things are relative. Here’s what I thought of all the new releases, debuting in theaters this weekend:


* “White House Down“: I already saw this same movie in March. Then, it was called, “Olympus Has Fallen” (read my review). And although this retread of that plot is a little more fun, it’s also a lot more politically correct . . . annoyingly so.



In Olympus, there was a White, ideologically nondescript President. In this one, there is Barack Obama parading as Jamie Foxx parading as “President Sawyer.” But it’s definitely Obama. He’s pretentious, brings the troops home from Afghanistan, idiotically makes a deal to withdraw all U.S. troops from the entire Middle East, has a partially-read Nelson Mandela book sitting on his mantel in the White House residence, negotiates with Iran, and makes a peace treaty between Israel, France, Russia, the United States, and all Muslim nations, including Iran. Yup, we’re supposed to believe peace with Iran is possible if we only negotiate with them and pull all troops from the entire Middle East. Dumb. Oh, and we’re supposed to believe that the President sent investigators to Iran, and found “no nuclear weapons there,” as the movie tells us. Yeah, that’s the ticket. No Iranian nukes, no such aspirations. And if you believe that, I have some land in Tehran (or Hollywood) to sell ya.



Absolutely ridiculous is the plot point that the defense industry and “military-industrial complex” are behind the plot to take over the White House and kill the President because they don’t want the peace treaty to happen, as it will kill business for them. Riiiight. ‘Cuz that’s waaaaay more believable than terrorists being Muslims . . . which has never ever happened. The movie makes a point to tell you that the world and the media mistakenly believe it’s Arabs and Muslims, when it isn’t. ‘Cuz again, they would never ever be involved in terrorism. Never. Also, did I mention that the terrorists in the plot in this movie are “right-wing” domestic terrorists? They include a “right-wing sociopath,” a “Special Forces veteran of black ops,” and a man who shot up the Post Office because there are too many Blacks working there. The Speaker of the House, who is also in on it–and ends up being a major bad guy. He justifies his involvement in trying to kill the President by telling the President, “You’re selling this country out to the Arabs.” Yup, as if those of us who know that this current President (as did the one before him) is, in fact, doing that, would plot to bomb the White House and kill the Prez. Did Janet Napolitano (who went to the Washington screening of this movie) write this crap?



Among the plot similarities between “Olympus” and “Down”: both movies have a member of the President’s Secret Service personal protection detail who is in on the plot to bring the President down, kill him, blow up the White House, and get the President’s secret codes to launch nuclear weapons. Both movies have the White House getting horribly damaged through explosives and shootings and the President nearly dying when the Joint Chiefs are gonna blow up the White House, but the President avoids this at the last minute. Both movies have idiots at the Joint Chiefs of Staff war room doing the wrong thing. Both also have the preposterous plot holes of the bad guys getting to bring guns into the White House and virtually every single member of the Secret Service detail and uniformed Secret Service at the White House killed or otherwise incapacitated at the hands of only a few guys. Just not believable. Oh, and one surviving Secret Service agent–in this movie, a Secret Service agent wannabe–saves the day in Rambo/Die Hard-like fashion. In Olympus, it was Gerard Butler. In this, it’s Channing Tatum.



Please, Hollywood, come up with something new.



The plot: Channing Tatum is a ne’er-do-well who saved the nephew of the Speaker of the House when they were serving in Afghanistan. As a reward, he’s given a job guarding and protecting the Speaker. But he wants to become a Secret Service agent protecting the President, so he goes to the White House for an interview with the world’s ugliest and most annoying female Secret Service agent–America-hater Maggie Gyllenhaal (who said America deserved 9/11). Here’s a tip: when applying for the Secret Service, if accepted, your first stop is the Secret Service Academy for several months of training. After that, agents spend years in the field as Secret Service agents before they are considered for the President’s personal protection detail. It’s not a job you can interview for from outside the agency because you know someone. Just doesn’t happen.



Anyway, Tatum doesn’t get the Secret Service job, but he’s brought along his estranged young daughter in an effort to impress her because she’s into politics, the White House, and President Jamie Foxx Obama. While they are still at the White House, technicians working on the President’s personal movie theater are really terrorists with guns they unbelievably got into the White House. First, a janitor, who unbelievably got a gun and explosives into the U.S. Capitol building blows up the Rotunda. Then, the terrorists at the White House take over. Surprisingly, there are only about 30 people, including tourists, in the entire White House (in this absurd movie), and they are all herded into a single room, including an anti-President Foxx TV talk show host, who is conservative and obnoxious/annoying. He gets killed, and everyone laughs.



Meanwhile, Channing Tatum is separated from his daughter (she went to the bathroom) when the terrorists strike, and he spends the whole rest of the movie trying to find and save her and save the President.



Yes, there are funny lines (and scenes, including one with the Presidential limo) in this movie and it’s entertaining–much more so than “Olympus Has Fallen”–but mostly it’s just a giant absurdity and rehash of a movie I saw just months ago. And, above all, it’s a Tatum-produced effort to make himself into an action hero a la the 1980′s movies. But it’s a hard buy despite the hard sell. Tatum’s no Jason Statham. Not even close.



The one thing I did find believable: when President Jamie Foxx is on the run for his life and every second counts, he stops to change his shoes to his precious, prized Air Jordans, which he wants to save. Priorities. You can bet the Obamas have a lot of the same kind of priorities, which is why people like Jay-Z infect the White House and the Presidency.



HALF A MARX


* “The Heat“: Sandra Bullock plays an uptight, perfectionist, but highly achieving and ambitious, FBI agent. Melissa McCarthy is a let-it-all-hang-out, sloppy Boston cop. They initially hate each other, but are forced to work together to catch a drug lord. And after a long set of arguments and hijinks against each other, they become buddies as in a raunchy male cop buddy movie. Yay, feminism!



Yes, there are funny lines, and I laughed. But not as much as I expected to. The movie is mostly boring, stupid, and predictable. It’s not a good cop buddy movie, regardless of the gender of the lead roles. And Melissa McCarthy’s “Laugh at me ‘cuz I’m a fat slob, and therefore funny” act gets tired. And beyond five minutes, it isn’t funny. Just grotesque and slovenly.



Mostly, this movie was lame. But, hey, they got a big paycheck. Cha-ching. It may be called, “The Heat.” But there’s no truth in advertising here. There’s nothing hot about this predictable time-waster. In fact, it left me cold.



HALF A MARX PLUS FOUR BETTY FRIEDANS

* “Redemption” (Hummingbird): I liked this Jason Statham movie the best out of all the new releases, this weekend. But all things are relative. Originally called Hummingbird, it’s about Joey Jones (Statham) a veteran of some Middle East war (either Iraq or Afghanistan, apparently), who went nuts, fled from a court-martial, and is now just a homeless drunk on the streets of London.



Thugs beat him and a homeless girl he watches over and loves. When the thugs chase him, he escapes through the roof of a building into a penthouse apartment, which just happens to be unoccupied for the summer, as its occupant, Damon (apparently a gay, big name photographer), is spending the summer in New York. So Statham stays there and brings himself “back to life,” cleaning himself up, getting a job as an enforcer for a Chinese mob, and ultimately seeking revenge for the killing of the young homeless girl, who has been murdered by a john when she was forced to work as a prostitute. He is an “avenging” angel.



During all this time, Statham amasses money and gives a lot of it to the attractive Polish nun, who mans the soup kitchen where he ate when he was homeless. And he and the nun have a brief romantic flirtation in which they learn they have very similar mysterious pasts.



I found this movie very entertaining, but it’s extremely violent and its message–if there is one–is quite muddled. While Statham tries to avenge the young girl, he’s just as violent and mean to others as a Chinese Mob enforcer, a point the nun makes to him. And while the movie is built on an interesting idea–a homeless man who finds himself in a luxury apartment for a few months, with access to funds and the good life–some of it was a little too coincidental, such as the fact that the man whose apartment it is just happens to wear the same size clothing as Jason Statham, in addition to happening to be out of the country when Statham lands there.



Still, if you like Jason Statham (I’m a fan), you’ll probably like this movie. It’s full of action, and has an interesting story line.



ONE REAGAN


* “Dirty Wars“: This anti-American, apologist “documentary” by the far-left “journalist” Jeremy Scahill (of “The Nation”) was boring and absurd, but, hey, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Rand Paul, and other flip-flopping partisans who’ve attacked Obama for killing “U.S. citizen” Anwar Al-Awlaki, will love it.



Scahill acts as if this movie is uncovering some sort of mystery or new information. Nope. It’s simply a love letter to Islamic terrorists and a polemic against America’s Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) for combating Islamic terrorists in Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, and so on. Scahill is upset that we are actually combating this problem, that we used drones to kill Awlaki and his son, and that some other “innocents” (whose side he automatically believes because it’s against America) were killed. Um, that’s what happens in war. What about the innocent Americans Muslims killed? Scahill can’t be bothered with that.



In fact, he actually says that he’s upset that JSOC killed Osama Bin Laden. Go to hell with him, Jeremy Scahill. Oh, and did I mention that Michael Moore helped make this film possible and is thanked at the end? But, hey, it takes the same view on Awlaki and others as Limbaugh, Hannity, and Paul, so it must be great, right?



FOUR MARXES PLUS FOUR BIN LADENS