Reviews

The film doesn't teach us much more than we already know. Deep down, we all know what we should eat, but we're not given much of a chance in the commercial food environment. The film could have done a better job finding a positive message, and showing how cooking would solve a lot of problems in this country. And while they do deliver the most important message of the film, "personal responsibility doesn't work in the face of addiction", it's lost under a bad, scattered narrative.

The first third of the film quotes David Lustig ("sugar is bad") and Gary Taubes ("carbs are bad"), and seems to want to absolve the obese public of their guilt in the matter, and demonize certain food types.

Then there's a lot of footage of kids and their parents, all with junk food problems, which sounds like a lot of excuses. They also seem to blame George McGovern's 1977 dietary recommendations (always the punching bag; just like his '72 humiliating loss to Nixon).

The movie wants to say these people are addicted pawns of the food industry, and their hyper-palatable products, which is true. They all sound like heroin addicts, manipulating you, telling you it's not their fault, and how they're going to clean up their lives. But then they're out again looking for their next fix.

The movie doesn't compare well to the standard "Forks Over Knives". That movie presented a positive message, and a solution (eat real, whole foods, that make you feel better, and breaks the Pleasure Trap of food addiction). Fed Up calls for government regulation, akin to the tobacco industry, with warning labels, taxes, tort liabilities, and the like. It might work, like WWII rationing improved health in Europe, but it'll be a big fight. There's a simpler solution: cook whole foods, break the addiction. It's what we'll all have to do anyways.

From the opening credits, this movie made me cringe at almost every scene. The movie centers around a racial incident on the campus of a fictional small rural Vermont college. Of course the college stands in as a symbol of a majority White community, and the racial incident unavoidably escalates into a small media frenzy. Thus the stage is set for all the players to act and reveal their views on the issue of race. Of course the viewer immediately sees through the "characters", and starts interpreting the views of the writers and producers themselves. That's the whole issue about race: people are very aware of the differences between their views and other people's views about it. So, as the story unfolds and more and more stereotypes about race and stereotypical reactions to race are paraded out, I asked myself, who does this movie serve? Who does this movie not offend? It was obvious the script tries to represent both sides of the fence, in an "equal-time" manner. Amazingly enough, they even voiced the politically incorrect side, in a qualified way. Everyone in the movie is a caricature of their race. Largely, though not entirely predictable as you watch it, it still fits the stereotype of how race is allowed to be discussed in film. But ultimately, outside any moral of "racism is inevitable", or "racism is bad", the film makes no point itself. Sure, it might succeed on the level about getting "people to talk about race", but as the movie shows, why is that such a great idea?

This movie is only interesting as a curiosity piece, if you've ever wondered what an 80's labotomized version of the sad and meaningful Walter Tevis novel would look like. Start by replacing Bowie's Thin White Duke with a Tom Hanks Busom Buddy knock-off, and throw in Beverly D'Angelo and Wesley Crusher as her troubled, but deep-down loving son. Don't bother coming up with any believable visual style for the movie, just re-use some of the old Buck Rodgers in the 25th Century sets off the studio backlot Finally, but most importantly, replace the actual theme of the book (how the Visitor falls to human faults and shortcomings) with positive pap about restoring the Beverly D'Angelo and Wil Wheaton relationship. I'm almost certain this movie was shot as a pilot for a TV series, where the Visitor brings his son back to Earth, and every week, they learn how troubled and illogical, yet ultimately redeeming mankind is. Kind of like My Favorite Martian, but a little more serious, like The Great American Hero. This would have been classic shlock had it been picked up.

I caught this show by chance in the 4th episode, and had no idea it was based on the Biblical story of King David. I simply enjoyed it as a soap-opera in the court of an alternate-reality, present-day functioning monarchy. (One with royal decrees, cellphones, and young royals in the tabloids.) Then I watched the first 3 episodes on Hulu.com, and figured out the plot line reads directly out of the King David Wikipedia page.

But its brilliant, because it follows the exact story of David's ascension to the throne against the first King of Israel Saul (Silas), with all the characters and relationships from the Bible, with all the drama and intrigue of Shakespeare's Richard III. David saves the King's son in battle (vs. Goliath), and the King rewards him with a military position and the hand of his daughter (Michelle/Michal). Meanwhile the King's son (Jack/Jonathan) sees David as a threat to his own position. Soon, Silas realises David is the anointed successor, and plots to kill him.

All of this is done masterfully, as the writers cleverly (and transparently) work the plot and intrigue into the modern day setting. It plays like modern Shakespeare of a North American monarchy. The story is so engrossing, you forget you're watching science fiction / fantasy. It has all the elements of a classic story, and is extremely entertaining.

I think all of the episodes are already in the can, and I can guess all 13 episodes play out the entire story of David's reign, wife, son, etc. I never knew the story of David until now, and I'll probably read the Wikipedia page as I finish watching the series.

To history buffs, no matter what they say, Oliver Stone movies are a guilty pleasure. It's got to be fun knowing real history, and I mean the arcane stuff, then watch someone take it, distort certain aspects out of it, and package it up into pop culture. The Oliver Stone product is essentially the best allohistory out there. (Ok, Ian McKellan in "Richard III" (1995), placing the Shakespeare story in an fascist pre-war England is still the best, but there has to be something said for quantity. JFK (1991), Nixon (1995), Path To War (aka LBJ) (2002), and this gem add up to a lot of entertainment.)

Stone is only somewhat limited by the endpoint constraints of actual history (i.e., on the morning of March 30, 1981, Regan is shot, and by the evening, Vice President George H.W. Bush is back in Washington). But other than that, it's open season for counterfactuals. Yes, Haig was famous for his "Haig-isms", and was prone to make statements like the famous "I'm in charge here" gaff. He actually did take the lead in the control room. But I only wish he acted like the Dryefuss portrayal, which makes the attempted coup in the classic "Seven Days in May" (1964) look like an episode of "The West Wing". From the start, Dryefuss' Haig is clearly the villain, much more so than Hinkley, who appears relatively level-headed. Hinkley just wants to impress Jodie Foster. Haig wants to press the button.

Dryefuss barely uses any restraint in the character, and at times reminded me of his comic performance as Jay Trotter in "Let It Ride". Anyway, he goes screaming for the nuclear football, tries to invoke the 25th Amendment, in-fights with Cap Weinberger, negotiates with the Soviets over the hotline about an ICBM launch, while holding NORAD on the line. Meanwhile, I thought Richard Crenna did a great job of looking kind of like Reagan. (Actually, Dryefuss looks a lot like Haig himself.) And I thought Michael Murphy as Michael Deaver was brilliant casting. Also, I have no problem with their unflattering portrayal of Nancy Reagan. But, they went a little too far in the scene where they try to prop up Reagan in the hospital bed for a picture (note the blurred camera POV, and the where-am-I smile on Regan). That was comedy straight out of Woody Allen's Sleeper (1973) where Allen is just unfrozen after 200 years and they're trying to get him past the security agents.

It would have all been good fun, except then National Security Adviser Richard Allen made a tape of the whole affair, using a Sony recorder, and forgot about it for 20 years. It surfaced again just after the movie was filmed, but before it was released. The transcripts were published, and the cabinet secretaries had a reunion on the Larry King Show, to play back parts of the tape, and other media coverage of the day. Al Haig's behaviour that day was only a minor issue, and his old colleagues said nothing got out of control, and things went about as would be expected for that kind of crisis. Not exactly 13 days in October. Unless you're Oliver Stone.

I remember having a pretty low regard for a venture like this when it was first released. James "Not Jim" Belushi, a hammy kid actress, and a cheesy title in a John Hughes formula. You couldn't have paid me to see it 15 years ago. But, I got caught up watching it while wasting away a Sunday afternoon, and it hits me on a couple of levels. The fairy tale (part Pretty Woman, part reverse Pretty Woman), the very vulnerable, Elizabeth_Perkins_in_Miracle_On_42nd_Street -like performance by Kelly Lynch, the escapism. Over all, it gently pulls some very nice strings. It's pretty hard not to fall into the story, develop a crush on Kelly Lynch, identify with James Belushi, dislike the stiff bad guy boyfriend, and laugh at the Curley Sue lines. Has all the ups and downs, with a happy ending, and the kind of message you want to hear. Go ahead, waste your time on this movie, it's worth it.

I have both the 2004 and 1977 versions on my TiVo, and the former is a scene-for-scene remake of the latter. It's interesting to see the small changes in the scenes from the two movies. Like in the "morning after" breakfast scene where the 1977 Lucy's Bicentennial lunchbox (remember 1976? remember lunch boxes), is replaced in 2004 with today's over-sized book backpack. Also, the 1977 Lucy had a Habitrail (TM) for her hampster -- still available today, but alas, not in the 2004 set. Of course, political correctness is evident in the 2004 version -- the 3 black purse-snatchers in 1977 are replaced by 3 white purse snatchers in 2004. In more evidence of progress, the 2004 rooftop dinner has much more Christmas lights than the 1977 version. Similarly, the Subaru in the 1977 auto show scene gets 39 mpg, while the Toyota in the 2004 auto show gets 60 mpg.

The best thing I can say about the 2004 version is that Patricia Heaton looks better in the role though 10 years older than Marsha Mason at the time of shooting.