The Endless Summer... Movie Season

Sorry if I'm late on my summer movie previews, but I'm a purist... someone who believes that the start of the "summer movie season" should be the actual START OF SUMMER. Although I guess people no longer have a problem with parting with disposable income before Memorial Day to see a blockbuster, so as such, this early May start of summer isn't going away any time soon. Pardon me if these previews/reviews are a bit dated therefore.

The comic book movies are still a big player in the movie market, and they already started with Spider-Man 3 a few weeks ago... which is a lifetime in the summer movie season. In case you've already forgotten that movie, Peter Parker goes bad when some sort of alien host crashes down on Earth and hitches a ride on Peter's scooter, then hitches a ride on Peter's superhero suit. Meanwhile, Spidey has to face not 1, but 2 super-villians, plus his ex-best friend who still thinks that Peter is to blame for his father's death. There have already been a lot of complaints that they packed too much into this movie, and the presumption has been that this is because it's the finale for the Spider-Man franchise, but I didn't mind. It kept the movie exciting and fast-paced. By comparison, Spider-Man 2 now seems dull and boring, which is why I think 3 was better than 2... still a far cry from the first movie, but better than 2. I've already been tarred and feathered by the comic book-lover crowd for saying that... but I'm not a comic book-lover, so I'm allowed to think differently. Best scene in the movie: Evil Peter struts down the streets of New York (think Travolta in "Saturday Night Fever"), thinking he's suddenly this sharp, smooth ladies man, except he's still a geek and he's the only one who doesn't realize this.

As for the other comic book-type movies coming this summer, we'll have "Fantastic 4: Rise of the Silver Surfer" coming next month. I saw the first one and thought it was okay. Not sure if I'm up for the sequel, considering I don't know jack about the whole Silver Surfer thing. Then of course, we have the Transformers movie coming 4th of July weekend, which isn't exactly a comic book movie, but close enough. I am a child of the 80s, but I was more of a Voltron fan than a Transformers fan, so I'm probably not going for that one either.

Then there's the animated movies. "Shrek the Third" is already out, and I've enjoyed the first two Shrek movies, albeit on DVD, and I think I'm going to wait for DVD on this one as well. Still, it opened with the best first weekend for an animated movie ever, so that franchise is still going strong. Speaking of strong animated franchises, "The Simpsons" makes its big jump to the big screen in late July. Not much has been given away about the plot, but let's face it, does this movie really NEED a compelling plot to gross $200 million? This is the most "built-in" audience for a movie ever. Count me in for this one. Oh, and there's another animated penguin movie... ENOUGH ALREADY!

Summer blockbusters usually specialize in escapist fantasies, but this year, the accent is on "fantasy." Aside from the comic book worlds we are treated to, we also get another dose of Jack Sparrow and Harry Potter this summer. The third "Pirates of the Caribbean" movie is out this weekend, and it is sure to have another big opening with young women everywhere going to fawn all over Johnny Depp and Orlando Bloom. In July, we get "Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix", the 5th installment in that series. Having never read the books, I guess I'm not into that whole thing, although I guess I would be if I read the books, because they do look rather interesting. Movies based on books are almost as bad a situation as movies based on comic books, because people want to constantly compare the movie to the publication from which it came. I saw "DaVinci Code" having not read the book, so seeing the movies without reading the book may not be a bad thing, but of course these books are all about getting kids to read. Quite a conundrum. The good news is that unlike his recent British theatre experience, Daniel Radcliffe will thankfully not be nude at any point in this movie...

If I seem to not be much of a fan of the whole "escapist fantasy" thing, it's because I'm not. I prefer comedies, which is why I'm glad there are a few potential winners coming next month. The first is "Knocked Up," directed by Judd Apatow and starring Seth Rogen, who was on Apatow's critically-acclaimed but short-lived TV series "Freaks and Geeks", and Katherine Heigl of "Grey's Anatomy" and "Roswell" fame. Short version of the plot: loser guy gets lucky with hottie but gets hottie pregnant, forcing hottie to deal with loser guy as a future dad. In July, Kevin James and Adam Sandler pair up (in more ways than one) for "I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry", about two best friends who have to fake being in a homosexual marriage in order to get job benefits... which is incredibly tough to do when Jessica Biel is your attorney.

The upshot of those two movies is that they are actual original ideas... something we don't see from Hollywood all that often these days, especially in the summer. No, we get things like a 4th "Die-Hard", a 3rd "Rush Hour", and "Ocean's Thirteen", which is only the 3rd in this series but seems like the 13th. We also have "Hairspray", which like "The Producers" before it, is the movie of the musical of the original movie. But I'm sure all of these will be well-attended as well, which plays to the real strength of this summer's movie season... it's loaded. It seems like there is a sure-fire blockbuster opening every weekend for the foreseeable future, even into August. In summers past, if a movie opened in August, that meant it was BAD, so much so that it would be suicide to open earlier in the summer against a potential hit. Now, we're spreading the wealth. Look at the lineup for August: "The Bourne Ultimatum", which I will go see as I got into the "Bourne" movies late but am now a fan, plus the aforementioned 3rd "Rush Hour" and the "Bratz" movie, which like it or not, will draw a lot of kids to the theatres.

So there you have it, plenty of opportunities for you to drop your $9 at your local cineplex, which is certainly good, because in this world of $3-plus a gallon for gas, endless media coverage of talentless "stars" like Paris and Rosie, and increasingly vicious political debate, we all could use a good escape.

Why Don't We Enforce the Law Anymore?

Don't get me wrong, I know there are good people out there who break the law everyday. For that matter, a lot of us break some law sometimes, but as one of my personal favorite sayings goes, "It's not illegal unless you get caught." The problem these days is there are people out there who ARE breaking the law and ARE getting caught... but they get away with it. And it's not something like talking your way out of a ticket; we're talking about serious federal laws that don't seem to be taken seriously because they are not enforced.

The most glaring example in this country, of course, is illegal immigration. For some reason, there are a lot of people in this country who seem to have forgotten the "illegal" part of that statement. There are, by most counts, some 12 million people who are in this country illegally. Most of these people are of Hispanic descent and came here over the border from Mexico by several clever but still illegal methods. Some are from China, there are even some from Europe. Now I understand that these people simply want a better life than the one they are leaving behind. I don't want to seem unsympathetic to these people; after all, America has always been the land of opportunity and home to millions of immigrants ever since the first immigrants arrived just over 400 years ago in Jamestown, Virginia. My forefathers came over from Europe several generations ago from Ireland and Germany. However, they did this LEGALLY.

This isn't just a problem because these people are here illegally. These people don't pay taxes, because they have no Social Security numbers. However, their children attend our public schools, use our public services, and have to be treated by our medical system. If they have children, the children automatically become citizens, so they aren't breaking the law, even though their parents are. If these 12 million people paid the taxes they owed on the money they made, while it wouldn't be much, it would put a significant dent in the federal budget deficit, not to mention the budgets of their respective states.

For the last couple of years, President Bush and the Congress have been wrangling over how best to solve this problem. Some want blanket amnesty for these people, which is simply unacceptable. Some want all 12 million illegal immigrants rounded up and sent back across the border. While this would technically be the proper solution, it would be a logistical nightmare, a huge expense, and not likely to solve anything if we don't do enough to secure our borders at the same time. President Bush supports a "guest worker" program, where the illegals are allowed to stay in the country in order to work for a period of a couple years. Many are against this as well, because it creates a system where these people are less than citizens, "second-class citizens" if you will. In the name of equality, this just isn't right, so I'm against a guest worker program.

Last week, a compromise bill was crafted in the Senate. Heads of households will have to go back to their home countries. Since they are the ones who are making the money but not paying the taxes, that makes sense. I know this has upset many Democrats, who are concerned about splitting up families, but if the families are that concerned, they can go back to their home countries too, voluntarily. The heads of households would then have to pay fees and fines in the amount of $6500 to get on the path to permanent residency. This too makes sense; they broke the law, and they must be punished appropriately. The guest worker program was included in this, which I already noted I am against. And as improving border security is paramount, the Border Patrol would be doubled in size and an expanded border fence would be erected on the Mexican border.

Well, most of these provisions make sense and are a good compromise... which means that both conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats are against the bill. This is usually the sign of a good compromise, when both sides immediately dislike it. Conservatives don't want anyone to be allowed to stay in this country, and liberals want to water down the bill in order to allow as many illegals to get visas as possible. Really, all I have a problem with is the guest worker program. If they get rid of that, they might have a good shot at getting enough Democrats on board, so they would just need Republicans. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she will not bring the bill to a vote unless she can get 70 Republicans on board, which is fair because she knows many of her own party won't go for it, and it also creates the appearance of bipartisan consensus, a true rarity in Washington these days.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg called the bill a "fraud" and said, "Nobody in their right mind is going to leave." Well, Mayor Bloomberg, they're going to HAVE to leave. But here is where the enforcement issue comes in. They can pass all the laws in the world, and sometimes it seems like Congress does just that, but if they're not enforced, they're not worth the paper they are written on. How can we be assured that a law like this would be enforced? Especially when the current laws don't seem to be enforced all that well.

How do I know this? Simple. The whole time last year that illegal immigrants were holding their big rallies in American cities, waving the flags of their home countries instead of our flag, did you see ICE agents stopping the marchers to check for IDs? Noooooo. An article in Saturday's New York Daily News about the immigration bill included interviews with three illegal immigrants, mentioning their names, ages, and the neighborhoods where they live (Jackson Heights and Corona, Queens). Do you think ICE agents went right to Jackson Heights looking for these people in order to arrest them for breaking the law? Noooooo.

It seems to me that the biggest reason that this is not happening, and the reason that it will not happen, is fear of a PR backlash. Many who support amnesty and citizenship for these illegal immigrants claim that to do otherwise is racist. Why? Because the majority of these people are Hispanic? That just happens to be the way it is, but trust me, those aren't the only people here in this country illegally, and this is where it needs to be reinforced that this is, more than anything, for security purposes. As you may or may not know, there was a recent terror plot broken up that involved an assault of U.S. soldiers stationed at Fort Dix, Maryland. What has been conveniently forgotten in the whole story, and indeed the immigration debate, is the fact that several of the plotters were ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. No, they weren't Hispanic; maybe that's why this detail has been omitted by the media. But they were still here illegally. If we had just granted amnesty to all illegal immigrants last year, then these would-be terrorists would have been U.S. citizens. Isn't that just a little bit scary to any of you?

Well, here's another point that should make you rightly concerned about illegal immigration. We don't see illegal immigrants from Latin American countries as genuine threats to our country, and rightly so. However, Hezbollah is out to change that. They have established a training camp in South America, and thanks to the financing they receive from both Iran and Venezuela, they have built a pretty good-sized group of terrorists who have remarkably easy ability to get first to Mexico, and then through smugglers, into the United States across our poorly defended border. The worst part about it is, as Rep. Silvestre Reyes, a Democratic congressman from Texas points out, we would never know they were anything other than regular Hispanic illegal immigrants because they speak Spanish and look Hispanic. So if anything, fixing our immigration problems NOW, before these terrorists have a chance to infiltrate this country, will stop Hispanic immigrants from undergoing the same scrutiny that Arab immigrants now receive.

So you see, this is about a lot of things. It's about setting the right example by enforcing the laws we pass, it's about strengthening the ones that don't work, and it's about security. It's not about race, it's not about creating "second-class citizens", and it shouldn't be about fear of what others will think. Maybe that's the biggest problem of all this. Peer pressure apparently doesn't end at graduation from high school or college. Fear of what others will think of you may be at its worst in our very own government...

There's Good TV Out There... Somewhere...

"The King of Queens" ended its 9-year run tonight.

Yeah... I missed it too...

Of course, in my case, my other viewing options from 9-10pm on a Monday night were too good to pass up, or at least to DVR. I mean seriously, airing a series finale opposite the penultimate episodes of "24" and "Heroes"??? I can't even get a DVR to tape 2 shows correctly... 3 just wouldn't be possible. Although it is a sign of the times when TV execs can find a way to botch up even something like this by putting it in the worst possible time slot. This has been going on for years with some great new shows that never made it: show debuts, gets critical raves, but oops... it's up against a juggernaut like "American Idol" or "ER" or "CSI" or "Desperate Housewives". Show flops in the ratings, show gets canceled.

More and more these days, it's the sitcom that falls victim to this, and the killer is usually a reality show. People just don't want their shows scripted anymore, at least not with a laugh-track. That's a shame, because what were the shows that people know all the catch phrases from? Sitcoms. People my age make each other laugh by quoting "The Simpsons" ("D'oh!"), "Family Guy" ("Giggedy-giggedy-giggedy..."), "How I Met Your Mother" ("Suit up!"), and it wasn't that long ago that everyone was quoting "Seinfeld" or "Friends" or something like that. But now you have "Til Death" on Fox, which is about to be killed off by "Survivor", and "Dancing With the Stars" may be about to kill off "Mother" and "Everybody Hates Chris"... not to mention the fact that they extended THAT show to 90 minutes tonight, causing a 4-network pile-up between 9 and 9:30.

Thank god the drama still survives. Where I work, we do gather around the industrial-size water-cooler each Tuesday morning to talk about the previous night's episode of "Heroes". For a while, it was "24", but the two shows of course are on opposite each other, so we can only watch one, and more people talk about "Heroes". Now I'm not asking TV for original ideas, because like Hollywood, those come few and far between, but at least roll out some interesting characters! You've got so many on "Heroes" that it seems like they just leave the rest of TV with too few to go around. Now I know reality TV has given us interesting "characters" as well, but who seems to have the longer shelf life, Jack Bauer or Sanjaya?

I don't think this is due to the fact that, as some say, the network sitcom has run out of ideas and is just recycling the same tired funny dad with hot wife and sarcastic kids idea over and over again. I think it's due to the fact that the audience that used to all gather as one to get their laughs from "The Cosby Show" or "Cheers" or "Roseanne" has splintered as we've been presented with more and more options on cable. Not just new shows, both of the sitcom and reality genres, but syndicated repeats. You know what my first thought was when I realized I was going to miss the last episode of "King of Queens"? "Oh well... I'll catch it in reruns..." Many other fans of the show probably said, "I'll just wait for the DVD of the last season to come out."

Not to begrudge the networks their moneymaking abilities, because DVDs of TV shows have become the biggest seller in the format. However, the networks put these things out so quickly after the season ends that people no longer feel they have to watch the show the first time around... which leads to lower ratings for the first-run episodes. Well, the technology may be different these days, with DVD and DVR and digital cable, but ratings are still ratings... and the #1 rule of programming still applies: If it doesn't have ratings, it gets canceled.

With all these other options now, it's impossible to figure out what people will like. Now if we had 3 or 4 networks and just a few niche cable channels like 20 years ago, you could distill everything that's out there down to some lineups that would be absolute powerhouses of great shows. Of course, it also means that you'd have to get rid of the crap, and really, whatever would we do without shows like "I Love New York" and "The Naked Trucker and T-Bones Show"? (note: HEAVY sarcasm) Well, since the genie's out of the bottle, there's no going back, but now it just makes it harder to A) find a really good show, and B) get enough support behind it to make it last. Obviously, we're never getting rid of reality TV, nor do the networks want to, so really, the task for those who still believe in the power of scripted drama and sitcoms is to do their absolute best to create shows that can hold their own or do better than reality TV. Perhaps we need a comedy "Manhattan Project" or "Space Race" of sorts...

Meanwhile, I'm going to figure out what I can watch tomorrow night INSTEAD OF "American Idol"... besides the Mets game...

Everybody Knows It's the Big Lie

I really don't mean to feel down about humanity. I know a lot of the recent blog postings have been real downers, but I just read through the letters page each day and wonder if this is really what people think? And by people, I don't just mean the people on the fringes who are more likely to write the letters than the most of us who are in the middle. I mean those who are easily swayed, who aren't content to think for themselves, who just want to follow the crowd. There are a lot of those in this country, and the younger the person, the more likely he or she is to be in this group. And that's when it's easiest to build up a movement just by saying something that you believe is true, but really isn't, or maybe even something that you know isn't true but you know you can get people to believe it.

You've seen me refer to "the big lie" before in this blog; now I'm going to show you how it works. First, someone sees a news event happen, maybe it's someone at the think-tank level, maybe someone at the DNC or RNC, maybe even a Joe Average like you and me. He or she draws a conclusion from what he sees... but we do that all the time. The difference is this person's conclusion is factually inaccurate, and may in fact be driven by an ideological bias. This person goes to the people he knows (often like-minded individuals) and tells people his conclusion. If he gets them to agree, then it's time to inform the people who may not agree. So this group of people with a like-minded belief start writing letters to the editor, often saying the exact same things, sometimes even to the point where you wonder if they just have a form letter that they each sent copies of with their individual name on it. Then you start to the see the polls start asking about this group's conclusion, and if the group sees that a growing number of people are agreeing with them, they drop more letters or soundbytes with a deadly two-word combination...

"Everybody knows..."

This causes the people who may not agree with the conclusion but are easily swayed to reassess their own belief, and think, "Well gee, if everybody knows this, and I don't... then I'm stupid." So their minds are changed, and the more the conclusion is repeated (especially with "everybody knows" in front of it), the more people are inclined to agree with it. The next thing you know, a large enough chunk of the populace believes the conclusion, whether it's the truth or not, that things happen in Washington... hearings held, bills introduced, loud debate in Congress and on talk shows. All over a conclusion that was never factually accurate to begin with... but people swallowed it hook, line, and sinker. The big lie.

This is going on all the time in this country today, and although conservative Republicans try their hand at this from time to time (remember the supposed link between abortion and breast cancer?), it's usually liberal Democrats who excel at this. I did a simple Google search using the phrase "everybody knows" paired with "President Bush". The very first entry is from a liberal blogger who proclaims, "Everybody knows that Bush is a murderous liar now." How many of you are exceptions to that "everybody"? I know I am. I'm sure many of you reading this are. But since supposedly "everybody knows" this fact, aren't you more likely to think that, if not everybody, then at least TOO MANY people "know" that. And that's when I get frustrated and depressed.

Scrolling down, let's see what else "everybody knows" about the president... well, there's a 2004 quote from Sen. Ernest Hollings (D-S.C.), declaring that the reason Bush invaded Iraq was to protect Israel, and "everybody knows it." Another blogger, saying about the Iraq war: "Bush screwed up big time and almost everyone knows it." Oh, so now it's "almost everyone." As in, "we know some people don't know it, but since almost everyone does, those people are obviously drinking Kool-Aid and are dumb enough to believe everything Bush says." There's also plenty of references to Leonard Cohen's song "Everybody Knows"... used to portray Bush as a liar ("....Everybody knows the Captain lied - Everybody's got that broken feeling - like their father or their dog just died...") Great, spreading the "big lie" through song... that's beautiful...

Sad to say, it's even being used to bring up that dead horse that's been beaten steadily for over 6 years now, the 2000 presidential election. A recent letter to the editor in the Post-Standard declared, "We know, for example, that the 2000 Florida fiasco was a purely dishonest manuever in stealing the election from Al Gore. Likewise, the Ohio vote, giving the 2004 election to Bush, is now highly suspect as having been dishonest." "We know" is just as bad as "everybody knows", because who exactly is "we?" Especially when only one name is signed to the letter. Well gee, by "we", I guess the writer must mean "everybody." Funny, though... if "we", meaning "everybody", know that both of Bush's election victories were stolen by dishonest, and indeed criminal, means, why haven't there been any Congressional investigations seeking to overturn the results? Because, and here's your proof, the percent of people who ACTUALLY believe that either election was stolen has primarily been less than 20%! Gee, not even 23% for that one...

Oh, and you'll be glad to know that a few more Google searches turned up similar things that "everybody knows", such as: "Everyone knows 9-11 was an inside job by Bush neo-cons and Mossad for Israel," "Everybody knows the Iranians are playing in Iraq and they are trying to drive us out of Iraq so they can assert their age-old ambitions for influence in the Middle East" (said by John McCain, so even presidential hopefuls are guilty of this)... Oh, and a person with a sense of humor similar in its sarcasm to mine, who says about last fall's spinach E.coli outbreak: "Everybody knows that this is the fault of George W. Bush. It's #2 on his pre-election checklist: 1) Rig the gas prices, 2) Taint the food supply."

Which just goes to show you that there are people who get that "everybody knows" does NOT mean that everybody knows, but there are always those who need to be enlightened, so the next time you see those words used to support an opinion or belief, maybe you'll take a step back and think about it. Then, you just might stop yourself from falling for the "big lie"...