Quick Notes

Watched Day After Tomorrow and read An End to Evil - by Frum and Perle, the neocons behind the Iraq strategy.

Both had some good things and some really bad things. Day After Tomorrow had a few moments and a Emma Rossum (sp), the ridiculously cute girl from Mystic River. I liked Independence Day and it's cheesy rah rah spirit. Day After Tomorrow used the template from ID and made it into a big storm, rather than an Alien invasion. Jake G and Dennis Quaid are both competent actors and one of the best scenes is in the beginning of the movie, an awkward exchange in the car between the insolent teenager and his away from home all the time father. They are clearly both nervous during the exchange, unable to communicate effectively, which worked for me because teenagers are difficult to communicate with. Of course, the effects are amazing - I truly wonder how they do all that stuff - models I guess.

But there were some glaring problems with this film. Some of the dialog is insufferable. Especially the Asian women from NASA who decides to help Dennis. "I think you told the truth in there," or something like that, is her first line to Dennis and comes off so flat and retarded I laughed. Actually Jake G. did not speak a lot, he seemed to relish in not saying his lines during several scenes. My friend reported to me that he simply refused to say lines he didn't believe would be said, and I think it was a very wise decision.

There were a lot of weird plot plots or decisions by the characters that were super weak. The first and most major, because it was the main gist of the movie, was why Dennis Quaid needed to hike all the way to New York to save his son. That whole part of the story made no sense. Why not wait until the storm is over and get a helicoptor, which ends up happening anyway. Also, why add in the little part about Emma R getting a cut and then needing to find penicillin later. It just seemed forced and I could see them in writing meeting adding that part to "raise the stakes."

But bottom line, the difference between ID and DAT is simple: there's no bad guys. In ID, you root for US to kick the aliens ass and that's the best part. In DAT you root for the weather to get better. It's an easy choice for what I'd rather watch.

Lastly, the political humor got a little old after about 10 of the same repeated jokes and quibs at the Bush administration. They should have removed a bunch and left a few of the more clever ideas, like Mexico closing the boarder to US citizens fleeing.

Ahhh, An End to Evil. A lot of the arguments in this book have been put forward in the public discussion about Iraq, so there wasn't much new. They have an interesting overall approach and contrarian POV when it comes to accepted and stardard foreign policy. They point to a lot of the hypocracies in our own government, along with the interests of foreign governments, and stress a more robust, firm, and tough US foreign policy around the globe. I think the most interesting thing about this book is the theory they are operating under is really going to be put into place with the Iraq war. They are going to have test data to see if their theory works.

Their argument is thus: liberty must be backed up by a show of power. Democracy cannot and will not blossom in a vaccuum. It will blossom when tyranny is purged, safety established, and trade and money begins to flow.

For the US they say, "weakness is provocative." They argue that in order to avoid more causulties in the future, it is better to show strength early, to deter and discourage those who hate us.

It's an interesting book and a quick read. They too, play too much partisanship and bicker about the wishy-washy Clinton administration and bitterly complain about the State Department - see Colin Powell. But at least they have a POV and suggestion about how to fight terrorism, which is more than most folks can say.

...more on an alternative theory I heard this weekend later