Slashdot Mirror

I saw AotC on a 2-story "Ultrascreen", and the picture quality was absolutely awful. Standard 35mm film produces crisp images even at the projection distances required for large-screen theaters. The current deficiencies of digital projection means the opposite happens: there was no sharpness to the images, making the entire film appear slightly blurred. It may be OK for small screens, but quality certainly degrades as projection distances increase.

Roger Ebert thought the same thing: "It may look great in digital projection on multiplex-size screens, and I'm sure it will look great on DVD, but on a big screen it lacks the authority it needs."

forcing their version of Christian prayer into public schools

No, you've got that backwards. Rightist Christians have been trying to get the right to have their children be allowed to pray in school - again. It was never a requirement, but now it's not allowed.

Your flat statement that "it's not allowed", in reference to children praying in school, is wrong. No one is stopping kids from praying on their own time in school. What courts have ruled unconstitutional, and what groups like the ACLU continue to file lawsuits to prevent, are situations like this one, where a school's graduation ceremony and other activities are routinely opened with prayers.

In fact, the ACLU regularly stands up for students' religious expression when it's threatened by school authorities.

trying to outlaw the burning of the American flag as a form of protest

The only flag burning I've heard of being protested, and the only attempted legislation I've read about, is that in relation to white power supremists. [...] Maybe you could point out to me whatever article refers to these Christian Nazis wanting to outlaw it as a form of protest?

...

You're right on with the firearms issue.

You may also be interested in Roger Ebert review of Matrix Reloaded where he mentions, in his words, "pseudo-philosophy".

check out this story. reporters are quietly fired all the time. The NYT does it, too. They couldn't in this case because the NYT's plagarism was exposed by a third party.

Interestingly, here is another story by the Chicago Sun-Times, in which the reporter admits doing exactly what you state, firing reporters quietly and covering everything up.

IANAL, etc. Nonetheless, as far as I know, diversity jurisdiction, commonly used to extend state jurisdiction beyond state lines (e.g. I can sue you, a resident of another state, in my home state) also applies to foreign diversity of residence. In other words, despite the apparent silliness of such a situation, American civil law (mind you, this applies to tortious claims, not criminal codes) can and does apply to individuals outside of the US in so far as they conduct business or interactions with Americans.

For a good case in point, a federal judge recently ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in a suit alleging liability on part of Saddam Hussein for the attacks of September 11 (story here).

Even the bloodiest of liberals such as Roger Ebert realize this. There are many Moore links to be found showing the intelectual dishonesty rampant in MM's ravings, but, I'm not going to do your homework for you.

The war bonds commercial blackface incident I believe was intended to be strictly a parody of Al Jolson, as evidenced by the voice and the "Uncle Sammy" bit. Apparently Jolson was well know for his songs about "mammy," and also performed in blackface. Another interesting fact - the song, "Any Bonds Today" was written by none other than Irving Berlin if my memory serves correctly.

As for the one about shooting the Japanese ("Bugs Nips the Nips"), it's your basic Bugs cartoon with Japanese soldiers taking the part of the antagonists. There's some pretty outrageous stereotyping going on; the Japanese soldiers all babble continuously in some unintelligible pidgin and all have buckteeth. At one point Bugs even calls them some fairly offensive names, though never uses the most ugly one-word slurs.

I dunno. It was a different time, and most people didn't even know they were being racist when they did stuff like that. Plus, you have to remember that we were at heavy-duty, unconditional-surrender-or-nothing war with them - a common reaction is to try and dehumanize the enemy.

I'm not trying to excuse the behavior, which I find incredibly shameful, only explain it. For an interesting read on a similar topic, check out Roger Ebert's essay on "Birth of a Nation."

But those of us who like off-the-wall British literary send-ups have been fantasizing about her since Cold Comfort Farm.

But the supporting opinions agreed that it should be illegal because it is a form of intimidation, and I don't think anybody believes that a presentation on the security flaws of a popular transaction system is intimidating...just dangerous to a certain corporation.

Actually *doing* the stunts is way more realistic that looking like you're doing it.
I quote from Roger Ebert:
begin quote:
Q. In your review of "Shanghai Knights," you say "The whole point is that [Jackie Chan] does his own stunts, and the audience knows it." I'm curious what you think of Chan's recent admission that this is no longer true--he does use a stuntman for stunts that he does not feel safe doing.

Geoffrey Romer,

Claremont, Calif.

A. We may be up against an urban legend. The authoritative Web site jackiechankids.com says that Chan has never done all of his own stunts, and never claimed that he did, although he sometimes just smiled when others made that statement.

Why doesn't he do his own stunts? The reply: "He'd be stupid to do all the stunts in all his movies. And as Jackie has said many times, 'I may be crazy but I'm not stupid.' Jackie began his career in the movies as a stuntman and did many dangerous things that no one else would do because he was trying to make a name for himself. After he established himself as a well-regarded stuntman, he no longer had to do it all to prove anything to anyone. So he began to do as much as he wanted to do. In the old days, that meant nearly all the stunts. ... As he got older, he began to use stunt doubles for several reasons. The studios ... sometimes insisted that he use stunt doubles so that their star wouldn't be put in any danger. He also began to be more careful about his own body. Doctors warned him about doing things that might cause permanent damage."
end quote.

It's hard to blame them. Iraqi units have forced civilians to run in front of their advancing allied units in attacks against allied troops. They have faked surrenders and then ambushed troops who came to accept the surrender. Hospitals and schools are being used to store military equipment. Iraqi soldiers have abandoned their uniforms and are fighting in civilian clothing. American and British soldiers are risking their own lives to protect Iraqi civilians despite the best efforts of Iraqi soldiers and militia fighters (and anti-America media) to pin civilian deaths as the fault of coalition forces.

Iraqi Combatants Dressed as Civilians

"We were engaged from the city by

people dressed up in civilian clothes with AK-47s ... that's when I was shot in the hand," the 21-year-old corporal explained.

Menard pointed out that local Iraqi civilians had at first seemed happy to see the Marines. That changed, he noted, when the civilians "turned on us and started firing on us."

And, some of the enemy's fire came from a nearby hospital, the Marine remarked.
...
The Army sergeant pointed out that neither he nor his fellow troops want to kill civilians or innocent people in Iraq. However, Horgan noted, the circumstance of Iraqi fighters dressing up as civilians is "going to make it really difficult for us to discern who is 'good' or 'bad.' That's a shame."

Iraqi Civilians Blow up U.S. Troops in Suicide Attacks

Four U.S. soldiers were blown up by a suicide bomber posing as a taxi driver Saturday.

...
Iraqi soldiers have disguised themselves as civilians. They have faked surrendering to get the jump on coalition troops. They have used civilians as human shields.

And now they are sending out suicide bombers. An Iraqi official warned Saturday that suicide attacks would be "routine military policy."

In spite of the enemies' treacherous tactics...

Two U.S. Soldiers Survive Week in Desert... and nearly starve after giving away most of their food to needy Iraqis.

The soldiers said they were stranded when their truck's clutch failed on the way to tow an officer's Humvee that had broken down as the division was traveling toward Baghdad. They said a staff sergeant had ordered them to wait, and said they would be picked up.

No one did. So the two dug trenches to defend their position, and took turns on watch.

They gave most of their food to hungry Iraqi civilians, and watched nervously as white vehicles - a trademark of Saddam Hussein's paramilitary Fedayeen - passed by. Koppi had become a father 10 days before he was deployed, and he wrote poems to his wife.

"It has been weeks since we have spoken, I know her heart is close to broken," went one couplet.

You know the famous picture of a U.S. Army medic carrying an Iraqi boy?

The child in his photo was hit in the leg by shrapnel after

he and his family were used as a human shields by Iraqi irregulars.
...
Mr. Zinn said the story began early on Tuesday morning, after the Third Squadron of the Seventh Cavalry spent a night of non-stop ambushes as it worked its way north along the Euphrates River towards Baghdad.

"We'd spent about 24 hours being ambushed left and right.... I was sleeping in the back of

You have some real warped sense of 'self defense.' Or maybe you can provide some evidence of when and where the US was attacked.

The UN has authority in this situation, not the bush administration.

The bush administration has lied about aluminum tubes supposedly acquired for enriching uranium, "the war will take weeks, not months", Iraq was actively trying to acquire uranium, the "coallition of convenience" is made up of nations who support the bush administration's invasion, 35 countries are providing "critical support" in the coallition of convenience, the "coallition of convenience" is larger than the 1991 gulf war, 8000 soldiers of the 51st division surrendered, Umm Qasr was taken on Sunday, er... no, Monday... no, make that Tuesday.9 times Umm Qasr was "taken."
I could go on and on and on, but I know I'm probably just wasting my time.

Since this thread started, you've consistently said, "show me proof" while making outlandish claims about bombs strapped to buildings and misfiring SAM launcers. Since this thread began, you haven't provided a whit of evidence to support your position. Since this thread began, I've consistently provided links. So unless you want to start posting evidence to support your claims, don't bother asking for it anymore.

Call me crazy, but I'd have to pick UHF...
Most of the other movies are somewhat appreciated (eg Army of Darkness is pretty popular).
There is just something about UHF's pure 80's weirdness, the movie features Weird Al, lame jokes, and some pretty crappy 3-d animation- how can you beat that?
here is Eberts review...
Well I dunno... maybe the movie does suck, but it has Michael Richards, and some pretty classic moments.
...well is was good when I was 9

I hope it involves time travel! Or the crew going nuts! Or people not trusting each other! Or people being incompetent! Or people violating very basic rules of common sense! Or people spouting technobabble as exposition, conflict, and resolution!

Roger Ebert summed up contemporary Star Trek best (in his review of Nemesis ): "Star Trek was kind of terrific once, but now it is a copy of a copy of a copy."

we did not decide alone, we only lead the cause. All along, England stood beside us. And, if my information is correct, something like 30 nations have signed on with their support along with anoth 15 supporting us privately. It is the loud, opposing countries(read France) that make us look as bad as we do(worse than we deserve), even though we are not the only nation who thinks this is a just cause.

Given the host of lies we have been told already by "our" government, what are the chances that Echelon really had anything at all to do with any of this?

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed - when was he really arrested, and under what circumstances?

http://www.complete911timeline.org/main/essayksmca pture.html

Khalid Shaikh Mohammed mysteriously moves from no. 22 to no. 1 or 2 man in Al Qaeda after Osama bin Laden, according to "our" government:

http://www.suntimes.com/output/pickett/cst-nws-pic kett04.html

From the article it seems that Newton simply decided to interpret one day as one year and then added 1260 (from the Book of Daniel) to the year the Church was given political power (800AD) to derive his date. This doesn't seem like a very scientific way of doing things. Why did he choose to interpret a day as a year. What was his reasoning behind that? I think someone as scientific as Newton would have had a little more of an explanation as to why he chose those numbers. Unless the article is leaving out some VERY important details this just seems like a fake to me.

I don't really like the article posted, there are many others and the one listed here didn't underscore that they really don't know why wrote everything he did. They said he wrote a number of time periods. That hardly means Newton thought 1260 + 800 = 2060 Oohooh that's it!!

This article seems a little more brief, but it says what is known without sensational speculation.

As this article mentions. he scribbled this in his notes. Do you write notes that you want to go public and have everyone think that you devoutly believed it?

Think about it. He may not even really believe this, he may have just wrote it down because it popped into his head, not because years of his research proved it. C'mon . . .

I submitted question about the creation of a new Oscar category (as is being discussed in this thread) to Roger Eberts Movie Answer Man column and hope to have a response in one of his upcoming columns. If you want to follow up on it, check here peroidically.

Unfortunately, my dumb ass forgot to copy the body of the letter and, as such, have lost my wonderfully worded question.

Well, if you've got a "black-sounding" name, changing your name might be helpful in some success... hiring managers (and I suspect book-readers, etc.) sometimes filter who they want to deal with based on first names.

Bowling for Columbine, hands down, the best FILM of the year, let alone the best documentary. Too bad it couldn't have been nominated for both, but I don't see how it cannot win best documentary.

As for how it could not win, alas, it's quite possible. The only people in the Academy who can vote for documentaries are people who have seen all five of the nominees. Thus, the distributor of any one of the five films can only screen their film to groups of people who would be inclined to vote for them, thus tilting the odds in their favor. At the end of this review of One Day In September, Roger Ebert talks about how the producer of that film pulled tricks like that, and pulled an upset over the better known Buena Vista Social Club. (Luckily, One Day... turned out to also be a much better movie, but still...)

You'd think a movie about video games would avoid insulting its game-playing audience with such stupidity. Not only is it dumb that she would know what the whistle does, how does the kid playing the game find it in the first place? Early copy of Nintendo Power??

From Roger Ebert's review:

"Who was this movie intended for? No one above the age of reason will be able to abide it. Of those below that age, the studio may have targeted kids who are Nintendo fans. But here the problem is that the movie doesn't have much Nintendo in it, and some of that is wrong (when it's announced, for example, that the third level of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles has been reached, the movie screen clearly shows the first level). "The Wizard" is finally just a cynical exploitation film with a lot of commercial plugs in it, and it is so insanely overwritten and ineptly directed that it will disappoint just about everybody and serve them right for going in the first place."

Seriously, the most common complaint I heard was "enough with the Star Trek already." Maybe if Berman had kept the quality up all along, things would be different, but after Voyager (which shamelessly exploited the Borg, as well as the last refuge of the incompetent producer: tits and ass), Insurrection (where not even the actors believed the premise, see here), and Enterprise (which shatters existing history, as well as throwing in more T&A), is it any surprise that people are sick of the series?

I didn't see Nemesis, because quite frankly, I don't feel like seeing an average Star Trek movie anymore. Hell, I'm not even sure I'd want to see a good Star Trek movie. I'm soured on the franchise. Maybe I would see an excellent Star Trek movie, but all in all, you'd have an easier time selling me on an all new sci-fi movie.

Roger Ebert had a REALLY funny review of Nemesis and why he's not interested in Star Trek any more. It had me laughing for at least 15 minutes. Here are a few choice quotes in case the page gets Slashdotted:

"There might have been a time when the command deck of Starship Enterprise looked exciting and futuristic, but these days it looks like a communications center for security guards."

"Fearsome death rays strike the Enterprise, and what happens? Sparks fly out from the ceiling and the crew gets bounced around in their seats like passengers on the No. 36 bus. This far in the future they wouldn't have sparks because they wouldn't have electricity, because in a world where you can beam matter--beam it, mind you--from here to there, power obviously no longer lives in the wall and travels through wires."

"I've also had it with the force shield that protects the Enterprise. The power on this thing is always going down." ... "I'm thinking, life is too short to sit through 10 movies in which the power is shifted around on these shields. The shields have been losing power for decades now, and here it is the Second Generation of Star Trek, and they still haven't fixed them."

"I tried to focus on the actors. Patrick Stewart, as Capt. Picard, is a wonderful actor. I know because I have seen him elsewhere. It is always said of Stewart that his strength as an actor is his ability to deliver bad dialogue with utter conviction. I say it is time to stop encouraging him."

"There is a scene in the movie in which one starship rams another one. You would think this would destroy them both, and there are a lot of sparks and everybody has to hold onto their seats, but the "Star Trek" world involves physical laws which reflect only the needs of the plot. If one ship rammed another and they were both destroyed and everyone died, and the movie ended with a lot of junk floating around in space, imagine the faces of the people in the audience."

"I think it is time for "Star Trek" to make a mighty leap forward another 1,000 years into the future, to a time when starships do not look like rides in a 1970s amusement arcade, when aliens do not look like humans with funny foreheads, and when wonder, astonishment and literacy are permitted back into the series. Star Trek was kind of terrific once, but now it is a copy of a copy of a copy."

AMEN.

> Apu is not a common Indian name, of course.

It's a common enough contraction. Lots of Sanskrit names start with Apu. Apurva ("Excellent / Without precedent") is a common one that comes to mind. Actually, Apu in the Simpsons was named after the title character in a rather well-known trilogy of films called the "Apu trilogy" made in the 1950s.

I wonder if we'll see large budget adware games in the future. Considering the 400billion to Trillion[1] dollar expenditures on direct and indirect advertising along with the increased popularity of ad-blocking software and consumer electronics, creative --foolhardy?-- ad producers might see piggyback ads as a way to micro-target consumers.

Some modern ad examples: Kazaa makes (millions) off of their file sharing service. We see product placement ads in movies Happy Gilmore (Subway sandwitch), tv shows Drew Carey(Aqua Java drink) nowadays. Some oneline chat (MMORPG) "There.com" (Levis/Nike)

Former FTC Chairman Robert Pitofsky projected online advertising revenue to projected to increase. From 3E8$ to 2E9$ to 11 billion dollars by 2003[2]. If advertisers aren't seeing good returns from banner ads, they might after making their "ads" more entertaining by bundling some entertainment... =)
_____________
[1]COMMUNICATION FROM THE UNITED STATES: Advertising and Related Services (2001 July). World Trade Organization notes (?)
[2]Opening Remarks, FTC Chairman Robert Pitofsky, Public Workshop on Online Profiling, November 8, 1999. Volume XIX. Issue 22. November 15, 1999. Page 5-8. [see hyperlink]. --the linked article is some sort of critque of Pitosfsky's policies.

Exactly. Check out the bottom of this

Scroll to the bottom of this article to read Roger Eberts opinion on this.

Is It Time to Move to Canada?

What a real mate would tell Bush

Beating the drums for justice: Calls for Bush's impeachment for 9-11

USA Oui! Bush Non!

Between Bush, Bin Laden & Hitler

German leader links Bush's 'style' to Hitler's

Judging war crimes, then and now

Just because my desk calculator performs multiplications faster than me, doesn't mean that it is better at mathematics than I am.

Yes, but it also means that it's vastly better (speed, accuracy) at addition than you are. Addition is a well-defined operation on a well-defined domain. Playing Chess is far from the purely mechanical and deterministic process of addition. You could argue that a search based solution to playing Chess (mapping all board configurations and moves) is deterministic, but this isn't what Deep Junior is doing. In fact, Deep Junior handles far fewer possible moves per second than the famed Deep Blue.

Let's go on.

Torturing suspects until they confess to crimes they didn't commit - early retirement in Florida

Defrauding investors and business relations and employees by cooking the books - Enron and Worldcom executives.

The problem with hacking laws is that the impact of the crime varies from minimal to substantial.

Here's what I thought was an interesting dissenting review of the movie. It's a little ridiculous that three out of four stars constitutes a dissenting review, but I'm sure some watchers will consider it that. And Roger Ebert, who was critical of the first movie, approves of the second, but also has some interesting criticisms to make.

Normally three stars is pretty good, but come on, this is LOTR. Anything less than 3 1/2 is basically saying it sucked, didn't live up to the greatness that it should. I think what Ebert misses in his reviews is that what he wants (and admittedly, many of us do, too) is for the movies to be exactly like the books. Unlike Harry Potter, The Lord of the Rings does not translate well into three 3-hour movies. You'd need at least six 3-hour movies to come even close here. Given the constraints, I can't see how Peter Jackson did anything less than a four-star job.

I haven't seen TT yet (waiting til January when the crowds die down) but if it's anything like FoTR, I'll heartily disagree with Mr Ebert. Oh well! ;-)

The Mosquito Coast? Are you insane?!? :) I just didn't see the point, and lost interest despite liking Ford. (For once Ebert and I agree, and I think he/we got it right.)

Bladerunner -- the director's cut allows Ford's character to make more sense, and omits the voice-over for a very different effect.

Oh, I agree, Saving Private Ryan had nothing to do with a war (most of it). More seriously, they are in the same genre. Das Boot is better in the German (subtitled). Private Ryan was not a good movie whatever the genre; a couple of reasons among many being Tom Hanks as cerebral remote tough guy, and these guys slogging through all that to rescue ... Matt Damon! I kept going, hey, there's Matt Damon -- what's he doing there? Di he swing by the set for a drink with Tom Hanks? Hi Matt! Where's Ben Affleck? I know many people liked this movie, and respect that, but I was unconvinced (you can tell) and thought I'd seen much better.

The first 20 minutes of Ryan were like a different movie, and probably one of the most remarkable pseudo-documentaries of the Normandy invasion. I heard over and over how impressed vets were with the portrayal of a really nasty day. It was the tradition then, and once again now, to screen the public from the graphic details, and a lot of these guys came home suffering terribly. Pvt. Ryan's intro did get me thinking about that, and was a remarkable bit of work. I don't know how much credit Spielberg can take.

Every film has its fans, even (gag) Armageddon (on TV tonight ... I wandered down here instead).

If anyone is wondering what this has to do with my first post, I'm still trashing Spielberg. :)

Have a look at the top critic out there, Mr Ebert:

Star Trek IV 3.5 of 4 stars
Star Trek V 2 of 4 stars
Star Trek VI (no review)
Star Trek VII, 2 of 4 stars
Star Trek VIII, 3.5 of 4 stars
Star Trek IX, 2 of 4 stars
Star Trek X, 2 of 4 stars

3 and a half stars is pretty damn good, too. That's better than As Good As It Gets, Austin Powers or A.I..

Have a look at the top critic out there, Mr Ebert:

Star Trek IV 3.5 of 4 stars
Star Trek V 2 of 4 stars
Star Trek VI (no review)
Star Trek VII, 2 of 4 stars
Star Trek VIII, 3.5 of 4 stars
Star Trek IX, 2 of 4 stars
Star Trek X, 2 of 4 stars

3 and a half stars is pretty damn good, too. That's better than As Good As It Gets, Austin Powers or A.I..

Have a look at the top critic out there, Mr Ebert:

Star Trek IV 3.5 of 4 stars
Star Trek V 2 of 4 stars
Star Trek VI (no review)
Star Trek VII, 2 of 4 stars
Star Trek VIII, 3.5 of 4 stars
Star Trek IX, 2 of 4 stars
Star Trek X, 2 of 4 stars

3 and a half stars is pretty damn good, too. That's better than As Good As It Gets, Austin Powers or A.I..

Have a look at the top critic out there, Mr Ebert:

Star Trek IV 3.5 of 4 stars
Star Trek V 2 of 4 stars
Star Trek VI (no review)
Star Trek VII, 2 of 4 stars
Star Trek VIII, 3.5 of 4 stars
Star Trek IX, 2 of 4 stars
Star Trek X, 2 of 4 stars

3 and a half stars is pretty damn good, too. That's better than As Good As It Gets, Austin Powers or A.I..

Have a look at the top critic out there, Mr Ebert:

Star Trek IV 3.5 of 4 stars
Star Trek V 2 of 4 stars
Star Trek VI (no review)
Star Trek VII, 2 of 4 stars
Star Trek VIII, 3.5 of 4 stars
Star Trek IX, 2 of 4 stars
Star Trek X, 2 of 4 stars

3 and a half stars is pretty damn good, too. That's better than As Good As It Gets, Austin Powers or A.I..

Have a look at the top critic out there, Mr Ebert:

Star Trek IV 3.5 of 4 stars
Star Trek V 2 of 4 stars
Star Trek VI (no review)
Star Trek VII, 2 of 4 stars
Star Trek VIII, 3.5 of 4 stars
Star Trek IX, 2 of 4 stars
Star Trek X, 2 of 4 stars

3 and a half stars is pretty damn good, too. That's better than As Good As It Gets, Austin Powers or A.I..

Have a look at the top critic out there, Mr Ebert:

Star Trek IV 3.5 of 4 stars
Star Trek V 2 of 4 stars
Star Trek VI (no review)
Star Trek VII, 2 of 4 stars
Star Trek VIII, 3.5 of 4 stars
Star Trek IX, 2 of 4 stars
Star Trek X, 2 of 4 stars

3 and a half stars is pretty damn good, too. That's better than As Good As It Gets, Austin Powers or A.I..

Have a look at the top critic out there, Mr Ebert:

Star Trek IV 3.5 of 4 stars
Star Trek V 2 of 4 stars
Star Trek VI (no review)
Star Trek VII, 2 of 4 stars
Star Trek VIII, 3.5 of 4 stars
Star Trek IX, 2 of 4 stars
Star Trek X, 2 of 4 stars

3 and a half stars is pretty damn good, too. That's better than As Good As It Gets, Austin Powers or A.I..

Have a look at the top critic out there, Mr Ebert:

Star Trek IV 3.5 of 4 stars
Star Trek V 2 of 4 stars
Star Trek VI (no review)
Star Trek VII, 2 of 4 stars
Star Trek VIII, 3.5 of 4 stars
Star Trek IX, 2 of 4 stars
Star Trek X, 2 of 4 stars

3 and a half stars is pretty damn good, too. That's better than As Good As It Gets, Austin Powers or A.I..

here. For example,
Fearsome death rays strike the Enterprise, and what happens? Sparks fly out from the ceiling and the crew gets bounced around in their seats like passengers on the No. 36 bus. This far in the future they wouldn't have sparks because they wouldn't have electricity, because in a world where you can beam matter--beam it, mind you--from here to there, power obviously no longer lives in the wall and travels through wires.

It's the little things that you don't really realize (until someone points them out to you) that put you off a movie.

Hey, the Chicago's enforcement folks are all about aggressively pursuing evildoers... as long as there's something in it for them.

This is also discussed on this week's Roger Ebert Movie Answer Man.

Check out Roger Ebert's latest answer man column, where he talks to the people involved with the musical scoring for the Two Towers trailer and how it came to be:

Roger Ebert Column on The Music for the Two Towers Trailer

-Tom

It's from Requiem for a Dream. Ebert wrote about it. So did Harry Knowles. So did Dennis Moore (aka Archon).

NEW HOMELAND SECURITY BILL DROPS INVESTIGATION INTO 9-11.

I guess we don't need to know what happened, just what we were told what happened by the president.