I've done a lot of dumb things in my life but I've never hired me..My opinion is no better or worse than yours, I suspect.
Neat review, and question: Trainspotting
on
'Snatch'
·
· Score: 2
neat review, and right, but I thought Trainspotting was twice the movie at least. Why did it remind me so much of Trainspotting..really nothing like it..Was it the shooting style?
Nother movie that didn't quite know how to end..does anybody but me see this problem? Movies just don't know how to end...Huge problem for Antitrust and others.
I'd love to see a discussion of Fight Club? Did people like..according to surveys, young males loved it. But why? I liked it a lot, cept for the loopy ending..
I've also gotten some e-mail from people in the South who remember parents brothers, cousins and uncles vanishing and heading for bases. Roads were clogged. In fact, a NWTimes reporter got onto the story partially because towns were emptying out in N carolina and Georgia.
Bush, Powell and Rumsfield (Cheney too) have all said they perceive the greatest military threats to the U.S. to be launches of nuclear missiles by runaway governments or individual terrorists who get hold of them. That's why they want to fund a new missile shield. I have no idea if these fears are justified or not, and would love to see some comments from people who might know.
In RFK's book Missiles of October and other accounts I've read, Kennedy certainly did know that the Soviets had tactical nukes. That's why they did so many overflights. I'm curious as to why you think otherwise.
We decided to wait a week to review Antitrust so that the maximum no of people could see it and talk about it. Lots of people can join in that way. So next Sunday. Come on by.
There are many more weapons, they are much more powerful, many more are out of the control of the Soviets and in their former Republics, and well financed terrorist groups are much more likely to try and get one..I disagree completely. This is a form of denial. People have just lost interest in the issue, and want it to go away. But this is why Powell and Bush say their lst priority is a missile shield..I don't have an opinion on whether that' s a good idea or not, but Rumsfield and Powell say a missile launch against the U.S. is currently out greatest threat..
There were portrayals and Interviews with Gromyko, who lied to Kennedy to his face, the Soviet Ambassador to the U.N., and Anatoly Dobrynin, the longtime soviet ambassador who eventually cut a deal with Bobby Kennedy.
Cept for O'Donnel role and Soviet thinking
on
'Thirteen Days'
·
· Score: 3
Most of the interviews I 've read say O'Donnell's role in the actual crisis was much less pivotal than portrayed in the movie. And as another poster has pointed out, we have no real clues as to what Soviet or Cuban thinking or feeling was from this movie. Also some military people have said the portrayal of the generals was a bit heavy-handed..
A classic illusion...Why the missile shield?
on
'Thirteen Days'
·
· Score: 2
According to the Brookings Instituion, and stories in the Washington Post (series in the NYTimes after the Russian sub incident) and many books on military policy (I'm not home, and I don't have URL's..easy nuff to get tho), there are now more than 2,000 U.S missiles aimed at the Soviet Union, and as many aimed back. But the soviet military is deterioriating (as the Russian sub episode and others have revealed) and many of their nuclear warheads have remained behind in breakaway or disconnected Republics like the Ukraine..tons of stories about the money the U.S. is spending to try and disarm them and get them out.
Plus there were not well financed terrorist networks then..the fact that some of you have no idea that this is so is the most interesting thing to me about the movie. It doesn't seem to be an issue, though in fairness, it's the reason George W. Bush and Colin Powell are arguing for a new multi-gazillion dollar missile shield.
I'm not a journalist, and this is a movie review, not a nuclear armaments piece..i don't use sources in reviews..But if you are interested in the subject, to to pieces on this movie in the NYTimes, Washington Post, LA Times, New Republic, Time Mag and about 500 others..There are thousands more missiles deployed now than 30 years ago, and if you follow incidents like the recent sinking of the Russian nuclear sub, or the many warheads the U.S. is trying to get out of the Baltic states left behind by the collapse of the Soviet Union, you shouldn't need much convincing..but that's another piece..easy enuf to check it out for yourself. be your own journalist.
I'm not nearly the lst to review it..it's been reviewed all over the place..and everybody is welcome to post their own reviews here along with mine..er..that's sort of the point.if I were going to be the lst I'd have done it already..we wanted to wait until enuf people had seen it to talk about it..
The overrunning of the Berlin Wall was the end of the Us/Soviet pissing match, preceded by the detente engineered by Reagan, of all people, with Gorbachev. There were enormous tensions for years after Cuba, and raging surrogate wars, from Vietnam to Afghanistan to El Salvador..I don't th ink it was nearly the end. I think when those kids came thundering over the wall looking for m usic videos, that would be my nomination.
IMHO, not Strangelove at all
on
'Thirteen Days'
·
· Score: 2
I sure wouldn't compare this move to Strangelove in anyway, apart from shot pretty nuke shots..This movie is without irony or bite at all...Yes, the shots were pretty great..
Easy enuf..and talk about Denial
on
'Thirteen Days'
·
· Score: 2
According to the Washington Post, there are more than 2,000 missiles aimed at the Soviet Union today, many times more than thirty years ago. And an equivalent amount aimed back. You may notice from the recent Russian sub acccident that things are not good for the Russian military now. So almost all military and political experts feel that that reality..plus of course terrorism, the Middle East, etc., make it more likely. More bombs, more people eager to use them, poorer maintenance.
Your message (and your faux amusement) is a great example of denial in action.
But who gets to teach history? And about generals?
on
'Thirteen Days'
·
· Score: 2
The winners of course. "RFK"s book was roundly criticized for failing to deal with Russian and Cuban perspectives accurately..I think this movie is tepid enuf that it will get into civics classes.
I agree about the portrayal of generals, tho. When did Hollywood come to hate them so? And does anybody know if they are that bad..
George Kennan, I think, wrote a good account of the story from the Russian perspective..Khruschev was in trouble the whole day...The Cuban perspective is also totally absent, which is another good point.
I think people are overwhelmed by technology, sick of it, afraid of it, and in conjunction with a slowing economy and a new, distinctly anti-tech administration, I think there'll be a slowing of tech expansion. To some extent, that could be good -- people could use it. It will also be less exhilarating and revolutionary a period, I think. I think digital politics will take off at the end of this year, as some smart tech-spawned kid will take advantage of the Net and use it to raise money, generate interest in issues.
Slashdot Mirror
I've done a lot of dumb things in my life but I've never hired me..My opinion is no better or worse than yours, I suspect.
neat review, and right, but I thought Trainspotting was twice the movie at least. Why did it remind me so much of Trainspotting..really nothing like it..Was it the shooting style?
Nother movie that didn't quite know how to end..does anybody but me see this problem? Movies just don't know how to end...Huge problem for Antitrust and others.
I'd love to see a discussion of Fight Club? Did people like..according to surveys, young males loved it. But why? I liked it a lot, cept for the loopy ending..
..was less funny but more coherent, I thought. Both movies remind of a time when british pop culture was it...doesn't seem true anymore.
The letter is written and sent, with credit to Chaim..very neat..
I've also gotten some e-mail from people in the South who remember parents brothers, cousins and uncles vanishing and heading for bases. Roads were clogged. In fact, a NWTimes reporter got onto the story partially because towns were emptying out in N carolina and Georgia.
Bush, Powell and Rumsfield (Cheney too) have all said they perceive the greatest military threats to the U.S. to be launches of nuclear missiles by runaway governments or individual terrorists who get hold of them. That's why they want to fund a new missile shield. I have no idea if these fears are justified or not, and would love to see some comments from people who might know.
In RFK's book Missiles of October and other accounts I've read, Kennedy certainly did know that the Soviets had tactical nukes. That's why they did so many overflights. I'm curious as to why you think otherwise.
We decided to wait a week to review Antitrust so that the maximum no of people could see it and talk about it. Lots of people can join in that way. So next Sunday. Come on by.
There are many more weapons, they are much more powerful, many more are out of the control of the Soviets and in their former Republics, and well financed terrorist groups are much more likely to try and get one..I disagree completely. This is a form of denial. People have just lost interest in the issue, and want it to go away. But this is why Powell and Bush say their lst priority is a missile shield..I don't have an opinion on whether that' s a good idea or not, but Rumsfield and Powell say a missile launch against the U.S. is currently out greatest threat..
There were portrayals and Interviews with Gromyko, who lied to Kennedy to his face, the Soviet Ambassador to the U.N., and Anatoly Dobrynin, the longtime soviet ambassador who eventually cut a deal with Bobby Kennedy.
Most of the interviews I 've read say O'Donnell's role in the actual crisis was much less pivotal than portrayed in the movie. And as another poster has pointed out, we have no real clues as to what Soviet or Cuban thinking or feeling was from this movie. Also some military people have said the portrayal of the generals was a bit heavy-handed..
According to the Brookings Instituion, and stories in the Washington Post (series in the NYTimes after the Russian sub incident) and many books on military policy (I'm not home, and I don't have URL's..easy nuff to get tho), there are now more than 2,000 U.S missiles aimed at the Soviet Union, and as many aimed back. But the soviet military is deterioriating (as the Russian sub episode and others have revealed) and many of their nuclear warheads have remained behind in breakaway or disconnected Republics like the Ukraine..tons of stories about the money the U.S. is spending to try and disarm them and get them out.
Plus there were not well financed terrorist networks then..the fact that some of you have no idea that this is so is the most interesting thing to me about the movie. It doesn't seem to be an issue, though in fairness, it's the reason George W. Bush and Colin Powell are arguing for a new multi-gazillion dollar missile shield.
we'd all be gone, I suspect. I'd have to think about Reagan. Clinton would definitely negotiate..
I'd think Providence is more snow-savvy than that..
I'm not a journalist, and this is a movie review, not a nuclear armaments piece..i don't use sources in reviews..But if you are interested in the subject, to to pieces on this movie in the NYTimes, Washington Post, LA Times, New Republic, Time Mag and about 500 others..There are thousands more missiles deployed now than 30 years ago, and if you follow incidents like the recent sinking of the Russian nuclear sub, or the many warheads the U.S. is trying to get out of the Baltic states left behind by the collapse of the Soviet Union, you shouldn't need much convincing..but that's another piece..easy enuf to check it out for yourself. be your own journalist.
I'm not nearly the lst to review it..it's been reviewed all over the place..and everybody is welcome to post their own reviews here along with mine..er..that's sort of the point.if I were going to be the lst I'd have done it already..we wanted to wait until enuf people had seen it to talk about it..
The overrunning of the Berlin Wall was the end of the Us/Soviet pissing match, preceded by the detente engineered by Reagan, of all people, with Gorbachev. There were enormous tensions for years after Cuba, and raging surrogate wars, from Vietnam to Afghanistan to El Salvador..I don't th ink it was nearly the end. I think when those kids came thundering over the wall looking for m usic videos, that would be my nomination.
I sure wouldn't compare this move to Strangelove in anyway, apart from shot pretty nuke shots..This movie is without irony or bite at all...Yes, the shots were pretty great..
According to the Washington Post, there are more than 2,000 missiles aimed at the Soviet Union today, many times more than thirty years ago. And an equivalent amount aimed back. You may notice from the recent Russian sub acccident that things are not good for the Russian military now. So almost all military and political experts feel that that reality..plus of course terrorism, the Middle East, etc., make it more likely. More bombs, more people eager to use them, poorer maintenance.
Your message (and your faux amusement) is a great example of denial in action.
The winners of course. "RFK"s book was roundly criticized for failing to deal with Russian and Cuban perspectives accurately..I think this movie is tepid enuf that it will get into civics classes.
I agree about the portrayal of generals, tho. When did Hollywood come to hate them so? And does anybody know if they are that bad..
George Kennan, I think, wrote a good account of the story from the Russian perspective..Khruschev was in trouble the whole day...The Cuban perspective is also totally absent, which is another good point.
I think people are overwhelmed by technology, sick of it, afraid of it, and in conjunction with a slowing economy and a new, distinctly anti-tech administration, I think there'll be a slowing of tech expansion. To some extent, that could be good -- people could use it. It will also be less exhilarating and revolutionary a period, I think. I think digital politics will take off at the end of this year, as some smart tech-spawned kid will take advantage of the Net and use it to raise money, generate interest in issues.
Every movie is subjective, natch. Can you say a bit more about what you didnt' like?