The Ben Stiller Show had a number of excellent sketches as others have noted. I think the most memorable is the dark, hilarious Manson-as-Lassie Show; Bob Odenkirk is stellar. The cast members are very strong with Ben being perhaps the weakest straight-up comedian of the bunch. Andy D. seems under-utilized at times and Odenkirk's quirks should have been explored further. The downside for some people will be Ben's penchant for the obvious. Many sketches take the easy way out and too many rely on simple pop culture gags for their laughs. A talented cast doesn't need to hit softballs off of a tee. However many of the spoofs do make you laugh and that's the main purpose I suppose. I guess it depends on your idea of genius: do you prefer the topical-based humor of SNL or the highly inventive off-the-wall style of Kids in the Hall... much more creative but not always interested in the easy laugh. Bottom line is that this DVD is worth owning for fans of sketch-based comedy. Not a best of the genre but high quality for certain.

I'm sure you'll all hate me but I'm cool with that. Wow, gotta say I'm really surprised ny the overwhelmingly positive reviews of this CD. Yes, it sounded quite good; All Ocean Blue does, does it not? It sounds even better resting on my shelf having been unplayed for a decade. It sounds nice, and smooth, and soft, and... well... safe, harmless, toothless, derivative, uninventive. That's it basically, TOB made cool, comforting, flowing music that really said nothing and had no impact on anyone or anything. Classic? Please. Comparing to the Smiths or Cocteau Twins is accurate in that the band emulated them and other Brit alt-pop. However, they never transcended any of it. They never got their due? Excuse me, they never deserved any. The reason TOB never got too much praise was because they were an ongoing, rolling non-event. A decade of relentless lackluster torpor. I would say they were a poor man's Smiths but that would insult the Smiths. TOB were a cut-rate House of Love or perhaps a lesser Lightning Seeds. If you want to listen to pleasant sonic wallpaper then you got it in spades. 3 solid stars for the soothing sounds, but no way it's worth 5. Replicating the great works of others does not in turn make you great, it makes you The Ocean Blue.

I could see a student of film really getting into this movie. The entire film is a parade of very long, slow-developing shots where the camera just sits in one place and takes in the everyday, mundane happenings following 2 characters in Taipei and Paris. There are some character portraits that work and some that fail to have impact. Generally the movie is very slow and may grind on many viewers. If I were in the mood to "study" a movie then this may have worked for me. I wasn't and therefore really didn't feel enriched by this. I would say the director is talented but this just was a bit off the mark for me. Also the premise that the main character falls in love after such a non-event is quite a stretch. And like the others, I was a bit puzzled by the obsession with a guy urinating into various containers. I got the point the first time... didn't need 7-8 more 90-second shots of that.

Why not called this movie instead "The Unions Killed Flint, Michigan"? Moore implies that the Flint plant was the best in class. If the plant was so good then why did GM close it? To move the production somewhere that they could produce for a better price? Exactly. Isn't that what capitalism is? Truth is that this plant and many other industrial outfits in America became bloated and expensive because of terribly inefficient union operations. Aren't companies in business to sell products? When they sell more they continue to employ more people otherwise they go under. Do you realize that only 2 of the original 30 Dow Jones companies still exists? These things don't last unless the companies make tough decisions. You always have to get cheaper or the competition kills you. Actually haven't the Germans and Japanese pretty much eaten our lunch in the auto market anyway? I'm sure it would be smarter to continue to make even worse, more expensive cars. That'll put the U.S. back on top in autos. Put blame where it really lies. No one wins when a huge corporation languishes and falls further behind. Would you rather lose some jobs to Mexico or lose 500,000 jobs altogether (yeah, half a million employees). I love the argument that GM had "record profits". Don't most companies have "record profits" every year? You grow 1% - isn't that 1% better than last year and therefore a "record"... yeah, it's a terrible year to grow just 1% but it's still a "record". Most companies grow over time. If they don't they have to lay people off to stay competitive. It is incumbent upon you and I to keep ourselves ready for the job market because we could be ditched at any time, just like we can ditch our company at any time. Has to be that way.

Moore, like most of you, knows nothing about economics. And is it surprising that Roger Smith never meets him? Trust me, this guy is so busy he has no time to make an appearance for this little meaningless film which amounts to little more than a smear campaign. If he took the time to meet him, what critical issues would he be missing. Can you even imagine the demands on a guy at this level? Doubtful that you can.

The great thing about Kids in the Hall was that they shunned the topical, obvious humor so common within the ranks of SNL, MAD TV, In Living Color, Ben Stiller and so forth. KITH relished the subtle quirks of everyday existence: inanely busy businessmen, a mullet-headed slacker obsessed with his beat-up heap of a used car, or the morose "nobody likes us" outcasts who hang themselves just to make a point. Granted, all of these are not gems; truth be told, the Kids hadn't yet hit full stride as they would in later seasons. You may have to suffer through a few clunkers but it is all worth it. Personally I think the risk-reward is worth it for the edgy elements and oddball genius. If you want to be this creative and be truly landmark then you can't always grab the obvious punchline. Long live the Kids! can't wait for the stronger seasons to come out.

The already written reviews provide ample description of the music so we're all set there. There just needs to be some clarification on the surrounding facts... which actually in this case may be just as important as the music itself.

After the breakup of the Sisters of Mercy there was a bloody legal feud over who controlled the name: founding member Andrew Eldrtich (born Andrew Taylor) or musician/songwriters Wayne Hussey & Craig Adams. While the dispute raged on Wayne and Craig, along with new bandmates, began touring under the name The Sisterhood. Andrew believed this was more than a little too close for comfort given the unresolved issues. To further complicate matters, the record company, eager to cash in on the band's growing cult following and swell in the Goth movement, promised 25,000 British Pounds to the first of the warring factions to release anything. In a move to deal with all of these things, Andrew hastily produced "Gift" under the Sisterhood moniker. In 1 simple move he collected the 25,000 pounds and pre-empted Craig and Wayne from touring under the name any longer. Andrew eventually won legal control over the TSOM name so the others moved on as The Mission (Mission UK to us Americans).

Now concerning the specifics of "Gift" itself further explanation is required. Andrew Eldritch never sang on the album as he thought it wise not to do so until resolution of the name dispute. All vocals were done by James Ray who sounds remarkably similar to Andrew, yet they are different people. In many 80's Goth zines it was oft debated whether the vocals were actually done by Andrew and simply listed James Ray to avoid legal issues. To my knowledge it actually was JR. There was some debate that the 2 were one and the same... false. Alan Vega provided some programming on the album but never any vocals as the Amazon reviewer suggests. Despite the confusing wording of the Amazon review, Alan Vega and James Ray were never bandmates in Suicide.. I believe one of our reviewer friends misunderstood this point. Alan Vega's NYC bandmate in Suicide was always Martin Rev. James Ray was a European based Goth artist who worked under the names James Ray, James Ray's Gangwar, and James Ray & Performance. The connection between Eldritch and Vega was that the Sisters had covered Suicide's "Ghostrider". Interestingly both bands had covered Velvet Underground's "Sister Ray". It is merely coincidence that James Ray, now performing in Sisterhood, shares his name with the song... i.e. Sister (James) Ray. It is true that all of this was recorded in little more than a week. The music is not bad and some is actually quite memorable, but the rush is evident. Most consist of monotonous beats, minimal synths and spoken vocals. The only song that seems complete is the excellent "Giving Ground", which is likely why this is the only song that the band has continued to play.

Looking back Andrew pulled off quite a coup, shutting down his ex-bandmates, giving the label the finger while still collecting the cash, and moving forward with the name in tact. Observent fans will know that Andrew relocated to Germany long ago and is fluent in German. Those who speak some Deutsch themselves will also know the "Gift" in German means "Poison". Ah, now you get it....

Certainly the least accomplished of their albums, but very worth owning for fans. It is fun to here the raw as well as the more subtle hints at the majesty that would come. Songs like "Laura", "Laura II" and "Power" are balls to the wall power Goth. Early fan favorite "Trees Come Down" is a slow-building, paganistic brew that grows into a stomp. The minimal, delicate "Darkcell" is dark and haunted and has always been a favorite. "secrets" displays some of the gentle, elegant style that they would develop further later. All in all, it may be Nephilim's worst (excluding the post-breakup 'Zoon' and the pre-reformation, unendorsed 'Fallen') but it's still very good and any fan should want to know what started it all. Oh, and I certainly have listened to and enjoyed it more than 3 times.

I already wrote my review on this overrated steaming pile, so here's a glimpse at what Japan Today thought. I even agree with her non-race related criticisms (I mean try to imagine to lamer characters):

'Lost in Translation' insults Japanese

Yoko Akashi

I recently saw "Lost in Translation," and I must say that I was offended by it. The more I thought about this film, the more it made me angry.

The first shot of any film always speaks volumes to me. What was the first shot of "Lost in Translation?" It was a woman's ass. Through this body part, the director, Sofia Coppola, sees and shows Japan and her characters.

In the film, the Japanese are always portrayed as inferior to the main Anglo-Saxon characters (Bob Harris played by Bill Murray and Charlotte played by Scarlett Johansson). The Japanese are "funny," two-dimensional, cartoon-like characters who can't pronounce English words correctly and often mix "L" and "R" sounds. At one point Charlotte asks Bob about the mixing up of "L" and "R."

I would like to answer this question. It's because English is not our native language or even our official language. In the movie, the Japanese were trying to speak English as best they could out of courtesy to the Americans. Meanwhile, the main characters didn't even attempt to speak one word of Japanese. And let's not forget they're in Japan, not the U.S.

I was even more disturbed by Coppola's portrayal of Japanese women. Besides mocking their English, Bob demeans them with his condescending tone and remarks, saying "thank you" to their private parts, etc. It's very surprising that a female director made this film. Coppola seems to view Japanese women as inhuman and without feelings.

In fact, none of the Japanese characters in this film were portrayed as being human or having any feelings. Yet no one in the U.S. mainstream media even picked up on this subtle prejudice. The U.S. media traditionally dehumanizes Asians as a whole, making them an easy target for jokes or as a scapegoat. And that view is the norm for many Americans. But seeing it in this supposedly "intellectual" and "artsy" film was an unpleasant surprise.

Rave reviews, Golden Globe awards and Oscar nominations for "best actor," "best film," "best director" and "best original screenplay" have made me feel even more offended. I do not want my people to serve as a cheap subject for mockery for someone's career advantage.

All I saw in that movie were two bored and boring empty privileged Americans who can afford to stay and feel trapped for quite a long period of time in the most expensive hotel in Tokyo. It's quite hard for me to feel sympathy toward a man who earns "tons of money" from a commercial and thinks it's a very hard and unrewarding job, or toward a woman who can travel freely without a purpose and still complains. These people's problems are so out of touch from many people's lives.

When we see a film, we travel in the soul and mind of the director. I saw a great condescending view of non-English speaking people, racism and bigotry toward the Japanese, all wrapped in a tidy poetic package.

Coppola has made a fortune selling her clothing line in Japan. That's how she thanks the Japanese people.

I've heard that her father, Francis Coppola, the producer of this film, has bought all the movie rights to Yukio Mishima's works. I hope he will have a better understanding and respect of the culture by the time he makes films based on Mishima's works.

Love transforms people, makes them better, and makes them shine. This film was striving to show the birth of compassion between the two lost souls of the main characters. However, the main characters of Bob and Charlotte did not shine after falling in love, their world and world view remained almost as ignorant, and as two-dimensional as before they met.

I feel more emotion watching "L" and "R" trains passing by in New York City than watching Coppola's characters fall in love.

The writer is a Japanese woman living in New York.

March 4, 2004

Getting a little bored w/ the left wing/right wing garbage? Well how about getting the opinion of a moderate (I'm from San Francisco but I own a home & have a family... you do the math). I am not in the NRA, do not own a gun, and actually have never even seen one up close. Ok enough about me. Moore presents HIS opinion (he makes no claim to be objective... and he isn't) in a manner that sometimes is thought-provoking while other times totally annoying and narrow-minded. Let me give you some examples.

The segment on Marylin Manson is excellent. Moore debunks the idea that Manson (or makers of industrial rock in general - KMFDM and NIN were also lumped into the Columbine fray) was in some way responsible for what occured. Great point - I've often wondered why people, conservative and liberal both, are so eager to jump on the music someone listens to if it's non-mainstream music but do not address the issue when the killer listens to mainstream music, which is far more often the case. I can assure you that listeners of Goth/Industiral are probably America's smallest problem... try hip hop (ya think?). Or how about the Beatles? What, 6 or 7 of history's most famous murderers are Lennon fanatics (Mark Chapman, Charles Manson, ...). Ooh them Beatles are spooky.

However the link between the Columbine massacre and the proximity to a Lockheed-Martin office is inane. First, these kids likely had no idea that this office (it's not even a manufacturing plant as Moore insinuates) exists, and if they did they probably have no concept of what the company does. Therefore the idea that somehow this links into their collective subconscious and engenders an aura of violence is ludicrous. However, Moore looks at the sign with the sad face, drops his head and shakes it like he's disgusted, so obviously you are an idiot if you don't follow his thought process (this condescending BS is why Moore can't be taken too seriously). Consider this: European airports, train stations and government buildings are filled with people carrying fully automatic weapons openly for everyone to see - even been to the Frankfurt airport? Why doesn't this open display have the same effect on Europeans? Moore's argument is just empty here.

Often Moore intentionally twists the truth by taking things completely out of context. He doesn't tell you this but it's clear to anyone paying attention. He splices pieces from multiple sources, cuts & edits out critical comments, and places quotes into context where they were not intended. This is just abuse of his media position and really is quite shameful for a man who wants to be listened to. This is why he has no power beyond preaching to his own dedicated choir. Certainly no conservative will be won over. I have never met a moderate who could stomach his unreal amount of spin and distortion.

On a basic level, BfC is entertaining and at moments thought-provoking. The breakdown of logic and resorting to fallacious arguments unfortunately makes the film come up far short. One more question for the readers. Is it really important how people are killed or simply that they are killed? Do the people who kill do so simply because they have a gun? Would a gangster murder someone in a drug feud if he didn't have a gun? My guess is yes he would. Certainly the gun offers convenience and that's an issue but it does not create the urge to kill. What the people rarely tell you is that the US not at the top of the homicide list. In fact it's about 10th between N. Ireland and Argentina. All of the nations above the US have higher non-gun homicide rates than our total homicide rate. Think about that . People actually kill even w/o guns. Now I'm not a gun-proponent (never owned and never will) but maybe we should look at what drives the violent urge and determine if it is preventable or not. Maybe it isn't? Perhaps it is a factor of our melting pot society or our extensive freedom. Japan doesn't some of our issues because they are incredibily homogenous - think about it. And why do the Swiss and Israelis have such low homicide rates when they are so heavily armed per capita (much higher gun ownership rates than U.S.)? Maybe this goes back to that homogeneity point I just made. Anyway, stop resorting to name calling and think about the issue and then determine if Moore really makes intelligent and thorough arguments.

The game is not particularly hard, but that's exactly why I got it for my 5-year-old. He loves it and thinks the pros as kids are funny. It has helped attach him to the sport in general. You can ratchet up the difficulty as needed so I don't find that to be a problem. The graphics are solid though limited. I guess that's the biggest knock in that most things are limited. There aren't too many moves, the commentators get stale fast and there is not a whole lot of variation. Still this is done mostly to keep kids from being overwhelmed. A fun game to pick up for $20 for your b-ball loving child.