Funny and surreal, full of non-stop non sequiturs, bad puns and absurdity. This animated satire of a hyper
right-wing moron father who works for the CIA, and his very bizarre family; which includes a pet goldfish with
the brain of German Olympic athlete and a fey alien, uses a scatter-shot approach to humor. A lot of the jokes
don't work, but a lot do, and some of those are laugh-out-loud funny.

Gleefully jumping all over the concept of good taste, it can often be sophomoric, but sophomoric can still be
very amusing. Sometimes it's the very pushing the bounds of bad taste that, as with 'South Park' is what makes
it as shockingly funny as it is, and gives it a bit of an edge as well (although it can't compete with South Park's more
sophisticated political and topical humor). Lots of great guest voices add something as well.

On the other hand, I didn't find it well suited for marathon viewing. The humor is too similar and one note. It starts to
burn out. Best taken in small doses.

Fascinating, well told and ultimately touching, this short (60 minute) biography of the legendary sharpshooter tells
the tale of an amazing life, full of more than it’s shares of ups and downs.

Oakley was, without setting out to be, a pioneer among women, competing on even terms in a man’s world, at a man’s
sport, and beating men at their own game at a time when that was generally unthinkable, becoming an international
star in the process.

At the same time, she stayed outwardly to the Victorian ideal of seeming demure and ‘lady-like’. Yet she would fight
ferociously to protect herself, her position and her image. A woman full of contradictions, a moving love story, a fight to break
through a disastrous childhood, and the story of an amazing talent make this a very entertaining piece of history.

One lovely touch is there is actually some movie footage of the real Oakley from appearances late in her career, a nice
addition to the usual talking heads and still photos.

Three excellent film documents of Sonia Wieder-Atherton's work as one of our best and most creative cellists by one of our
most interesting film-makers on 2 DVDs, plus a CD of Wieder-Atherton's work on the soundtrack to Akerman's film
"A Couch in New York".

On the first DVD is "Avec Sonia Wieder-Atherton" 41 minutes. Its a wonderful combination of beautiful music beautifully played
and Chantal Akerman’s inventive, but not intrusive filming of the wildly talented cellist. The film starts with Wieder-Atherton
telling the story of how she came to fall in love; first with music in general, and then with the cello, and
goes on to talk about how she found her specific style, which uses the music to try and almost form words of communication.
It’s a delightful and enlightening interview. This is followed by Wieder-Atherton playing 6 pieces of quite different styles, from
the heartbreaking melodies of Brahms and Schubert to Berio’s more edgy modern sounds. Akerman sometimes photographs
Wieder-Atherton and her fellow musicians through foreground objects, slowly dollying the camera to reveal different perspectives
on the players. Akerman also uses a nice mix of close ups and wider shots, which is important, since Wieder-Atherton is the
kind of musician who plays with her whole body, her body language as expressive as her face. Captivating and moving.

Also on that first DVD is "Trios Strophes sur le Nom de Sacher" (1989) 12 Minutes. This is the first of Chantal Akerman's wonderful
collaborations with Sonia Wieder- Atherton. This short film of Wieder-Atherton playing the title piece by Henri Dutilleux is simply,
but very well shot. Akerman does a great job of capturing Wieder-Atherton's expressive playing, not just in close-ups, but in wider
shots that let us watch the musician's body as she interacts with the music and her instrument. While not overly flamboyant,
the passion that Wieder-Atherton brings to her playing is exciting to watch, and brings a deeper level of connection to the music – or
at least it did to me. I personally didn't find this music quite as involving as the music in the other two films, but its was still worthwhile.

The 2nd DVD is taken up with "A l’Est avec Sonia Wieder-Atherton" (2009) Presented in 2 parts, this 83 minute piece documents
Wieder-Atherton’s idea to do a set of pieces from across central and eastern Europe, including Russia. Some weren’t originally
written for cello, but she had them transcribed. Some were songs for voices, which relates to Wieder-Atherton saying in "Avec Sonia
Wieder-Atherton" that she wants to play the cello in a way that it would carry the emotion of the human voice. She explains at the
beginning of this new film how she feels each country in central and eastern Europe has it’s own personality expressed in its music,
coming from out of its individual history and culture, but that each land in the area is also ‘impregnated’ as she puts it by the others,
so there are certain elements that run throughout. All the pieces are lovely, and some are truly exciting and/or moving. Akerman
photographs it all simply but interestingly. A combination of lighting and camera angles keeps our focus on Wieder-Atherton
while giving us slightly shadowy glimpses of the musicians playing with her. Indeed, my only two (very minor) carps were that
during some pieces (not all) I felt other key musical voices weren’t shown (in one piece there’s sort of a ‘call and response’ between
Wieder-Atheron and another cellist, but we never see her ‘partner’). I also personally wish the overview might have included some
of the interesting more modern eastern European musical voices like Arvo Part and Henryk Gorecki. But these are very minor quibbles,
and the second part is just a question of personal taste. This is a highly entertaining and involving hour and a half of music that does
indeed tie together a huge geographical region of musical creativity.

Throughout the films the sound quality seemed quite high through my decent system.

Finally, the CD presents the score of "A Couch in New York, often tied to bits of dialogue, and also what sounds like Chantal Akerman's
occasional comments. The score has a jaunty feel for the most part, ranging from Bach to Cole Porter. On first exposure I found just listening
to the score less involving than watching Wieder-Atherton playing, but it still was a lovely 'extra'.

All in all a terrific package that I'll return to often.

Interesting 47 minute short from a Shelagh Delaney short story. A girl quits her dull job, and goes on a surrealistic bus tour of a dilapidated
Manchester, UK. Along for the ride are a strange mix, including a lascivious vicar, lord mayor (Arthur Lowe, always great), etc.

Many of the techniques that became part of ‘If’ and ‘O Lucky Man’ first show up here.(e.g. mixing color and B+W). It also follows ‘O Lucky Man’
in being a surreal journey of a somewhat passive, young lead character traveling through a world where they have little power. Enigmatic,
sure, but it’s interesting and entertaining in a Brechtian/Anderson sort of dark humored politically satirical way. Cleary it’s making fun of the pathetic
nature of modern society and our desperate need to justify all the glories of ‘progress that really sap our humanity. Some terrific and haunting images.

Note; a young Anthony Hopkins shows up very briefly singing German!

I'll admit 'Brave' doesn't have quite the wall to wall boldness, rule-breaking and sheer brilliance of the very best
of Pixar's work, but I'll still take it over 95% of the Hollywood films I've seen this year. It never bored me, it made
me smile a lot, laugh a little, and was a more touching look at the complexity of mother and daughter
relationships than most 'grown-up' films that try to deal with the subject.

It also has a heroine who is a spunky, tough and first rate advocate for girl power, while still being heart-meltingly vulnerable
at just the right moments.

It has tremendously talented voice actors in Billy Connolly, Kelly Maccdonald, and especially Emma Thompson.

Most important, it has a twist half-way through that takes it in a delightfully unexpected direction. I will admit, for the first
half I was a bit under-whelmed, The film seemed more Disney than Pixar,with 'safe' humor and ideas. Just a touch disappointingly predictable.
But then a witch gets involved in this medieval Scottish tale, and with a twist that's more Shakespearian comedy than Disney, suddenly this is
a new film we haven't seen before. The second half easily won me back over, and I was left feeling, as I always seemed to be, that working
for Pixar must be just about the greatest job in movies.

Geoffrey Rush is excellent as Harry, an Englishman with a sadly shady past who has re- invented himself in Panama as the best tailor in
the country, making clothes for the rich and politically powerful. Into his world comes Osnard, played by Pierce Brosnan. A morally
corrupt, self-serving MI6 spy, sent to Panama as a last chance after seducing a European diplomat's wife.

Many were bowled over by the irony of casting Brosnan, so associated with James Bond, as this much realer, creepier Bond alter ego. A
man who is handsome, and self-confident, but whose endless seduction of women seems smarmy not sexy, and who delights in
screwing other people while profiting himself.

For me the casting was actually problematic. Brosnon's terrific, but the irony is so distractingly obvious, that it pulled me out of the
story, and made me think too much about film and our hero images instead of simply accepting the character. Beyond that, Osnard
is drawn a little too broadly for my taste. He's so transparent, I have a hard time he gets anyone to trust him even for a moment.
If his inner self-serving pig were a bit better hidden, it might have given the audience more to unravel, and make other characters'
willingness to do his bidding a bit easier to buy.

The mix of tones also was a bit of a misfire for me. Never quite darkly funny enough to ascend into true satire, but certainly never
edgy enough to be taken seriously, there's a lack of danger here. Unlike 'Dr. Strangelove', we never really think Harry and Osnard's
games will reduce Panama to a pile of rubble, and the intimation of it seems false and a bit silly.

Yet, all that complaining is because the movie is good enough, smart enough, brave enough and entertaining enough that I felt frustrated
it didn't quite work as brilliantly as is should. But I'd certainly still recommend it, in spite of my long winded misgivings, and I'm also willing
to give it another look.

Geoffrey Rush is excellent as Harry, an Englishman with a sadly shady past who has re- invented himself in Panama as the best tailor in
the country, making clothes for the rich and politically powerful. Into his world comes Osnard, played by Pierce Brosnan. A morally
corrupt, self-serving MI6 spy, sent to Panama as a last chance after seducing a European diplomat's wife.

Many were bowled over by the irony of casting Brosnan, so associated with James Bond, as this much realer, creepier Bond alter ego. A
man who is handsome, and self-confident, but whose endless seduction of women seems smarmy not sexy, and who delights in
screwing other people while profiting himself.

For me the casting was actually problematic. Brosnon's terrific, but the irony is so distractingly obvious, that it pulled me out of the
story, and made me think too much about film and our hero images instead of simply accepting the character. Beyond that, Osnard
is drawn a little too broadly for my taste. He's so transparent, I have a hard time he gets anyone to trust him even for a moment.
If his inner self-serving pig were a bit better hidden, it might have given the audience more to unravel, and make other characters'
willingness to do his bidding a bit easier to buy.

The mix of tones also was a bit of a misfire for me. Never quite darkly funny enough to ascend into true satire, but certainly never
edgy enough to be taken seriously, there's a lack of danger here. Unlike 'Dr. Strangelove', we never really think Harry and Osnard's
games will reduce Panama to a pile of rubble, and the intimation of it seems false and a bit silly.

Yet, all that complaining is because the movie is good enough, smart enough, brave enough and entertaining enough that I felt frustrated
it didn't quite work as brilliantly as is should. But I'd certainly still recommend it, in spite of my long winded misgivings, and I'm also willing
to give it another look.

Geoffrey Rush is excellent as Harry, an Englishman with a sadly shady past who has re- invented himself in Panama as the best tailor in
the country, making clothes for the rich and politically powerful. Into his world comes Osnard, played by Pierce Brosnan. A morally
corrupt, self-serving MI6 spy, sent to Panama as a last chance after seducing a European diplomat's wife.

Many were bowled over by the irony of casting Brosnan, so associated with James Bond, as this much realer, creepier Bond alter ego. A
man who is handsome, and self-confident, but whose endless seduction of women seems smarmy not sexy, and who delights in
screwing other people while profiting himself.

For me the casting was actually problematic. Brosnon's terrific, but the irony is so distractingly obvious, that it pulled me out of the
story, and made me think too much about film and our hero images instead of simply accepting the character. Beyond that, Osnard
is drawn a little too broadly for my taste. He's so transparent, I have a hard time he gets anyone to trust him even for a moment.
If his inner self-serving pig were a bit better hidden, it might have given the audience more to unravel, and make other characters'
willingness to do his bidding a bit easier to buy.

The mix of tones also was a bit of a misfire for me. Never quite darkly funny enough to ascend into true satire, but certainly never
edgy enough to be taken seriously, there's a lack of danger here. Unlike 'Dr. Strangelove', we never really think Harry and Osnard's
games will reduce Panama to a pile of rubble, and the intimation of it seems false and a bit silly.

Yet, all that complaining is because the movie is good enough, smart enough, brave enough and entertaining enough that I felt frustrated
it didn't quite work as brilliantly as is should. But I'd certainly still recommend it, in spite of my long winded misgivings, and I'm also willing
to give it another look.

Amazingly made film, this keeps a strong sense of tone and foreboding going from the first frame to the last. Beautifully shot by
Vilmos Zigmond (although a few manipulated day for night shots look a bit wacky). The film moves at an even, moderate pace,
without ever hurting the tension or drama.

Thematically, it is an examination of the destructive nature of male machismo, the price of survival, the darkness of the human
heart, the lies we're willing to tell ourselves and the world to get on, and the split between those of the land and those who use the land.

These are not small themes, and sometimes they're a little too on the nose (e.g. dialogue like 'sometimes you have to get lost to find
yourself' – although I'm not sure if the film is embracing that platitude or making very dark fun of it). At other times exactly what it's
saying seems a bit fuzzy, or like it wants to have all its thematic cakes and eat them too. (Men need to be challenged to find their real
self, but – on the other hand – trying to find your 'real self' may be an illusory path to your own destruction, literal or metaphoric).

Also, I could see the poverty stricken people of the US Appalachian mountains, who already carry understandable anger as being
constantly portrayed as stupid, inbred and violent, taking offense to the film, and they'd have a point.

Yet all that said, this is a movie that's more about a visceral experience than a collage thesis dissection, and that is where 'Deliverance'
excels. It takes us to hell, and only partly back, and we get immersed in the journey in a way all too few films pull off. It is quite like
being lost in a bad dream. And I mean that as a compliment.

Generally I'm not a fan of procedurals (shows without a continuing story, where each episode stands on it's own and is
about 'procedure'; legal, medical, etc), but this is as close to an exception as I'll get.

Give credit to excellent writing, directing and acting, and having supporting characters that are rich and really add
something to the show. When it's at it's best this can be downright terrific, bringing me to tears more than once, and
making me laugh out loud a few times too. It's sometimes very smart.

On the other hand, it only hits that level of excellence every 5th episode or so. The rest are mostly fine, (one or two
really don't work) but often you can see the twists coming a mile off, or the jokes get a little stale (e.g. Bones' complete
lack of familiarity with common cultural references is funny… for a while).

The show is at it's best when the episodes are really about the inner lives of our running characters, and not simply about
brilliantly (and inevitably) catching the bad guy/gal. Or when it's dealing with the more human side of forensics – the grief
and pain of those left behind. That's when the show moves way beyond 'clever crime of the week' status.