Kung Fu Panda: A Review

Kung Fu Panda is not a film about talking animals, it is a film about anthropomorphic animals; big difference (really.) The world of Kung Fu Panda is just like our own (if our world was ancient mythical China.) People own shops, have children, set off fireworks, and go to restaurants; except these “people” happen to be furry, or scaly, or covered in feathers.

Now I’m sure some of you out there can find some flaws in the idea of a society made of animals of all different shapes and sizes; all I have to say to that is, “shut up you smarmy cynical twit and enjoy it for what it is!”

Anyway -as I have already mentioned- a Chinese village is the setting for this movie; the village and the surrounding valley is protected by a team of martial artists called the furious five, made up of a Crane, a Tiger, a Monkey, a Praying Mantis, and a Viper (fans of Kung Fu will recognize these animals as representing real styles.)

Po, the main character, is a Panda (voiced by Jack Black); who idolizes the furious five from his father’s noodle shop (did I mention he is overweight and somewhat clumsy.) Things get set into motion when the wise Buddhist sage (a turtle, naturally) has a vision that Tai Lung, a very nasty snow leopard bent on revenge, will escape from prison. To counter this threat, the temple decides to appoint the Dragon Warrior, who naturally will read the Dragon Scroll, which holds the secrets to “limitless power.”

It is through this that Po is (literally) launch into history; and Po suddenly becomes central to the events in the story.

I won’t be exaggerating when I say I think this is DreamWorks’s best animated effort yet. Yes, Shrek was funnier and even had a lot of heart, but the constant cultural references have dated it. Kung Fu Panda is a completely self-contained world with the exception of a few kung fu movie references that won’t be noticed unless you’re looking for them); all the movies humor derives from the characters and story, nothing more.

And the story never feels at odds with the comedy; unlike DreamWorks films like Madagascar, whose story was a contrived vehicle for laughs; everything is consistent within the Kung Fu Panda universe, everything compliments everything else. Ultimately, this means the movie is funnier, more heartfelt, and more interesting.

The voice acting is another thing this movie gets right. I still don’t understand DreamWorks desire to attach big names to their animated movies; I’m just glad it worked this time. Never am I thinking that Po is Jack Black and that Angelina Jolie is Tigress. The characters break away from their voices, which is a great compliment to the filmmakers. Dustin Hoffman does a great job as Shifu, possibly the best voice acting in the movie (though I will never understand the movies decision to cast Jackie Chan in the role of Monkey, who only has maybe five lines in the movie.)

As for the themes of the film, there really isn’t much new here. There is some body-image issues it deals with, about self-belief and self-acceptance; nothing too new; but is done very well. I particularly like the revelation about the Dragon Scroll, and how it fits into the movie. I found it very positive and life-affirming. There is some Zen-Buddhist-esc platitudes thrown in there (and actually gets it right), but this is more to connect it to its Kung Fu movie origins then anything else.

The movie was ‘filmed’ in cinemascope, which gives it a unique look; the color palette is strong, the direction of the camera is tasteful (which is somewhat lacking in the animation world); all the characters are clean and well-designed, and the character motions are natural and fluid. In fact, the kinematics are some of the best I have ever seen in any American animated movie, it might even top The Incredibles in this regard.

This movie was fun because I wasn’t expecting much from it, and I ended up getting a very good film. Kids will like it for the Kung Fu, the colorful atmosphere and the comedy (which actually had me laughing out loud at points); parents might appreciate the good story and voice acting. Animation geeks will like it for obvious reasons. Kung Fu movie enthusiasts will gush over this movie.

There is a lot to enjoy here, it might not take as many risks as Wall-E, but it stands on its own as one of the strongest animated films to come out in the last few years. It makes me hopeful and exited about DreamWorks future as an animation producer; which is possibly the best compliment I can give it.

The Dark Knight: Review

Of all the superhero movies I’ve seen, this is the first one I feel comfortable calling epic. It is possibly the most ambitious movie I’ve seen all year; and the most groundbreaking in terms of the genre. In fact, The Dark Knight doesn’t so much feel like a superhero movie as much as crime drama in league with The Departed and Heat (and I’m far from the first person to mention that.)

This mix creates a superhero experience that is both unique and engrossing; and cultivates a bizarre feeling of plausibility. This is by far the most adult superhero movie I have ever seen; and by that I don’t mean blood, gore, and sex. This movie has a complexity to it that is surprising. Each character is driven by a unique philosophy and set of morals. Especially Batman; who is a vigilantly, but realizes that he cannot be the one that ultimately distributes justice. He sees the new D.A. Harvey Dent (Gotham’s new ‘white night’ played by Aaron Eckhart) and Lieutenant Gordon (the “good cop” played by Gary Oldeman) as people that can ultimately replace him. Ironically, Dent and Gordon see Batman as a person who can really get things done, as the frustrations of working within the law get to them.

But Batman runs head first into the Law of Unintended Consequences. Yes, he is inspiring good (as exemplified in Gordon and Harvey Dent) but criminals are becoming more dangerous; and small pockets of incompetent copycat vigilantes are fouling things up.

Things escalate, and a new villain comes on the scene; a near arch-type of nihilism: The Joker, played by the late Heath Ledger.

And what’s to be said about Heath Ledger’s performance that has not already been said? His Joker is mesmerizing: he creates one of the most memorable movie villains I have ever seen, in league with Hannibal Lector.

The Dark Knights’ Joker is a villain of unrelenting evil. As Bruce Wayne’s butler Alfred (Michael Cain) says, “Some people aren’t looking for anything logical.” The Joker breaks the old detective axiom “who benefits?” because nobody does, least of all him. The Joker doesn’t believe in values or morality, they are just foolish “jokes” held by an ignorant public, and dropped at the first sign of trouble. The Joker delights in tearing people down; in creating situations where their morals can be compromised. It is for this reason that the Joker fixates on a possibly incorruptible force: The Batman.

It is in this that we see the theme of the movie: which centers on moral compromise. The battle between the Joker, who believes that compromise is inevitable because values don’t exist; and Batman, Gordon, and Dent- who work within there own moral codes but find themselves limited by them. The theme of this movie is carried all the way through; it’s perfect that most of the major action sequences focus to some degree on choice. Can a person stand up for what they believe? The integration of this question into the plot is exiting and often surprising.

Are there any problems? I suppose I could nitpick if I wanted to. There are some pacing issues, and great dialoged is sometimes lost in a scene. Christopher Nolan has problems with directing multi-shot conversations and off-screen action (though he has improved greatly from Batman Begins.) As for Batman’s detective skills: they get a little more screen time then the last movie; in a CSI-esc sequence and a few others. Still, I felt myself unsatisfied with this aspect of the movie.

But these are just small complaints that don’t tar what is ultimately a great film; not just a great superhero movie or action movie; but a great film: period.

The cast and performances are all stunning, nuanced, and honest. Heath Ledger has been given a good deal of press for his memorable role; but I think Aaron Eckhart has been somewhat overlooked. His Harvey Dent is both sympathetic and plausible (without being Naturalistic.) There is a point about a third of the way through where Eckhart displays some of the best acting I have seen all year; Maggie Gyllenhall (replacing Holmes as Rachael) is also good in this scene. Harvey Dent’s story arc is very reflective of the story at large; it is perfectly integrated with the theme. In a way, the Harvey Dent character is at the heart of the movie.

It’s exiting how the movie plays with your expectations; and how much you find yourself caring about the characters and their fates, even those who receive little screen-time (Though the movie is never exploitive.) The plot progressive logically; with each major event being set in motion by one of the characters. In the tradition of great Romantic storytelling, everything has a purpose; and ultimately everything serves and compliments the theme.

I have rarely gone to a movie this long that felt this short. It is a film with a great deal going on, but never feels crowded. The story, as I mentioned, is complex and interesting, many will be surprised where the movie ends up; as it drives home the theme, with one of the best monologues in the movie (the best monologue, of course, belongs to Ledger.)

Like the last movie, this one makes you hungry for more; not with cliffhangers, but with promises of what’s to come. The best testament I can give to this movie that I hope the franchise continues; I hope Christopher Nolan continues to improve in the quality of his directing and storytelling (as he has shown great and dramatic growth through his career.) And most of all; I hope the show isn’t sold out for my second viewing.

Burn Notice: Review

The show is about Michael Westen (Jeffrey Donovan), an American spy who doesn’t work for any one agency. At the beginning of the first episode, in the middle of an under-the-table payoff to a local Nigerian terrorist group, Michael learns that he has been “Burned”; which is the spy equivalent of being fired. Unfortunately, this comes up in the middle of a deal, and trouble ensues. To make a long story short, Michael ends up passed out in his hometown of Miami. [Previews Here and Here and Here]

To be “Burned” means that a spy is completely cut off from everything and everybody; no agency will talk to him, his financial resources are nonexistent, and his name is red-flagged (which prevents him from traveling.)

Naturally, the first thing Michael wants to do is to figure out why he was ‘burned’ in the first place. This is hard to do, since Michael has next to no resources at his disposal. Also, he quickly learns that he is under surveillance.

What he does have is a bitter gun-nut ex-girlfriend Fiona (whose accent disappears after episode 1, which was explained away with a single line); a retired spy buddy named Sam (played by the always entertaining Bruce Campbell); a small group of illicit contacts; and a nagging, chain-smoking, hypochondriac mother. It is through his mother that he gets his first ‘job.’

To support himself, Michael becomes an unofficial private-investigator and problem solver. What’s fun abut this show is how Michael solves these problems (with the help of his two sidekicks, Sam and Fiona.) As Michael says (who also does the voice-over), “Guns make you stupid. Better to fight your wars with duct tape. Duck tape makes you smart", not that he doesn’t use guns when appropriate, he just prefers more creative solutions (think MacGyver.)

Weather its running out a local drug lord, saving a kidnapped family, uncovering a minor conspiracy, helping a kid deal with bullies, or making a bomb; Michael has a clever solution to everything (get a small taste of that here.) Michael employs psychological manipulation (“People are more likely to believe a piece of information if they have to work a little bit for it”), technical skills, fast-thinking, and good-old-fashion combat.

So, each episode there are two or more stories going on, Michael trying to find out why he was ‘burned’ (each episode the mystery deepens, he soon discovers it is about much more then just him), and a new ‘case’ for Michael to solve.

But I am not even mentioning the relationship between the characters; Fiona and Michael have a tense romance brewing, which works quite well, Sam is always enjoyable (as well as his relationship with Fiona), and the relationship between Michael and his mother is hilarious (a spy who can deal with third-world dictators, but has a hard time dealing with his own mother.) The chemistry in this show is great.

Michael’s narrative of the show also works well; he doesn’t explain the story as much as fills in some “spy-factoids”; such as “in the field, communicating silently is a must”, or "A good trap doesn't scare people, it makes them curious.” More then anything, Michael’s narrative helps pull the various elements of the show together.

There are some annoying aspects of this show; sometimes clunky dialogue, stylistic choices that felt thrown in (rap-music to shots of Miami), and I didn’t think the relationship between Michael and his loser brother worked very well.

Still, what makes this show fun is the sexy and lovable characters, the mystery, the action, and the comedy, and how the show pulls all of this together for a very enjoyable experience. But especially, it’s fun to see highly competent, and mostly moral characters fight a variety of bad guys.

While I don’t think ‘burn notice’ will win any Emmy’s, it’s a great summer show; which I am glad was picked up for a second season, if only to figure out what happens after the cliffhanger at the end of the first.

Man vs. Wild: Review

Bear Grylls served in the British Special Forces; at the time he climbed Everest, he broke the world record as the youngest ever to do so; he parasailed the same mountain (really, he had an oxygen tank and a special parasail); he is an avid rockclimber, mountaineer, and adventurer; needless to say, Bear Grylls is a pretty cool guy.

That’s why Man vs. Wild, a show dedicated to survival, tends to fixate on him; but this isn’t a bad thing. The show is only partly instructional; if person wants some real lessons in survival, they need more then just Man vs. Wild.

A review of the show is not complete without mentioning its scenery. Filmed in HD, this show has some great shots of the world’s most foreboding wildernesses; wide angle shots are fantastically directed (even if it takes always from the sincerity of the “survival” situation.) and Bear always needs to get into a place in an interesting way; weather it’s hangliding, parachuting, jumping out of a helicopter, or some other stunt; these scenes, while a bit contrived, are incredibly fun to watch.

There is a gross-out factor to this show, and the editors know it. Bear often has to find food, lacking options, like a fire, he must sometimes eat some disgusting things raw, which is shown in a little too much detail. But even this has a point; it does show what a person must go through in order to survive. Despair, I have heard, is the number one killer; keeping a positive, survivalist attitude is the most important factor.

It’s also worth noting that the show doesn’t shy away form some of the crueler aspects of life; Bear must sometimes hunt, and kill medium sized animals (sometimes cute ones); it shows the complete process, from capture to preparation to eating. For this the show has taken some heat from environmentalists (I believe there is a petition to get it off the air.) Bear Grylls clearly has a reverence for the beauty of nature, but he is not deluded as to what nature is; he’s no environmentalist (at least not by their standards.)

Bear Grylls also took some heat awhile ago for supposedly not being authentic; that he was actually much safer then he said he was. I tend to put such accusations under the same category as the people who where shocked to learn that Ashley Simpson was lip-synching. Of course it’s not completely real, the fact that he has a camera crew with him tells you something; the wide angle shots have to be planned, and I’m sure the crew is not scrounging for food like Bear. Still, Bear really jumps into crocodile and leech infested swamps, really boulders that steep rock-face, and really does all the things impossible to fake. There are also times when Bear is clearly nervous, like when a good sized shark was circling his small raft in the pacific.

This might sound cruel of me; but I enjoy watching this show from the safety of my own home; watching Bear Grylls have to ring water out of his own socks; or walk through is water; or futilely try to start a fire in the rainforest; makes me feel cozy.

People don’t seem to realize how big this world is, this is only occasionally demonstrated in the media; when a rich adventure’s plane went down, the largest single man-hunt in history couldn’t find him; and that was in America! This show gives a clear sense of the scale of our planet, and how little of it we actually occupy.

I like this show because it’s only star – Bear Grylls- is a clearly confident, competent, and strong individual. It also perfectly demonstrates, implicitly, the importance of technology in our lives, by showing what life is when a person is (mostly) detached from it.

A Review: ‘The Invisible Heart’, by Russell Roberts

I always thought that free-market enthusiasts got an unfair shake when it came to `Matters of the Heart" (free-marketers get a bad shake on almost everything, but especially this.) For too long, `love' and `caring' have been concepts monopolized by the John Lennon's and Michael Moore's of the world. Now, Russell Roberts has formed a romance that finally does justice to the 'romantic free-marketer.'

The story follows Sam Gordon, an economics teacher and a passionate supporter of free-markets, and Laura Silver, and equally passionate professor of literature (who-by the way- is the `anti-Gordon' when it comes to markets.)

Perchance these two meet in the subway, and not so surprising considering there viewpoints, a debate ensues. Despite very different opinions, they find they enjoy each others company.

There is also a nice parallel story about Charles Krauss, a corrupt CEO of a pharmaceutical company, and Erica Baldwin, an employee at the `Office of Corporate Responsibility', who is trying to bring him down. There is a pleasant surprise concerning this story-line (which, for any who know about Russell Roberts, feels odd), which I won't ruin.

All this cumulates to the end where, after many debates, politics, and courting, it all comes down to a very satisfying ending. It is fair to say that this story is about two main things: Love and Economics; but I don't want to imply that the characters are forgotten, each character Robert's develops is suitably complex, the characters feel real and sincere, as does their romance.

What is so delightful about this book is the breezy and fluid way in which it is written; Robert's moves from international economic theory, to relationships, to politics and scheming, all without missing a beat.

The portrayal of the characters is also a strong point. People with different viewpoints are not seen as villains in the context of the book; Robert's makes a point that Sam and Laura are really like-minded people, despite there different viewpoints.

`The Invisible Heart', is a play on Adam's `Invisible Hand', which is the metaphor used to explain the way a natural economy is able to create complex systems with no central control. Just like the play on words implies, `the invisible heart' refers to the way a free-economy naturally helps the poor, sick and unable, all without coercion. It also has a double meaning, in describing the `heart' of economists and those who believe in free-markets. At one point a character describes economists as `a grim lot, only concerned with money', this book dispenses with that notion.

Roberts is incredibly fair-minded (though not `equality-minded.'). He makes points about the environment, charity, and admits that free-markets sometimes hurt people. Robert's doesn't sugarcoat anything, but displays it in its full context.

My favorite part of the book is Sam's final speech. For too long people have been holding on to the misconception that economics is only about money, this has never been true; an economic `value' can not be measured in a purely monetary way, `matters of the heart', or human motivation, needs, and wants; are the biggest part of economics, not the transfer of goods or services. At one point Sam proclaims, "The purpose of life is to live as richly as possible", a statement which is not about money, one that I think most would agree with.

With Roberts's first novel, `The Choice', he entertained me, with this novel; he has earned a loyal reader. Some say `write what you know', others say, `write what your passionate about', in this case Roberts has done both; his knowledge and passion for the subject matter and the characters comes out in every page, which makes for an incredibly enjoyable read.

Economics for Families

The Settlers of Catan board game:

I admit it, I never quite liked Monopoly. The game was enjoyable enough, but it never seemed to end, trading was never a big enough part of the game, and winning only came from punishing your opponents (which wasn't altogether un-fun.) But then I discovered the Settlers of Catan, and my dissatisfaction with economic-based family gaming evaporated.

Finally, here was a game that properly represents economics (in an abstract, scaled down way), that the main objective was to grow, instead of bankrupting other players, and more importantly, it could actually be played within an hour. Like Chess or Go, the Setters of Catan is very easy to learn, but very hard to master; creating ever-intriguing game-play.

The game is played on the Island of Catan, which is made up of several pentagons representing different geological areas; each one of these areas are given a number between 2-12, not including seven; Depending on the placement of these Pentagons and the numbers (which are separate), the game is different each time.

A player wins the game by building roads, settlements, and cities, or by purchasing various `development cards', which give special powers or points to any player. Building anything, or buying development cards, takes a certain combination of natural resources (represented by cards in the game.) Each settlement and city is worth a given amount of points, and the longest road gets a bonus; the first player to get 10 points wins the game.

To do this, a player must collect, spend, and trade resources; which are the core of Catan's play. Each geological area produces a different resource: Forests produce wood, valleys produce wool, deserts produce brick, fields produce wheat, and mountains ore. A player collects these resources by placing a city or settlement adjacent to these areas, the number placed on the area is for the dice, which determines what resources will be distributed that turn: So, for instance, is a person roles a `6' on the die, all areas with the number `6' on them give resources to whatever settlement or city is touching it. Of coarse, there are different ways of collecting resources, such as harbor trades or theft (both of which consist of a large part of the game), but I'll let you discover that.

This might all seem a bit complicated, but once you are playing and looking at the board, it is all very logical and easy to pick up; general rule, if you can play Monopoly, you can play Settlers of Catan.

The game incorporates a good amount of strategy (mixed with a bit of luck.) A player must decide where to start on the board, what to trade (which is almost required for each player), where to build roads to, and how to best rack up points to win. A player, for example, may decide to block another player's mobility, and gain points slowly; or, by looking at the board, decide to control a crucial resource (by placing cities or settlements around a resource area, which can only be occupied by so many objects), and in so doing become a necessary trading partner; there are almost endless strategic opportunities presented in Catan, which is part of what makes this game so fun.

Kids and adults alike can learn something form the resource system. I find that how resources are distributed in the game is very much like how they are distributed in real economies, with rarer, more valuable resources being more `expensive' in trades.

If I had one complaint about the game, it would be the limited number of players required (3-4 players); you can by an expansion which will allow 5-6 players; still, Catan is not good for large groups or for duos.

Still, this game has quickly become, not only one of my favorite family games, but one of my favorite simple strategy games as well. It is a worthy addition to any game-lovers shelf.

I am even considering buying the online computer version, for I don't have to wait for family gatherings to play.

A Review: Russell Roberts’ The Choice: A fable of free-trade and protectionism

I don't really consider this a work of fiction, and neither does the author. It is in a fiction format, but its primary purpose is to make the case against protectionism, and for free markets. Roberts does this beautifully, raising and dismissing almost every argument for protectionism, and doing this with charm, wit, and almost a complete lack of venom.

The story follows the time-traveling journey and conversation of Ed Johnson (a businessman looking for protection form Japanese competition) and his guardian angle David Ricardo (modeled after the little-known economist.) Together they travel to the future, back to the past, and through alternate timelines to demonstrate Robert's point.

Through this journey, Ricardo corrects some critical mistakes in economic theory; such as the `zero-sum theory', misconceptions on the nature of supply and demand, the role and meaning of wages and `real' wages, the mythical "dangers" of a trade deficit, what imports and exports really are, and most of all, dismisses the myth that trade with other countries hurts the American worker overall (which he admits, in a smaller sense, it sometimes does.)

The book takes some leaps of logic, which the author fully admits in the back of the book; such as the town of Star (Ed's hometown) being unchanged in the `protectionist' universe. These little plot devices are not meant to represent reality, but demonstrate more abstract points, in that sense, it is more like a metaphor.

Overall, the book makes one of the strongest cases ageists the practicality of protectionism that I have ever heard. He also fits some talk as to the moral case against it, that it is really an issue of freedom, and no one person has the right to force another in to a certain kind of behavior (A.K.A., buying American products) and that "America" is all about dreams and growth, something not very possible in the protectionist world.

My only complaint would be that I wanted more elaboration on some sections of the `conversation'; such as the `dumping' segment. Robert's makes a good case that dumping is not really practical for anybody, that the `dumper' would have to make up for lost profits from lowering their prices. What I don't understand is....what if a company could cover their lost profits in profits from another product, or section of their company (Such as a department store lowering prices on televisions and allowing the produce-department to cover the loss.) I wish Robert's would have gone in to slightly more detail.

There are several section of the book like this; but I want to make clear is that Robert's never claims that this is the ultimate source for `anti-protectionist' arguments, he even suggests further reading in the back of the book, something all reasonable people should do if they are truly interested in understanding the complexities of economics.

I love Robert's style of writing, his books are not just informative, but entertaining, something very hard to achieve for this subject matter. The book was good enough that I ordered His other book, The Invisible Heart, form Amazon. After seeing what he did to It's a Wonderful life, I can't wait to see what he does for a romance novel.