Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Programming Not Behavior

March 26, 2026 by kmabarrett

To blame obesity on the obese is the easy answer, but it is the wrong answer.  The current formulation of gluttony and sloth, diet and exercise, while accepted by virtually everyone, is based on faulty premises and myths that have taken hold in the world’s consciousness.  Obesity is not a behavioral aberration, a character flaw, or an error of commission.  When we think about the ravages of obesity, our minds often go first to adults.  But what about kids?  One quarter of U.S. children are now obese;  even infants are tipping the scales!  Once you understand the science, you realize what applies to children also applies to grown-ups.  I know what you’re thinking:  adults are responsible for their own choices and for the food they give their children.  But are they?
…
Obesity and metabolic syndrome overlap, but they are different.  Obesity doesn’t kill.  Metabolic syndrome kills.  Although they travel together, one doesn’t cause the other.  But then, what causes obesity?  And what causes metabolic syndrome?  And what can you do about each?
    —    Dr. Robert Lustig
From his book:  “Fat Chance:  The Hidden Truth About Sugar, Obesity And Disease“
.
Click here (26 March) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Posted in Diets, Health, Philosophy, Quotes, Science and Learning | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

I Was Tired Of Imagining It

March 25, 2026 by kmabarrett

“Hoosiers” (1986) — movie review
Today’s review is for the sports drama “Hoosiers”, starring Gene Hackman as Norman Dale, the new high-school basketball coach with a checkered past and a strict, old-school approach;  Dennis Hopper as “Shooter“, the town drunk whose basketball mind is still sharp beneath the addiction;  Barbara Hershey as Myra Fleener, a teacher trying to protect her students from disappointment;  and Sheb Wooley, Brad Long, and the rest of the Hickory Huskers roster filling out the small-town team that becomes the heart of the story.  The cast fits the material naturally, and the film’s strength comes from how grounded and unpolished everyone feels — like real people in a real place.
Background:  I first saw “Hoosiers” sometime in the late 1980s or early 90s on TV — and again multiple times over the years, but I never seem to remember much of it – except they win in the end and the kid praying scene.  LoL…  Anyway, it’s become one of those films people keep mentioning whenever the topic of “best sports movies” comes up and it was recommended to me by a high school friend at one of our lunches last year.  I watched this film as a full, free movie on YouTube.  It has commercial interruption, but my viewing only had one break and it was less than two minutes.  Released in 1986 and directed by David Anspaugh, the film was loosely inspired by the 1954 Milan High School basketball team that won the Indiana state championship.  It received two Academy Award nominations (Best Supporting Actor for Hopper and Best Original Score for Jerry Goldsmith).  Historically, it’s significant because it helped cement the template for the modern underdog-sports movie — small town, second chances, and a team learning to believe in itself.
Plot:  Norman Dale arrives in the tiny town of Hickory, Indiana, to take over the high school basketball program.  He’s a former college coach with a troubled past, and the town is skeptical from the start.  Dale’s strict discipline and unconventional methods clash with local expectations, especially when he refuses to bend to the boosters or the parents.  Shooter, the alcoholic father of one of the players, becomes an unlikely assistant coach — if he can stay sober.  The team struggles early, but slowly begins to gel as Dale’s approach takes hold.  The return of Jimmy Chitwood — the town’s best player — gives the Huskers the spark they need.  The story builds toward the state tournament, where Hickory faces bigger, stronger schools, culminating in the championship game that has become one of the most replayed moments in sports-movie history (and which I’ve watched separately on YouTube multiple times over the years).
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  strong and believable;  simple and effective;  a few;  yes.
Any Good?  Yes.  “Hoosiers” is one of the better sports dramas because it doesn’t try to be flashy.  It’s a straightforward story about discipline, redemption, and community.  The film takes its time showing how a team is built:  not through speeches, but through repetition, structure, and trust.  The emotional beats land because they’re earned, not forced.  Even if you know exactly where the story is going, it still works.
Acting:  Hackman carries the film with a firm, no-nonsense performance that fits the character.  He plays Dale as a man trying to rebuild his life without begging for sympathy.  Dennis Hopper is excellent as Shooter (and I’m not a Hopper fan):  vulnerable, jittery, and heartbreaking.  His scenes with his son are some of the film’s best.  Barbara Hershey brings quiet strength to Myra Fleener, grounding the story whenever it risks drifting into sentimentality.  The young actors playing the team aren’t polished, but that’s part of the charm.  They feel like actual high school kids (even if they don’t look at all like “kids”), not Hollywood versions of them.
Filming / FX:  The film looks and feels like small town America in the 1950s:  muted colors, simple sets, and a sense of place that doesn’t feel manufactured.  The basketball scenes are shot cleanly, with enough space to see the plays develop.  Jerry Goldsmith’s score is memorable and gives the film a lift without overwhelming it.  There’s nothing fancy here — just solid, functional film making that supports the story.
Problems:  A few.  The film leans heavily on familiar sports-movie beats, which can make parts of it feel predictable.  Some of the town-meeting scenes drag a bit, and the romance subplot between Dale and Myra feels underdeveloped.  Shooter’s story line, while powerful, resolves a little too neatly.  None of these issues break the film, but they’re noticeable on a re-watch.
Did I Enjoy the Film?  Yes.  It’s a warm, satisfying movie that hits the right emotional notes without trying too hard.  The basketball scenes are fun, the characters feel real, and the final game still works even if you’ve seen it a dozen times.  It’s not a perfect film, but it’s an easy one to appreciate.
Final Recommendation:  Very strong recommendation.  “Hoosiers” is one of the classic American sports films — not because it reinvents anything, but because it executes the formula with sincerity and craft.  Its Oscar-nominated performances, memorable score, and grounded storytelling make it worth watching whether you’re a basketball fan or not.  Rated PG, it’s suitable for most audiences and remains a staple of the genre forty years later.  I will buy a streaming copy if it ever drops down to my price point.
.
Click here (25 March) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Posted in Basketball, General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

The Future Arrives At Its Own Pace

March 25, 2026 by kmabarrett

Do not hurry;  do not rest.
    ―     Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
.
Click here (25 March) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Posted in Philosophy, Quotes | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

I Am Married – To England

March 24, 2026 by kmabarrett

“Elizabeth” (1998) — movie review
Today’s review is for the historical drama “Elizabeth” (1998), directed by Shekhar Kapur and starring Cate Blanchett as Elizabeth Tudor, the young princess who unexpectedly becomes Queen of England and must learn to survive a court filled with schemers, spies, and religious factions;  Geoffrey Rush as Sir Francis Walsingham, Elizabeth’s loyal, calculating advisor who quietly eliminates threats while shaping her political instincts;  Joseph Fiennes as Robert Dudley, Elizabeth’s closest companion and would-be consort / lover, whose ambitions and loyalties complicate her early reign;  Christopher Eccleston as the Duke of Norfolk, a powerful nobleman whose arrogance and Catholic allegiance push him toward treason;  Richard Attenborough as Sir William Cecil, the seasoned counselor urging Elizabeth toward caution and stability;  Fanny Ardant as Mary of Guise, the French-backed rival whose military pressure adds to Elizabeth’s growing list of dangers;  and Daniel Craig as John Ballard, a fanatical Catholic priest and conspirator whose involvement in assassination plots underscores the deadly stakes of Elizabeth’s early rule.  With this ensemble, the film dramatizes the transformation of a young, uncertain monarch into the formidable “Virgin Queen” who would define an era.
Background:  This was my first viewing of this film and I had no prior knowledge of the film or much about Queen Elizabeth or English history from this period for that matter.  Released in 1998, the movie was both a critical and commercial success.  It received seven Academy Award nominations and won one (Best Makeup).  Blanchett’s performance was widely praised and is often cited as the role that launched her international career.  Historically, the film is significant because it helped revive interest in Tudor-era dramas and presented Elizabeth I not as a distant icon, but as a young woman navigating danger, betrayal, and the brutal realities of 16th-century politics.  The film takes liberties with the facts (as most historical dramas do), but it captures the emotional truth of Elizabeth’s early reign:  survival required sacrifice.
Plot:  The story begins with England divided between Protestants and Catholics, with Queen Mary’s failing health creating a dangerous power vacuum.  Elizabeth, Mary’s half-sister and a Protestant, is arrested and interrogated but ultimately spared.  When Mary dies, Elizabeth becomes queen and immediately faces pressure from all sides:  foreign powers seeking alliances, nobles plotting behind her back, and religious factions threatening rebellion.  Robert Dudley, her closest friend, pushes for influence and intimacy, while Walsingham quietly uncovers conspiracies involving Norfolk, the French, and the Catholic Church.  As threats escalate (including assassination attempts and military pressure from Scotland), Elizabeth realizes she cannot rule as a naïve young woman.  The film builds toward her transformation into the “Virgin Queen,” symbolized by her decision to sacrifice personal relationships and present herself as married to England itself.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  excellent;  visually striking;  a few;  yes.
Any Good?  Yes.  “Elizabeth” is a political drama that blends court intrigue, personal struggle, and historical sweep.  It’s not a documentary, and it works as a portrait of a young monarch learning the cost of power.  The pacing feels steady, the tension builds naturally, and the film does a good job showing how Elizabeth evolves from uncertainty to resolve.  The emotional core is strong, and the film earns its reputation as one of the better Tudor-era dramas.
Acting:  Blanchett is outstanding.  She plays Elizabeth with vulnerability, intelligence, and growing steel — you can see the transformation happening scene by scene.   Rush brings a quiet menace to Walsingham, making him both unsettling and indispensable.  Fiennes gives Dudley charm and ambition, though the script simplifies his historical complexity.  Eccleston is convincingly cold as Norfolk, and Attenborough adds gravitas as Cecil.  The ensemble works well, and Blanchett’s performance anchors the entire film.
Filming / FX:  The film is visually rich.  The production design captures the grime, danger, and claustrophobia of Tudor England — dimly lit rooms, crowded courts, and ornate costumes that feel lived-in rather than theatrical.  The cinematography uses shadows and candlelight to emphasize the uncertainty of Elizabeth’s early reign.  Some of the visual symbolism may be a bit over the top, but overall the film looks and feels like a polished period drama.
Problems:  A few.  I have no personal knowledge of whether the film takes liberties with historical accuracy — if timelines are compressed, characters are simplified, or events are dramatized for effect.  The Catholic Church is portrayed in a very villainous light, which felt accurate (from my knowledge of history), but some might find it objectionable.  There is no mention of what the religious divide is about, so that left a vacuum for me in trying to understand the background of the film.  I have a feeling the movie is more about emotional truth than factual precision.
Did I Enjoy the Film?  So-so.  It’s engaging, well-acted, and visually compelling, but I did not find I “enjoyed” the film.  The farthest I would go would be “interesting“.  Blanchett’s performance alone makes it worth watching, and the political intrigue keeps the story moving, but without a prior knowledge of the history / period, I found myself at a loss understanding the political dynamics.  But, even without knowing the historical facts or liberties, I found the film satisfying as a character study of Elizabeth’s early transformation.  It’s not a perfect film, but it’s visually impressive as cinema and “interesting” from a political leadership perspective.
Final Recommendation:  Moderate recommendation. “Elizabeth”  is historically significant for revitalizing interest in Tudor-era dramas and for launching Blanchett into the spotlight.  It’s a well-made, emotionally resonant film with strong performances and striking visuals.  It’s rated R for violence (a burning at the stake and some piked heads) and some sexuality (frontal nudity and a couple of sex scenes).  It’s best suited for viewers who enjoy political intrigue, historical stories, and character-driven dramas.  Watch it for Blanchett’s commanding performance, the tense court politics, and the film’s portrayal of a young queen forging her identity in a dangerous world.
.
Click here (24 March) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

First Without

March 24, 2026 by kmabarrett

There is no past we can bring back by longing for it.  There is only an eternal now that builds and creates out of the past something new and better.
    ―     Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
[Today would have been my brother’s 70th birthday.  He passed away last November.  I think of him most days and I feel I have an emptiness which I can’t seem to fill with my happy memories of him.
Sean, I’m sure you’re at peace in a better place, but the universe knows I miss you…   —    kmab]
.
Click here (24 March) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Posted in Family and Friends, Philosophy, Quotes | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

What’s Remembered, Lives (On)

March 23, 2026 by kmabarrett

“Nomadland” (2020) — movie review
Today’s review is for the quiet, reflective drama “Nomadland” (2020), written and directed by Chloé Zhao and starring Frances McDormand as Fern, a recently widowed woman who loses her home, her job, and her sense of place when the gypsum plant in Empire, Nevada shuts down;  David Strathairn as Dave, a gentle, slightly awkward fellow traveler who offers Fern companionship and a different kind of stability;  and a cast of real-life nomads including Linda May, Swankie, and Bob Wells, each playing versions of themselves and giving the film its grounded, lived-in feel.  Supporting roles include various seasonal workers, RV-dwellers, and wanderers Fern meets along the way, all of whom add texture to her journey without ever feeling like “characters.”  With this ensemble, the film blends documentary-style realism with a personal story about grief, resilience, and the search for meaning after life takes an unexpected turn.
Background:  This is my first viewing of this film.  I don’t remember hearing about it when it came out, so I probably would never have watched this film if it weren’t on my list.  I do (vaguely) remember Frances McDormand won her third Best Actress Oscar for this role and because the movie itself won Best Picture and Best Director at the 93rd Academy Awards.  I probably wouldn’t have watched it at the time because I’m pretty sure I wasn’t sure I was in the mood for a slow, contemplative film about economic hardship and grief (i.e. the economic reality of the United States for working folks).  LoL.  Come to think of it:  I’m rarely in the “mood” for that kind of film.  Anyway, released in 2020, “Nomadland” arrived during the pandemic and struck a chord with audiences and critics for its blend of fiction and documentary.  It’s historically significant for several reasons:  Zhao became the second woman (and first woman of color) to win Best Director;  the film captured a moment of American uncertainty;  and it highlighted a subculture:  older Americans living on the road, who rarely (almost never) get attention in mainstream (or otherwise) movies.
Plot:  After the U.S. Gypsum plant in Empire, NV shuts down, the entire town effectively disappears — even losing its ZIP code.  Fern, recently widowed and with no real ties left, packs her belongings into a van and heads out on the road.  She takes seasonal work at Amazon, at campgrounds, at beet harvests, and anywhere else she can find a paycheck.  Along the way, she meets other nomads who teach her practical skills (how to fix a tire, how to stay warm, how to live cheaply) but also share their stories of loss, reinvention, and chosen freedom.  Fern forms a tentative connection with Dave, who eventually settles near his family, but she isn’t ready to stop moving.  The film follows her through deserts, forests, and small towns, building toward a quiet return to Empire where she confronts the emptiness left behind.  The story doesn’t end with a big revelation — just a sense that Fern will keep going, carrying her memories with her.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  understated and authentic;  beautiful natural-light filming;  a few;  yes.
Any Good?  Yes.  “Nomadland” is a slow, thoughtful film that trusts the viewer to sit with silence and small moments.  It’s not so much plot-driven as it’s more of a character study and a travelogue rolled into one.  The movie works because it feels honest.  There’s no melodrama, no forced speeches, and no attempt to turn Fern into a symbol.  It’s just a woman trying to figure out how to live after losing almost everything.  The film’s strength is its simplicity and its willingness to let real people speak for themselves.
Acting:  Frances McDormand is excellent — quiet, observant, and completely believable.  She doesn’t “perform” grief;  she carries it.  Strathairn brings warmth and gentleness to Dave, and his scenes with McDormand feel natural rather than scripted.  The non-actors:  Linda May, Swankie, Bob Wells, are the heart of the film.  Their stories feel real because they are real, and their presence gives the movie a documentary authenticity that professional actors couldn’t replicate.  Nobody overplays anything, which is exactly why the acting works.
Filming / FX:  The cinematography is beautiful in a simple, un-showy way.  Zhao uses natural light, wide landscapes, and quiet moments to give the film a sense of space and solitude.  The American West looks both harsh and peaceful — empty highways, desert sunsets, campfires, and parking lots.  There are no special effects to speak of, just clean, steady camera work that lets the environment speak for itself.  The editing is gentle and patient, matching Fern’s pace as she moves from place to place.
Problems:  A few.  The film’s slow pace may not work for everyone.  Some viewers might want more backstory or more dramatic tension.  The blend of fiction and documentary can feel uneven at times — Fern’s personal arc is subtle, and the movie doesn’t push it very hard.  The Amazon scenes, while interesting, feel a bit sanitized.  And the film’s refusal to take a strong stance on the economic forces behind the nomad lifestyle may frustrate viewers looking for a clearer message.  None of these issues break the film, but they’re worth noting.  Finally, the film has no resolution…  Life simply goes on.
Did I Enjoy the Film?  Yes.  It’s not a “fun” movie, but it’s a thoughtful and emotionally steady one.  I appreciated the honesty of the performances, the beauty of the landscapes, and the way the film captures both the freedom and the loneliness of life on the road.  It’s the kind of movie that lingers — not because of big scenes, but because of small ones.
Final Recommendation:  Strong recommendation. “Nomadland” is historically significant for its Academy Awards, its portrayal of a real American subculture, and its quiet, respectful approach to storytelling.  The film is rated “R” for some language and a brief scene of frontal nudity.  It’s worth watching for McDormand’s performance, Zhao’s direction, and the film’s ability to find dignity in ordinary lives.  It’s not fast-paced or flashy, but it’s memorable — a gentle reminder that grief doesn’t always resolve neatly and that some people carry their homes in their hearts rather than in a single place.
.
Click here (23 March) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments »

Be Someone’s Starter

March 23, 2026 by kmabarrett

Education is the kindling of a flame, not the filling of a vessel.
    —    Socrates
.
Click here (23 March) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Posted in Education, Philosophy, Quotes, Science and Learning | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Blooming Update

March 22, 2026 by kmabarrett

I mentioned some time back that we’d planted about 150 tulip and daffodil bulbs late last year and we were waiting for the results.  Well, here’s some images from the backyard and side of our house…
Image Image
Flower Run Back Yard Fence Facing North Flower Run Back Yard Fence Facing South
Image Image
Chinese Warriors Near Bush and Pot Hil Hiding Behind A Fern
Image Image
Flower Run Side of House Fence Facing East A Better Pict of Our Neighbor’s Lilac Tree (it smells terrific!)

Home is where your heart is…!!
.
Click here (22 March) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Posted in Family and Friends, Family History, General Comments, Pictures | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

It Seems I Am Over-ruled…

March 22, 2026 by kmabarrett

“Pride & Prejudice” (2005) — movie review
Today’s review is for the 2005 adaptation of Jane Austen’s classic novel, “Pride & Prejudice” (2005), directed by Joe Wright and starring Keira Knightley as Elizabeth Bennet, the sharp-eyed second daughter who refuses to settle;  Matthew Macfadyen as Mr. Darcy, the stiff, socially awkward, secretly decent rich guy;  Rosamund Pike as Jane Bennet, the kind, beautiful eldest sister;  Jena Malone as Lydia Bennet, the wild youngest sister;  Carey Mulligan as Kitty Bennet, the giggly / follower sister;  Talulah Riley as Mary Bennet, the serious, bookish sister;  Simon Woods as Mr. Bingley, Darcy’s friendly, slightly clueless best friend;  Kelly Reilly as Caroline Bingley, Bingley’s snobbish, judgmental sister;  Rupert Friend as Mr. Wickham, the charming cadd who runs off with Lydia;  Donald Sutherland as Mr. Bennet, the dry, quietly loving father;  Brenda Blethyn as Mrs. Bennet, the anxious, marriage-obsessed mother;  Tom Hollander as Mr. Collins, the painfully awkward cousin, who is due to inherit the Bennet home on Mr. Bennet’s death;  Judi Dench as Lady Catherine de Bourgh, Darcy’s aristocratic dragon aunt;  and Claudie Blakley as Charlotte Lucas, Elizabeth’s practical friend who chooses the security of marriage to Mr. Collins over romance.
Background:  I’ve seen this movie multiple times now and I still enjoy it so much I’ve now read the book and purchased and viewed multiple versions / adaptations of this story.  (Full Disclosure:  I watch this version every time I watch a different version and while this remains my favorite, I do see the strengths of many of the other adaptations.)  My first review of this film was back in November of 2011 when I was doing single paragraph reviews (review here).  This was Joe Wright’s first feature film, and it ended up earning four Oscar nominations — Best Actress (Knightley), Best Original Score, Best Art Direction, and Best Costume Design.  The chemistry between Knightley and Macfadyen really makes this film version, and the little period details (muddy hems, cluttered rooms, house staff smoothing tablecloths) make the world feel real and lived in (IMHO).
Plot:  Elizabeth Bennet lives with her four sisters and anxious mother in a country household where property and marriage are the main paths to security.  When Mr. Bingley arrives in the neighborhood and falls for Jane, his friend Mr. Darcy manages to insult Elizabeth almost immediately.  Wickham, a charming militia officer, adds fuel to the fire by hinting at past wrongs done by Darcy.  Meanwhile, Mr. Collins proposes to Elizabeth, gets (painfully) rejected, and then marries her friend Charlotte.  Elizabeth later encounters Darcy again at Lady Catherine’s estate, where he blurts out a proposal that is while heartfelt equally insulting.  She turns him down, only to learn later — through his letter — that Wickham is not the victim he pretends to be.  Things come to a head when Lydia runs off with Wickham, threatening the family’s reputation.  Darcy quietly steps in to fix the situation.  By the time everyone returns home, Elizabeth has seen Darcy’s true character, and the two finally meet in the middle and profess love.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  excellent;  beautiful and grounded;  a few small issues;  absolutely yes.
Any good?  Yes.  It’s one of the most re-watchable period films I own.  The story moves quickly without feeling rushed, and the emotional beats land.  The movie keeps the humor, the class tension, and the slow-burn romance without getting stuffy.
Acting:  Knightley brings energy and intelligence to Elizabeth, and Macfadyen’s awkward, tightly wound Darcy works perfectly opposite her.  The younger sisters each feel distinct, Charlotte’s choice makes sense, and Wickham is exactly the kind of smooth-talking problem Lydia would fall for.  Dench, Hollander, and Sutherland all add weight in their own ways.  (Sutherland is my favorite character of the three, but Hollander is thoroughly / convincingly obsequious in his role.)
Filming / FX:  No big FX here, just beautiful cinematography and great production design.  Natural light, long takes, muddy fields, cluttered rooms — it all feels / looks real.  The score fits the tone without overwhelming anything.
Problems:  If you’re attached to the longer BBC version (which I have also watched multiple times), this one may feel compressed.  LoL…  Some viewers may object to the exclusion of the Darcy lake-swim / wet shirt scene (in the BBC version) which isn’t in this version.  A few other transitions are also quick, and the movie leans more romantic than the fuller versions.  Nothing major, though.
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes.  This film is a comfort watch for me and I go back to it (or one of its other versions or related films) almost yearly.  I enjoy the characters, the humor, the awkwardness, and the slow shift in how Elizabeth and Darcy see each other.
Final Recommendation:  High recommendation.  The Oscar nominations were well deserved, and the film holds up beautifully.  If you like Austen, period dramas, or just a well-acted romance, this is an easy pick.  This “Pride & Prejudice” remains my favorite version / adaptation.
.
Click here (22 March) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

A Crushing Weight (By Whatever Name)

March 22, 2026 by kmabarrett

Whatever crushes individuality is despotism, by whatever name it may be called and whether it professes to be enforcing the will of God or the injunctions of men.
    —    John Stuart Mill
.
Click here (22 March) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Posted in Philosophy, Quotes | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Six Blondes, 5000 Miles

March 21, 2026 by kmabarrett

“Kon-Tiki” (2012) — movie review
Today’s review is for the historical-adventure drama “Kon-Tiki” (2012), directed by Joachim Rønning and Espen Sandberg and starring Pål Sverre Hagen as Thor Heyerdahl (the Norwegian explorer determined to prove that ancient South Americans could have reached Polynesia by raft);  Anders Baasmo Christiansen as Herman Watzinger (the anxious engineer / refrigerator salesman whose caution often clashes with Thor’s confidence);  Tobias Santelmann as Knut Haugland (a steady, practical radio operator and war veteran);  Jakob Oftebro as Torstein Raaby (the cheerful, resourceful radioman who keeps morale up);  Odd-Magnus Williamson as Erik Hesselberg (the navigator and artist whose calm helps balance the group);  and Gustaf Skarsgård as Bengt Danielsson (the sociologist who joins the expedition out of scientific curiosity).  Together, they recreate Heyerdahl’s 1947 attempt to cross the Pacific on a balsa-wood raft to test a controversial migration theory.
Background:  This is my first viewing of this film.  I’ve known about Thor Heyerdahl’s “Kon-Tiki” book since my freshman year of high school when my best friend’s mom loaned me her copy of Heyerdahl’s book, which I read.  I also have a vague memory of seeing the 1950 documentary on TV (which actually won the Academy Award for Best Documentary Feature), but it is an extremely vague memory.  LoL.  I came to this viewing with no preparation and thought this film might be just a digital enhanced version of the original documentary and not a completely new film.  This 2012 dramatization was nominated for the Best Foreign Language Film Oscar and also for the same category at the Golden Globes, which gives it some historical weight even if it didn’t win either award.  The real expedition was a major post-war cultural event — part science experiment, part daredevil stunt, and part national pride for Norway.  The film tries to capture both the adventure and the stubbornness behind the whole idea.
Plot:  The story follows Thor Heyerdahl, who becomes convinced that Polynesia could have been settled from the east (South America) rather than the west (Asia).  When academics dismiss his theory, he decides to prove it the only way he thinks will work:  by building a raft using only materials and techniques available to ancient Peruvians and then sailing it 5,000 miles across the Pacific.  Thor recruits a small crew (some friends, some volunteers) and they set off from Callao, Peru, on the balsa-wood raft they name “Kon-Tiki.”  The journey is long and dangerous:  storms, sharks, equipment failures, and the constant threat of the raft breaking apart.  The crew struggles with fear, boredom, and Thor’s unshakeable belief that they must not alter the raft or the mission in any way.  As they drift westward, tensions rise, friendships strain, and the ocean tests them in ways none of them expected.  The film builds toward the final push through reefs and currents as they try to reach Polynesia before the raft — or the crew — gives out.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  solid ensemble;  strong visuals;  a few issues;  yes.
Any good?  Yes.  “Kon-Tiki” is a straightforward, engaging adventure film.  It doesn’t over-complicate the story.  The film just shows the journey, the danger, and the stubbornness that drove it.  The movie has an old-fashioned feel (in a good way), focusing on the physical challenge rather than trying to turn the expedition into something more dramatic than it already was.  It’s not a deep character study, but it’s a compelling survival story.
Acting:   Hagen plays Heyerdahl with a mix of charm and tunnel-vision determination.  He’s believable as someone who inspires loyalty while also frustrating everyone around him.   Christiansen gives Watzinger a nervous energy that fits the role — the guy who sees the risks a little too clearly.  Santelmann, Oftebro,  Williamson, and Skarsgård all give steady, grounded performances that make the crew feel like real people rather than stock characters.  Nobody overacts, and the ensemble works well together.
Filming / FX:  The ocean sequences are the highlight.  The cinematography captures both the beauty and the danger of the open Pacific — calm seas, violent storms, and long stretches of nothing but water.  The shark scenes are tense without feeling exaggerated.  The raft itself looks authentic and fragile, which adds to the sense of risk.  The film uses a mix of practical effects and CGI, and most of it blends well.  The color palette leans bright and sun-bleached, which fits the setting.
Problems:  A few.  Thor’s flaws — stubbornness, ego, and occasional recklessness — are shown, but not explored as deeply as they could be.  The script sometimes leans on repetition:  danger, argument, calm, repeat.  And the ending, while true to life, arrives quickly after a long buildup.  None of these issues break the film, but they keep it from being a truly great one.
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes.  It’s an easy movie to watch — visually appealing, well-paced, and interesting as a piece of post-war history.  I liked the sense of scale and the reminder that people once did things like this with almost no technology.  It’s not a “thrill ride,” but it’s satisfying and occasionally tense.
Final Recommendation:  High moderate to low strong recommendation.  “Kon-Tiki” (2012) is a well-made adventure film with Oscar-nominated credentials and a story that still feels remarkable almost eighty years later.  Rated PG-13 for some peril and brief violence, it’s suitable for most audiences who enjoy historical adventures, survival stories, or films based on real expeditions.  Watch it for the ocean cinematography.  It’s a reminder that sometimes the lines between science, adventurousness, stubbornness and fool-heartiness can all be pretty thin.
Final Notes:  I watched this film for free on Fandango, but you have to “pay” by watching a LOT of commercials.  It felt like they added about ten minutes to the actual viewing time.  Although I enjoyed this viewing and I’ve added the original documentary to my “wish list”, I think I’ll pass on buying this version.
.
Click here (21 March) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments »

The Most Horrible Disease

March 21, 2026 by kmabarrett

It is not anthrax or terrorism or AIDS that is the worst ill in our world:  The most horrible disease in the world is hate.
    —     Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu
.
Click here (21 March) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Posted in Philosophy, Quotes | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments »

Told You I’m Never Goin’ Back

March 20, 2026 by kmabarrett

“Heat” (1995) — movie review
Today’s review is for the crime-drama “Heat” (1995), written and directed by Michael Mann and stars Al Pacino as Lt. Vincent Hanna, the obsessive, sleep-deprived LAPD robbery-homicide detective whose personal life is barely holding together;  Robert DeNiro as Neil McCauley, the disciplined, methodical career thief who lives by a strict code and keeps everyone at arm’s length;  Val Kilmer as Chris Shiherlis, McCauley’s trusted right hand, a brilliant but self-destructive gunman whose gambling and marriage problems keep spilling into the job;  Tom Sizemore as Michael Cheritto, the steady, loyal crew member who treats crime like a profession;  Jon Voight as Nate, the fixer who supplies intel, fences goods, and keeps the crew connected;  Ashley Judd as Charlene (Chris’s wife);  Amy Brenneman as Eady (Neil’s unexpected love interest);  Diane Venora as Justine (Hanna’s wife);  and Natalie Portman as Lauren (Justine’s daughter).  The film follows two men on opposite sides of the law whose lives collide as a series of high‑stakes robberies escalate across Los Angeles.
Background:  This is my first viewing of “Heat” and was based on the recommendation of my brother-in-law and the fact I generally like both Pacino and DeNiro.  LoL.  Even though this was my first viewing, instead of letting the movie flow and come to me, I really tried to pay attention to the details:  the relationships, the pacing, and the way Mann builds tension without rushing anything.  Released in 1995, the film wasn’t a huge awards contender (no Oscar nominations), but I’ve read it has become one of the most influential crime films of the last thirty years.  Its historic significance is straightforward:  it brought Pacino and DeNiro together in a shared scene for the first time, set a new standard for urban crime realism, and delivered one of the most famous shootouts in movie history.  The film also helped define the “professional criminal vs. professional cop” genre for a generation of filmmakers.
Plot:  Neil McCauley leads a tight, disciplined crew that specializes in high-risk, high-reward robberies.  After a job goes sideways because of an unstable new recruit (Waingro), Hanna and his LAPD team begin closing in.  The film follows both men as they juggle personal problems (Hanna’s collapsing marriage and McCauley’s unexpected relationship with Eady) while preparing for bigger and riskier scores.  The story builds toward a downtown Los Angeles bank robbery that erupts into a massive street firefight, followed by a cat-and-mouse chase as McCauley tries to escape the city.  The final act brings the two men face-to-face at LAX, where their parallel lives finally intersect for the last time.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  excellent across the board;  outstanding and influential;  a few;  absolutely.
Any good?  Yes.  “Heat” is one of the better crime dramas.  Although it’s long, deliberate, and built around character more than action, the payoff is worth it.  The film treats both sides (cops and criminals) with equal seriousness, showing how similar their lives are even as they chase each other.  The story is big, but it never feels overly bloated.  It’s a movie that rewards attention and patience.
Acting:  Pacino and DeNiro are both terrific, but in very different ways.  Pacino plays Hanna as a man running on fumes — intense, scattered, and barely keeping his personal life together.  DeNiro is the opposite:  calm, controlled, and precise.  Their diner scene is famous for a reason — two pros at the top of their game.  Kilmer gives one of his better performances as Chris, balancing competence with chaos.  Sizemore is solid as Cheritto, and Voight brings quiet authority as Nate.  The supporting cast — Judd, Brenneman, Venora, Portman — all add weight to the personal stakes.  Nobody feels wasted.
Filming / FX:  The film looks great, especially for the mid-90s.  Mann uses Los Angeles almost like a character:  wide night shots, empty streets, and a cool, metallic color palette.  The sound design in the bank-heist shootout is still impressive today.  It’s loud, sharp, and realistic.  The action scenes are clean and easy to follow, with no shaky-cam nonsense.  The movie has a very “lived-in” feel, from the apartments to the diners to the industrial backdrops.
Problems:  A few.  The movie is long (almost three hours), and some of the subplots (particularly the relationship arcs) feel slow when you’re (I was) expecting a straight action film.  A couple of the side characters get less development than they seem to deserve.   The film’s pacing feels uneven on a first viewing.  But none of these issues hurt the overall experience.
Did I enjoy the film?  Absolutely.  This is one of those movies I think probably gets better with repeated viewings.  The characters feel real, the action is grounded, and the story has emotional feeling.  Even knowing how it ends, the final chase will still work.  It’s a film that you likely remember.
Final Recommendation:  High recommendation.  “Heat” is a landmark crime drama — influential, well-acted, and still impressive thirty years later.  It didn’t win Oscars, but its legacy is obvious in many every crime films that followed.  Rated R for violence and language, it’s not for younger (children) viewers, but for adults who enjoy character-driven crime stories, this is at least a near must-see.  Watch it for Pacino and DeNiro, the bank-heist / shoot-out sequence, and the reminder that a well-crafted story doesn’t need to rush to make an impact.
.
Click here (20 March) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

#47:DonTheFearful Has Lost Track

March 20, 2026 by kmabarrett

I believe that you’ve created a metaphorical universe in which you can express your darkest fears.  In one aspect, yes, I believe in ghosts, but we create them.  We haunt ourselves, and sometimes we do such a good job, we lose track of reality.
    —    Laurie Halse Anderson
.
Click here (20 March) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Posted in Quotes, Philosophy | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Nobody Reinvents This Game… (He Did)

March 19, 2026 by kmabarrett

“Moneyball” (2011) — movie review
Today’s review is for the sports-drama “Moneyball” (2011), directed by Bennett Miller and starring Brad Pitt as Billy Beane (the Oakland A’s general manager trying to rebuild a competitive team on a shoestring budget);  Jonah Hill as Peter Brand (a young, numbers-driven analyst who challenges baseball’s traditional scouting wisdom);  Philip Seymour Hoffman as Art Howe (the A’s manager caught between old-school instincts and front-office pressure);  Stephen Bishop as David Justice (the aging slugger trying to prove he’s still got something left);  Chris Pratt as Scott Hatteberg (a catcher with a damaged elbow, converted into a first baseman because of his ability to get on base);  Robin Wright as Sharon (Billy’s ex-wife) and Kerris Dorsey as Casey (Billy’s daughter, whose quiet support gives the story its emotional grounding).  The film blends baseball, business, and personal resilience into a story about challenging the status quo and living with the consequences.
Background:  I first heard about “Moneyball” when it came out, but I didn’t see it until years later when it hit DVD.  I remember initially thinking it was “a baseball movie,” but it’s really more of a management and decision-making movie that just happens to be set in baseball.  Released in 2011 by Columbia Pictures, the film was based on Michael Lewis’ bestselling book about the Oakland A’s 2002 season and their attempt to compete using statistical analysis instead of traditional scouting.  “Moneyball” received six Academy Award nominations, including Best Picture, Best Actor (Pitt), Best Supporting Actor (Hill), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Editing, and Best Sound Mixing.  It didn’t win any Oscars, but its historic significance lies in how it brought analytics into mainstream conversation — not just in baseball, but across sports and business.  It also helped cement the idea that data-driven decision making could challenge decades of “gut feeling” tradition.
Plot:  The story follows Billy Beane, the general manager of the Oakland A’s, after the team loses several star players to richer franchises.  With one of the lowest payrolls in baseball, Beane realizes he can’t compete by playing the same game as the big-market teams.  He meets Peter Brand, a young analyst who believes players should be valued based on overlooked statistics rather than traditional scouting impressions.  Together, they assemble a roster of undervalued players — including David Justice, who still has plate discipline even if his power is fading, and Scott Hatteberg, who can’t throw anymore but gets on base at an elite rate.  The season starts rough, with tension between Beane and manager Art Howe, but the team eventually goes on a record-setting 20-game winning streak.  The film ends with Beane turning down a massive offer from the Boston Red Sox, choosing loyalty and personal values over money, and with the acknowledgment that his ideas helped reshape the sport.
So, is this movie any good?  How’s the acting?  The filming / FX?  Any problems?  And, did I enjoy the film?  Short answers:  Yes;  excellent across the board;  clean and grounded;  a few;  absolutely.
Any good?  Yes.  “Moneyball” is one of those rare sports films that works even if you don’t care about the sport.  It’s really about problem-solving, leadership, and the frustration of trying to change an entrenched system.  The movie balances tension, humor, and quiet moments without ever feeling slow.  It’s smart without being smug, and it holds up well more than a decade later.
Acting:  Pitt gives one of his better performances — relaxed, focused, and believable as a man who’s constantly thinking three moves ahead while trying not to show how much the pressure is getting to him.  Hill is terrific as Peter Brand, playing him with a mix of awkwardness and quiet confidence.  Philip Seymour Hoffman brings weight to Art Howe, even with limited screen time.  Stephen Bishop is convincing as David Justice, capturing the pride and irritation of a veteran who knows he’s being undervalued.  Chris Pratt is excellent as Scott Hatteberg — nervous, humble, and quietly funny — and he sells the idea of a guy trying to reinvent himself.  The supporting cast rounds things out cleanly.
Filming / FX:  The film uses a clean, almost documentary-style approach.  Lots of handheld shots, real stadiums, and natural lighting.  The baseball scenes are shot simply and effectively — no flashy slow-motion or over-the-top dramatization.  The editing keeps the story moving, and the score is understated but memorable.  The overall look fits the tone:  grounded, practical, and focused on people rather than spectacle.
Problems:  A few.  The film simplifies some of the real-life details, and it downplays the contributions of the pitching staff and defense in the A’s success.  Art Howe’s portrayal is also more antagonistic than the real-life manager reportedly was.  And if you’re not into front-office strategy, some of the middle sections may feel repetitive. But none of these issues hurt the film.
Did I enjoy the film?  Yes. It’s engaging, thoughtful, and surprisingly emotional.  The father‑daughter scenes add warmth, and the baseball strategy sections are more interesting than they have any right to be.  Even knowing the outcome, I found myself invested in the team’s ups and downs.  It’s a movie I can rewatch and still enjoy.
Final Recommendation:  Strong to Very High Recommendation.  “Moneyball” (2011) is historically significant for bringing analytics into mainstream sports conversation and for showing how innovation often comes from necessity.  It’s well-acted, well-written, and compelling even for non-baseball fans.  Rated PG-13, it’s suitable for most audiences and worth watching for its performances, its ideas, and its reminder that sometimes the smartest move is the one nobody else sees coming.
.
Click here (19 March) to see the posts of prior years.  I started this blog in late 2009.  Daily posting began in late January 2011.  Not all of the days in the early years (2009-2010) will have posts.

Posted in General Comments, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Older Posts »

Design a site like this with WordPress.com
Get started