First Reviews of Batman Begins

The first reviews are emerging for the next blockbuster flick, Batman Begins, and they're likely to bring much cheer to Warner Bros. officials, who are releasing it on June 15. David Edwards in the London Daily Mirror describes it as "a violent and truly scary film and definitely not one for the kids. For grown-ups, though, it could well be the ultimate superhero movie." Mike Goodrich in the British trade publication Screen Daily describes the movie as "a bold new vision of the DC Comics staple and further proof that [director Christopher] Nolan possesses abundant confidence and vision as a mainstream film-maker." And Kirk Honeycutt in the Hollywood Reporter comments that for "Nolan to turn Batman Begins into such a smart, gritty, brooding, visceral experience is astonishing. Truly, Batman does begin again."

bam.

mmmmm, Christian Bale. mer-cy.

info courtesy of showbizdata.com's newsletter.

First Reviews of Batman Begins

The first reviews are emerging for the next blockbuster flick, Batman Begins, and they're likely to bring much cheer to Warner Bros. officials, who are releasing it on June 15. David Edwards in the London Daily Mirror describes it as "a violent and truly scary film and definitely not one for the kids. For grown-ups, though, it could well be the ultimate superhero movie." Mike Goodrich in the British trade publication Screen Daily describes the movie as "a bold new vision of the DC Comics staple and further proof that [director Christopher] Nolan possesses abundant confidence and vision as a mainstream film-maker." And Kirk Honeycutt in the Hollywood Reporter comments that for "Nolan to turn Batman Begins into such a smart, gritty, brooding, visceral experience is astonishing. Truly, Batman does begin again."

bam.

mmmmm, Christian Bale. mer-cy.

info courtesy of showbizdata.com's newsletter.

from today's Slate roundup - SCOTUS scuttles med marijuana

With the notable exception of Justice Antonin Scalia, the anti-marijuana majority was made up of liberal-types. That's because in a larger sense, it was a states' rights case. The majority said the Constitution's Commerce Clause, meant to regulate interstate business, gives the feds the right to regulate, say, non-state-crossing spliffs.

"If there is any conflict between federal and state law, federal law shall prevail," wrote Justice John Paul Stevens in the majority opinion. Stevens also expressed sympathy for pot smoking patients but suggested the proper recourse would be for Congress to legalize such use. Justice O'Conner, writing the dissent, complained that the majority's wide-open interpretation of the Commerce Clause "threatens to sweep all of productive human activity into federal regulatory reach."

emphasis mine.

:::off looking for more opinions:::

from today's Slate roundup - SCOTUS scuttles med marijuana

With the notable exception of Justice Antonin Scalia, the anti-marijuana majority was made up of liberal-types. That's because in a larger sense, it was a states' rights case. The majority said the Constitution's Commerce Clause, meant to regulate interstate business, gives the feds the right to regulate, say, non-state-crossing spliffs.

"If there is any conflict between federal and state law, federal law shall prevail," wrote Justice John Paul Stevens in the majority opinion. Stevens also expressed sympathy for pot smoking patients but suggested the proper recourse would be for Congress to legalize such use. Justice O'Conner, writing the dissent, complained that the majority's wide-open interpretation of the Commerce Clause "threatens to sweep all of productive human activity into federal regulatory reach."

emphasis mine.

:::off looking for more opinions:::

shameless begging

anybody screencap the latest BSG promo? whimpers.

shameless begging

anybody screencap the latest BSG promo? whimpers.

J-school, Watergate and the Fourth Estate

an interesting article at pressthink.

If you don't ask journalists but just people who lived through it and paid attention, what they remember about Watergate was watching the Senate hearings on television and figuring it out. They don't talk about Woodward and Bernstein, but about Sam Ervin and Howard Baker and John Dean, the stars of the hearings. Charles Taylor, a film critic for Salon, pulls the camera back a few feet (June 17, 2002):

Watching Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman as Woodward and Bernstein putting the pieces of the story together became a metaphor for how Americans put the story together. Mary McCarthy wrote about people reading three or four newspapers, plus national newsweeklies, rearranging their schedules to watch the daily broadcast hearings of the Senate subcommittee headed by Senator Sam Ervin. She was describing the thrill of feeling yourself a participant in the fate of the republic.

Feeling yourself a participant.... Yes, exactly.

In the fate of the republic... Actually, yes. Watergate was a real life Constitutional test. (Why do we appoint Supreme Court Justices for life? See Saturday Night Massacre.)

emphasis mine.

"feeling yourself a participant" implies, however, that the public is fully informed by the press - not browbeaten or, for all intents and purposes, brainwashed into how to think - in order to facilitate the public's ability to reach its own conclusions. that would then preclude actions like the LAT editing a Reuters wire piece to give a different "spin" to the piece. an action that was, you know, noticed, by millions when the other papers, and that wacky internet, ran the Reuters piece untouched.

J-school, Watergate and the Fourth Estate

an interesting article at pressthink.

If you don't ask journalists but just people who lived through it and paid attention, what they remember about Watergate was watching the Senate hearings on television and figuring it out. They don't talk about Woodward and Bernstein, but about Sam Ervin and Howard Baker and John Dean, the stars of the hearings. Charles Taylor, a film critic for Salon, pulls the camera back a few feet (June 17, 2002):

Watching Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman as Woodward and Bernstein putting the pieces of the story together became a metaphor for how Americans put the story together. Mary McCarthy wrote about people reading three or four newspapers, plus national newsweeklies, rearranging their schedules to watch the daily broadcast hearings of the Senate subcommittee headed by Senator Sam Ervin. She was describing the thrill of feeling yourself a participant in the fate of the republic.

Feeling yourself a participant.... Yes, exactly.

In the fate of the republic... Actually, yes. Watergate was a real life Constitutional test. (Why do we appoint Supreme Court Justices for life? See Saturday Night Massacre.)

emphasis mine.

"feeling yourself a participant" implies, however, that the public is fully informed by the press - not browbeaten or, for all intents and purposes, brainwashed into how to think - in order to facilitate the public's ability to reach its own conclusions. that would then preclude actions like the LAT editing a Reuters wire piece to give a different "spin" to the piece. an action that was, you know, noticed, by millions when the other papers, and that wacky internet, ran the Reuters piece untouched.