SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : NNBM - SI Branch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: altair19 who wrote (22497)2/2/2003 12:34:31 PM
From: lurqer  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 104191
 
On Friday the parrot took me to the library. While reading some of the papers (the parrot was doing its own thing), I noted a series of movie reviews. "About Schmidt" and "The Hours" were the clear winners.

lurqer



To: altair19 who wrote (22497)2/2/2003 4:00:16 PM
From: elpolvo  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 104191
 
thanks ebert

if i ever go to a movie again i'll
remember that.

-schmidt



To: altair19 who wrote (22497)2/2/2003 4:08:38 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 104191
 
<<...wifey and I went to see "About Schmidt" last night. I give it a double thumbs up. Dark humor, beautifully done...art imitates life...>>

GREAT MOVIE...saw it last weekend with my friend Vanessa...Last night I saw 'Catch Me If You Can' -- I would highly recommend it as well....Here's what your friend Roger Ebert had to say <G>...

CATCH ME IF YOU CAN / *** (PG-13)

December 25, 2002

Frank Abagnale Jr.: Leonardo DiCaprio
Carl Hanratty: Tom Hanks
Frank Abagnale Sr.: Christopher Walken
Paula Abagnale: Nathalie Baye
Prostitute: Jennifer Garner
Brenda: Amy Adams
Brenda's father: Martin Sheen

DreamWorks presents a film directed by Steven Spielberg. Written by Jeff Nathanson. Based on the book by Frank Abagnale Jr. and Stan Redding. Running time: 140 minutes. Rated PG-13 (for some sexual content and brief language).

BY ROGER EBERT

The trailer for "Catch Me If You Can" is so obvious it could have written itself. It informs us that Frank Abagnale Jr. practiced medicine without attending medical school, practiced law without a law degree and passed as a pilot without attending flight school--all for the excellent reason that he did all of these things before he was 19, and had not even graduated from high school.

That this is a true story probably goes without saying, since it is too preposterous to have been invented by a screenwriter. Abagnale also passed millions of dollars in bogus checks, dazzled women with his wealth and accomplishments, and was, a lot of the time, basically a sad and lonely teenager. At the time the only honest relationships in his life were with his father and with the FBI agent who was chasing him.

In Steven Spielberg's new film, Abagnale is played by Leonardo DiCaprio as a young man who succeeds at his incredible impersonations by the simple device of never seeming to try very hard. While an airline employee might be suspicious of a very young-looking man who insists he is a pilot, what could be more disarming than a man offered a trip in the jump seat who confesses, "It's been awhile. Which one is the jump seat?"

DiCaprio, who in recent films such as "The Beach" and "Gangs of New York" has played dark and troubled characters, is breezy and charming here, playing a boy who discovers what he is good at, and does it. There is a kind of genius flowing in the scene where he turns up for classes at a new school, walks into the classroom to discover that a substitute teacher is expected and, without missing a beat, writes his name on the blackboard, and tells the students to shut up and sit down and tell him what chapter they're on.

It is probably true that most people will take you at face value until they have reason to do otherwise. I had a friend who had risen to a high level in her organization and was terrified her secret would be discovered: She never attended college. My guess, and it proved accurate, was that nobody would ever think to ask her. It is probably an even better guess that no patient in a hospital would ask to see a doctor's medical school diploma.

The movie makes some attempt to explain Abagnale's behavior through adolescent trauma. He is raised by loving parents; his father, Frank Sr. (Christopher Walken), brought his French mother, Paula (Nathalie Baye), back from Europe after military service, and Frank Jr.'s childhood is a happy one until Paula cheats on her husband and walks out. Is that why her son was driven to impersonation and fraud? Maybe. Or maybe he would have anyway. Once he discovers how much he can get away with, there is a certain heady exhilaration in how easily he finds status, respect and babes.

The movie co-stars Tom Hanks as Carl Hanratty, an FBI agent whose mission in life evolves into capturing Abagnale. As the only person who really has a comprehensive overview of the scope and versatility of Abagnale's activities, Hanratty develops--well, not an admiration, but a respect for a natural criminal talent. There is a scene where he actually has Abagnale at gunpoint in a motel room, and the kid, a cool customer and quick thinker, tries impersonating a Secret Service agent who is also on the suspect's tail. Much of the pleasure of the movie comes from its enjoyment of Abagnale's strategies. He doesn't seem to plan his cons very well, but to take advantage of opportunities that fall in his way. At one point, in New Orleans, he finds himself engaged to the daughter (Amy Adams) of the local district attorney (Martin Sheen). At a dinner party with his prospective in-laws, he seems to contradict himself by claiming to be both a doctor and a lawyer, when he doesn't look old enough to be either. When the D.A. presses him for an explanation, there is a kind of genius in his guileless reply: "I passed the bar in California and practiced for a year before saying, 'Why not try out pediatrics?' "

Uh-huh. And then he makes the mistake of saying he graduated from law school at Berkeley. Turns out the Sheen character did, too, and quizzes him about a legendary professor before adding, "Does he still go everywhere with that little dog?" Here is where Abagnale's quickness saves him. Considering the 30-year age difference between himself and the girl's father, he simply observes, "The dog died." Yes, although the professor may well have died, too, and when the D.A. calls his bluff, he responds by being honest (although that is sort of a lie, too).

This is not a major Spielberg film, although it is an effortlessly watchable one. Spielberg and his writer, Jeff Nathanson, working from the memoir by the real Frank Abagnale Jr. and Stan Redding, don't force matters or plumb for deep significance. The story is a good story, directly told, and such meaning as it has comes from the irony that the only person who completely appreciates Abagnale's accomplishments is the man trying to arrest him. At one point, when the young man calls the FBI agent, Hanratty cuts straight to the point by observing, "You didn't have anyone else to call."

Copyright © Chicago Sun-Times Inc.



To: altair19 who wrote (22497)2/2/2003 9:50:16 PM
From: Mannie  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 104191
 
Yen and I just saw 'About Schmidt"

a wonderfully sick little film. Nicholson is going to be tough to beat for the Oscar in that role.



To: altair19 who wrote (22497)2/3/2003 2:27:57 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 104191
 
Investigation of a Tragedy

Lead Editorial
The New York Times
February 3, 2003

Even as we grieve the loss of the space shuttle Columbia and its crew of seven, the nation must gird itself for a searching inquiry into just what happened, and why. It is not enough to accept NASA's assurances that the space agency will find the problem, fix it and move on, carrying the nation's banner back into space. Rather this tragedy, like that which befell the Challenger in 1986, requires an aggressive, no-holds-barred inquiry by a presidential commission charged to evaluate not only the technical roots of this failure but also whether any management mistakes, budget cuts, loss of engineering talent or deep-seated cultural traditions at NASA may have contributed.

Space officials are quite right to warn that it is premature to focus on any particular theory of what happened. One issue that will certainly be explored is the possibility of damage to the tiles that protect the shuttle from the intense heat generated when it re-enters the Earth's atmosphere. When Columbia lifted off 16 days earlier, a piece of debris, believed to be foam insulation, broke off from the external fuel tank and appeared to hit the shuttle on the left wing, the same wing where sensors failed shortly before the Columbia broke up almost 40 miles overhead. That inevitably makes one wonder if the debris might have damaged the tiles or other critical areas of the wing.

Investigators will also need to consider such possibilities as an explosion of fuels kept on board, a structural failure in the aging shuttle, faulty flight control during re-entry, and even such remote possibilities as terrorist sabotage or collision with an object in space. But in the end, the accident could turn out to be caused by something no one ever imagined could happen in the complex and delicate spacecraft as it interacts with its unforgiving environment. Space flight is inherently risky, and the shuttle fleet's success rate — 2 catastrophic failures in 113 flights — seems roughly in line with other space-rocket systems.

Beyond the technical inquiry, it will be imperative to look more broadly at the space agency's management of the shuttle program. It is disquieting to note that only last year the outgoing chairman of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel told Congress that he had never been so worried about shuttle safety as right now, mostly because safety upgrades were being postponed due to budget constraints. Although safety had not yet been compromised, he said, "nobody will know for sure when the safety margin has been eroded too far." Five of nine members of that safety panel and two consultants were removed, with some now accusing NASA of trying to suppress their criticism.

Then there is the perplexing issue of the mind-set at NASA. The immediate cause of the Challenger accident 17 years ago was a faulty seal on a booster rocket that failed to close properly in cold weather, allowing hot gases to escape and trigger a conflagration. But the deeper cause was institutional. The seal problems had been analyzed for years by NASA, and the consensus was always that the shuttles were safe to fly. That confidence grew stronger with each passing flight — until it was blown to smithereens on a cold day in January 1986.

When listening to NASA officials at their initial press conference on the Columbia accident, it was hard not to wonder if history could be repeating itself. Shuttle managers acknowledged that debris had broken away from the external tank on another recent shuttle flight. It hit one of the booster rockets, causing superficial damage, but was judged not to threaten shuttle safety. When debris broke loose again on this flight and hit the shuttle's wing, experts concluded that this event, too, did not threaten safety. Several years ago shuttles suffered tile damage from debris impacts and even lost portions of tiles, a problem said to be resolved. Always the damage was judged no threat to safety. Nobody knows if the debris shed during Columbia's launch caused this accident, but if it turns out to be the culprit, investigators will need to analyze how the technical reviews came to discount the problem.

With the future of NASA and the shuttle program hanging on the outcome, the investigation must be as open and forthright as possible. It is perfectly appropriate for NASA and its contractors to take the lead in analyzing the technical failure. But it is discouraging that NASA, which famously tried to cover up its shortcomings in the early stages of the Challenger investigation, has chosen to convene an oversight board of safety officials from military and civilian agencies to give its investigation credibility. Whatever the qualifications of those individuals, they have neither the stature nor true independence needed for an accident of this magnitude. An independent presidential commission with distinguished members from the private sector investigated the Challenger accident. President Bush should appoint a similar panel to investigate this one while Congress pursues its own inquiries.

nytimes.com