Moore vs. Jones: Who's the Better Guy? My worthless two cents.

We're all way too familiar with this race to fill an Alabama Senate seat. I would like to take a different approach and put the political aspect aside and look at Mr. Moore and Mr. Jones on their merits and past deeds (just the highlights), without going into too much research, given.

Mr. Moore was actually a Democrat before 1992. He attended West Point and served in Vietnam in the early 1970s. According to his autobiography, his troops really didn't think much of him. Discharged in 1974 he went to law school and into private practice by 1977 as a personal injury attorney. In the early to mid-80s Moore worked as a prosecutor where he was investigated for "suspect conduct(???)" in regards to sheriff's funding but nothing came of it. In 1982 he unsuccessfully ran as a Democrat for circuit court judge, losing a primary run off in a bitter campaign. Another bar complaint against Moore also came and went after the election. In 1986 he ran for District Attorney for Etowah County in Alabama and lost in the Democratic primary. Moore moves to Australia for a year, goes into private practice until 1992 where he becomes a Republican and gets appointed as a circuit court judge and wins the election in 1994.

In 1999 Moore wins a seat on the Alabama State Supreme Court on a slogan of returning "God to our public life and restore the moral foundation of our law." He became Chief Justice in 2001. His time on the sate supreme court is marked by controversy. Not controversy from legal decisions mind you, but religious ones. There was the Ten Commandments thing that would get him removed from the bench in 2003. Moore would get back on the State Supreme Court in 2012 and of course, more controversy. In 2016 Moore was suspended for putting his own religious beliefs above the rule of law when he failed to follow the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, where same sex couples were guaranteed the fundamental right to marry.

Mr. Jones graduated from the University of Alabama in 1976, got his law degree in 1979 and worked as an assistant US Attorney from 1980-84. From 1984-97 he was in private practice where he mainly dealt with commercial litigation and white collar criminal defense. Really underwhelming stuff. In 1997, Jones was appointed US Attorney for the Northern District of Alabama by President Clinton where he would serve until 2001.

Who remembers the bombing of Centennial Olympic Park back in 1996? The man responsible, WHITE CHRISTIAN TERRORIST Eric Robert Rudolph, also bombed a few other places. One of which was an abortion clinic in Birmingham, AL that killed a police officer. Jones helped put together a task force to hunt Rudolph down as well as securing an indictment against him. Jones' big accomplishment was convicting two WHITE CHRISTIAN TERRORISTS of the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing of 1963.

Watch Spike Lee's documentary 4 Little Girls for historical perspective. 

The FBI investigated the case and even named the culprits but no court proceedings were brought forth until 1977. I can only describe this is as a travesty of justice, it still falls short however. Seriously, watch the film and try not to get outraged. Over a decade after the conviction of Robert Chambliss, the FBI discretely re-opened the case and in 2000, Thomas Edwin Blanton and Bobby Frank Cherry were indicted on multiple counts of first degree murder. Jones was able to win a conviction against Blanton in 2001 after the jury deliberated for two hours. Jones would eventually secure a conviction against Cherry in 2002 on four counts of first degree murder.

Again, eliminate political affiliation. Let's go further and not include into the equation the fact that one candidate was banned from a local mall for trying to pick up teenage girls while working as a prosecutor. Now who seems like a better person to serve in the Senate? An attention seeking guy who was removed from the state supreme court for violating federal law, twice? Or a guy who helps bring to justice a cop killer and who convicts murderers of children?

2017 Films: #28 Never Here

An OnDemand viewing on November 4th in Chicago, IL. After looking through iTunes, Netflix and finally OnDemand, this is the title my wife and I decided upon. It's a psychological thriller starring Mireille Enos (which is why we went with it) is Miranda Fall a conceptual artist (I had to look it up) that photographs strangers without their knowing. and turns the final product into an exhibit. The film opens up with her latest exhibit, a found cell found that she harvested the information from rather than return it, much to the chagrin of the owner, who expresses his dislike towards the exhibit and threatens to sue.

Later than evening  Miranda is with her art dealer and sometimes lover (it's ok because it's just sex, he's married and emotionally devoted to his terminally ill wife, what a guy!) Paul, Sam Shepard in his last role. After coitus, Paul witnesses a assault on a woman from the window but pulls the old "I don't want to get involved" card. Miranda, not wanting to hear that, decides that she will act as the witness. It's practically the same thing right?

Anyway the cop who questions her turns out to be an old boyfriend. It doesn't take long for Miranda and Detective Williams (Vincent Piazza) to fire up the old flame cliche. From there, weird sh*t starts to happen. Her exhibit gets vandalized, her dog acts really strange and things start moving around in her apartment. It also happens that the man who confessed to the assault didn't actually commit the crime and the perpetrator is still floating around. Miranda starts following a guy who is supposed to be her next exhibit but suddenly feels that he may be the culprit. Anyway, Miranda starts to lose her grip on reality and slips into madness.

There's a few things to like about this slow burning thriller. Enos does a fine job as Miranda. Camille Thoman wrote and directed the film and it kind of falls short at the end. I personally enjoy thrillers where the main character loses it but we do not really get a payoff. Or there was a payoff and it went over my head. Despite a 110 minute run time, the film feels incomplete but got an 82% Rotten Tomatoes rating. Solid acting, nice use of lighting but to me, it comes up short and ran a little long. 

2017 Films: #27. Thor: Ragnarok

Viewed on Friday November 3rd in Chicago, IL. The God of Thunder get his 3rd installment and based on the trailer, you know that Thor's hammer is destroyed, Thor fights the Hulk, Thor and Hulk team up, Thor gets a haircut, it looks like a city (perhaps Asgard), is consumed by fire and Hela is the villain because she's the one who crushes Mjolnir and wears a tremendous amount of eye make-up.

The film opens with Thor, who explains that he's been searching for the infinity stones, chained up in the clutches of the fire demon Surtur. Surtur monologues about how Odin is no longer on Asgard and that he will bring about the destruction of Asgard (foreshadowing). Once he reveals his one weakness, Thor pulls the old, "I allowed myself to be captured to learn the villain's plan" cliche and vanquishes Surtur. Thor returns to Asgard and almost immediately uncovers Odin to be his mischievous brother Loki. Thor and Loki travel to Earth to find Odin but the rest home where Loki stashed him is being demolished. While standing on the corner, Loki and Thor are brought to Doctor Strange's pad. This meeting is really just an extended scene of the Doctor Strange mid-credit scene from 2016.

Strange sends Thor and Loki to Norway to reunite with their dad. Odin then gives some much needed exposition about their sister, Hela that they never knew existed. Seems she was the 1st born and rightful heir to the Asgardian throne.

Capes are big in the underworld.

On a "take you daughter to work day", Odin and Hela conquer the nine realms. When Hela appears to be a bit more bloodthirsty than Odin would like, he banishes her to the underworld and erases her from history. He also mentioned that she will remain imprisoned until he dies. So what happens now in order to move the plot along? You guessed it. Hela is released, she battles Thor and Loki and makes her way to Asgard via the Bifrost Bridge while Thor and Loki are cast off into space.

Meanwhile, Thor ends up landing on Sakaar and is captured by Scrapper 142, a quick on the draw bounty hunter with a penchant for drinking. Kind of like the Waco Kid.

Scrapper 142 takes Thor to the Grandmaster so that he can put him in the arena to battle his champion. While in custody Thor runs into Loki who also crash landed on Sakaar but in a different time frame because he got kicked out of the Bifrost portal before Thor did (I am not really sure about the science on this but it moves the plot). Before Thor's big match with the champion he sees Scrapper 142 getting drunk at the bar and Thor notices that she has the tattoos of the Valkyrior, a group of elite female Asgardian warriors. Thor pleads with her to help him but she wants no part of it, despite the fact that the Valkyrior were sent by Odin to defeat Hela in the underworld and 142 was the only survivor.

So this leads to the big duke-a-roo between Thor and Hulk as seen in every trailer. After the fight, Thor eventually escapes with the Hulk, who turns back into Banner after seeing a video of Natasha Romanoff. Valkyrie, formerly Scrapper 142, shows up to help Thor escape and they all get back to Asgard for the final showdown with Hela (this backstory makes little sense. Sure it gives a reason for Scrapper 142 to reclaim the mantel of Valkyrie but it's not logical. Odin banishes Hela, he later decides to send his most elite unit down to the underworld to vanquish his daughter once and for all, despite the fact that she can only be freed by his death, the Valkyrior lose and that's the last of it. Odin never even tries to reform the Valkyrior).

Presently, this picture has a 93% Rotten Tomatoes rating, making it the highest rated Thor stand alone film, and has cleared over $154 million domestically at the box office since being released on November 3rd. To me this is by far the best Thor stand alone. It has a lot of the same plot elements that made the first installment successful, added humor and colorful characters. It's a fun movie even without the connections to the overall MCU.

The film is directed by Taika Waititi. I felt he did a real nice job putting scenes together and giving the cast the opportunity to make each character their own. Speaking of the cast; Hemsworth, Hiddleston, Hopkins, Elba and Stevenson reprise their roles (though Elba's role as Heimdall has been shrinking and Stevenson's Volstagg is on screen for barely a minute). Mark Ruffalo is the Hulk's alter-ego Bruce Banner, Tessa Thompson is Valkyrie (she's great and it's a shame that there are people out there who are up in arms because she's not the Valkryie from the comics), Karl Urban is Hela's lackey Skurge (Urban doesn't do much in the film, so it's a bit of letdown but that's the story's fault, not his), Jeff Goldblum is the Grandmaster (nicely played by Jeff) and of course Cate Blanchette as Hela. Blanchette's Hela is a bit like Galadriel when Frodo offers her the one ring ad she looks a bit like Siouxsie Sioux.

There's clearly a resemblance. Though one uses Aquanet more than the other.

Blanchette chews up the scenery as Hela. She appeared to have fun with the character, although she had to wear a motion capture suite instead of costume.

This is a really fun film. Sure there are some plot devices that make so sense that I mentioned earlier but it's to be expected. The film has a run time of 130 minutes but the pacing is quick and you're never bored. There's a lot going on but you never get caught up in anything as it all leads back to Thor and his mission.  Check out some of the youtube videos that delve into the Easter eggs and what not. That's fun too.

2017 Films: #26. What Happened to Monday

I viewed this picture as a Netflix download on my flight back from Phoenix on October 28th. As sucker for dystopian sci-fi films, I tok a chance on this title after watching the trailer. The film is directed by Norwegian Tommy Wirkola with a cast consisting of  Noomi Rapace, Glenn Close and Willem Dafoe.

The film is set in the not too distant dystopian future where the world stands along the edge of a knife, as usual. The world is overcrowded and food is scarce. In order to deal with this problem the government puts in place the Child Allocation Bureau headed by Nicolette Cayman (Close). With sweeping law enforcement powers the CAB makes sure that families have only one child and one child only. Any siblings caught are put into "cryogenic freeze" until all the problems can be fixed.

Enter the Settman family. Karen Settman gives birth to identical septuplet sisters in and dies during birth. The grandfather, Terrence (Dafoe), takes custody (the father's whereabouts are never mentioned) and names each child after a day of the week (so you can see where the plot goes). Terrence trains the girls to live in each other's particular day and to act as one personality in public. The training is brutal but necessary in order for them all to survive. They collectively take the identity of Karen Settman.

We fast forward to the women living together, with very distinct individual personalities but managed to get a successful career in banking. Then one day, Monday doesn't come home and the sisters need to figure what happened and also try to find their sister. Things go from bad to worse as the sisters pick up more knowledge about Monday's movements. The CAB eventually gets on to the sisters and sends hit teams after them. Without giving too much away, the CAB is surprisingly up to no good, Monday may not have been the goody-goody sister she appeared to be, Cayman has plans to tighten her grip on the CAB and the lid gets blown off their society.

The film received a 58% Rotten Tomatoes rating, which is not awful but not that good, and it's well deserved. To me the plot borrowed too heavily from films like The Matrix, Children of Men, Minority Report, V for Vendetta, Soylent Green and a bit of Run Lola Run to name a few. It just seemed like there was not a lot originality in the plot. The film was well acted and the action sequences, though derivative at times, were good. This film fails as a sci-fi but is an  ok action film.

The message of the film is a bit hard to grasp, for me anyway. Is it a shot at China's One-Child Policy that ran from 1979-2015, which would be weird considering how much the film industry relies on China as a market? To me it seemed to simultaneously take shots at both the pro-life and pro-choice side. Perhaps, it's just another film about a dystopia run by an oppressive regime. Anyway, the film is just not that good. 

2017 Films: #25. I Don't Feel at Home in This World Anymore

I watched this Netflix original film on a flight from Chicago to Phoenix on October 24th. This is a film that kept showing up in my "Suggestions for You" category on Netflix. I watched the trailer and the film looked interesting. I put the film in my and a few months later I got around to watching it. The picture is written and directed by Macon Blair. The film premiered at the 2017 Sundance Film Festival and put into wide release by Netflix on February 24th.

The film stars the crazy neighbor from Two and a Half Men as Ruth, a single woman with a mundane job and a relatively unfulfilling life. One day she comes home from work to find her home has been broken into and some personal items stolen. Her feelings of violation turn to helplessness as she feels the police will do nothing to help, which they pretty much don't. Ruth decides to take matters in her own hands and starts questioning neighbors. During this time she runs into Tony (Elijah Wood) a heavy metal, martial arts aficionado who decides to help Ruth in her investigation.

Ruth and Tony actually begin to get results in the investigation. Ruth and Tony even locate the stolen laptop and manage to get the location of the fence. Ruth gets more and more empowered along the way. They even manage to discover the identity of the burglar and confront his parents. I do not wish to giveaway too much so let's just say that Ruth start to get a little more than she bargained for and eventually people die.

The film received an 89% rating on Rotten Tomatoes and is very nicely done. The pace sometimes slows down too much and it would have been better served to have a run time closer to 95 minutes than 107 minutes in my opinion. The actors did a real nice job of making the characters interesting. Ruth's arc takes her from a bit player in her own life to the driver's seat, which at times can be scary as she finds out the hard way. The interesting thing to see would be how Ruth lives her life after all of the events of the film. Does she go back to her mundane life or try to do something different? My problems with the film lean toward the legal issues Ruth would have after everything goes down. It didn't seem based in reality to me. But in the celluloid world, who cares about that stuff anyway,

This a good start for first time director Blair. It may not be for everyone but it is a nice change of pace and worth watching.