text:
2013-February-25 blake
A documentary about Shin Bet! Yay! Wait, who?
Shin Bet is something like the Israeli FBI which is the sort of comparison that invites recognition without noting scale. Shin Bet is something like the Israeli FBI, if America were outnumbered 100-to-1 by people wanting to destroy it.
Yeah, that's more like it.
On the one hand, this is a fascinating look at people who have one of the hardest jobs in the world: maintaining the safety of a free state surrounded by enemies. This look is provided by a half-dozen former Shin Bet heads, talking about various incidents in Israeli history and how they were handled, for better or for worse.
You'll see people saying that this is a "balanced" movie because people on both sides felt it was biased in favor of the other side.
There's no moral equivalency here. Let's take an example: the Bus 300 affair, where terrorists hijack a bus full of people, and are soon captured by Shin Bet and the army. The terrorists that survived were beaten to near death by the army, and then finished off by Shin Bet, with the head guy thinking "No live terrorists on trial."
You can argue that the law should protect those in its custody, and therefore the beating and deaths of these terrorists was wrong. But it's a minor crime compared to killing 41 innocent people, which is what was at stake.
There's another incident where Shin Bet stops an internal Jewish terrorist group, plotting to blow the dome off the Temple Mount mosque. But it's Shin Bet that stops them. The terrorists get off light—but they also don't plot more terrorist activities, putting them way ahead of most of the Muslim terrorists who (e.g.) get out of Gitmo.
Even if you consider them equivalent, I note again they were caught by Shin Bet. When was the last time a Palestinian group caught a Palestinian terrorist group? Ever?
I kept telling myself, "Blake, these are the former heads of Shin Bet. They probably understand the situation a little better than you." Yet it seemed like they were drawing equivalencies that are unconscionable.
Creative editing aside, I began to think of Colonel David Hackworth. "Hack" was a great colonel who died around the time of the second Iraq war. He was against it. Not on the basis of Saddam not being a bad guy who didn't need to be taken out, but on the basis of not wanting to see WMDs used on our troops.
And then I thought back to all the opinions I'd ever heard him give, and they were universally on the side of "We shouldn't do this because our troops will get killed." And this was not the pacifist's abstraction. It occurred to me that this is a guy who'd seen his boys killed over decades—from the time he was a boy (he joined the last days of WWII when he was 14). That has to take a toll.
Similarly, these guys running Shin Bet have had to do things nobody should have to do. Of course they want things to change!
I just can't buy the premise that the Israelis are anything like equally responsible for the situation, as long as their enemies embrace terrorism.
So, while we liked the movie quite a bit, it also made us very suspicious. It was exactly the sort of thing you'd expect to see from the safety of Encino, if that makes sense.
At the close of World War II, a Nazi girl must lead her young siblings across a divided Germany to find safety in Hamburg—and her only hope lies in a recently liberated Jew she simultaneously loathes and desires.
Had this movie been made in Hollywood, it would be awful, wouldn't it? The little Nazi girl would learn an important lesson about how Jews can be good people—the very best of people, even—and discard the world-view she'd been indoctrinated into for the past 14 years, experiencing the imprisonment and death of her parents as a mere road bump on the way to enlightenment.
So, you know, good thing it'd never be made in Hollywood. It'd end up being a WWII-themed Enemy Mine.
The bad news is that, well, it's still not very good. It's well done enough. And it may come as a shock to some that losing the war didn't instantly change the German's minds about Jews, so I guess there's some value there.
Problem is, these are some seriously unlikable characters. Our heroic Jew isn't much of a hero. His early intentions toward Lore are aggressively sexual, possibly even rape-y, and she's about 14. What seems to hold him back is that she looks at him as sub-human, even while lusting toward him.
Once all is revealed, this is actually worse than it sounds.
In the end, Lore has a character arc that takes her from immature child to adult, I guess, though this culminates with a kind of temper tantrum.
I don't know. Sure, it's not a perspective you see a lot of in the movies—even with the hundreds of movies about WWII out there—but maybe that's because it's a mine field of unpleasantness that isn't all that revealing about human nature.
The Boy and I were sort of "huh" about the whole thing. You know, where you say, "What did you think?" and the other person says "Huh." In fact, I don't think we asked each other. I think we just walked out saying "Huh."
Other than that, it's well shot, well acted, even well directed, although the dramatic tension suffers from the characters being kind of uninteresting and certainly unlikable. Hard to recommend, tho'.
2013-February-25 2018-October-27 blake
In Soviet Russia, hards dye you. Or something. I'm not good with memes.
This is one of those movies that needs no reviewing, really. After 25 years and four previous films, you know more or less exactly what you're going to see. Bruce Willis is gonna get into his tank top, fire some guns, and get beaten up for a couple of hours.
This time, with his son, played by Jai Courtney (Jack Reacher), rather than his daughter, although Mary Elizabeth Winstead is back as grown-up Lucy for a scene.
Well, it's short. Only about 90 minutes, which is really short given that Die Hard pioneered the lengthy action flick, clocking in at over two hours at a time when action films tended to run about 100 minutes.
The opening action sequence is amazing, but also ridiculous, with McClane causing dozens of deaths and hundreds of injuries with little provocation. I mean, they don't show it, but there's no way for that series of events to occur without lots of civilians being hurt and killed.
It doesn't really fit in with his character. It's one thing for him to blunder into a situation, but another for him to just—well, it's just silly and out of character.
The second action sequence is also over the top and really predictable.
On the third action scene, I was going to go to the bathroom, and I figured I'd wait until the scene was over, and then I realized this was going to be the closer.
The third sequence? Also way over the top.
The fourth movie in the series did this similar over-the-top action scenes, which really isn't in the—well, I'd argue that the hallmark of the first film was the convincing manner in which John McClane survived a number of relatively intimate encounters with the bad guys. There are a couple of big scenes, but really, the way McClane survived was in the manner of a horror movie monster.
That is, he took the bad guys out in small numbers, which was the only thing that made the movie "plausible", and gave it a semblance of suspense. (Joe Bob Briggs has a convincing argument that Die Hard follows the model of a horror movie more than an action flick.) It also lets the few big action sequences breathe.
But they really threw that out the window on Die Hard 2, and I haven't really cared much since then. It's just an action flick with Bruce Willis doin' his Bruce Willis action thing. He's always likable, and if you want to see him in something different, go see Moonrise Kingdom.
The kids liked it, but were far from overwhelmed.
The Boy is funny about Willis, though. When I talk about being old, he advises me to be like Bruce (who is substantially older). Time to shave my head and put on the wife-beater, I guess.
In our desperate gambit to avoid seeing Amour, we've been grasping at whatever movie might be passable entertainment, even if it's not something we're really into. (Because we're really not into old French people dying.) Which brings us to this surfing movie, Chasing Mavericks.
"It's a surfing movie" is about what we knew about it, and also that the critics didn't like it much, but audiences seemed okay with it.
And? We liked it. It turns out to be a biopic of a surfer named Jay Moriarty (Johnny Weston), who latches on to a surfer bum, Frosty (Gerard Butler), and uses surfing to give his life direction, culminating in an ambition to ride the Mavericks, mythical waves of titanic proportions that only the most skilled surfers can survive.
Based on a true story, as noted, this takes place in 1994. And I remember this time. A surfer (not Moriarty) died at Mavericks. (My reaction at the time was to think they were stupid, but I'm less judgmental now.)
Curtis Hanson (L.A. Confidential) directs, though Michael Apted (56 Up) took over in the last few weeks as Hanson had to bow out for health issues.
As a cinematic experience, it starts out with a very After School Special feeling. Jay is a really, really good kid. His mom (Elizabeth Shue, House At The End Of The Street) is single (of course), alcoholic-y, and borrows money from him, even as he's saving up for a surf radio. (It tells you where the big tides are.)
To top it off, he hangs around Frosty—who has the coolest wife in the world (played by Abigail Spencer) and has peer problems with his best bud, Blond (Devin Crittenden) and his potential girlfriend, Kim (Leven Rambin, "All My Children").
So, yeah. It's hard to escape that After School feel, but after a while, it settles into the surfing groove, and the character of Jay is one that's hard not to like. He's not perfect, but he radiates the kind of serenity that comes from dedication to a—well, in this case surfing, but any of the arts that promote that Zen state.
I tend to judge a movie like this based on how I feel about what the characters are pursuing. Like, I don't call it The Perfect Storm, I call it Five Idiots In A Boat. Maybe it's the storytelling, maybe it's the characters, or maybe it's that there's a difference between risking your life for a paycheck versus doing it for a spiritual reason.
Normally, actually, I think I'd be more sympathetic toward the people making a living, and thinking the people risking their lives "for fun" are being irresponsible. In fact Frosty's and his wife have a showdown over his responsibility to her and their children versus his desire to surf dangerous waves.
I dunno. It won me over. Made me wanna surf. Wasn't sure how it was going to turn out, and if you don't look up the guy beforehand (I didn't), it can be pretty suspenseful.
The kids liked it, though The Boy did note that TV movie quality in the beginning. It won him over, too. Maybe we'll do some surfing this summer.
Stand Up Guys
Al Pacino gets out of jail after a long stint, to be picked up by his only friend, Christopher Walken, who's also contracted (after a fashion) to kill him. Over the course of 24 hours, they reminisce, party, fight, eat (and eat and eat), burgle, steal cars, rescue a girl, and save their old wheelman Alan Arkin from a boring nursing home.
Well, a lot according to the negative Rotten Tomatoes critical reviews and the tepid audience reactions. At least one person in our audience didn't like it—but quite a few of the others applauded!
Go figger.
I went into it warily, and warned the kids not to expect much. And we all enjoyed the heck out of it.
The Boy spotted a bit of The Man Who Shook The Hand Of Vicente Fernandez, in that the early dialogue is halting, and a little awkward, like maybe they're trying to remember lines. I don't know how much of it was that, how much was director Fisher Stevens giving Walken his head, and how much was sloppy editing (often a bane of low budget films).
It didn't bother me because the scene is supposed to be awkward. Walken is struggling with killing a guy for something that happened 25 years ago—that the guy didn't even do. Sure, Pacino is obnoxious, crude and insulting, but he's a stand-up guy.
Despite the gangster angle, this is basically an updated version of 1979's Going In Style, where George Burns, Art Carney and Lee Strasberg decide to hold up a bank. It's also in the "continuous timeframe" genre, taking place in about a 24-hour period where the characters don't sleep.
The supporting cast is good, with Julianna Margulies as Arkin's daughter, Mark Margolis as the gangster who wants revenge, Vanessa Ferlito as the wronged hooker, and Lucy Punch as an accommodating madam who gets more than she bargains for.
I dunno. It was just fun. I wasn't inclined to clap at the end, but I didn't feel the urge to walk out either. Your mileage may vary, of course.
Nearly 50 years ago, a young Michael Apted filmed interviews with a group of seven-year-olds, asking about their dreams and aspirations, how they felt about the opposite sex and so on. Seven years later, he revisited them, filming and interviewing them again.
The resultant documentary was called Seven Plus Seven. But the cool thing is that he followed up at 21, 28, 35, 42, 49 and, now, 56 years. 56 Up is the first of the highly praised series I've seen.
The good news is that you don't need to have seen any of the others in the series to get this. It doesn't hurt to be English, I think—a lot of stuff went over our heads. Like, I gather the London's East End is not a swank neighborhood.
The bad news is, I think that the praise heaped on this series comes from the filmmaker's agenda to show how the class limitations you were born into basically govern the rest of your life. It's all about class warfare, really.
Meh. England's not America, I tell myself. It's an issue there, I guess. There's plenty of trashing of Thatcher from the folks. I guess she's still responsible for all their problems, despite being out of office for 20 years.
I asked the Boy what he learned from the movie, and he said "You can't trust government." One of the women was on disability, and her heartbreaking story was that she worked—and she worked even when it hardly profited her to do so, with the welfare payouts being roughly equivalent to what she could get without doing anything. But her sense of ethics compelled her to work because she was able-bodied.
Until she wasn't. So she had to take the welfare finally, at least with the comfort that she had earned it.
Until the government told her, no, she could work, and therefore couldn't receive anything.
This was kind of hilarious (in a horrible way), particularly after reading about this able-bodied couple that seems to have no trouble collecting checks.
Smart boy.
The lesson I learned was this: getting old sucks. English people aren't pretty to begin with, and they ain't getting any prettier. Age is a harsh mistress. It makes you wrinkly and fat and crushes all your dreams.
I didn't really need that lesson.
I'm snarking here, obviously, but it's pretty good. They're reasonably interesting people, and there's a discussion at one point about how the snapshot you get gives you a very incomplete picture of who they are. (How else could it be, right? But these docs have made them somewhat famous back in old Albion, so it's gotta be annoying to have people think they know you from 20 minutes every seven years.)
I also liked that the last person looked at in the show was Tony. A scrappy East Ender who drives a cab and has done quite well for himself (hurt though he's been by the economic downturn). I think I liked him because he was the most "American": He seems to live his life according to his passions, not worrying too much about whether it's his "station" to do so.
Anyway, the kids liked it, though they weren't agog.
Our favorite theater is closing down—or more accurately, changing ownership from our local, indie-friendly chain, to monster conglomcinemaco AMC, and in our mourning, we've been casting about the local theaters looking for alternatives, and (at least for me) being reminded of why we don't go to these theaters much any more.
Being plum out of the sort of weird fare we're used to seeing, the kids opted for Bullet To The Head, the buddy pic about a hitman who teams up with a cop after their partners end up dead.
The big news surrounding this flick was that its star, one Michael Sylvester Gardenzio Stallone, came out mildly in favor of some controls on guns. It was the sort of blandly, vaguely statist sentiment that all bien-pensants are partial to these days, and might have served as a kind of indulgence for a guy who probably holds a record for most on camera kills.
However, I gotta believe that the sort of peeps who go to see these kinds of films have opinions on gun rights, a lotta of 'em anyway. And a lot of those folks seem to be pretty cheesed at Hollywood right now.
For myself, I think a welcome response would be a cheerful: "This is all make-believe and escapism. Drawing real-world issues into it takes the fun out of it." Sometimes I think they can't do it 'cause they need realism to sell things. Dunno.
So it's ironic in extremis how anti-gun control this movie is. In a lot of movies, you could imagine gun control themes going either way. The good guys, typically the cops, are outgunned by the bad guys, typically mob types, drug dealers and what-have-you. So you can base your preferred narrative on whatever you imagine the surrounding situation to be.
Not here. The story is that hitman James Bonomo (Stallone) does a successful hit with his partner and, while celebrating, ends up on the wrong side of a contract. His partner ends up dead, which sorta bugs Stallone in that tough-guy way. Meanwhile, Taylor Kwon (Sung Kang) flies in from L.A. Turns out it was his partner they hit. But he doesn't care so much, since his partner was crooked.
He does care in the legal sense; he wants to team up with Bonomo and go after the guy who hired them, since they're small fish (in the legal sense). So, you gotcher old, white, racist, tough thug paired up with your young, Asian, politically correct, tech savvy cop and we're off to the races.
There aren't a lot of surprises, as you might imagine. In fact, when we see Bonomo's old wooden cabin on the water, I immediately said to myself "Self, that cabin's gonna get blowed up." Simple cinematic physics: The structure on the pier must be exploded.
Anyway, this movie takes place in a city that isn't exactly New Orleans, though it imitates it in every fashion. I'm guessing they didn't want to tar New Orleans' police department, since Kwon is the only honest cop in the movie, and he's from Los Angeles.
So, about the gun control aspect? Well, the instant Kwon comes to town—even though he's a cop—the local police remind him he doesn't have a carry permit for their city, so they disarm him. Not long after, they try to kill him, of course.
We never discover if Bonomo has a license. He's got no shortage of weaponry, though, and he needs it all, to fight cops and criminals. Meanwhile, Kwon goes around trying to arrest people, in a naive fashion, but even he, by the end, realizes it's kill-or-be-killed.
Ultimately, the individual's judgment is superior to the state's in all cases, and the only thing that clean up the gritty streets of Not New Orleans.
Walter Hill directs, and does a good job, keeping it all moving quickly, and not letting the plot get in the way of the story. It's thin in parts, as you might imagine. There's a romantic subplot with Sarah Shahi which isn't bad for what it is, but definitely not well fleshed out.
As you might imagine, it largely avoids sentimentality, and despite having a very '80s feel, mostly avoids feeling like a campy rehash of the movies of that decade. The kids liked it. As The Boy says, "There's nothing there to hate."
Which is true, unless you thought you were going to see Quartet or something.
Meanwhile, the outing cost twice as much as our usual theater-going visit, and the popcorn was sub-par. So AMC isn't going to be on our list.
From the makers of…some other horror movies that you may or may not have liked, nor even remember, comes Sinister, the tale of a true crime author who moves his family into a new house in order to get close to a ghastly murder that took place there not too long ago.
In a shocking twist, he researches the book without incident, publishes it and goes on to live a long and successful life.
Or maybe not. Some mayhem may have occurred.
Ethan Hawke plays the true-crime writer in question, who achieved success early on with a great true-crime book, but then followed it up with two apparently poorly researched and misleading tomes, causing local sheriff Fred Thompson to explain that they don't want no trouble around these here parts.
Probably my favorite parts of this movie were Thompson's sheriff and Vincent D'Onofrio Skype-ing it in as a professor of the occult. (It's a classic low budget movie trick to bring in some name stars for near-cameos they can shoot in one day, and I always like spotting that.)
Anyway, Hawke moves his family into the scene of the crime without telling his wife that's what it is—and as cliché as that is, the movie handles it very well, and in a fairly amusing fashion. Juliet Raylance plays the long-suffering wife appealingly, which gives the whole get-the-story/don't-get-your-family-killed tension more life than it usually has.
The story has nice mystery overtones: The crime in question involves an entire family being killed (hanged from a tree) except for the youngest child who has gone missing. But Hawkes' investigations lead to him tracking down a bunch of similar murders, taking place over decades, all with the same footprint: Family is killed (all at once), youngest child goes missing.
Toward the end of the second act, we learn a critical detail that's brushed over, but which instantly told me how the movie was going to end. (Although I'm not a big "try to guess how it ends" guy, horror movies are kind of based on the whole "how can they ever survive?" tension, so sometimes the ends are obvious.)
I didn't mind that aspect. There were only two things that really bugged me about this movie. One is that while children can be scary, just having them tilt their chins down while looking up (a la Stanley Kubrick) doesn't really cut it.
More importantly, the catalyst for the movie is this: Hawke is rummaging around in the attic and comes across a bunch of home movies. Home movies of murders. Hawke immediately calls the cops, but hangs up before actually reporting this valuable cache of evidence.
So far, so good. It's dodgy, at best, but he's very ambitious and seems to think losing his shot at fame would be the worst thing imaginable.
But here's the thing, at various points in the movie, the found films expand to include footage of him, in what are essentially impossible ways. At that point, the only logical conclusion is that: a) he's being haunted by a very technologically savvy supernatural force; b) somebody has such good access to his house, they can mess with him with impunity.
Neither of those things logically prompts a reaction of "well, let's just see how this plays out", no matter how freakin' ambitious you are. You can pull that kind of thing off if you have a Jack Torrance/Shining thing going on, where the guy is losing his mind, but it broke an otherwise carefully constructed sense of reality for me.
Also, there wasn't any reason for them to move to the house at all, given he never left it. I mean, you'd move there if your plan was to go around and interview people about the crime, but he finds all he needs in the attic—something he straight up acknowledges is impossible. (The attic is completely empty except for this box of films.)
That's really a minor point, another low budget movie convention. (You save a lot of money not bringing in a bunch of cast and locations.)
Actually, I could go on and on about the little things like that, but these Paranormal/Insidious type films aren't about the logic. It's good atmosphere, a few good shocks, a better than average plot, and probably slightly sub-par in terms of boogens. (That is, they're not very scary, memorable or creepy.)
Not real violent. Gore is implicit. The film violence in particular shows little but is awful by implication. And the implications are very dark and well in the horror literature tradition for nihilism, so even if you like your horror movies spookier than gory, you may not like this. (Also: children are involved. That's a no-no for a lot of folks.)
Otherwise, check it out.
Dustin Hoffman directs! While this is a dubious omen, to be sure ("guy famous for low-key method acting moves behind the camera for the first time at age 75"), the topic of three classical singers famous for their rendition of a Verdi quartet living in an old age home whose life is thrown into hubbub when their estranged fourth appears was sure to be—
Ah, who'm I tryin' to kid? We went to this somewhat concerned that it would be a slower, more low-key Best Exotic Marigold Hotel—and we were all pleasantly surprised at how lively and entertaining it was. It's less about music than A Late Quartet, and could just as easily have been about an aged Shakespeare repertory company, or a Star Trek cast reunion, if those guys weren't dead already.
It's a simple story. Tom Courtenay (Dr. Zhivago, Leonard Part 6), Pauline Collins ("Upstairs/Downstairs", "Dr. Who", Shirley Valentine) and randy old Billy Connolly (Boondock Saints, Brave, "Pale Blue Scotsman") are living out their final days in a gorgeous English retirement home for old classical musicians, where an annual benefit to raise money to keep the (ridiculously luxurious) place open is being coordinated by Richard Gambon (Professor Dumbledore!).
In between ministering to patients and fending off Connolly, sexy doc Sheridan Scott (whom I kept thinking was Martine McCutcheon from Love, Actually) is preparing to receive their biggest star, Miss Jean Brodie, herself, Maggie Smith. (Or maybe you know her as Minerva McGonnagal). Smith was the fourth in Courtenay, Collins, and Connolly's quartet, and she was even married to Courtenay. But she ditched them (and him) for a solo career.
What plays out is a fairly standard drama, in terms of loves lost and redemption, but of course played out with some of the finest actors ever recorded on film. Hoffman, with the help of play/screenwriter Ronald Harwood (The Pianist, The Diving Bell and the Butterfly) keeps the proceedings light and avoids the pitfalls you might expect from an actor's actor.
You might expect a lot of "big" scenes with a lot of ACTING, but mostly (much like Hoffman's style) things are subtler. Lots of good quips and catty diva behavior to keep things rolling, and an inescapable poignancy about how our bodies ultimately fail us all, no matter how great our artistry in youth was.
If you're a regular reader, you know how sour I can get this time of year, with all the cynical and nihilistic award-bating flicks, but, as The Boy says "There's nothing here to hate." The Flower was similarly entertained.
So, on the one hand, I had iffy feelings about seeing the movie Life of Pi, due to a sort of New Age-y feel, while on the other, I had Sue SkyBluez saying I should read the book before seeing the movie. As a result, I waffled till it left theaters.
But then it came back. And, as always, during award season, potential winners persist. And persist. And persist. And I finally had to come to the realization that: a) I wasn't going to read the book any time soon, if ever (I'm really a pre-1950 guy, literature-wise); b) I had kids who wanted to go to the movies.
And, to my delight, this turned out to be my kind of movie. Pi, the lead character, is an interesting fellow, very Indian in his pursuit of religion (while his father and brother are atheist), meeting God through Hinduism, then Christianity, then Buddhism. I get why this could annoy people but it's not as squishy as it sounds.
The story really gets moving when Pi's father has to relocate his zoo (long story), and after a wild storm, Pi ends up on a raft with an assortment of animals, most notably a tiger. Now, this seems rather improbable, and while I thought the tiger was going to reach an understanding with Pi, it pretty much wants to eat him for the rest of the movie.
So, on the one hand, you have a fabulous (in the sense of being a fable) situation, but on the other, there's a literalness to the proceedings, as Pi struggles to keep the tiger, and himself fed. I really liked the way the film teases your perceptions of reality, essentially daring you to believe in it, but also fighting against sentimentalism that would cause you to dismiss it as pure fantasy.
At times, it reminded me of The Little Prince, but never for very long. I found the third act resolution satisfying, though it probably raised more questions than it answered.
As someone who has defended Ang Lee over some dubious movies (Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and Hulk) but gave up around Brokeback Mountain even going to see his films, it's good to see him tackle something that seems to be in his wheelhouse. He has the right touch for this subject matter, though at (fortunately brief) times the CGI is about at Hulk quality.
Always nice to see Irfan Khan, who plays the elder Pi here, in a flick. (You probably know him from such films as Slumdog Millionaire and Darjeeling Limited.) The beautiful Tabu (who was in The Namesake with Khan—there are only so many Indian actors with crossover appeal, I guess) plays Pi's mother. Gerard Depardieu has what is essentially a cameo as a vulgar French cook.
This is the sort of movie that you can talk about a lot afterwards, as it invites you to challenge yourself about what you saw (or thought you saw), but doing so would be completely spoiler-rific, so I shan't do that here. What's cool is that it manages to be entertaining in the process, and you can take it as literally as you like—the Flower's preference—or turn over what things might mean.
In other words, there's a lot here about knowledge, faith and the pursuit of understanding about God, but only if you want it. You could think of it as Cast Away, only with a tiger instead of a soccer ball, if you want.
A pleasant moviegoing experience. Not for young children, despite the whimsical presence of a tiger on a lifeboat, but The Flower (who's eleven now) enjoyed it, as did The Boy.
I'm a big proponent of not disappointing people. At least in terms of movies. One problem I have with Michale Haeneke (Cache, White Ribbon) movies is that, unless you know Haeneke, you can easily think you're going to see a mystery, or a thriller, when you're going to see the opposite.
One thing that may explain our relative movie-going happiness—especially The Boy's—is that the movies lately are delivering pretty much exactly what you'd expect. And doing so pretty well. We haven't seen many masterpieces, to be sure, but it was only a year or ago where every film we saw seemed to substitute basic storytelling skills for some weak attempt at a twist.
I'm taking the scenic route to tell you we saw the sequel to the murky, illogical 2006 flick, Silent Hill, called Revelation (or sometimes Revelation 3D) aaand, yes, actually liked it. It's not that it's good, exactly, but it is basically what you'd expect, only (perhaps) a little better (unless you're fanatical about the first film as, shockingly, some are).
The story is that single dad "Harry"—not his real name—is struggling to raise future cult figurehead "Heather"—not her real name, fleeing from city to city 'cause, I guess, the cult members keep tracking them down. Immediately on arrival at their latest dump, Harry sends Heather to school (because possible demons being pursued by crazy cultists need a good education, and what could be more secure than a public school?) where she's shadowed by strange figures and bitchy teenage girls.
OK, maybe I'm biased but I would think homeschooling would be easier than trying to fake IDs. It's not like you're going to have your transcripts forwarded. (Crazy cultists dominate public school administration offices!)
Anyway, weird stuff happens, and they end up back in Silent Hill itself, a town which attracts no particular attention despite being shrouded in a constant mist, and swallowing up anyone who happens to accidentally stumble into it.
I'm snarking, but the atmosphere is good. There are some good surprises and some very good imagery (the first excelled in imagery) along with some dubious CGI and gratuitous Malcolm McDowell.
The acting is reasonable. The eminently decapitatable Sean Bean reprises his role from the original, as does Deborah Kara Unger and even Radha Mitchell in a short cameo. Inexplicably replacing Jodelle Ferland (Case 39) is Adelaide Clemens. Carrie-Anne "Will Never Be Known For Anything But The Matrix" Moss, plays a witch, sorta. Sean Bean's son-from-another-show Kit Harrington plays the, uh, love interest.
Roberto Campanella is back as Pyramid-Head Dude. Though I think he's had a change of heart from the first flick.
Obviously, we're not talking about a masterpiece here. But it's surprisingly watchable, takes itself seriously enough without bogging down, and is over quickly.
Hey, I didn't say our standards were always high. But it's surprising how long they go without being met.
I don't know. Maybe we're just in a good mood. Anna Karenina is one of the movies we avoided seeing when it came out. The trailer looked reasonably interesting, but the Joe Wright/Keira Knightly collaboration record is…spotty.
Their 2005 collaboration on Pride and Prejudice is my favorite filmed version of the book, a heretical statement among lovers of Austen. But P&P is a fast-paced book, light without being frivolous, socially aware (for the early 1800s) without being preachy, and romantic without being sappy. Wright's interpretation (with script help from Emma Thompson) clears out the stuffiness you usually get.
On the other hand, Atonement was squirm-in-your-chair bad, as chronicled in this early review.
The reviews on Anna Karenina were tepid, which tells little, though audiences and critics were similarly "meh". The only moviegoer I ran into who had actually seen it actively disliked the central conceit of the film, which pretty much guarantees an unpleasant experience.
This is the story of a young, earnest mother (Knightly), married to an older, important Russian official (played winningly by Jude law), who becomes obsessed with a handsome cavalry officer (Mr. Kick-Ass himself, Aaron Taylor-Johnson) and fairly quickly goes to Hell, figuratively at first, but ultimately (presumably) literally.
The central conceit of the film is to have much of it take place on a (literal) stage, and in the auditorium for the stage. I wondered at first if, perhaps, this was a budgetary consideration: Replacing several costly sets with a decorated stage, e.g., might save some money. But the way it's shot and presented, I can't imagine they saved very much, if anything.
(Actually, a quick Google search reveals that, no, it was the exact opposite of a budgetary consideration, it was an expensive flash of inspiration.)
I think, ultimately, it was a metaphor made literal: This is the story of how we act on our desires stands up to public scrutiny.
The upside of the approach is it allows for Wright to stage absolutely gorgeous and sometimes audacious shots. The Flower identified the movie from the trailer as "the movie with the indoor ice skating rink." Then there's a horse race on stage. That'd be the "audacious", though it does stress the limits of CGI past the breaking point (as The Boy observed).
The downside of the approach is it yanks you out of the story, repeatedly, throughout. The metaphor seems even more stressed than the CGI, and you're initially drawn out wondering if some aspects of the film aren't meant to be real, but later on left puzzled as to why only some scenes take place on the stage while others do not.
Even now, I can't help but wonder if there's a pattern to the elements that took place on the stage (representing public life) versus those that took place under the stage (representing humdrum activities, that are public yet ignored, maybe?). I'm sort of left thinking it was based on what looked cool.
Not that that's necessarily bad. The Flower adapted pretty quickly and The Boy didn't seem too bothered. Might be harder for old guys like me to accept.
The acting is pretty much what you'd expect: Really good, unless you have a problem with the actors going in. Like, if you think Knightly's too skinny to be hot—or Taylor-Johnson is too skinny for that matter to be the dashing cavalryman. The supporting cast is excellent, too: The cream of the under-60 English acting crop, like Matthew MacFayden, Kelly MacDonald (Brave, No Country For Old Men) and Olivia Williams, for example.
Dario Marianelli's score delivers. Masterful blocking and staging. Definitely a work of art.
But will you enjoy it? Both The Boy and The Flower did, and seemed to more than I did. I wouldn't give it a "meh", exactly, but I can see why others might.


text:
O Guarani (zeitgenössische Schreibweise: O Guarany) ist ein 1857 erschienener historischer Roman von José de Alencar und eines der bedeutendsten Werke der brasilianischen Romantik. Die Opernadaption von Antônio Carlos Gomes (1870) gilt als Meilenstein der brasilianischen Musikgeschichte.

Allgemeines
Er erzählt die Geschichte des jungen Eingeborenen Peri und der Familie des portugiesischen Adligen Dom Antonio de Mariz, der mit seiner Frau Lauriana und seinen Kindern Diogo und Cecília, sowie seiner Nichte Isabel und einigem Gefolge ins derzeit noch nicht vollkommen erschlossene Brasilien emigriert, um so vor der Fremdherrschaft in seinem Heimatland zu fliehen. Von 1580 bis 1640 wurde Portugal nämlich in Personalunion des spanischen und portugiesischen Königs von Madrid aus regiert.

"O Guarani" ist der erste Teil einer Trilogie über die Eingeborenen Brasiliens, die der Autor in den Jahren 1865 mit dem Roman "Iracema" und 1874 mit "Ubirajara" vervollständigte.

Handlung
Die Handlung setzt ein, nachdem der Sohn Dom Antonios, Diogo, während der Jagd versehentlich eine junge Indianerin aus dem Volk der Aimorés tötet. Die Aimorés sinnen nun auf Rache und haben einen Plan geschmiedet um die Tochter Antonios, Cecília zu töten, doch Peri kommt ihnen zuvor und rettet der schönen Ceci, wie er sie fortan nennt, das Leben. Damit nicht genug, im weiteren Verlauf macht er ihr ein ungewöhnliches aber doch in die Epoche der Romantik durchaus passendes Versprechen: dass er sie vor jeglicher Gefahr beschützen werde.  So bleibt es nicht aus, dass Peri Ceci bald ein zweites Mal das Leben retten muss. Als ein riesiger Stein auf die wehrlose Ceci zurollt und sie unter sich zu begraben droht, zeigt Peri wieder sein heroisches Talent und schafft es unter Anwendung übermenschlicher Kräfte, Stein und Unheil abzuwehren.

Solche Taten bleiben beim noblen Dom Antonio nicht unbelohnt und so wird Peri als eine Art "Schutzengel" seiner Tochter, für welche er (Peri) eine tiefe Bewunderung empfindet, bald im Haus des Adligen aufgenommen, entgegen dem Willen seiner (Antonios) Gattin, die die Eingeborenen verabscheut und auch in Peris Fall nicht in der Lage zu sein scheint, zu differenzieren. Doch kaum hat er sich im Hause Mariz eingelebt, da droht schon neue Gefahr. Die Aimorés, unerbittlich noch immer auf Rache sinnend, umzingeln das Haus des Adligen, der sich außer Stande sieht diese Gefahr abzuwenden. So sieht Peri nur einen Ausweg: Er selbst will sich opfern, um die Familie Antonios und allen voran seine Geliebte Cecília vor dem Tod durch die mordlustigen Eingeborenen zu bewahren. Im sicheren Wissen, dass die Aimorés als primitives Naturvolk den morbiden Gelüsten des Kannibalismus frönen, schmiedet er den Plan, sich selbst zu vergiften und sich dann, noch ehe das Gift seine Wirkung entfacht, den Aimorés als Opfer zur Besänftigung derer Gemüter zu präsentieren. Nach seinem Tod sollen diese sich dann von seinem vergifteten Fleisch selbst ihre Henkersmahlzeit bereiten. Doch diesmal ist es Peri selbst, der gerettet wird.

Der junge Portugiese Alvaro aus dem Gefolge Antonios, der nach allem, was bis dahin geschah, im Übrigen auch Peri sein Leben zu verdanken hat, entreißt den Indianern voller Heldenmut den scheinbar sterbenden Perim welcher wie durch ein Wunder auch die eigens vorgenommene Vergiftung schadlos übersteht. Als nun die unermüdlichen Aimorés erneut angreifen, beauftragt Dom Antonio Peri damit, seine Tochter Cecília endgültig in Sicherheit, zu seiner (Antonios) Schwester nach Rio de Janeiro zu bringen. Doch vorher, damit Antonio sie gemeinsam ziehen lassen kann, nimmt Peri in einer eilig organisierten Zeremonie den christlichen Glauben an. Später lädt Peri wie vereinbart die schlafende Ceci in ein Kanu und flüchtet mit ihr über den Paraíba-Fluss in eine ungewisse Zukunft. In der Ferne sprengt Antonio sein Anwesen, indem er die Pulverkammer entzündet und jagt damit sich, die Seinen, aber auch die Eingeborenen in die Luft. Nur Ceci und Peri sind entkommen und der Erzähler vermittelt dem Leser mit den letzten Zeilen des Romans den glaubhaften Anschein, dass sich aus der Freundschaft, die die beiden von Anfang an verbunden hat, eine Liebe entwickelte, die unerschütterlich ist.

Opernadaption
1870 entstand die Oper Il Guarany von Antônio Carlos Gomes, dessen Vorlage der Roman war. Sie gilt als Meilenstein der brasilianischen Musikgeschichte. Sie feierte am Teatro alla Scala in Mailand ihre Uraufführung und wurde anschließend in ganz Europa gespielt.

Weblinks

Literarisches Werk
Literatur (19. Jahrhundert)
Literatur (Portugiesisch)
Brasilianische Literatur
Historischer Roman

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Q: How to Synchronize Filters Settings? When I start adjusting the first slider, the settings of the second get lost. Is it possible to sync all parameters?
@IBAction func amountSliderValueChanged(_ sender: UISlider) {
            let sliderValue = amountSlider.value

            filter = CIFilter(name: "CIColorControls")
            filter.setValue(beginImage, forKey: kCIInputImageKey)
            filter.setValue(sliderValue, forKey: kCIInputBrightnessKey)

            context = CIContext(options:nil)

           let cgimg = context.createCGImage(filter.outputImage!, from: filter.outputImage!.extent)
            let newImage = UIImage(cgImage: cgimg!)
            self.imageView.image = newImage

        }

@IBAction func exposureSlider(_ sender: UISlider) {
            let sliderValue = exposureSlider.value
            filter = CIFilter(name:"CIVignette")!
            filter.setValue(beginImage, forKey:kCIInputImageKey)
            filter.setValue(sliderValue * 2, forKey:"inputIntensity")
            filter.setValue(sliderValue * 30, forKey:"inputRadius")

          context = CIContext(options:nil)

          let cgimg = context.createCGImage(filter.outputImage!, from: filter.outputImage!.extent)
          let newImage = UIImage(cgImage: cgimg!)
          self.imageView.image = newImage }

A: You always need to apply both filters when either slider changes, e.g. by extracting the update into a function that you call in both IBActions:
func updateImage() {
    let brightnessValue = self.amountSlider.value
    let exposureValue = self.exposureSlider.value

    colorControlsFilter = CIFilter(name: "CIColorControls")
    colorControlsFilter.setValue(beginImage, forKey: kCIInputImageKey)
    colorControlsFilter.setValue(brightnessValue, forKey: kCIInputBrightnessKey)
    let colorControlsOutput = colorControlsFilter.outputImage!

    vignetteFilter = CIFilter(name:"CIVignette")!
    vignetteFilter.setValue(colorControlsOutput, forKey:kCIInputImageKey)
    vignetteFilter.setValue(exposureValue * 2, forKey:"inputIntensity")
    vignetteFilter.setValue(exposureValue * 30, forKey:"inputRadius")
    let vignetteOutput = vignetteFilter.outputImage!

    // Don't create a CIContext every time! Init it once and re-use it.
    let cgImage = self.context.createCGImage(vignetteOutput, from: vignetteOutput.extent)
    let newImage = UIImage(cgImage: cgImage!)
    self.imageView.image = newImage
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


Three unique academies on our campus connect students to their communities and to real and tangible possibilities for their futures.
Show your support for the Pacer Legacy -- visit our Web Store today!
A vast array of activities, teams, and clubs helps students tap into skills, gifts, talents and interests beyond the scope of classroom instruction.


You owe it to yourself and your washer to have your machine installed correctly.
Has the base space packer been removed? (Refer to 'Unpacking').
Is the drain hose threaded through the 'U bend' (with no more than 20 mm extended) and hooked into your tub or standpipe? (Refer to 'Drain hose').
Is the machine correctly levelled, feet are extended and cabinet corners are clear of the floor? (Refer to 'Levelling instructions').
FabricSmart™ offers a very generous 10 kg capacity. The list below outlines what is included in a 10 kg wash load (in accordance with AS/NZS 2040.1:2005).


In my Eventbrite event, attendees are required to fill in their billing address (there are no free tickets, all attendees are paid attendees). However, when I use Get Event Attendees action, the job report doesn't show any billing address info. Why is this?
If you have already confirmed that Billing Address is a required field in your event, another reason for this is that billing addresses are only collected when an attendee registers from a computer. If someone registers from a phone/tablet, the billing address is not collected.
Since Eventbrite does not collect and send that information to Workato, you will not have access to it from your recipe.


If last week we saw how Google launched Android factory images 5.0.2 Lollipop for the Nexus 7 Wi-Fi from 2013 and for the Nexus 10 now this week we see as it begins to get the Update OTA for the seven-inch tablet.
The Nexus 7 Wi-Fi (2013) they have already begun to receive Android 5.0.2 via OTA in a staggered fashion to correct more errors detected in Lollipop, although not all known errors. Who does not want to wait because you can manually update the tablet. Android 5.0.2 update is available for Wi-Fi for 2012 and 2013 models. Versions of connectivity 3G (2012) and LTE (2013) are still with Android 4.4.4 (KitKat).


Since we spend 60-70 days a year in hotels, spread over all programs so there's no real benefit, I'm trying to decide where to focus.
PS Last year we spent our 60-70 nights divided between Hyatt, Hilton, Starwood, Four Seasons and Shangri-La. And Novotel (HongKong – maybe our favorite).
I'll try to keep this a bit more brief than my usual responses to questions, but I don't think there's any short answer, it all comes down to what you value the most, much like the airline programs. With 60-70 nights you should be able to make top tier in at least one program easily, with the possible exception of Marriott. Benefits for top tier range anywhere from free breakfast/executive lounge access, to suite upgrades, to both.
Hotel status can be almost as valuable as airline status, if planned properly, and based on what I know about my friend as well as the hotels she lists, it looks like she's not looking for loyalty to Holiday Inn Express or Hampton Inn hotels, as much as I like them.
Let me give a very quick overview of the published benefits of top tier of the five major programs, Hilton, Hyatt, Marriott, Priority Club, and Starwood, as well as the obvious pros & cons of each.
Hilton: Hilton Diamond takes 28 stays/60 nights. The biggest benefit of being a Diamond with Hilton is executive lounge access or free breakfast. If you ask nicely you'll often get a suite upgrade as well, especially abroad based on what I've heard, and sometimes even without asking. While points don't accrue all that quickly with Hilton, they have some great award options, including the AXON, which I posted about here. You can also transfer AA miles to HH points at a 1:2 ratio, which simply can't be beat.
The other nice thing when starting from "scratch" for status with Hilton is that you can do a "challenge" to either Gold or Diamond. You can generally get a challenge to Gold for four stays in 90 days or to Diamond for 10 stays in 90 days, which is a nice way to basically get the status upfront. In terms of raw published benefits Gold and Diamond are very similar, but Diamond status usually nets better additional perks, as stated above.
Something which you might like about Hilton is the fact that they're basically everywhere in the world, and provide a relatively consistent product.
Hyatt: Hyatt Diamond status takes 25 stays/50 nights, so is just a bit easier than Hilton Diamond. The published benefits are similar– you get an upgrade to the executive level or free breakfast, as well as a points bonus.
Hyatt hotels, as I'm sure you know, are generally pretty good. My only concern with Hyatt for you would be that they aren't exactly everywhere in the world like Hilton is. That being said, I think they'd be in most places you travel to, so it's not a huge issue.
Another HUGE plus of Hyatt is their promotions, which are abundant. They sometimes have double stay credit promotions, and the best promo they've run consistently over the past few years is Faster Free Nights, where you earn a free night at any Hyatt in the world whenever you spend two nights at a Hyatt. So if you stay twice at the local $100/night Hyatt you could then stay at the Hyatt Sydney for free, assuming it has award space available.
Marriott: Marriott Platinum requires 75 nights, which is awfully steep considering the benefits. Once again you get upgraded to the executive level or get free breakfast, and technically also get the best non-suite available. They have some decent promos once in a while and good point earning opportunities, but since Marriott's aren't everywhere in the world and you usually spend 60-70 nights in a hotel, I wouldn't go with them.
PriorityClub/Intercontinental: PriorityClub is pretty worthless in your case, but Intercontinental would be great. They have "Royal Ambassador" status, which requires about 50 nights a year, and you get free drinks from the minibar, two level room upgrade, early check-in and late check-out guaranteed, as well as a bunch of other stuff. The status is great, but my fear in your case would be that there's not enough IC properties, and I doubt you want to stay in their partner hotels, Crowne Plazas and Holiday Inns. If you would actually spend about 50 nights a year at IC's despite the fact that they're not exactly everywhere, I would definitely go for it.
SPG: SPG requires 25 stays/50 nights for Platinum status. SPG is one of those programs you either love or couldn't care less about. SPG, as I'm sure you know, has a wide variety of hotels, from Westins, to Sheratons, to W hotels, etc., and as a result can offer varying benefits.
As a Platinum you get executive lounge access, although many SPG properties don't have lounges, and also technically get the best available room, including suites, but not specialty suites. The problem is that some hotels pretend like they don't have suites available, so you can either get very little, or a good chunk of the time do very well on upgrades. They also often have double stay credit promos, which makes earning status easier.
If you play your cards right with SPG, they would be good for you, in my opinion. Research which hotels offer good upgrades via FlyerTalk.com, and book those, and I doubt you'll be disappointed. They also have great redemption options, including the ability to do an award using some cash and some points, which is often the best deal.
Conclusion: In your case I would evaluate which cities you stay in most, and research the various hotels that each chain offers in those cities. In your case I would say your best bet is between Hilton, Hyatt, and SPG, leaning towards Hilton or SPG. They're both chains which are almost everywhere in the world, or at least where you would most likely travel, and both offer good benefits for the amount of loyalty required.
If anyone has any other advice, feel free to add on, or if anyone has questions, go for it. Sorry, I guess that wasn't really as brief as I had hoped.
I've been Hilton Diamond for years…I don't really find the status helps me very much. The rooms I get are almost never any nicer than when I wasn't diamond.
There are a few positives: They do give free bottled water now. You earn points at all the Hilton family hotels (Doubletree, Embassy Suites, etc.). They let you choose a "benefit" at each brand – I chose free internet access for all brands where it was offered.
Lucky, Can you comment a bit more on the ease in redemption at each brand? I read on FlyerTalk that Marriott has great promotions but their points are really only worth a third of what points at other chains are – is that true? However, Marriott has those 7 night discounted stay deals which are supposed to be a good redemption value.
I recentIy redeemed points at a Hilton and was treated like a second class citizen – I got the smallest room in the property – they said it was because I was staying for "free" which I found pretty offensive because it certainly didn't feel free when I spent all those nights at various hitlon properties to earn the points (guess FlyerTalk research would have told me not to book that particular property). In any case, the Hiltons seem wide open for redemption and you can book award stays last minute with ease. I've heard at some programs you have to lock in award reservations well in advance. I'd love to hear your thoughts.
Hilton- No blackout dates, which is a very nice benefit. I'm surprised to hear that you were treated as a second class citizen, but it seems like that was because of the specific property. The cool thing about redeeming points with Hilton is that you get full elite benefits on award stays, in contrast to some other chains. So if you can pay for a room, you can book an award…. it's awesome!
Hyatt- Has restrictions as well, and it can be somewhat tough to find awards during peak times at peak properties, so more traditional in that sense. To be honest I don't have all that much experience with them, so that's all I can say.
Marriott- While they have blackouts, I've found their availability to be generally good. I find Marriott point redemption to not be that good of a deal for a short stay, but it can be a real day on a seven night stay, like you say, since their "price" goes down substantially. Personally I like to spend less than seven nights in a certain place, but I can see it being a great deal for certain people that like being in one place for longer.
Priority Club- Has restrictions and by policy doesn't honor elite benefits on award stays. This is where you can really be treated as a second class citizen, especially as a Royal Ambassador. For example, at the IC Thalasso (Bora Bora), instead of putting you in a bungalow you get what used to be the staff room, not to mention no other recognition. Very poor performance on their part.
Starwood- Same thing as Hilton, no blackout dates, which is great. Their cash and points option is restricted, but still, it's a good deal. Generally speaking without an SPG credit card it takes quite a bit of staying at SPG properties to actually earn a substantial number of points, so that's a bit of a negative in that sense.
Sorry I don't have more detailed info, but I'm hoping someone else will chime in.


text:
Will LEONARDO DI CAPRIO Make An Appearance On The 'Stranger Things'?
Posted at May 22, 2018
Even the younger generation—more specifically Millie Bobby Brown—won't be able to resist Leonardo Di Caprio's charms. But what we didn't see coming is for the young actress to actually invite the Oscar winner to star in Stranger Things.
Speaking to the Press Association, Millie said she'd love to act alongside the veteran actor as Eleven's long-lost brother. "I have already made a storyline. Leo, if you want to be in Stranger Things, here's the contract," she offered.
Millie Bobby Brown wants Leonardo DiCaprio to play her long-lost brother: "I have already made a storyline. Leo, if you want to be in Stranger Things, here's the contract."
(Via @PA) pic.twitter.com/n9HNDZZZde
— Stranger Facts (@UpsideDownFacts) May 21, 2018
And with the 14-year-old star's creative juice, it's not far-fetched that the writers of the show may be on board with her idea. As a matter of fact, Millie has a producer credit on the film adaptation of Nancy Springer's Enola Holmes Mysteries. See what we're talking about here?
Also, don't forget: Season 3 production of the Netflix hit series is officially underway!

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


At a loss for the perfect gift this time of year? Get your Green and order a 2017 St. Pat's sweatshirt! The Best Ever St. Pat's celebration is just a few months away, so start preparing to visit Rolla for our annual tradition.


text:
LIDO BEACH HOUSE
Located in Lido Beach, Brooklyn, this residence is within walking distance of the waterfront and takes its inspiration from the local landscape.
The front garden is a selection of coastal perennials, displaying the seasonal qualities of native asters, roses, and seaside goldenrod. Through the gate, the dining area and fireplace lounge are framed by bayberries and amelanchier, offering privacy from the adjacent street and a more intimate scale. A large deck wraps around the home to connect the pool, spa, and sundeck to the interior of the home as a backdrop of running water from the stone fountain enhances the quiet intimacy within the garden. The cadence of spaces feel like an extension of the home into the local landscape while also maintaining a sense of visual and audial privacy.
© 2023 Lou Arencibia LLC. All Rights Reserved


Quite day with just a few notes to share. Some days are like that.
Adieu Miami and hello Hampton Roads. So is the life of SCOTT CRAVEN, who was hard at work this November at WGNT in Norfolk, VA. The CBS owned CW station's creative efforts are headed by Chris Wolfe, who came up from Florida as well. Scott was at Miami's WB39 in Hollywood. The East coast version.
Get our your crayons, we've got news about Nickelodeon Preschool. ANGELA LEANEY is now SVP Creative Director.
And over in the Valley, ALLIE CARSIA is the new Director of Marketing for Hallmark Channel and Hallmark Movie Channel. Previously, Carsia was with Reed Television Group.


text:
Back to God's Country
January 20, 2020 / Colin McGuigan
Rugged outdoor adventures have a timeless appeal and I think it's true too that the cold weather variety carry with them an invigorating quality, as though the crisp, chilled air blasting the protagonists on the screen adds a little freshness and energy to our viewing. A film such as Back to God's Country (1953) is a largely formulaic affair yet is enlivened considerably by its sub-polar setting. Of course, following a formula need not necessarily be seen as a failing; handling and execution are key elements and, with the movie in question, I feel director Joseph Pevney brings a briskness to the piece that makes its hour and a quarter running time positively zip along.
It's the late 19th century and we're in the icy north of Canada. Peter Keith (Rock Hudson) is running a schooner trading fur pelts in the US and is keen to get underway before the winter freeze sets in and leaves his vessel unable to sail. As such, he's vexed to receive an official letter ordering him to remain in port until an inspection can be made of his cargo. That would mean a delay which might well see him sealed in for the season and the consequent hit to his finances it would entail. While he and his wife Dolores (Marcia Henderson) have made up their minds to ignore the order and put to sea anyway, it comes to the attention of both that there might be something fishy about the whole thing. Local bigwig Paul Blake (Steve Cochran) is expansive and hospitable yet there's an oiliness about him and it looks like he may be behind the request, partly for financial gain and partly (maybe even mostly) because he far from honorable designs on Dolores. Thus, with rivalry and subterfuge established, the scene is set for a showdown which will play out for the most part over a couple of enforced journeys through the frozen wastes.
Back to God's Country appears to have been filmed twice before, back in the silent era, and I can see how the combination of adventure, melodrama and romance would have drawn filmmakers eyeing a source with reasonably wide appeal. Now I've no idea how Pevney's movie compares with those earlier iterations, and indeed I don't even know whether they still exist or are available for viewing. What I can say though is that this movie represents a marvelous piece of escapism, a no-nonsense slice of entertainment with that characteristic aesthetic one associates with Universal-International pictures. The combination of studio shooting and some location work in Colorado and Idaho is handled most attractively by cinematographer Maury Gertsman, with Pevney marshaling it all with pace and energy. The story holds no real surprises, and arguably has its fair share of cliches, but the meanness, the naked self-interest and almost perverse covetousness of the villain add an edge and an unexpected extra layer.
Steve Cochran was born to play villains, his self-assurance and grace offer a sheen of sophistication, while all the time there's a gleam in his eye that hints at a ruthlessness any time the main chance wanders into view. By and large, he plays it cool but there is one scene in particular – an assault on Henderson – where he, unfortunately, cuts loose and indulges in the kind of eye-rolling, over-the-top hammy histrionics that would put many a mustache-twirling cartoon cad to shame. His character is of course a thoroughly bad lot, a blackmailer and master manipulator with a history of grabbing possession of whatever and whoever he wants. And there's a sadistic side to him that goes beyond mere greed, his treatment of Hugh O'Brian's forger is a case in point, holding him in what amounts to bonded labor. O'Brian does well in that part too, allowing his natural charm to soften his own villainy and act as a counterpoint to Cochran's.
Pitted against these two are Rock Hudson and Marcia Henderson, and they make for an attractive and resourceful couple. Hudson was in the process of building his career at the studio (a career that Ross Hunter and Douglas Sirk would soon move to a whole different level) and this type of role, while not all that demanding dramatically, was the kind of thing that couldn't hurt. He gets to play it tough and heroic, even in the latter half of the movie when a broken leg sees him essentially confined to a sled. A good deal of the drama arises from a combination of Cochran's machinations, the deteriorating weather conditions, and also some frankly poor decisions on the part of Hudson's character. He makes amends for them, naturally, but this also gives Henderson the opportunity to prove her mettle. She too displays a hard edge when the chips are down, playing well off Hudson and holding her own quite convincingly when she has to.
Back to God's Country may not be all that well-known but nor should it be all that difficult to locate. There seem to have been DVDs released pretty much everywhere – I have this Italian version which seems to have gone out of print and been replaced by another by the same company claiming a Hi-Def restoration – still, I'd imagine all will be using the same transfer. Generally, it looks OK, but there is a bit of damage and overall ageing visible. Sometimes I think I could happily spend my days watching, and writing about, nothing but Universal-International movies; they're that entertaining. There's a polish and professionalism on show that mean even undemanding and average efforts like this offer a good deal of viewing pleasure.
Another view of the movie, from Laura, can also be accessed here.
1950s, Joseph Pevney, Rock Hudson, Steve Cochran
← The Plunderers
Larceny →
31 thoughts on "Back to God's Country"
Another one I need to catch up with and thanks for the Italian language link! Look forward to the location shooting, which I imagined was mainly reserved for James Stewart's Westerns 🙂
It's enjoyable, in the way that so many Universal-International movies are, with a highly capable cast and crew making everything look smooth.
As for the locations, to be honest, I'd say the majority of the film is shot in and around the studio, with some fine looking mock ups, but there is clearly some location work in there too. IMDB says Idaho and Colorado, although I know it's not always the most reliable source.
Thanks for that. Fair enough, Universal was a very parsimonious studio but like you, I love their releases from the 50s and 60s in particular.
Yes, in the U-I years, that parsimony seemed to stimulate the artistry of the filmmakers.
That smile should be happy darn it! 😀
It is now ! 😀
Blake Lucas
" His character is of course a thoroughly bad lot, a blackmailer and master manipulator with a history of grabbing possession of whatever and whoever he wants."
That's kind of an interesting thing to say today, isn't it? (Just saying…)
Will add to that re Steve Cochran, yes he's effective in a role like this and does seem to be born to play villains but isn't that partly because he was cast that way so much and did so well with it. As a tormented, tragic figure at the center of Antonioni's IL GRIDO, he is also superb, indeed haunting. He has some other sympathetic characters that he did well with too, if not so often.
In any event, yes, it's a very enjoyable movie, with those great U-I aesthetics. They did a share of remakes of their old movies in this period, usually to good effect, and with the melodramas Sirk made, they could be sublime, especially in the case of IMITATION OF LIFE. That wonderful art direction, Technicolor look (or black and white too!), creative blend of sets and some locations, all the things you observe here.
Though, Colin, I really believe you neglected to mention that dog, who has a pretty important role here.
I made a few comments about Pevney in the last piece and not sure this is the place to carry on with that. Yes, he did pretty well with it, probably as good a choice as U-I would have made among their contract people; but the material doesn't really play to his greatest strengths, which are really not with what is at heart a matinee type of picture (let me assure that I tend often to like these and do like this one) but with more quietly moody things, in melodrama like my favorite THE MIDNIGHT STORY but even in the Capraesque comedy of an unexpected gem like IT HAPPENS EVERY THURSDAY. Not to say he does not have some range–a lot of genres came his way and he could find his way with them, but with most directors, what artistry they have may come most alive when stimulated by certain kinds of material, and he's no exception.
I offer this comment in context of having seen all of Pevney's theatrical features except JUST ACROSS THE STREET (wish I could see it!).
I will quote you again:
"Sometimes I think I could happily spend my days watching, and writing about, nothing but Universal-International movies; they're that entertaining."
I have felt that way too. At one time, I listed all their movies (those actually produced by the studio, and excluding other releases) and felt if I could spend a couple of years seeing them all in something like chronological order, I'd try to write a book or at least a lengthy article.
Just a pipe dream. Seems like they will never come close to all being available, and formats (aspect ratio) appear compromised with a few movies that we know about. Still in that imaginary cinematheque in heaven…
Working backwards through this, Blake. Personally, while I mourn the absence of certain U-I titles and the lees than stellar versions of others, I still find myself feeling quite spoiled at times when I realize how much I am able to access. I'd so love to have more but if what we have now is all I ever got, then I'd still say I was pretty satisfied.
On Pevney, I haven't seen enough of his movies at this point to form as clear a judgement as you have on his favored material, though I'm happy to take your word on what seemed to best fit that category. I look forward to digging deeper into those works in the future and I'm grateful for the pointers.
The dog. Yes you're right, I did neglect to mention him and the fact the film is essentially bookended and thus given that classic, circular structure by two important scenes featuring the character.
I hope I didn't give the impression I was aiming any criticism as Cochran on grounds of lack of versatility – that wasn't my intention anyway – but just observing how in villainous roles (which are the ones I'm most familiar with) he seemed very much at home. I've never seen Il Gridobut I'm quite keen to do so now.
As for the quoted sentence you opened with, I hadn't thought about that having an application outside the context of the movie character here, but it could indeed be interpreted in a different way.
Yes, there are a lot more U-I movies available now than when I first started thinking along those lines (really, there were few then–finally, the cable station American Movie Classics had access to what may have most of them, though that just lasted a few years). Now, things are a lot better–and I'm grateful for that too–plenty to see or get back to.
Really, for an example there was no way to see BACK TO GOD'S COUNTRY for so many years. And I'd always wanted to see it (missed it back in 1953, a key year for me seeing movies and maybe still the year closest to my heart at least partly for that reason).
I do wish the studio cared a little more. Should add that I may have been a little careless about available versions. I do believe it was the digital copies that were lost in the fire and that they have all the original negatives if they'd restore from those. But realistically, I'm not expecting that anytime soon.
Yes, while it's impossible to overstate how important it was/is to retain the original materials, the fact so many digital copies appear to have been destroyed remains distressing from the perspective of the viewer.
I have not seen this. When I came to know about it, I thought it was a western ala The Man From God's Country and was mistaken. I have always like Cochran as a villian as in Shotgun and The Deadly Companions. Regarding you and Blake's comments on Universal's releases of 50s and 60s,I have fond memories of them as weekend matinees. Best regards.
No, this isn't a western, Chris, but there are certain features present which are shared with that genre, not altogether surprising I suppose given the time period.
Jerry Entract
Gosh, I just can't imagine to whom you might be alluding, Blake! (Just can't imagine……)
I fully agree with the assessment and love for U.I. films of those wonderful years. Rarely does one come away from any of them dissatisfied. They nearly all have a 'look' and quality about them that stand up so well today, quite a few being true classics.
Rock Hudson was nurtured there of course until his stardom was assured. I think my dear Mum must have been a big fan – she took me along to see him starring in "GIANT" (1956), which was a very long and pretty adult film for a 8 year-old though I loved it (I was already hooked on movies), and again in "BATTLE HYMN".
Colin, apologies for rambling slightly off-topic.
Not at all, Jerry. It's not as though I worry much about "off-topic" comments anyway, everyone's welcome to go in whatever direction they like as far as I'm concerned.
This post has generated some most interesting discussions,and I too if I may would like to work backwards or forwards depending on ones point of view.
Needless to say I'm enjoying Colin's mini "Pevney Fest" although this time I have only seen BACK TO GOD'S COUNTRY at a revival cinema back in the 60's. The film is the closest Pevney came to directing a 50's Universal Western whereas other Universal contract directors (George Sherman,Boetticher, Nathan Juran and Jesse Hibbs) made several Douglas Sirk made just one Western TAZA,SON OF COCHISE and was soon to launch Rock Hudson into superstardom as opposed to being merely a contract player.
I'd also like to take time out to mention Steve Cochran who might have had a better career had he been distracted from,by all accounts,his constant pursuit of the fairer sex. He did,on several occasions get to play more sensitive roles, especially in Louis King's THE LION AND THE HORSE. This Bryan Foy production (Cochran was a Foy regular) was in deep contrast to the monsters that he played in HIGHWAY 301 and INSIDE THE WALLS OF FOLSOM PRISON,both excellent films I might add. Sadly the Warner Archive DVD of THE LION AND THE HORSE is in very bad shape and I'm not holding my breath for a restored Blu Ray version. 1956 again saw Cochran show his sensitive side firstly in R.G.Springsteen's COME NEXT SPRING a lovely little piece of Americana regarded by many as R.G.'s masterwork. COME NEXT SPRING was a pet project for Cochran. Cochran came to England to make Val Guest's THE WEAPON a decent thriller with sensational location work of a now vanished London. THE WEAPON again showed Cochran's sensitive side. I'm also rather fond of the two oddball Albert Zugsmith/Charles Haas thrillers THE BIG OPERATOR and THE BEAT GENERATION, which hit the target with their sleazy sensationalism and striking widescreen black & white compositions. Again Cochran is the good guy in these two,offbeat and interesting films. Although Cochran passed away at a young age there are enough gems in his filmography to amount to a considerable legacy.
Seeing as you mentioned The Weapon, John, I just want to say that I have that on my radar for some point in the next few months, although I'm so snowed under with work type stuff that I can't actually promise anything. And the same goes for Pevney movies – I did have in mind another title to extend this little run, but I don't know if I can get round to it. Maybe.
I had, in my Cochran piece meant to mention that when Steve crossed the pond his libido had certainly not cooled down, I recall a tempestuous relationship with an English starlet but not having Jerry behind me as a prompt, forgot which one. It was in fact Sabrina-thanks to Google! Anyway their antics made for sensational headlines at the time. Only English cats of Jerry's and my generation will remember Sabrina.
Anyway back to the topic in question-I am most interested in Blake's comment that master negs of all those beloved Universal pictures still exist-I certainly
hope so. I also find it odd that ALL of Universal's classic Horror films and all the monster mash up spin offs now are available in high definition. This includes all the second string thrillers MAN MADE MONSTER,HORROR ISLAND, THE MAD DOCTOR OF MARKET STREET,THE MAD GHOUL and so on. Furthermore virtually all of Universal's 50's classic Sci Fi wave now exist in high def from classics like TARANTULA! to the not so classic LEECH WOMAN. The only title in less than stellar condition is the wacky THING THAT COULDN'T DIE which I understand the DVD was sourced from a 16mm master.
It would indeed be wonderful if these much sought after Universal CinemaScope pictures finally surface: ISTANBUL, WILD AND THE INNOCENT, DAY OF THE
BADMAN, NEVER STEAL ANYTHING SMALL…I could go on but I won't.
John K., Pevney's THE LADY FROM TEXAS (1951) is an actual Western, lighter than BACK TO GOD'S COUNTRY or later THE PLUNDERERS.
Along with TAZA, SON OF COCHISE, Sirk's TAKE ME TO TOWN (1953) is a also a Western of a kind, very charming and one of the director's best movies.
Sirk liked Westerns, if anyone is wondering about that.
I believe THE LEECH WOMAN deserves to be a classic. Really, it's very under appreciated, with one of Coleen Gray's best performances and interesting direction by Edward Dein. I could go on–another time maybe.
I've not seen Take Me to Town>/em>, Blake, but I'm always keen to see more Sirk.
Thanks Blake, THE LADY FROM TEXAS certainly an oversight on my part and I always thought TAKE ME TO TOWN (which I've never seen) more Americana…BTW Elephant Films,France have it announced as a DVD release.
I too love THE LEECH WOMAN I just don't feel it has the same profile as other 50's Universal Sci-Fi Horror films. I do believe Coleen had great affection for the film as it's the only one of her pictures where she received top billing. The point I was trying to make, albeit quiet badly, was that it's odd that Universal have been able to source high masters of nearly all their Horror and Sci Fi films-I guess this is due to the huge purchasing power of fans of these type of films and their ever evolving fanbase-new kids coming on board with every generation.
Colin – I feel that you will enjoy THE WEAPON great London location work,normally lovable George Cole as the slimy villain and Lizabeth Scott's single mother cafe waitress very downbeat for the era. THE WEAPON is the type of picture that made Chris Wicking comment that at that time Val Guest was the closest thing the UK had to a Siegel or a Fuller.
THE BEAT GENERATION is the type of film I wish would get more on line exposure (in Colin's to be watched pile, perhaps) at any rate Mark at Where Danger Lives did a great piece on it sometime back.
BTW, Chris it was Zachary Scott in SHOTGUN not Cochran, just thought I'd point that out…hope you don't mind 🙂
John, I think it is true that horror and Sci-Fi does a pretty big, sustainable and enthusiastic fan base, and I imagine this fact does play a role in how deep into the catalogue studios are prepared to dig and subsequently restore. Ultimately, that's fair enough I guess – they are running a business after all.
I don't think I've ever seen The Beat Generation, but what I've read suggests it might well be something that would appeal to me.
Colin, Mark's review over at Where Danger Lives gives you a fair guide of what to expect. Mark's been rather quiet of late,I don't know if his fine blog
is still being up-dated. Mark reviews THE BEAT GENERATION as part of a Ray Danton double bill with THE NIGHT RUNNER another of those hard to track down Universal titles. THE BEAT GENERATION is offbeat and very quirky and heaven only knows what Richard Matheson made of the end product. Charles Haas made I think, four films with the notorious Albert Zugsmith and of those four I've never seen GIRL'S TOWN but would really like to.
It's also interesting that it would seem Mamie Van Doren considered Haas the best director that she ever worked with. I remember years back over at Toby's a writer named Stephen Bowie tracked down Mr Haas before his passing age 97. Stephen said that Mr Haas was just waiting for someone to knock on his door and discuss his career. Too bad it never happened sooner. Stephen was, as it happens, more interested in Charles Haas' numerous TV credits. A couple of Haas Universal Westerns have, I believe, been discussed here before: STAR IN THE DUST and SHOWDOWN AT ABILENE. They are both very good and for some reason I thought the latter had been given the RTHC treatment.
In closing, Colin, I think that you will enjoy both THE BEAT GENERATION and THE BIG OPERATOR which despite their flaws have several appealing points, especially the eclectic list of players in both films.
Thanks for the follow up, John. And particularly for the reminder of the Where Danger Lives site and write-up – which can be found here.
Although……..according to IMDb, Rory was involved in the production of SHOTGUN……….
Screenplay: Rory Calhoun, Clarke Reynolds, John C. Champion
Quite true, Scott, although the initial mix-up related to Steve Cochran.
Oops!……I always get those two mixed up.
Thank you John. What a mistake! My humble apologies. Best regards.
Gordon Gates
LOL The first time I saw this was when I was about 10 years old and living in Whitehorse in the Yukon. I would need a re-watch before I could give an opinion on the film itself. I'll need to add this to the list. Thanks for the heads up on this long forgotten (for me) title.
I reckon it's a good and entertaining movie, Gord – not a first rate piece or anything but well made and basically fun.
Pingback: Undercover Girl | Riding the High Country
Pingback: Canyon River | Riding the High Country


As the grilling season comes close,every one wants to get their taste buds drenched in delicious grilled food ,so for this reason alone and to make your family and friends happy with your grilled food on the evening party we have come up with some of the best iphone apps to ramp up your grilling skill for cooking different food items in gas grills and best charcoal grills to get some lip smacking taste form your grilled food for you and your friends this season .
so come on guys without a do lets take a look at some of the best grilling apps given right below.
It comes at a price point which will not put a hole in your pocket ,so if you want something good and effective in grilling without spending too much on app then go for it ,and you wont regret .
Grill time is a timer based grilling app which helps you to keep an eye on time when you are grilling different food items like meat etc to get the perfect color and taste without burning your food too much .
you can choose from variety of food items to cook accordingly ,this app comes very handy when you are grilling multiply items for a home party etc as it gives reminders about when to flip the food etc .
It's one of the best recipes manage app on iphone that i use as it helps me to get the recipes of my favorite food in no time to make some Delicious grilled recipes every time .
The cloud sync feature of this app allows you to sync all your recipes across all devices to get it every where and also you can go to any website and clip the recipe real fast to save it in app for cooking the food later to make yummy food for all .
• Smart recipe view: cross off ingredients when you're done with them, highlight your current step, and keep the screen on while you are cooking.
If you are a visual learner and loves to see pictures to get a clear idea then this app is for you to learn to grill like never before .
It comes with 70+ recipes to teach to step by step how to cook them in perfect way which would make you a expert from novice once you start using this app .
– 72 grill recipes are enhanced with more than 600 high-resolution photos that make the most of the Retina display.
– All recipes are shown in professional step-by step photos.
– A search function makes it easy to locate dishes based on ingredients or recipes.
– Ingredient lists can be e-mailed.
– Mark your favorite recipes as favorites. Simply tap the lower-right corner of a recipe on the overview page.
– You can add your own notes to recipes, too.
– Consumer information about the ingredients is readily available. Simply tap on the ingredient.
so go ahead and download this app to make some yummy grilled meals for all now.
I hope you liked our collection of some of the best grilling app above, so let us know which is your favorite grilling apps which you would be using every time to find yourself cooking on the best grill from grillsarena to make your evening cherishable with your family and mouth watering healthy food .


text:
Q: React query invalidateQueries partial match not working I have a few useQuery() calls in my react component like this:
const {...} = useQuery(["person.getAll", ....
const {...} = useQuery(["person.getCounts", ....

Then later in a click event after some DELETE/POST request is finished I try to invalidate above queries:
queryClient.invalidateQueries("person");

But it does not trigger the re-fetch.
I thought it's some state management issues from my part but then I tried invalidating a specific query like
queryClient.invalidateQueries("person.getAll");

and it works fine..
Is partial query key matching not working in react-query ?

A: React-Query invalidation works off based array prefixes, not string prefixes.
Your useQuery calls should look like this:
const {...} = useQuery(["person", "getAll", ....
const {...} = useQuery(["person", "getCounts", ....

And then you invalidateQueries call will work, with a slight change:
queryClient.invalidateQueries({
  queryKey: ["person"]
}); // invalidate all query keys which start with "person"

queryClient.invalidateQueries(["person"]); // this also works

Alternative, if you are locked into your current syntax, you can accomplish the same using a predicate:
queryClient.invalidateQueries({
  predicate: query =>
    query.queryKey[0].startsWith("person"),
})

But this breaks the React-Query convention.

A: If you see the last example in the invalidateQueries docs, it provides an option for maximum granularity

If you find yourself wanting even more granularity, you can pass a predicate function to the invalidateQueries method. This function will receive each Query instance from the query cache and allow you to return true or false for whether you want to invalidate that query:

So, for your scenario the following should work
queryClient.invalidateQueries({
  predicate: query =>
    query.queryKey[0].startsWith('person'),
})

A: This is a matter of how you are structuring the queryKey array. The first constant value of your queryKey array is a whole string, based on what you provided the partial matching won't work if you try to invalidate the queries based on just a part of that string. For this to work, you'd need to structure the queryKey array like so:
const {...} = useQuery(["person", "getAll", ....
const {...} = useQuery(["person", "getCounts", ....

Now the invalidation should work as expected because it's matching all queries that start with "person" in their query key:
queryClient.invalidateQueries(["person"]);

Reference of this on the docs


I really want to make a game on scratch where your character/you are a detective or a spy and it introduces you to the part of being a police that isn't the action, but actually looking for information and putting together reports. I think this game would be really fun because you can learn from it and it gives you a chance to actually feel what it would be like. The problem is, I have no idea how I'm going to make this. I'm definitely going to need help. So please, if anyone can help me, I NEED HELP. Thanks!
Trying to get recognition! I'd love if you checked out some of my original memes and my PMV Forest Fire.


At Viro Display we specialise in creating the perfect directional, changeable entrance signage for your business. Tasked with creating a small outdoor entrance sign for The Arab British Centre in London we pulled out all the stops to create the perfect sign.
With changeable inserts fitted magnetically to the back, the business are able to easily change over business names when needed. Printed on our UV Flatbed Printer with Aluminium composite this sign is rigid and effective.


In an interview, Bartholomäus Wasowicz talks about his career from a student of RWTH Aachen University to Head of Business Development at E.ON company "E.ON Connecting Energies". He gives an insight into the work at E.ON, interesting projects and advice for those who are interested.
The German interview can be found here.


I installed the 8.4 update just before going to sleep and only browsed quickly through the Apple Music catalog in the morning. My favourite feature at the moment is, that the (from Spotify) missing nine last John Sinclair episodes(here's the link to episode 96) are available there. Nice way, to use the free trial as I wanted to know how the whole thing ends.


text:
<?php

class Priv{

	public static $method;
	public static $action;

	public static $method_mpp;
	public static $action_mpp;

	public static function scan_privileges(){
		self::flush_privileges();
		$md_root = opendir(RUNTIME_DIR_MODULE);
		while(($md_dir = readdir($md_root)) !== false){
			$md = RUNTIME_DIR_MODULE . '/' . $md_dir;
			$mt = $md . '/method';
			if(is_dir($md) && file_exists($mt)){
				$mt_dir = opendir($mt);
				while(($mt_file = readdir($mt_dir)) !== false){
					if(is_file($mt . '/' . $mt_file)){
						$mt_name = substr($mt_file, 0, -4);
						if(!self::method_exists($md_dir, $mt_name)){
							DB::query("INSERT INTO `priv_method` (`module`,`method`,`name`,`mpp`) VALUES ('$md_dir','$mt_name','','')");
						}
					}
				}
			}
			$ae = $md . '/entrance.php';
			if(file_exists($ae)){
				include_once($ae);
				$class = new ReflectionClass('module_'.$md_dir);
				foreach ($class->getMethods() as $class_method) {
					$action_name = $class_method->getName();
					if(chr(ord($action_name)) != '_'){
						if(!self::action_exists($md_dir, $action_name)){
							DB::query("INSERT INTO `priv_action` (`module`,`action`,`name`,`mpp`) VALUES ('$md_dir','$action_name','','')");
						}
					}
				}
			}
		}
		self::check_deprecated();
		self::flush_privileges();
	}

	public static function flat_method(){
		return DB::all("SELECT * FROM `priv_method` ORDER BY `module`,`method`");
	}

	public static function flat_action(){
		return DB::all("SELECT * FROM `priv_action` ORDER BY `module`,`action`");
	}

	public static function check_deprecated(){
		$method = self::flat_method();
		$action = self::flat_action();
		foreach ($method as $m) {
			if(!file_exists(RUNTIME_DIR_MODULE . '/' . $m['module']) || !file_exists(RUNTIME_DIR_MODULE . '/' . $m['module'] . '/method/' . $m['method'] . '.php')){
				DB::query("DELETE FROM `priv_method` WHERE `module`='{$m['module']}' AND `method`='{$m['method']}'");
			}
		}
		foreach ($action as $a) {
			if(!lx_module($a['module'], $a['action'], false)){
				DB::query("DELETE FROM `priv_action` WHERE `module`='{$a['module']}' AND `action`='{$a['action']}'");
			}
		}
	}

	public static function current_method_mpp(){
		global $METHOD;
		if(empty($METHOD['name'])){
			return false;
		}
		self::start();
		if(isset(self::$method_mpp[$METHOD['module']]) && isset(self::$method_mpp[$METHOD['module']][$METHOD['method']])){
			return self::$method_mpp[$METHOD['module']][$METHOD['method']];
		}else{
			return false;
		}
	}

	public static function current_action_mpp(){
		global $_RG;
		$c = $_RG['PG_C'];
		$a = $_RG['PG_A'];
		self::start();
		if(isset(self::$action_mpp[$c]) && isset(self::$action_mpp[$c][$a])){
			return self::$action_mpp[$c][$a];
		}else{
			return false;
		}
	}

	public static function start(){
		if(empty(self::$method)){
			self::flush_privileges();
		}
	}

	public static function flush_privileges(){
		self::$method = array();
		self::$method_mpp = array();
		$ps = self::flat_method();
		foreach ($ps as $p) {
			if(empty(self::$method[$p['module']])){
				self::$method[$p['module']] = array();
				self::$method_mpp[$p['module']] = array();
			}
			self::$method[$p['module']][$p['method']] = $p['name'];
			self::$method_mpp[$p['module']][$p['method']] = $p['mpp'];
		}
		self::$action = array();
		self::$action_mpp = array();
		$ps = self::flat_action();
		foreach ($ps as $p) {
			if(empty(self::$action[$p['module']])){
				self::$action[$p['module']] = array();
				self::$action_mpp[$p['module']] = array();
			}
			self::$action[$p['module']][$p['action']] = $p['name'];
			self::$action_mpp[$p['module']][$p['action']] = $p['mpp'];
		}
	}

	public static function method_exists($module, $method){
		return isset(self::$method[$module]) && isset(self::$method[$module][$method]);
	}

	public static function action_exists($module, $action){
		return isset(self::$action[$module]) && isset(self::$action[$module][$action]);
	}

	public static function update_method_name($module, $method, $name){
		return DB::query("UPDATE `priv_method` SET `name`='$name' WHERE `module`='$module' AND `method`='$method'");
	}

	public static function update_action_name($module, $action, $name){
		return DB::query("UPDATE `priv_action` SET `name`='$name' WHERE `module`='$module' AND `action`='$action'");
	}

	public static function update_method_mpp($module, $method, $mpp){
		return DB::query("UPDATE `priv_method` SET `mpp`='$mpp' WHERE `module`='$module' AND `method`='$method'");
	}

	public static function update_action_mpp($module, $action, $mpp){
		return DB::query("UPDATE `priv_action` SET `mpp`='$mpp' WHERE `module`='$module' AND `action`='$action'");
	}
}

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaGithub


text:
NRA Sues Villanueva, Newsom in L.A. over Access to Firearms
LOS ANGELES (CNS) - Los Angeles County Sheriff Alex Villanueva and state Gov. Gavin Newsom were sued today in federal court by the NRA and other groups for allegedly using the coronavirus pandemic as an excuse to close gun stores in violation of the U.S. Constitution.
Attorneys for the NRA, 2nd Amendment Foundation, California Gun Rights Foundation and the Firearms Policy Coalition filed the complaint in Los Angeles federal court, seeking to have a judge order defendants not to prevent approved shoppers from buying and selling arms in accordance with state and federal laws.
The circumstances posed by the worsening COVID-19 outbreak ``are noteworthy, but do not excuse unlawful government infringements upon freedom,'' according to the lawsuit.
``In fact, the importance of maintaining the ongoing activities of essential businesses for the safety, health and welfare of Californians makes plaintiffs' point: the need for enhanced safety during uncertain times is precisely when plaintiffs and their members must be able to exercise their fundamental rights to keep and bear arms,'' the complaint states.
On Thursday, Villanueva ordered all gun shops closed and sales halted during the coronavirus pandemic unless buyers are police or security personnel. The sheriff had sought to implement the closure earlier this week but said he was told by county lawyers that gun shops could be considered ``essential businesses'' under new rules to encourage social distancing and cut the spread of the virus. The sheriff then backtracked and suspended the closure.
Newsom's office determined, however, that sheriffs do have the authority to make such closures.
Villanueva said only police officers and licensed security guards will be allowed to purchase weapons and ammunition at stores in county areas and cities patrolled by the sheriff's department.
``California's attack on fundamental rights in times of emergency must be stopped in its tracks,'' said Alan Gottlieb, founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation, one of the plaintiffs.
``This case is part of our mission to win firearms freedom one lawsuit at a time. And more, the lawsuits we are filing across the country are making a large number of other states, counties and cities think twice before closing down essential gun stores,'' Gottlieb said.