Lone Survivor is based on an incredible true story. My brother highly recommended it to me, saying he couldn’t put it down due to the non-stop, heart-pounding action.
Unfortunately, I have to disagree with him.
The pace I found to be slow and choppy. While having some interesting information on Iraq in Chapter 1, the author spent a lot of time telling us how perfect and awesome his comrades were. (As happened many, many times throughout the book.) Chapter 2 gave us a long passage on his childhood. Throughout the book, these stories recurred again and again along with diatribes about the greatness of President Bush, the evils of liberals and the liberal media, mixed in with long transitions to his Texas ranch when al-Qaeda is looking for him in Afghanistan. Not quite the non-stop, heart-pounding action I'd expect in an action novel.
It was the constant references to the greatness of his friends that threw me off the most. Perhaps the author needed filler material. Even fighting on the mountain, the most intense part of the novel which didn’t start until half way through the novel, was constantly broken up by telling the reader how awesome his fellow soldiers performed: how smart they were, how courageous, how durable, etc. It really pulled me out of the scene. I can’t imagine recreating the chaotic events on that mountain, but being interspersed with all of the author’s thoughts about his friends, the fight on the mountainside never seemed vivid, real. Sure there was blood, and ugly wounds to see, but when one soldier was hit four or five times and still running, I started to wonder how can someone be shot through the throat, gut, arm and other places by assault rifles and keep on running and shooting. It started to take on a sense of the absurd – even if it was true. Sometimes writing the truth can become unbelievable. When one of the SEALS finally died, I was surprised because by the time he did die, because they had been shot so many times and had kept on ticking.
The part I found most vivid, exciting and well written was Marcus’ SEAL training. It was well-paced, interesting, the characters were solid and the story kept us wondering what would be in store for Marcus next.
But the long passages about his childhood, the Texas ranch, political ramblings and the perfectness of his friends kept pulling me out of the core story just when the book would get moving.
If you’re looking for a well-written, fast-paced action novel based on a true-event like Black Hawk Down, this is not it. If you’re someone who wants to know what it takes to be a SEAL, read a biography of a SEAL since his childhood, learn about the terrible SEAL tragedy in Afghanistan, and you had - at a minimum - neutral feelings towards President Bush’s conduct and reasons for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, you’ll like Lone Survivor.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Transformers 2 - for kids?
Today, I took my son to see Transformers 2 to celebrate his 8 year-old birthday with four of his 8-year-old friends (one was 7 and a half). I gave the parents the PG-13 disclaimer and also a caution I received from someone who'd seen the movie that there was a lot of foul language. All the kids showed up.
And...
The boys loved it! They couldn't stop talking about the different robots and all of the fighting as they walked out of the theater pretending to be the different robots. Three other boys between 6 and 8 were play fighting by the door as we left. So from the kids POV, the movie got a 10.
From an adult perspective - one father said afterwards that his mind was still spinning from all the fighting. Yes, there was a lot of it, especially like the entire last hour.
The movie was entertaining. Yes, I enjoyed the first movie better - it was brand new and I think the fighting was better choreographed: you could always understand who punched who, who did what in a fight and so on. Sometimes there were so many robots and humans fighting all over the place in this one it became a jumble - I guess like a real war. And was that last hour ever a real war (the kids were jumping up in down in their seats when the bad transformers squared off against the good guys just before everyone opened fire).
I enjoyed the movie. Was it good for kids? It really wasn't any worse than the first one in terms of scary stuff.
The bad language, yes there was some, but it wasn't excessively vulgar.
The violence was the same, just more and longer battles.
Sexual situations - nothing really any worse than the first one.
The mild reference to drugs - I'd say 90% of 8 year olds would have no idea they were talking about drugs when the reference came up in the context that it did.
I'd say if your kid is 8 and up and liked the first Transformers movie, he shouldn't have a problem with this one. If he's under 8, it depends on your child's mindset. As I said, I wouldn't take my 6 year old son, but I'll definitely let him watch it on DVD. The rationale for this, the robot violence and loud sound for him would be too overwhelming in a theater, but on a small screen, he'd be fine with it. My 8-year-old son would've had no problem with the sound and violence in a theater when he was six. It depends on your son's mindset, tolerance for loud noises and maturity.
That being said - the kids I went with today loved it and they are no worse for wear.
And...
The boys loved it! They couldn't stop talking about the different robots and all of the fighting as they walked out of the theater pretending to be the different robots. Three other boys between 6 and 8 were play fighting by the door as we left. So from the kids POV, the movie got a 10.
From an adult perspective - one father said afterwards that his mind was still spinning from all the fighting. Yes, there was a lot of it, especially like the entire last hour.
The movie was entertaining. Yes, I enjoyed the first movie better - it was brand new and I think the fighting was better choreographed: you could always understand who punched who, who did what in a fight and so on. Sometimes there were so many robots and humans fighting all over the place in this one it became a jumble - I guess like a real war. And was that last hour ever a real war (the kids were jumping up in down in their seats when the bad transformers squared off against the good guys just before everyone opened fire).
I enjoyed the movie. Was it good for kids? It really wasn't any worse than the first one in terms of scary stuff.
The bad language, yes there was some, but it wasn't excessively vulgar.
The violence was the same, just more and longer battles.
Sexual situations - nothing really any worse than the first one.
The mild reference to drugs - I'd say 90% of 8 year olds would have no idea they were talking about drugs when the reference came up in the context that it did.
I'd say if your kid is 8 and up and liked the first Transformers movie, he shouldn't have a problem with this one. If he's under 8, it depends on your child's mindset. As I said, I wouldn't take my 6 year old son, but I'll definitely let him watch it on DVD. The rationale for this, the robot violence and loud sound for him would be too overwhelming in a theater, but on a small screen, he'd be fine with it. My 8-year-old son would've had no problem with the sound and violence in a theater when he was six. It depends on your son's mindset, tolerance for loud noises and maturity.
That being said - the kids I went with today loved it and they are no worse for wear.
Thursday, July 2, 2009
Elected Governmental Chaos and the Media
This article is about the media and its slant of events occurring in the "democratically-elected" governments in Iran and Honduras.
I'd like to think that my awareness of international current events are at least equivalent to the average American, because it was something I had to be aware of for thirteen years monitoring foreign markets at one of my previous jobs.
As an American, I trust my news sources, but know that it can be inevitably skewed. Look at the media frenzy leading up to the Iraqi war. And Fox News makes no compunction about being a conservative news outlet.
The Media can be a powerful tool to tell the truth or to hide it.
Let's start with Iran.
Like many Americans, when I first read a byline in a newspaper that there were upcoming elections in Iran and that there was a moderate running against Ahmadinejad, I gave it little thought. Just another election in another Middle Eastern country. Chaos sure to ensure.
I started to wonder when I saw another story about the elections two days later. Why are U.S. papers publishing two stories about an upcoming Iranian election? I mean, what was really going to change? One guy who hates America will remain or he'll be switched out with another one who hates America. The Iranian Supreme Council of clerics are the ones who hold the power. But I was intrigued, so I spread out the paper. As I did so, I wondered if the moderate challenging Ahmadinejad was that guy who used to be president and had given the Supreme Council fits with some of the moderate policies he had enacted. It wasn't. But it turned out this Mousavi guy had been a special advisor to that president and that Mousavi had been prime minister in Iran from 1981-1989. Still, I thought, there is no way Ahmadinejad is going to lose.
Perhaps with my U.S.-biased viewpoint, in my opinion very few countries in the world have clean elections. Look at the U.S. and the hi jinx in Florida and Ohio in recent elections and the convictions in multiple states of voter fraud and other problems during 2008's election.
So far what I've gathered from the media reports and YouTube, is that Mousavi claims the election has been stolen, Ahmadinejad and the Supreme Council are crushing protests and blacking out the media. Pretty much what I expected before the elections.
Of course, Ahmadinejad has been so demonized by the United States (justly or unjustly I can't say), its very easy for the world to swallow the opponents' view of Ahmadinejad's government hook-line and sinker. And it makes it easier for us (and the media) to swallow it when these opponents are supposedly more moderate (therefore supposedly more aligned with our views) and support a candidate who once supported a notion to ask the West for help in rebuilding after the Iran-Iraq war. Don't get me wrong, crushing protests and shooting innocents is bad, but it's not like the only country in the world who has done this. While the U.S. - thank God - doesn't shoot protesters, they have no qualms about smacking them around with batons - think Seattle, Echo Park.
So what am I saying? If the elections were stolen, I wish the Iranians the best in getting the rightful man in office. But, beware of the media. Beware of what you read.
Which brings me to Honduras.
My first hearing of the coup in Honduras was a picture in the Los Angeles Times of protesters throwing rocks at a group of soldiers/policemen who cowered behind a wall of riot shields. So after listening to NPR and reading the updates on AOL, I initially gathered, the leftist president (am I sensing a trend here that our media tends to support moderates and leftist - I wonder how Fox News is reporting it) was removed in a military coup, deported to Costa Rica and if he ever returned he'd be arrested.
So, it was to my surprise, listening to NPR again last night on the way home, that both I and the host on NPR were taken aback when the official ambassador to the U.S. from Honduras said that the president had been removed through due process in accordance to their constitution. My words probably aren't perfect, but the sense was that he was removed legally under their constitution. The Honduran legislature overwhelmingly voted to remove the President out of his office. Acting on an order from the legislature, the military removed the President. Now, I'm not an expert in Honduran constitutional law, so I can't say if what the ambassador said was true, that the president was removed through a legal process, but I found it odd that I have not heard this from anyone else (and the interviewer couldn't seem to believe it either). The ambassador went on to say, be careful of only listening to one side of the story. Learn all the facts. At that point I was home and turned off the car.
I'll take that ambassador's advice to heart and learn all the facts, before jumping to conclusions and raising the riot act.
On a final note, speaking of media, a very interesting take on the current elections in Iran is an updated graphic novel version of the original Persepolis, called Persepolis 2.0.
Attached is a link the 2.0 version. Below that is the 2 minute trailer to the original movie.
Persepolis 2.0
I'd like to think that my awareness of international current events are at least equivalent to the average American, because it was something I had to be aware of for thirteen years monitoring foreign markets at one of my previous jobs.
As an American, I trust my news sources, but know that it can be inevitably skewed. Look at the media frenzy leading up to the Iraqi war. And Fox News makes no compunction about being a conservative news outlet.
The Media can be a powerful tool to tell the truth or to hide it.
Let's start with Iran.
Like many Americans, when I first read a byline in a newspaper that there were upcoming elections in Iran and that there was a moderate running against Ahmadinejad, I gave it little thought. Just another election in another Middle Eastern country. Chaos sure to ensure.
I started to wonder when I saw another story about the elections two days later. Why are U.S. papers publishing two stories about an upcoming Iranian election? I mean, what was really going to change? One guy who hates America will remain or he'll be switched out with another one who hates America. The Iranian Supreme Council of clerics are the ones who hold the power. But I was intrigued, so I spread out the paper. As I did so, I wondered if the moderate challenging Ahmadinejad was that guy who used to be president and had given the Supreme Council fits with some of the moderate policies he had enacted. It wasn't. But it turned out this Mousavi guy had been a special advisor to that president and that Mousavi had been prime minister in Iran from 1981-1989. Still, I thought, there is no way Ahmadinejad is going to lose.
Perhaps with my U.S.-biased viewpoint, in my opinion very few countries in the world have clean elections. Look at the U.S. and the hi jinx in Florida and Ohio in recent elections and the convictions in multiple states of voter fraud and other problems during 2008's election.
So far what I've gathered from the media reports and YouTube, is that Mousavi claims the election has been stolen, Ahmadinejad and the Supreme Council are crushing protests and blacking out the media. Pretty much what I expected before the elections.
Of course, Ahmadinejad has been so demonized by the United States (justly or unjustly I can't say), its very easy for the world to swallow the opponents' view of Ahmadinejad's government hook-line and sinker. And it makes it easier for us (and the media) to swallow it when these opponents are supposedly more moderate (therefore supposedly more aligned with our views) and support a candidate who once supported a notion to ask the West for help in rebuilding after the Iran-Iraq war. Don't get me wrong, crushing protests and shooting innocents is bad, but it's not like the only country in the world who has done this. While the U.S. - thank God - doesn't shoot protesters, they have no qualms about smacking them around with batons - think Seattle, Echo Park.
So what am I saying? If the elections were stolen, I wish the Iranians the best in getting the rightful man in office. But, beware of the media. Beware of what you read.
Which brings me to Honduras.
My first hearing of the coup in Honduras was a picture in the Los Angeles Times of protesters throwing rocks at a group of soldiers/policemen who cowered behind a wall of riot shields. So after listening to NPR and reading the updates on AOL, I initially gathered, the leftist president (am I sensing a trend here that our media tends to support moderates and leftist - I wonder how Fox News is reporting it) was removed in a military coup, deported to Costa Rica and if he ever returned he'd be arrested.
So, it was to my surprise, listening to NPR again last night on the way home, that both I and the host on NPR were taken aback when the official ambassador to the U.S. from Honduras said that the president had been removed through due process in accordance to their constitution. My words probably aren't perfect, but the sense was that he was removed legally under their constitution. The Honduran legislature overwhelmingly voted to remove the President out of his office. Acting on an order from the legislature, the military removed the President. Now, I'm not an expert in Honduran constitutional law, so I can't say if what the ambassador said was true, that the president was removed through a legal process, but I found it odd that I have not heard this from anyone else (and the interviewer couldn't seem to believe it either). The ambassador went on to say, be careful of only listening to one side of the story. Learn all the facts. At that point I was home and turned off the car.
I'll take that ambassador's advice to heart and learn all the facts, before jumping to conclusions and raising the riot act.
On a final note, speaking of media, a very interesting take on the current elections in Iran is an updated graphic novel version of the original Persepolis, called Persepolis 2.0.
Attached is a link the 2.0 version. Below that is the 2 minute trailer to the original movie.
Persepolis 2.0
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)