Mike Kersjes (John Corbett) teaches a special ed class at a high school. He has a special group of kids with disabilities ranging from Down syndrome to the "alphabet" kind like ADHD. One day, the kids go on a field trip to a museum - and come back with pamphlets advertising Space Camp. A place for "gifted" students, Space Camp sounds like the coolest thing ever to more than one of the kids. So Mike decides to make it happen. Unfortunately, he has to 1) get his superiors to okay the trip, 2) get Space Camp to agree, 3) raise enough money, and 4) get the kids into the proper physical and especially mental state. It ain't gonna be easy.
All right, I'll just start off by saying this is a Hallmark movie. But it's so much better than one of their typical movies that I forgot it was even Hallmark. Or I would have forgotten if there weren't so many Hallmark card commercials.
Back to my review. The acting, writing, and story are amazing for a TV movie. A Smile as Big as the Moon wouldn't win any Academy Awards if it was a theater release, but it's really more than just passable. At least one of the kids is played by someone with the real disability, and the others seem to be pretty darn good actors. John Corbett is good as Mike. And that's pretty much everybody who has a big part.
So the production is good - and the story is better. People so often forget that disabilities don't define people. Yes, psychologists, I'm looking at you. Special ed kids are so often marginalized just because they happen to have difficulty reading, concentrating, remembering, or even just comprehending. They get labeled so that everyone sees them as "Down syndromes with people" (so to speak) instead of "people with Down syndrome." Then the kids' development is stunted because they're told they "can't do that" because their brains or other parts of them work differently. The only words to describe that viewpoint are ones that I prefer not to use. A Smile as Big as the Moon tears down that horrible inversion by showing just how much kids are capable of achieving if they're only given the chance and a helping hand.
My Rating: OK (mild language)
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Friday, January 27, 2012
Everything's Just Ducky
Science fiction. If this doesn't bring to mind Star Trek, then your planet evidently has not been visited by the U.S.S. Enterprise. But, seriously, what does "science fiction" say to you? Aliens? Space ships? Super-cool gizmos? My answer is "all of the above." But apparently I'm an ignoramus.
I'm not una grande aficionada of sf, but I've read a few books now. Here's a rough list: Jurassic Park by Michael Crichton, A Wrinkle in Time by Madeline L'Engle, The Tripods Attack! by John McNichol (though it's more steampunk than sf), The Hunger Games series by Suzanne Collins, One Door Away from Heaven by Dean Koontz, Death Panels by Michelle Buckman, and Herland by Charlotte Perkins Gilman. Most of these books have something in common: technology that didn't exist at the time of its publication, but possibly could exist one day down the road. That is, scientific advances that are mere speculation. All the books on my list fit that description pretty well - except the last one.
Herland by Charlotte Perkins Gilman is about a group of American men who find their way into an all-female country hidden in South America. The only special thing they use to enter said country is an airplane. Granted, the book was published in 1915, so airplanes hadn't been around all that long. But they still existed. The Herlanders have no special gadgets to help them along. In fact, they seem to be almost devoid of what we typically classify as machinery. They have a few cars, but that seems to be the extent of their technology. Cars already existed in 1915, as well.
So here's my question: Where's the science? Answer: It's a sociological science fiction book. I kid you not. Sociology, which some people have graced with the title "science," is considered scientific enough to put a book like Herland into the sf genre. The idiocy of this label is so ridiculous that it is a little difficult to fully describe. Science is based on observable knowledge. When you pour one chemical into another and you observe that the mixture blows up in your face, you can assume that the combination of those two chemicals makes an explosive. But before you can state it as a fact, you must make sure that it was really those two chemicals alone that caused the explosion. For example, you must isolate them from possible contributing factors like air. Once you're sure that it really was the chemicals, you can announce your discovery to the world.
Sociology, on the other hand, cannot hope to reach this level of certainty in its conclusions. Human behavior cannot be isolated or pigeon-holed. You cannot say for certain that there are no other contributing factors in your equation that could have affected the outcome. So to say sociology is a "science" is to be intellectually inconsistent.
However, having non-scientific subjects like sociology labeled as a "science" only makes sense in the modern world. "Science" is looked up to and worshiped like a god - science knows all! (Who cares whether everything we know will be looked upon by future generations as we now look on the idea that blood-letting will cure all illnesses? But I digress.) This is not only ridiculous, it has ruined science. Any time one facet of life is crowned king over the rest, that facet is dragged down into the dirt. Science used to be the lofty pursuit of understanding the natural world through experimentation and observation. It now lives in the slums of making more or less educated guesses about life based on "data" that represents things far more complex than any computer.
Now, I'm not saying that science ought to be completely severed from the rest of life. I'm not even saying the typically formulaic idea of sf is not in need of improving. What I'm saying is that it's idiotic to call a kangaroo a duck. Not only idiotic, but it robs the kangaroo of its identity. The taint of such a stupid idea even leaks into literature, and as a result we have "science" fiction books like Herland.
I'm not una grande aficionada of sf, but I've read a few books now. Here's a rough list: Jurassic Park by Michael Crichton, A Wrinkle in Time by Madeline L'Engle, The Tripods Attack! by John McNichol (though it's more steampunk than sf), The Hunger Games series by Suzanne Collins, One Door Away from Heaven by Dean Koontz, Death Panels by Michelle Buckman, and Herland by Charlotte Perkins Gilman. Most of these books have something in common: technology that didn't exist at the time of its publication, but possibly could exist one day down the road. That is, scientific advances that are mere speculation. All the books on my list fit that description pretty well - except the last one.
Herland by Charlotte Perkins Gilman is about a group of American men who find their way into an all-female country hidden in South America. The only special thing they use to enter said country is an airplane. Granted, the book was published in 1915, so airplanes hadn't been around all that long. But they still existed. The Herlanders have no special gadgets to help them along. In fact, they seem to be almost devoid of what we typically classify as machinery. They have a few cars, but that seems to be the extent of their technology. Cars already existed in 1915, as well.
So here's my question: Where's the science? Answer: It's a sociological science fiction book. I kid you not. Sociology, which some people have graced with the title "science," is considered scientific enough to put a book like Herland into the sf genre. The idiocy of this label is so ridiculous that it is a little difficult to fully describe. Science is based on observable knowledge. When you pour one chemical into another and you observe that the mixture blows up in your face, you can assume that the combination of those two chemicals makes an explosive. But before you can state it as a fact, you must make sure that it was really those two chemicals alone that caused the explosion. For example, you must isolate them from possible contributing factors like air. Once you're sure that it really was the chemicals, you can announce your discovery to the world.
Sociology, on the other hand, cannot hope to reach this level of certainty in its conclusions. Human behavior cannot be isolated or pigeon-holed. You cannot say for certain that there are no other contributing factors in your equation that could have affected the outcome. So to say sociology is a "science" is to be intellectually inconsistent.
However, having non-scientific subjects like sociology labeled as a "science" only makes sense in the modern world. "Science" is looked up to and worshiped like a god - science knows all! (Who cares whether everything we know will be looked upon by future generations as we now look on the idea that blood-letting will cure all illnesses? But I digress.) This is not only ridiculous, it has ruined science. Any time one facet of life is crowned king over the rest, that facet is dragged down into the dirt. Science used to be the lofty pursuit of understanding the natural world through experimentation and observation. It now lives in the slums of making more or less educated guesses about life based on "data" that represents things far more complex than any computer.
Now, I'm not saying that science ought to be completely severed from the rest of life. I'm not even saying the typically formulaic idea of sf is not in need of improving. What I'm saying is that it's idiotic to call a kangaroo a duck. Not only idiotic, but it robs the kangaroo of its identity. The taint of such a stupid idea even leaks into literature, and as a result we have "science" fiction books like Herland.
Friday, January 20, 2012
New News on LCJ
So Love's Christmas Journey now has a page on the Hallmark Channel's website. (To see my opinion of the Love Comes Softly Saga, read this post.) Turns out I was wrong about Erik. He is not going to be Ellie's next husband; Deputy Michael Strode is.
But what really surprised me (other than Sean Astin's appearance. Really, Sean? You can't find anything better to do than one of the Love movies?) was the preview video. It says "two-part." Think about this for a second. Two parts. At two hours apiece. Minus about forty to forty-five minutes total of commercials, that's still a movie that lasts three hours and twenty minutes. Believe me, there's barely that much decent movie time in all the previous movies put together.
Enough of my griping; I haven't even seen the thing yet. Go to this IMDb page to read a review by "pjheberling" - someone who saw the movie, hated it, and has a great sense of humor to boot. If you read it out loud with a British accent (I know, the guy's from the U.S. - but it sounds like a British sense of humor, doesn't it?), it's even better.
But what really surprised me (other than Sean Astin's appearance. Really, Sean? You can't find anything better to do than one of the Love movies?) was the preview video. It says "two-part." Think about this for a second. Two parts. At two hours apiece. Minus about forty to forty-five minutes total of commercials, that's still a movie that lasts three hours and twenty minutes. Believe me, there's barely that much decent movie time in all the previous movies put together.
Enough of my griping; I haven't even seen the thing yet. Go to this IMDb page to read a review by "pjheberling" - someone who saw the movie, hated it, and has a great sense of humor to boot. If you read it out loud with a British accent (I know, the guy's from the U.S. - but it sounds like a British sense of humor, doesn't it?), it's even better.
Friday, January 13, 2012
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Concerning Red
Frank Moses (Bruce Willis) is a retiree with a very dull time of it. For kicks, he tears up his retirement checks so he can call Sarah (Mary-Louise Parker) at the help desk. Of course, the fact that he, as he puts it, "likes" her might have something to do with that, too. But then one day a bunch of assassins come to his house and try to kill him. As an ex-CIA agent, Frank takes care of them without a problem. Thrown into a fight he didn't choose, he still leaps at the chance to get back into some of his old habits - and save (and impress) Sarah in the meantime.
This is going to sound like a very strange parallel, so brace yourself. This movie is like a Jane Austen story with a lot of bullets. Oh, there's a lot more excitement in Red (and a lot more bullets) and perhaps the language is a little worse. But Red is driven by the funny, likeable characters, just like an Austen story.
First there's Frank, who's a tough guy with a giant soft spot. Then there are all his old spy friends - Joe (Morgan Freeman), Victoria (Helen Mirren), and especially the really odd and extremely paranoid Marvin (John Malkovich). Each has his/her own unique character, complete with body language and a sense of humor. Finally, Sarah is hilarious. She's so sarcastic and frank it's funny, and she never once slips out of character.
Granted, the characters are not quite as filled out or varied as those created by Austen, but I think the parallel still holds. Regardless of whether this reaches mastery or not, Red is a fun couple of hours with lots of shooting (explosions, too), funny lines, and very likeable characters. What more could one want in a movie?
My Rating: T (violence, language, mild sexual content)
This is going to sound like a very strange parallel, so brace yourself. This movie is like a Jane Austen story with a lot of bullets. Oh, there's a lot more excitement in Red (and a lot more bullets) and perhaps the language is a little worse. But Red is driven by the funny, likeable characters, just like an Austen story.
First there's Frank, who's a tough guy with a giant soft spot. Then there are all his old spy friends - Joe (Morgan Freeman), Victoria (Helen Mirren), and especially the really odd and extremely paranoid Marvin (John Malkovich). Each has his/her own unique character, complete with body language and a sense of humor. Finally, Sarah is hilarious. She's so sarcastic and frank it's funny, and she never once slips out of character.
Granted, the characters are not quite as filled out or varied as those created by Austen, but I think the parallel still holds. Regardless of whether this reaches mastery or not, Red is a fun couple of hours with lots of shooting (explosions, too), funny lines, and very likeable characters. What more could one want in a movie?
My Rating: T (violence, language, mild sexual content)
Friday, January 6, 2012
One More Video...
...Before I get back to serious stuff like writing reviews. Not that this isn't seriously funny - particularly for those of us who have had the misfortune of singing the original version of this song - Mary, Did You Know? - for a Christmas choir. I would definitely not recommend it for amateur choirs.
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
Spend Today in the Middle of Middle Earth
"Fantasy remains a human right: we make in our measure and in our derivative mode, because we are made: and not only made, but made in the image and likeness of a Maker."
~J.R.R. Tolkien, On Fairy Stories
Happy Birthday (and Merry Christmas), old maker of Hobbits!
Today, since it is his 120th birthday, is J.R.R. Tolkien day. I would heartily recommend the enjoyment of the extended versions of the Lord of the Rings films, the repeated viewing of the trailer for the new Hobbit movie due to come out in December, a speedy run-through of any of his books, making and enjoying various fan adaptations of Middle Earth foods, or - the activity I choose - hours spent in the combat contained within The Return of the King video game. I normally would have spent the day in watching all 11+ hours of the movies (or however long the three extended versions run to - I never watch the theatrical versions), but, alas, my family's copies are with an older sibling for the time being. So I shall content myself in my Aragorn- Legolas- Frodo- Sam- Gimli- Gandalf- Boromir- Pippen- Merry- Faramir- and Galadriel-less sorrow (apologies to any good characters I forgot) by immersing myself in a desperate fight to defeat various baddies from the story.
If you're really desperate for something Lord of the Rings (or in need of a good laugh), watch this video. I hear there's a 10-hour one on youtube as well, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to watch it.
~J.R.R. Tolkien, On Fairy Stories
Happy Birthday (and Merry Christmas), old maker of Hobbits!
Today, since it is his 120th birthday, is J.R.R. Tolkien day. I would heartily recommend the enjoyment of the extended versions of the Lord of the Rings films, the repeated viewing of the trailer for the new Hobbit movie due to come out in December, a speedy run-through of any of his books, making and enjoying various fan adaptations of Middle Earth foods, or - the activity I choose - hours spent in the combat contained within The Return of the King video game. I normally would have spent the day in watching all 11+ hours of the movies (or however long the three extended versions run to - I never watch the theatrical versions), but, alas, my family's copies are with an older sibling for the time being. So I shall content myself in my Aragorn- Legolas- Frodo- Sam- Gimli- Gandalf- Boromir- Pippen- Merry- Faramir- and Galadriel-less sorrow (apologies to any good characters I forgot) by immersing myself in a desperate fight to defeat various baddies from the story.
If you're really desperate for something Lord of the Rings (or in need of a good laugh), watch this video. I hear there's a 10-hour one on youtube as well, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to watch it.
P.S. Notice how I snuck in "Merry Christmas" - thus making this post technically a Christmas post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)