Criticize This

I have a confession to make. I saw, on the day it opened no less, Transformers. Now calm down. No, there was no gun to my head, I was not taking my ten year old cousin, and was not on a date with the nerdy chick from accounting. I saw it of my own free will. Actually, I wanted to see it.

And the truth is, it wasn’t that bad. In fact, it was pretty good, in a way that eating a Big Mac is pretty good. Compared to filet mignon, it sucks ass, but for what it is, it meets expectations. And Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is exactly what you would think: a loud, thunderous movie, instantly forgettable yet still worth the ticket price for the close to three hours of entertainment it provides. I laughed, I cried, and (ok well, I didn’t cry) I thoroughly enjoyed myself.

Which is why the over-the-top negative reviews are interesting. The critics are making this out to be the second coming of Gigli, an experience so offensive that the Republicans should propose legislation against it (It's a joke Newt. Put the phone down). Matt Paris of the Chicago Tribune called it “A 150-minute simulation of life in a garbage disposal." Peter Travers of Rolling Stone pines that "Transformers: The Revenge of The Fallen is beyond bad, it carves out its own category of godawfulness." And no less that Roger Ebert, certainly past his prime but still well-respected, calls it “"...a horrible experience of unbearable length, briefly punctuated by three or four amusing moments." I cannot help but wonder where all this hostility stems from.

The real question is, what was expected? After all, it is titled “Transformers,” right? Now, I understand the merits of good moviemaking. Every year, I make it a point to see every Best Picture nominee, from the brilliant “Milk” to the over-rated “The Reader.” I even sat through that obnoxiously long “Benjamin Button” movie (on that note, Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett? Really? The best Brad can do is Cate Blanchett? Now, had Megan Fox been in her place….). And while I make no pretense of being an accomplished critic, I am a fairly good judge of the art of the motion picture, and appreciate when it is well done. There is no question the new “Transformers” Movie will not win best picture.

But, here’s the kicker. It wasn’t trying. It made no attempt to be an Oscar winner, or even a nominee. It wasn’t looking to be compared with The Piano or Driving Miss Daisy; it simply didn’t care. How this simple fact was overlooked by the so-called critics in unknown, but perhaps they simply chose to ignore it. In years past the critics served the vital role of setting our expectations of the picture; a useful tool used to determine if one should fork over the mortgage payment in exchange for two hours on a Saturday night. We found out the basics from respected reviews: what was the plot, who was in it, and is it worth seeing.

Today, things are different. Everyone with a blog is a critic. Even worse, they don’t even need to be writers, they just film a review and throw it up on youtube. The goal has gone from giving an objective look at a movie to standing out in a crowd of movie genius also-rans, a feat most often accomplished by giving the most outlandish review possible. The site Rotten Tomatoes, which monitors critic’s reactions to a film, offers a link to each review and an area where the average reader can comment on the review itself. Now we have critics of the critics. More importantly, bad reviews are money. The comments following a negative reviews far outnumber those following a positive one. Writing a biting, satirical review goes a lot farther in getting a critics once obscure name in the paper, forever to the detriment to the genuine critics that still exist.

Yet despite all the negative reviews, Transformers raked in 390 million dollars in its’ first five days worldwide. Perhaps the overwhelming negativity is reducing these “critics” to what they really should be: irrelevant.

Save a life, expect a suit.

Reading pages and pages on the proposed healthcare reform options is a mind-numbing task, and leaves one sorely in need of ten minutes with a Dr. Seuss book, simply for the pleasure one derives from reading a complete work with the capacity to understand it. However, taking what one can, it seems difficult not to come to the conclusion that a government run health care plan is far from the best way to solve the issue. Unlike other entitlements and Medicare/caid, this would essentially be putting the government in the middle of the free market, and while regulating the market is a governmental responsibility, active participation needs to be avoided.

Rather than rush to provide healthcare for all, the focus should be making current healthcare more affordable, and thus exponentially more attainable. Certainly, the regulation of torts and malpractice litigation is a beginning. The regulation can be either on 1. the amount that can be awarded in specific cases, or 2. a cap on the lawyers fees paid. An attorney might think twice about the string of endless appeals available and the excessive costs of week long expert witness testimony if the most he or she could be paid is $100,000 as opposed to the standard third of ten million. Additionally , there should be a penalty to the attorney that takes on a frivolous lawsuit from any client with a bruise. No matter how insane the accusation, the hospitals, insurance companies and pharmaceutical providers are all forced to spend millions in legal fees defending cases that never go anywhere, simply because some ambulance chasing lawyer decided to take a shot at getting a settlement. Should a regulatory board decide it was a frivolous attempt, the attorney, not the client, would be fined. The number of these brought to bear would be drastically decreased.

Additionally, regulating the amount a company that has developed a new drug would be able to charge for it exchange for more time with the exclusive rights for that drug is another option. Currently, someone that develops a new cancer medication has 7 years (the actual time varies) to recoup all of its development expenses before every company on the planet starts duplicating it. Thus, that medication is $120 a bottle. If however, the 7 years became 14, the retail price could be cut in half. Granted, the option that currently exists in year 8 of the ten dollar knock-off would disappear, but the exorbitant cost of medication would be greatly reduced overall.

Regulation, not an additional healthcare plan, would go much further in bringing healthcare to all Americans. Like any necessity, healthcare should be covered under strict governmental controls. If a company wants to charge a million bucks for a new TV, so be it. But a million for a syringe, not so much. Regulate costs and lawsuit payouts, eliminate frivolous legal action, and the overall cost will be greatly reduced, and fast.

About time....

First of all, please excuse my recent absence from posting. I am working on a book regarding education and tenure, and it is an exciting yet time consuming process. However, thank god for the Freedom of Information Commission, as they work wonders with getting stonewalling deans to give the precious information they so dearly hold on to.

Iran

The turmoil in Iran should mean between little to nothing to the Obama agenda. While it would be nice to have a more accommodating leader in place, the fact is that all foreign policy in Iran is dictated by the Supreme Ruler, not the president, and the fact that Ahmadinejad is looked at as the decision maker is a testament to his political skills and the media’s desire to buy into his shtick. The commitment to work peaceably with Iran should not change, even if the outcome of the “democratic” election is questionable. We were prepared to work with him before; nothing changes now.

I have quite a few articles for this blog that are half written I will post in the next few weeks as I complete them, please excuse the content if it is at all dated.