If you were to shrink down, down, down, past the atomic level and into the quantum foam, you would encounter the uncertainty principle, and just by observing things bring them into being. Supposedly at the quantum level, possibilities flit about like hyperactive fleas, and just the act of seeing one changes the probable to a certainty.

Complete and utter balderdash, of course (and therefore probably true...)

You encounter the same phenomena every moment of every day without shrinking at all. I am convinced that reality is only 3% "real" and 97% attitude.

If life were an Everlastinggobstopper, that little tiny seed center is barren fact and the bazillion layers of sugar and coloring is all how we FEEL about it. If we believe life is glorious, it is. If we believe life is a hoover, it is.

Think about it: try to strip perception down to just the .03 that is real. If you think "wow, it really is glorious" you haven't actually gotten to the 3%, you're still layering attitude on it. That .03 is pure, uncolored, unemotional fact. It is the real creation with no nod to the Creator. I suspect it's what lower animals exist on (not higher animals, like dogs, who also color their world good or bad, or cats, who believe they ARE the world) and that we can never even approach.

Hindus believe that existence is completely illusion, at the will of the gods. While close, I can't agree. I think each individual existence is an illusion at the will or unconscious of that individual. There is a bedrock fact of reality, created by God, and there are 6 billion illusions created by each person (though influenced by God's sovereignty). My illusion is not your illusion, and both religion and its successor "civilization" strive to synch the illusions up (the failure of which is responsible for the current war - which has its own uncertainty principle since it is whatever people think it is, which certainly isn't the same in any two cases).

Christianity, which I don't believe is a religion but a relationship, aligns the illusions to God's reality, which is more than just earthly fact and is in fact the unifying theory that brings together physical and metaphysical (containing emotion, spirit, supernatural and natural) but does so in part here, and complete in heaven. The sad thing is that even in the church a plurality of illusion exists, almost completely unidentifiable as differing until the proper divination of the Word - that terrible two-edge sword - cleaves them apart. Not just denominations, mind you, but individual understandings within the same pew.

Praise God our inclusion in the body of Christ is a work of God and not ourselves. Heaven would be pretty empty if it was.

Ah, voter frustration.

I was on my high and mighty horse, with the full intention of NOT voting for Ric Keller. His campaign was moronic, his ads insulted the intelligence of the voters (though the ads that WEREN'T from his campaign, but were in favor of him anyway, were quite good) and I was going to pointedly not vote for him (as much as I like Charlie Stuart as a person, I wasn't going to vote for him either, because of his politics. I was going to write in Bill Hufford or John Stemberger because I both like them and admire their politics. With Keller, I think he's slime even if I do agree with his politics... say, is that libel? Or since I can back up the slime assertion, is that okay????).

So I make my way through the driving rain to cast my unvote for Keller and mostly reluctant votes for the other republicans (I don't like many of them, either, with the exception of Katherine Harris, whom I do like and will probably lose)...

... and Keller isn't on my ballot. I'm not in his district.

Righteousness belongs to the Lord; self-righteousness is doomed to fail.

Sigh.

We have a Japanese neighbor who, with quite a few of his countrymen, has a near obsession with Bonzai trees. The Bonzai is a small plant that the gardner carefully snips and binds to shape into a very personal expression. Bonzai clipping is a form of active meditation.

Many Americans have a similar obsession, though it tends to be informational rather than meditative. We carefully shape it with the same diligent care as the most meticulous Japanese gardner. It is uniquely us. Very personal, and highly revealing: it is our Favorites list.

Think about it. Just by clicking the icon, I can read all about you. Mine, for example, has several writing sites and blogs, church sites and blogs, business sites, a few comic strips, some educational addresses and the library. Sums me up pretty well.

A good friend and former co-worker had a list that spanned a dozen columns. It was almost beyond the use of a Favorites list and into a Internet Listing. Which described him well... or wells :)

What does your Favorites say about you?

My legion of fan has requested a new post....

I'd like to dig into something meaty, but I've got drywall to hang.

Okay, cosmic coincidink, bad luck, or is Someone trying to teach me a lesson?
Jennifer, a wonderful friend from Seattle , is out for her annual visit. She's done just about everything here over the years EXCEPT SeaWorld. So, today's the day, BUT first we had to buy the tickets.

Things to ponder:

* Buying tickets online rocks.

* Not reading everything doesn't rock; in fact, were it not for a phone call, it would be quite expensive. I'm buying a ticket for Jennifer (she's reimbursing me, so it's not generous on my part or anything) - a couple nitpicks - you've got to search all over for a single day ticket. It isn't in Out of Town visitors, it's in International visitors, AND you can't buy a Resident ticket in the same transaction as the International ticket - so I'm filling out the forms, and fill out what looks like the "name on the card" section, but it's not. It's the name of the ticket holder. I bought myself a ticket when I'm not going. Oops.

*Customer Service rocks. I call them and she says she'll catch it when it comes through and cancel. She does an hour or so later and calls to confirm. She asked if I have any other questions: I ask if she, as an Anheiser-Busch employee gets free beer.

* A-B employees get free beer! I don't like beer, but that's quite a benefit (free checking is nice, but...)

* So we buy tickets for today, which is the last full day she's been here. So, what happens that hasn't happened in months? It rains. Hard.

Hmmmmm....

Allow me to quote a venerable document: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." (italics mine for emphasis.)

Okay, since in the past I give my opinion and get blank stares for responses, the responses have to come first...

Are these rights, as stated, true? Are we equal, and do we have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Give it some thought - you too, ol' lady Young - and post your responses.

Hmmmm?

(and a corollary: if you don't believe in a Creator, do these enumerated rights belong to you?)

"Blog" is not in the Blogger Spell Check.

Were it human, that would be a fascinating psychological telltale...

I'm probably going to get killed for this, but...

Warning: Totally Politically Incorrect.

Look at the different continents: Europe - heavily influenced by Christianity; Eurasia (Russia) moderately influenced by Christianity. (Parts are influenced by Islam, which other than the extremists desire to kill everyone else, has a very strong moral base).North and South America - heavily influenced by Christianity.

Africa - Little to no influence by Christianity.
Asia (Occidental) - No influence by Christianity.

Africa - Unless a cheap cure for AIDS is discovered soon, Africa will be no more. The pandemic so devastating now will doom the next generation and all thereafter.

Asia - Those without totalitarian governments are so perverse, so decadent, it defies description. The practices of Thailand alone are Hell on Earth (and because I know some young people read this blog, I won't enumerate them).

I'm not saying they are cursed by God, rather cursed by the unrestrained depravity that IS restrained to a large degree in the Christian-influenced nations (yes, there is horror even here, but it is NOTHING next to Asia).

I have had conversations with people who think the Church has had little influence in our society, but I think Asia and Africa put the lie to that. There are ministries in both places, to be sure, though none have risen to a national influence yet. Also interesting, is the different "flavor" of Asia and Africa. Asia seems to delight in decadence, whereas Africa (despite horrific violence) has somewhat innocently adopted promiscuity into their culture. So prevalent, in fact, that AIDS can't be halted (partially because of ignorance and largely because once Pandora opens that particular box, closing it is impossible).

What will the rest of the world look like after the Rapture, if such a thing exists, when all Christians are removed from Earth? Secular morality is based in what's good for society; so what happens when society breaks down?

If the Shining City takes residence on the Earth without wiping other cities out, what will that world look like?

I believe strongly that totalitarian governments are evil... still, they halt - in their legalism - a complete slide to decadence (except in themselves). The Biblical ramifications are fascinating...

So, the kids are swimming in the pool, happily screaming and playing while the DOG runs like a maniac around and around the pool, desperate to play but terrified to jump in.

Metaphor for life?

Could be...

Hey, by the way, blogs are supposed to be commented on. It isn't just my opinion, it's yours, too.

So comment already!

Infatuation vs. Love

There’s no such thing as love at first sight. Infatuation at first sight? Definitely. And I suppose that infatuation can segue smoothly into love making it feel like love at first sight, but I am convinced that love takes years to fall into.

What got me on this train of thought was someone’s contention that love is a matter of being in the right place at the right time. Something goes off in your brain and someone you wouldn’t look at twice before is suddenly the most exquisite creature on earth. Doesn’t matter who, it was just the first opposite sex member (in most cases) that you laid eyes on.

Patent hogwash, but it does raise the question of why we are attracted to someone. It can’t just be looks, because ugly people fall in love (thank the Lord. Thank you, Lord). As you might have guessed, I think I know. It could be Divine Intervention, but that aside, I think it is body language. Yes, pretty helps, but I believe subtle mannerisms, expressions, gestures and body movements are what attracts us, and, in fact, infatuates us.

Body language consists of thousands upon thousands of tiny and large movements. We subconsciously catalog body language of people we spend time with, assigning them values. That funny person we really enjoy moves his shoulders just so? Mom crinkled her eyes in that peculiar way? And thousands of attributes, most so subtle you don’t even consciously see them, from people we really care about (and those we don’t) go into our mental computer and creates a subconscious list. The reason your buddy has a girlfriend who makes you shake your head and wonder “what does he see in her?” is that she had a preponderance of checkmarks on your friend’s list (there are other things on that list as well, of course, but once a certain threshold is reached we become infatuated).

So what is infatuation? It’s your subconscious saying this person has the hallmarks of someone who can get our motor running. Infatuation is potential; love is the reality. Love is complete knowledge of, and complete acceptance of another. God has the “complete” part down, and we lowly humans have to substitute “some knowledge” and “mostly acceptance”. Infatuation knows little and ignores much. Love that knows and tolerates isn’t love. Moving from infatuation to love takes time and more time (knowledge isn’t gained in a day).
Men and women handle this transition differently, however.

Women will give and give and give to be accepted.

Men are happy to take and take and take just for the greed of it.

Women want the acceptance more than to be known (but you can’t have one without the other) and many will do anything to get what they think is acceptance.

Men want sex, and give counterfeit acceptance and forego knowledge and quite often food to get it.

Yes, we’re shallow creatures. Pity us.

What does this mean? It means that if you get intimate before marriage, the guy isn’t ever going to move from infatuation to love, and the girl isn’t going to be able to tell. She sees love as him wanting to be with her, talk to her, etc. He gives all that to get what he wants, which ain’t love, baby. He’ll say it, he’ll even likely believe it, but it isn’t love. Proof: if the intimate girl breaks it off with the guy, he then has to evaluate a few things: Is she worth waiting for? Quite probably he’s going to look at the reality that is his girlfriend for the first time and do a quick tally of good and bad. If he doesn’t try to restore the relationship then the bad outweighed the good. If he comes back then either the good outweighed the bad or he’s desperate or too lazy to look elsewhere. IF they get back together and resume intimacy, he’s not going to move forward. If they get back together without sexual intimacy, he can finally get on the road to figuring out if he loves the girl or not.

I’m willing to bet that a lot of men aren’t really in love with their wives when they get married. They think so, but they probably haven’t done the math yet. Forever changes things, though, and so does marriage. Necessity makes both of them whip out their calculators as they get to REALLY know each other (dating doesn’t do it, living together doesn’t do it, marriage is its very own kind of animal) and now they have to figure out if they can accept each other. This is, I think, the reason for the divorce statistics.

The safe bet, then, is courtship, with the emphasis of actually getting to know each other without the blinders of sex getting in the way. It’s risky because you reveal yourself (to be known) and acceptance isn’t guaranteed to follow. My wife and I are proof that this approach works. We made conscious decisions to get to know each other, and there were critical junctions when acceptance had to be carefully weighed. We called it off twice to gain the distance to really figure it out, obviously getting back together each time. Lucky for me. J

The really cool thing is that in a vibrant, growing relationship, the rush of infatuation can co-exist with love, because there are always new frontiers to learn about each other, and marriage is a covenant to accept anything in the other even if (when) it’s difficult.

Capital Punishment

I’ve finally figured it out.

Some background: Capital Punishment as a concept gives me no problems, I believe the State has the responsibility, or at least the authority, to condemn someone to the first death for such things as murder, treason, child abuse, and rap music to name a few.

Take a step closer, though, and I start struggling. In reality it isn’t the State executing someone, it is a person doing it. People killing people just isn’t good. Even within war, where it is a necessary evil, it’s still evil (though I believe no judgment is levied on the soldier). Even if you develop a machine to do it, whoever turns on/plugs in the machine is the executioner.

Another step closer and I see some of the scum on death row, I think death by dull spoon is perfectly acceptable, but that’s neither here nor there.

I’ve figured out the answer.
We have someone provide the means of life – not death – to the death row prisoner. A study is done to figure out the minimum amount of dirt, nutrients, sunlight, water and seeds is required to sustain someone on a vegetarian diet (both for them and the garden. Minimum levels, only). And that’s all they get. We can even give them a book saying how to do it, I suppose, and leave them alone forever. If they can manage to get their garden to produce, they can stay alive. If they can’t, they die.

Ah, you’re thinking death by dehydration and/or starvation is cruel and unusual punishment. Not so. The Terri Schivo (sp) case took that argument away (and if you say, ‘but she was brain dead,’ then you’re saying conditions excuse C&UP, and isn’t THAT a dangerous precedent. I could say the death-rower is morally-dead and there you go.)

No one, then, is responsible for the death of the condemned except himself. By virtue of (or lack thereof) their crime, they have said they want to live outside society, and this simply fulfills that. If they are diligent and disciplined, they can make a go of it. If they still have a crop failure, that’s an act of God and who are we to stand in the way of that? (Also, to qualify for the DP, physical evidence as well as - or instead of - witnesses is required. Witness only means a maximum of life imprisoned).

Whaddyathink?

Wheee! The Primaries are over and there is absolutely no one worth voting for.

Two democrats are running for governor (one just calls himself a republican).

The Cheeseburger Congressman gets another shot to do absolutely nothing of value for another few years.

Florida will be in the hands of liberals and do-nothings.

Oh.

Joy.

I love the fall. September's okay and October rocks (and not just because I was born smack dab in the middle of it).

I love theme parks. They're a lot of fun, good family stuff, and a lot of fun (I'm easily amused).

I just don't like them together. In the fall, theme park billboards - which are normally quite creative - give way to the most vile of graphics.

When I was a kid, the Johnsons at the IGA store mounted what was to my child's eye a humongous Frankenstein Monster on the end of aisle 4. It flat out terrified me. I knew it wasn't real, I knew it was harmless, but I hated it. It was just a big, green stereotypical monster.

Not so the theme park billboards. Universal Monsters were great. Far removed from real life in fantasy and time, the were the ultimate escapism. But serial killers, bloody hands holding bloody cellphones, psychotic vagabonds with grotesque expressions, demented grandmas bearing knives... these are neither fantasty, nor removed from our time. Why glorify these things?

If they want them inside their theme parks, no problem; but on billboards that we drive our kids by? Along the highways I drive to work on?

No thanks. No thanks, at all.

Not sure if this is against the rules or not for blogspace, but in shameless self-promotion, I published my third manuscript with Prevail Press.

Burning Meadows is a screenplay I wrote 3 years ago. It's a little weird, even for me. Check out www.prevailpress.com and click on the screenplay to go to the shopping cart where you can read an excerpt. Feel free to buy it, of course, but it isn't a G-rated script. Today it would be a PG, but I'd consider it a PG-15 or so.

Took the kids to see "The Wild" at the cheap theaters.

I'm not going to bother reviewing this movie (other than the Computer Animation is amazing, if the directing and script are only so-so. There were times I wasn't sure it was animation. That and wasn't this movie already made as Madascar?) Rather, I'm going to use it as a springboard to decry the loss of Disney Animation, and the degeneration of comedy in general.

Disney's 2-D Animation truly transended the medium. What it lacked in visual depth, it made up for in emotional depth. Even the turgid Pocohontas gave the characters a detailed character arc. These things weren't just cartoons; they delved into strong themes, explored deeply into the human condition - even when they were "only" animals. The humor was often intelligent, and motivations were complex. They inspired Dreamworks to reach for the same in their 2-D movies.

Then came computer animation.

To be fair, Pixar has avoided the pitfalls of the CGI trap, and Ice Age and Polar Express strove for more than yucks... but most of the imitators have fallen into the clutches of today's pathetic excuse for comedy.

I tuned into a radio show trying to pick the top five funniest movies of all time. As soon as Porkies was entered as a shoo-in, I changed the channel. "Stupid" comedies have replaced intelligent comedies - largely because Adam Sandler, today's biggest star by box office grosses, has proven the market for such atrocities.

Consider what passes for sit-coms these days. Even the smart ones quickly devolve into purient bedroom humor and bodily function funnies. Grace Under Fire, The Drew Cary Show, Sports Night, to name a few, had strong first seasons with smart humor... then they quickly devolved into sad, unwatchable trash.

Some might say it can't be done -- keeping comedy out of the toilet is too demanding. But Barney Miller, The Dick Van Dyke Show, M*A*S*H (arguably), and a dozen others that stayed smart and clean because the censors said they had to, came out with the funniest series of all time.

And so producers look around at what's successful (because there aren't many alternatives) and decide Computer Animated movies are too expensive to risk being too smart (which says so much about their opinion of us) so they save money on script and concept and dash out something that rakes in the bucks but not the accolades.

It remains to be seen if anyone will recognize the void that Disney created in leaving the stories that only 2-D animation can master, and start creating 2-D movies with depth again. I admit, my hopes aren't very high...

I admit to feeling a bit discouraged last week after Children's Ministry. I was teaching the 4th and 5th graders and started talking about the Gospel. I got a few blank stares, so I threw out the quicky questions: "What's the Gospel?" expecting several kids to answer quickly so we could move on.

Blank faces.

A raised hand.

"The Word of God?"

"Jesus?"

"The Bible?"

Okay, maybe I wasn't asking right. "What is the Gospel message?"

No answers.

"Gospel means Good News. What's the Good News?"

A tentative hand. "God loves us?"

"Give me a little more, please."

Finally, my daughter answered "We're all sinners, but because God loves us, he gave Jesus on the Cross to die for our sins so we can be with God forever." (Proud father moment: She's a helper in the class, so she isn't supposed to answer the questions unless no one else can.)

We discussed this for a bit, then I asked a question about a key concept that we had just spent fifteen minutes discussing in detail. No one could answer (except Charli. Wow. First anger in the post below, now rampant pride.)

Is Children's Ministry really just babysitting? Do parents not feed their children breakfast on Sundays, starving their brains from working? Am I a lousy teacher (I admit to trending mostly to lecture - spirited lecture, but still lecture - because the purpose of that class is to prepare the kids for sitting through a sermon)? Or is this to be expected?

Feedback, please?

Things that really BUG me about traffic!

I'm in the car 1 to 2 hours a day, depending on traffic and my always errant sense of direction, and every day I see things that cheese me off.

In assending order:
10) Nose pickers. You'd think every adult would know by now that windows are see-through and the index fingers are NOT the finger to use to mine for "gold". Roll your nostril with your thumb - it's just as effective and as long as you don't turn your nose inside out, it's not as offensive.

9) People on cellphones. How can they expect to brake for me when I'm on mine?

8) Putting on make-up when you drive. It's not so bad when women do it, but men? Knock it off!

7) Eating. Look, certain foods aren't meant for driving and eating. String cheese is a n0-no, as is a foot-long sub with no wrapper. And especially not "gold" from number 10...

6) Reading. Okay, I read just about everywhere. Walking from car to work, at meals, in certain rooms that shall remain nameless, but NOT. IN. THE. DRIVER'S. SEAT!

5) Public displays of affection. 'Nuff said.

4) Rap "music". There are seismic faults around here and one of these guys is going to set them off!

3) Kerry/Roberts stickers. YOU LOST! (Being a loser is bad enough, advertising it is a whole 'nuther level...)

2) Hummers (sorry Mike). Those with soldier envy should go to Iraq.

and the number one thing that REALLY. CHEESES. ME. OFF...

1) SMOKERS! They are the reason I don't drive a Hummer because every time I see one of these idiots toss their butts out the window I wanna go all Smokey Bear on their butts - Down shift, climb some chrome and crush all those cigarettes they haven't lit yet - those ones in their soon to be squishy pockets! Somebody tell me why there isn't a bizzilion dollar fine for incendiary littering? They're DNA's right on the cancer end of the butt (and why would anyone stick something called a "butt" in their mouth????) it's not like we couldn't prove who's being a jerk!


Coincidently, the sermon last Sunday was on anger, but I was teaching so I didn't hear it. Cannya tell?

Grizzly Prancer-Spot has joined our family. The 3 month old, full-blooded Chi has already wormed his way into our hearts (wait, don't use the word "Wormed" in a sentence about a dog...)

In a twist on computer dating, we found our new puppy online with Petfinder.com. I didn't realize the posted picture was life-sized...


Rainy will never be forgotten, but I'm sure he would have welcomed Grizzly as whole-heartedly as we have.

Pirates – the Dentist’s Nightmare

Y’know, it’s sad when the guy who edits the preview knows more about what makes the movie work than the director. This movie felt like a nice, big, roomy house stuffed to the rafters with moving boxes. Really dirty moving boxes. Pirates is a crowded film.

SPOILER WARNING, AND ALL THAT JAZZ

Back when CGI first hit the screens, the question became “when will CGI replace actors?” This was a broad step in that direction, and I liked Davy Jones a lot more than anyone else, and I didn’t really like him all that much. Loved the way his face moved, and the accent was kinda cool, but I’m left wondering how in the world they forgot what made the first Pirates movie so much fun?

Curse of the Black Pearl had charm. The thing about pirate movies is our ironic suspension of the knowledge that pirates were hard-butt, evil creatures. We romanticize them something fierce, and part of the romance is that a pirate ENJOYS being a pirate. That’s what “swashbuckling” is all about. Jack was a dastardly fellow, but he LOVES being dastardly.

No one enjoyed themselves in this movie. It started out dour (and I admit to missing something. Was Liz upset because her wedding was rained out? Or was Will arrested and prevented from showing up? I felt like I was missing something a lot in this film). And our beloved Captain Jack Sparrow never enjoyed himself after getting the black spot on his hand (the “I can still see fine” joke went over everyone’s head at the sold out theater we were in. Partially due to poor delivery, but mostly to mis-editing. Did they gloss over it for the kid’s sake? But no child should see this movie…) It seemed Davey Jones’s goal to crush out enjoyment because he had none, but that’s the quality that a villain must have to be engaging, not just special effects.

The writers of this movie are a team for whom I have a great deal of respect, so I’m assuming the whole cannibal section has a purpose in the next film, because otherwise it was a half-hour of useless stuff. A half hour to cover the story point that Jack had to be stationary for awhile so Will could find him?

And how is it that the monkey is still undead, but Barbosa is not? Was that the bit at the end of the credits in the last one? He stole a piece of gold, so he’s cursed again? How (and why) did Jack get him?

Bootstrap is back, but now I have to go back to the first script to see if I can recall exactly why his blood was needed to break the curse. I actually felt for him, though. Being tied to a cannon unable to live and unable to die… a chilling image. Myth building is a strength of Pirates and they came through again (though why the Flying Dutchman? Legend has it that it was a Dutch captain twirling around the Cape of Good Hope, forever doomed to sail his ghost ship because of his blaspheme. I suppose since most know the name and few the legend, that T&T squatted on the mental real estate of the Flying Dutchman to give it some resonance).

I’m notorious for blasting movies, and it appears I’ve infected Lynette. While everyone around us was praising it as a good film, we looked at each other and said, “huh?”

The next movie should be better, though. No one knows how to chew the scenery like Mr. Rush...

Poseidon - SPOILER WARNING

I was pre-disposed and the director used that to his advantage. Unlike Superman, which was sunk by the baggage, Poseidon got tricky with it. I loved the original Poseidon Adventure, watching it on TV as a kid several times. It was a star studded cast, most notabley Ernest Borgnine, Shelley Winters, and Red Buttons. In my memory, at least, Shelley was a pathetic, annoying woman who did a long underwater swim. As I recall she wasn’t a survivor (but I have a bad memory. It could be I just didn’t want her to survive).

In these survivor movies, the director introduces his characters (in this movie a little too fast and formulaic in my opinion, but it served…) and the audience makes its list of who lives and who dies. In a remake, you also try to match up who is playing who in the update. (Incidentally, I really like every one of the actors in this cast – the main reason I saw it.)

My list was:

Josh Lucas: He’s going to live.

Kurt Russell: He’s going to die.

Richard Dryfus: He’s tricky. As a jilted gay man who wants to kill himself, he could well be a twist on the pathetic Shelley Winters character. While it would be ironic if he lived (since he originally wanted to die) I thought he was going to die, heroically. The director really played on this. Richard ended up being Red Buttons. Fooled me.

The Boyfriend: I was figuring he would live, but thought he could die. Wasn’t sure. Again, the director played well on this.

The Daughter: Absolutely has to live.

The Mother: Also has to live.

The Little Boy: Absolutely-absotively has to live.

The Stowaway: I (forgive the expression) missed the boat on this one. I thought she’d live, because she had reason to live (her sick brother). Her claustrophobia edged her over to pathetic, though, but by THAT time I was convinced Richard was Shelley.

The Crewman and Lucky Larry may as well have worn red shirts ala Star Trek, because you knew they’d be the first to go. (Do NOT like the way the crewman went. Understand the choice, just disagree with it.)

Because of the rinky-dink start, I thought we had a poor director. Again, I think he used that well, because from then on I was underestimating him. By giving the stowaway good reason to live, I figured Dryfus had to die. So much so that when the stowaway lay there getting mouth-to-mouth I figured she had to come to. It was a race through the first and second act to see which would live and which would die – Dryfus or the girl. By making it the stowaway who died, the director was putting everyone on notice. “See? She had reason to live and she didn’t live! No one’s safe!” From that moment on, this movie was a winner. If he could kill her, then he could kill the kid (but, no, not really. Movies haven’t changed that much…)

In my opinion, there was only one major flaw (besides the convenient raft beside their departure tube – better would have been a ton of life boats. All empty.)… and that flaw was magnified by the strong cast. Where this movie was weak was finding the humor. You’ve got Dryfus, who is one of the funniest actors available, Russell and Lucas who are both very comedically talented, and the daughter (don’t know her name, sorry) who had a flair for it as well. Yes, it’s a disaster movie, but humor finds its way into anything, and the director should have trusted his actors to find the balance. As a result, the movie was good, but not great… and I think it could have been great.

Characters: C+ (they had to be stock characters, but these actors could all deliver more)
Director: B
Story: B+
Effects: C+
Overall: B