kellym40 film review

‘Storks’ makes a delivery of delightful entertainment

Rating 3/5

The premise of Storks is sort of a silly one. Writer and director Nicholas Stoller, along with co-director Doug Sweetland, bring this animated tale about storks, which no longer partake in the delivery of babies, due to a mishap years earlier. They now deliver parcels for Cornerstore, an online superstore.

The film is far from a well-rounded, spectacular film from the likes of Toy Story, the recent Lego Movie, or the likes of some classic Disney films. But it does bring its own sense of comedy and joy to audiences. The animation is charming, but not much that we haven’t seen before. It did serve the film well and brought the story and characters to life on screen.

The talented actors who lent their voice talents to the film were Andy Samberg, who played Junior, a top stork at the company, set to receive a promotion by the CEO Hunter (Kelsey Grammer). The catch is he has to fire Tulip (Katie Crown) the baby orphaned there after her “homing beacon” was destroyed and was therefore undeliverable. Junior can’t bring himself to fire her and decides to put her down in the mailroom to sort the mail where she accidentally puts a letter through and activates the dormant Baby Making Machine. Junior and Tulip then have to deliver the baby. Jennifer Aniston, Ty Burrell, and Anton Starkman voice the Gardner family who the baby is supposed to be delivered.

At the company, we also meet Pigeon Toady (Stephen Kramer Glickman), who acts as an assistant to the CEO (and also may have his own aspirations to become the head honcho). He is apparently there to act as some sort of other comic relief with his “brah” toting language and a musical sequence to The Heavy’s “How You Like Me Now” that seems just a bit over the top.

But at the heart of the film is the sub plot of finding the home in which Tulip was supposed to have and the stork, Jasper (Danny Trejo), who failed to deliver her. Through the course of Junior and Tulip’s adventure to deliver the baby, she begins to ponder the thought of having the family she never really had. They also come across a pack of wolves led by the Alpha (Keegan-Michael Key) and the Beta (Jordan Peele) that can apparently form various shapes of boats, minivans and others in order to chase their “prey.”

In a story about family, friendship, and finding one’s self, Storks delivers a fine film. It had its moments of incongruous bits but had enough to keep me in the film and entertained with the dialogue, story, and characters. It wasn’t spectacular, but it was delightful and entertaining.

 

kellym40 General, Uncategorized

Liberty, Freedom, Choice

In light of some recent events, I would just like to share a few thoughts. These are just random thoughts, but they might feel more like familiar musings about the current situations in politics, sports, society, and the country. Of course, all of these categories seem to bundle together to form one long narrative.

American Flag Controversy

I’ll start with Colin Kaepernick. I’m sure everyone has heard of the latest controversy that some people and media have turned it into. His refusal to stand for the National Anthem before football games has become the topic of discussion for many. I’ve read stories and seen social media comments and posts how the quarterback despises America and is being disrespectful. According to some, he’s even being a rich, spoiled crybaby.

I understand his reasons why he is doing what he’s doing. As he has said, it’s to try to bring change to a situation that appears to have erupted over the last few years. And seemingly, that is the injustice being done towards people of color at the hands of white authority figures. It seems there has been some discussion on the matter, but mostly it is still almost hateful dialogue towards Kaepernick and his actions. I have also read, though, there are some that support what he’s doing, and some of those are even veterans.

Do I agree with what he is doing? Not necessarily. There could be other ways he could protest and try to bring about change. But I certainly do agree it is his right to do what he’s doing as provided in the Constitution. The American Flag is meant as a symbol of liberty and freedom. And if we (Americans) are to rise and honor those who have fought to provide us those freedoms, then shouldn’t we have a right to protest when some civil liberties and rights are being denied or disregarded? The way I see it (as I have mentioned this in another post) the flag represents America’s freedom. But if you also look at how we (America) arrived at that point, by basically oppressing and slaughtering the Native Americans here for nothing more than dominance, which is also what seems to be happening today – the oppression of people of color and minorities. So that red, white and blue flag that’s supposed to stand for freedom and liberty just seems hollow when we are still oppressing minorities. So, I believe until we – as a nation – can return to a civilized, caring nation where race and oppression are not relevant any longer and people can get around without being judged or oppressed, then we can all stand in honor of that Star-Spangled Banner and to those who have fought and died to give us that honor and freedom. And until then, we should be able to protest how we see fit, as long it is peaceful and not interfering with anyone or anything else, or not hurting anyone else. Let’s refrain from being judgmental and just live.

Election 2016

In a recent post, I talked about the election and political party history. We know that Trump and Clinton are in it and they will be facing off on the debate stage in a few days. Since that post, Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson is polling 15% or higher in several states and now is on the ballot in all 50 states. The National Commission on Presidential Debates has made the decision not to include the former New Mexico Governor on the first debate stage because he isn’t polling at he requisite 15% in the national polls (a number arbitrarily set by the commission).

I’ve read where some believe that voting third party is a wasted vote. That it’s meaningless. No third party has ever won. Here’s a little history: by 1860 there were four parties – Northern Democrat, Southern Democrat, Republican, and the Constitutional-Union Party. The Republican Party was considered a “third party” at the time. Republicans won their first presidency with Abraham Lincoln as the issue of slavery was at the forefront of that election.

In this election, I don’t believe there have ever been two more polarizing candidates as Trump and Clinton. As I said before, some have said they will vote for the lesser of two evils. But which on is the lesser evil? Some say it’s Clinton. Some say it’s Trump. If you ask me, voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil. Some have also said voting for a third party will take votes away from Trump and allow a Clinton presidency as it did in 1992 with Ross Perot. But really, if 62% of America want to see Gary Johnson in the debates, and those that say they will vote Trump to keep Clinton out and those that will vote Clinton to keep Trump out would vote for Gary Johnson, then he might just actually win. I haven’t done the math. But it does seem plausible. I for one cannot vote Republican or Democrat in good conscience. What needs to change is the CPD and the failing two-party system. Since the end of the Civil War, the two-party system has been in power. There have been other “third parties” but they don’t get the recognition because all the attention goes to the two major parties.

The CPD was supposed to be set up to educate America on all eligible candidates to make the choices needed to secure the next presidency. In all honesty, if a candidate is on the ballot their voice should be heard on the debate stage regardless of numbers in national polls. Plain and simple. America needs another choice. This election is too important. However, if Johnson doesn’t get in then maybe after four years of Trump or Clinton, the rules will change.

Final Thought

It just seems to me what is lacking is appreciation for human and societal differences. I’ve said this time and time again. We (America) need to put a little love back in our lives. Sometimes it just seems that until someone says something is offensive or controversial, no one really notices or is aware of it. But because someone said something, then all of a sudden it’s a countrywide (or in some cases a global) offensive controversy. It looks as though the country (world) is regressing to a more tumultuous time of racial tension, oppression, and righteous judgment. Let’s love each other and get along.

kellym40 film review

Emotions are dug up in ‘The Lovely Bones,’ but don’t get past the surface

Rating 2/5

With a mixture of drama, a little suspense and mystery, and a dab of humor, The Lovely Bones presents a story that could be interesting and engaging, but it misses on a certain level. Writers Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens wrote the script based on the book by Alice Sebold. Some of the blame for the finished product might be put on them as they tried to adapt the book to film. Partial blame could also go to director Peter Jackson.

The story is about 14 year old Susie Salmon (Saoirse Ronan) who is murdered and then seemingly lives in a sort of purgatory state as she looks down on her family as they deal with her loss. Caught between taking vengeance upon her murderer and allowing her and her family to move on in peace, she looks back on the events that led up to her demise and attempts to make sense of it all.

Her mother, Abigail Salmon (Rachel Weisz) is trying to move on, but her father, Jack (Mark Wahlberg), is having trouble letting go. He frantically pieces together anything that might be able to shed some light as to where she is. He really never gives up the hope that Susie is still alive. During his “investigation,” his oldest daughter, Lindsey (Rose McIver) begins to believe and tries to help her father. Meanwhile, Jack brings Abigail’s mother, Lynn (Susan Sarandon) in to help during their tragedy to help take care of the kids, especially the youngest boy, Buckley (Christian Ashdale).

The other key players are the serial killer George Harvey (Stanley Tucci), Len Fenerman (Michael Imperioli), the detective who investigates the case, Susie’s love interest Ray Singh (Reece Ritchie), and Ruth Connors (Carolyn Dando), a clairvoyant who helps Susie and later becomes involved with Ray.

While I liked the premise and story, it just seemed, at times, the film didn’t know what it was supposed to be – a drama, mystery, or fantasy, or maybe something else. That was a major setback for me. Because really, it had just enough to keep me into the narrative of the film but not enough to thoroughly enjoy it for what it was. The characters intertwine in this story that has promise but just misses the mark. That is to say the performances were adequate for the story, but it appeared the focus was on little Susie as she attempts to make sense of what happened and find her own peace and so that her family would be able to move on. In that, the action moved along well but seemed to abandon a lot of time to deal with the emotions from the family.

During the course of The Lovely Bones, the audience is on a journey with Susie (who also narrates throughout the film) to see how her family is coping and to see if they discover the identity of her murderer. It was one of those films where you would like to see everything wrapped up nice and neat with a happy ending. But even the ending, although there was some satisfaction, didn’t fulfill the needed emotions to be fully satisfied from watching Susie’s journey. It left me with some mixed emotions and I just wasn’t sure what to feel.

kellym40 film review

‘R. I. P. D.’ shows promise, but fails to deliver

Rating 2/5

The story surrounding the film may have looked good on paper, but did not seem to translate well to the finished product. The film had a somewhat interesting concept, but never seemed to build enough traction to really execute a great picture. The premise is we have Roy (Jeff Bridges), an old West law enforcement officer, and Nick (Ryan Reynolds), a member of the Boston Police Department, come back in different bodies and now are members of the Rest In Peace Department (R. I. P. D.). Their job is to capture people who have cheated their judgments and return them for their final judgment.

Robert Schwentke directed the screenplay by writers Phil Hay and Matt Manfredi. And it doesn’t appear there is clear evidence as to why this film did not succeed more. It seemed to fail with a majority of critics and the general movie-going public. Some may have felt the film was unfunny and uninteresting. I tend to agree – to an extent. Perhaps the real problem with it was the direction. Through most of the film, I felt the pace of the film was slow. It was like watching a live theatre performance when the actors have low energy and the play just seems to drag.

I only enjoyed (if you can call it that) this film for the fairly decent concept. But there appeared to be several similarities with Men in Black. It almost succeeded in being a bad rip-off of Men in Black. Or, it did succeed in being a bad rip-off of the aforementioned film. It depends on how you look at it I guess. The climax of the R.I.P.D. just appeared uneventful as the heroes try to stop the “bad guys” from operating a device that is to open a gateway to unleash actual “hell on Earth.”

Although, the film did have some varying characters, they mostly appeared as weak, dull, two-dimensional characters. One might expect more from the likes of Jeff Bridges, Ryan Reynolds and Kevin Bacon. That’s not to say the performances were necessarily bad, but they just didn’t seem to have much to work with in the script and direction. The seemingly sole character with any sort of redeeming qualities was Mary-Louise Parker’s Proctor, the “manager” of the Rest in Peace Department. She seemed to be a simple and straight forward, while still being a tough leader who runs a tight ship in the department. You might believe the actors had fun with the material (which appears to be what the film was meant to be – a fun, summer flick), but that just didn’t work for me completely.

R.I.P.D was released in the summer of 2013. It is evident the filmmakers were trying to make this a summer blockbuster with action, comedy, and a strong use of CGI. However, they lacked in story and character development, efficient use of comedy, and an apparent waste of time and talent with its lead actors. In R.I.P.D., we find a film that struggles with itself and leaves behind a skeleton of a potentially good film.

 

 

kellym40 film review

Another horror classic remade with ‘The Wolfman’

Rating 3/5

In 2010, Joe Johnston directed a remake of the 1941 horror classic The Wolf Man, written by Curt Siodmak. New writers Andrew Kevin Walker and David Self penned this remake and instead of updating to a more contemporary time, they set it in late nineteenth century England.

It can be said that The Wolf Man is to werewolves what Dracula is to vampires. So this remake is not just another horror film, it’s the Wolf Man. In that, there appears to be some big acting shoes to fill from Lon Chaney Jr’s performance in the 1941 classic. The role went to Benicio Del Toro, a fine actor in his own right, in this remake and did a fair job with the portrayal of Lawrence Talbot.

The story begins as Sir John Talbot’s (Anthony Hopkins) son has disappeared. Ben’s fiancé, Gwen Conliffe (Emily Blunt) writes to Ben’s brother, Lawrence, and pleas for him to return home to help find her fiancé. Upon arrival home, a body has been found. Lawrence sees his remains and then embarks on a hunt to find the beast responsible for his brother’s death. He is led to a gypsy camp and is soon attacked by a creature, which is half-man/half-wolf. A gypsy woman tends to his wounds, but pronounces Lawrence to be cursed. And, at the time of the next full moon, Lawrence transforms into the creature and goes on a bloody rampage.

Del Toro played the part of a tortured soul, caught between a normal life and a sort of living hell. He brought those characteristics to the character with a quiet desperation of needing to escape the hell in which he was living. The great Anthony Hopkins brought the right amount of caring and sentiment to the role as a man who has lost a son and wife. But he also had the mystery about him that were revealed in the climactic moments of the film. Blunt’s Gwen Conliffe had the spirit of the “damsel in distress,” but also a strong, courageous woman trying to uncover her fiancé’s disappearance.

What worked here in this film were the performances set against the time period and Danny Elfman’s music coupled with Shelly Jonson’s cinematography. It is settings like these that really bring more life into these horror stories with the vast countryside, foggy moors and a rocky waterfall. And although the performances were nothing extraordinary, they did have a sense of purpose and believability.

The CGI however, is what missed for me in the film. There’s something to be said for the old makeup special effects instead of the use of modern CGI. It does seem that CGI is used a lot in today’s filmmaking process, but sometime it can be overdone, and when not done right, it can appear sort of ridiculous. As with the case in this film, the effects made the werewolves appear more grotesque in nature and didn’t appear to fit in with the style of the film. This made the CGI a bit clumsy and out of place. But even with its flaws and average performances, the film did keep me entertained and hold my interest.

kellym40 film review

A powerful force is set in motion in ‘Unstoppable’

Rating 3.5/5

This film, based on actual events, suggests what happens when determination and experience are brought forward to solve a pending disaster. All of the elements – story, character, action, and cinematography – come together as director Tony Scott takes Mark Bomback’s script and spins a great story into an action flick that delivers some fine entertainment.

The story begins when an engineer (Ethan Suplee) mistakenly sets a train in motion. It happens when Frank Barnes (Denzel Washington) takes on a new guy, Will Colson (Chris Pine), on another train. We soon discover the two trains are on the same track. To add to the thrills, the unmanned train is carrying toxic chemicals and is headed towards a not so rural area. The person in charge of operations for the railroad, Connie Hooper (Rosario Dawson), is alerted of the situation and discusses with other personnel how to handle the situation. Meanwhile, an executive in the main office, Galvin, played by Kevin Dunn, is more concerned about the cost of losing the train than arriving at a solution that would be beneficial for everyone. After failed attempts at stopping the train (which was warned by Barnes from his 20 plus years of railroading experience that everyone fails to listen to), Hooper begins to take Barnes’ experience into play, despite the continued hesitations from Galvin. A new plan is made on how to slow the train down and it begins to work for a little bit. However, a new plan is made and Barnes and Colson spring to action as a final attempt to stop the train.

Scott uses masterful shots of the train speeding down the track as news choppers hover around providing coverage of the impending disaster. The high-speed velocity of the train adds to the action and builds up, as the train gets closer to the populated town. Character development is somewhat lacking in this film, but that doesn’t seem to really matter as the attention is focused on the actions Barnes and Colson and their actions on stopping the train. There are some character moments from the pair that dives into their lives and explains where they are at that particular time and place, and that only adds to caring what happens to them and whether or not they will succeed. Galvin is your typical greedy executive. Hooper is the character that seems to lean towards her own judgment or executive judgment rather than the experienced employee and soon changes her views. These characters, and the supporting cast, play their characters well enough to care about a few and add to the tension to dislike a few (like Galvin).

Unstoppable is a full throttle train ride of action, tension, a little suspense, and some humor thrown in to make this film an enjoyable film and delivers enough to keep you on the track.

 

 

 

kellym40 Uncategorized

A gritty depiction of war and survival in ‘Lone Survivor’

Rating 4/5

They say war is hell. And nothing could be further from the truth as depicted in the events of this film. Not since Saving Private Ryan have I seen such a realistic display of the brutality of war. Writer/director Peter Berg adapted the book, Lone Survivor: The Eyewitness Account of Operation Redwing and the Lost Heroes of SEAL Team 10, by former Navy SEAL Leading Petty Officer Marcus Luttrell (Mark Wahlberg) and writer Patrick Robinson.

Operation Redwing was a mission to capture or kill Ahmad Shah, a feared Taliban leader, in June 2005. The mission started as a team of four was sent in on a nearby mountainside to do reconnaissance on the target. The team consisted of Luttrell, Lieutenant Michael Murphy (Taylor Kitsch), Gunner’s First Mate Second Class Danny Dietz (Emile Hirsch), and Second Class Petty Officer Matthew “Axe” Axelson (Ben Foster). The mission begins flawlessly, but soon turns disastrous. Communications begin to falter, cutting them off from the command post and then the mission becomes compromised as a small group of goat herders come across their path. Knowing there is a possibility of them being aligned with the Taliban, the men are faced with a difficult moral decision. As they debate their mission’s purpose and the rules of engagement, they are faced with three choices. Ultimately deciding to let them go, the men move to higher ground in hopes of better reception to call in an extraction team. However, they soon find themselves trapped as they become heavily outnumbered and outgunned. This ensuing sequence is intense as the four men fight for their survival, trying to dodge bullets and RPG fire, jumping off the steep cliffs hitting trees, rocks and hard ground.

The performances are excellent and provided a sense of realism to the story. The direction did the story justice from the opening that told the origin of the mission to the gut-wrenching sacrifices these men made (and every military man and woman make in times of war) during their fight with the Taliban and to the final moments of the rescue operation of the lone survivor. The dialogue was real and added to the everyday moments these men had at their base to the heightened sequences of action throughout the film.

This remarkable true story of survival was one of the finest displays of heroism during impossible odds. The mission began like an ordinary reconnaissance mission, but soon nothing seemed to go as planned and quickly became a fight for survival. One could go back, and through a series of “what if’s,” could see a different outcome and these men would have more than likely survived the ill-fated mission.

If there is one flaw in the film, it is character development. Aside from seeing some SEAL training and camaraderie among the guys, there is very little we get to know about these men other than most of them have significant others. However, that does not belittle the story or narrative of the film. The film’s deep impact is not compromised and brings forth a strong account of military brotherhood, survival, and sacrifices this small group of heroes made and how one lived to tell the tale.

kellym40 film review

‘Rabbit-Proof Fence’ offers story of the human spirit

Rating 3.5/5

The fact that Rabbit-Proof Fence is based on a true story makes the story’s central themes that much bigger. The story has elements of racism and essentially slavery and what makes those issues so prominent is the fact that it takes place in Australia. The film is a reminder of the fear and animosity the “white” man had towards the “black” man. In a screenplay written by Christine Olsen, from a book written by Doris Pilkington (the actual daughter of one of the main characters), spins a tale of hope and survival in the Australian Outback.

Set in the early 1930’s, the Australian government set forth a policy that children who were fathered by white men to the local aboriginal women (also known as half-castes) were detrimental and must be saved from a black society for fear their “white genes” would overcome them and allow them to rally the aborigines to stand up for their rights. Three children, Molly Craig (Everlyn Sampi), Daisy Craig Kadibill (Tianna Sansbury), and their cousin Gracie Fields (Laura Monaghan), are ripped from their family by a government official and taken to a type of school to prepare them for menial labor, such as domestic servants. The girls are there only for a short time before they make a daring escape to travel over 1,200 miles to return home. Kenneth Branagh plays A. O. Neville, an administrator of the relocation policies of the government, who wants to track these children to return them to the “school.” David Gulpilil plays the tracker Moodoo, who pursues the girls across the country, and also in pursuit are government authorities, most notably Constable Riggs (Jason Clarke). It is somewhat sad to see, as we are told, these relocation policies remained in effect until 1970. That is one of the things that make the movie, particularly the ending, so emotional.

On their journey, we see the vast scenery that stretches across the Australian landscape. They make it to a fence that stretches for miles and leads them home. The fence is made to keep rabbits from getting on the aborigines’ farmland, thus the title of the film. The girls travel along this fence for most of the trip. It is not until the girls begin their trek across the country that we realize the determination and hope in these girls. The trip is a long one. They do face some obstacles, but they do overcome them. For me, the film began a little slow but picked up in the second act. And once the girls began their long journey home, I was fixed on them, going through the emotional and physical journey with them.

The girls showed raw emotion that brought life into the characters. As the tracker, Gulpilil did not have much dialogue, but his use of facial expression and gestures showed his character traits of being strong-willed and determined. Branagh had a quiet, menacing charm about him with a strong determination to find the children, and Clarke displayed a sense of urgency with a higher level of energy.

This film keeps up a steady pace through most of its 94 minute run time. Directed by Philip Noyce, Rabbit-Proof Fence is filled with emotion and is a testament of the human spirit.

 

 

kellym40 article, General

Election 2016: This Year It’s Real

With the current state of affairs with the two-party system, coupled with this election year, I thought I might take a look at a brief history of the evolution of political parties in the United States.

U. S. Political Party History

The first political party formed around 1787 by Alexander Hamilton and other leaders who wanted a strong central government. They called themselves the Federalists. By 1796 some grew against the Federalists platform and a group of followers, led by Thomas Jefferson, started a party called the Democratic-Republicans. They believed in a smaller national government, while leaving the governing power to the states and local governments.

When Jefferson came to the office in 1801, the Federalists were losing power to the Democratic-Republicans. Although the Federalists hung on as a minority party for 20 years, the differing thoughts and values through the developing United States (which ultimately led to the Civil War) paved the way for new parties.

When Andrew Jackson was elected and served two terms, the party was renamed to Democrats, thus making Jackson the first Democrat president. Former Federalists joined in opposition to the Democrats and formed the National Republicans, or Whigs. The Whigs enjoyed four presidents in office – William Henry Harrison, who died while in office in 1841 (the first president to do so). John Tyler filled in and remained in office for one term. In 1845, the Whigs lost to a Democrat, James K. Polk, only to regain the office in 1849 with Zachary Taylor. However, he died in office 16 months later. Millard Fillmore became president and was out of office in 1853. Democrats took the office for the remainder of the 1850’s.

The issue of slavery rose to the forefront of the political stage leaving little room for other issues. The Whig Party began to fall apart, due in part to members leaving to form Northern Abolitionists, who wanted to abolish slavery. A new Republican Party was formed and by 1860 there were four major parties – Northern Democrat, Southern Democrat, Republican, and the Constitutional-Union Party. With slavery a strong issue, Republicans secured their first president Abraham Lincoln. States’ rights began to be an issue with slavery and in 1861 the Southern states seceded and the Civil War began.

At the conclusion of the Civil War, the two parties – Republicans and Democrats became the major political parties – took their turn with the presidency. During this time, third parties also began to appear like in 1872 a woman, Victoria Woodhull, became the first woman to run for president. She shared the Equal Rights Party ticket with African American leader Frederick Douglass. The People’s Party of the U.S.A., also known as the Populists, gained their support from the common workers and farmers. Republicans split and formed a group called the Progressive, or “Bull Moose,” Party in 1912. After the Second World War, Southern Democrats formed the States’ Rights Party in order to fight for the civil rights of African Americans. The Libertarian Party, formed in the 1970’s, was for individual rights. The 1990’s saw the rise of the Reform Party, led by Texas businessman Ross Perot. The Green Party has formed to take on the environmental movement.

The Presidents

Below is a list of the presidents with affiliation, and length of presidency:

George Washington – Federalist (1789-1797)

John Adams – Federalist (1797-1801)

Thomas Jefferson – Democratic-Republican (1801-1809)

James Madison – Democratic-Republican (1809-1817)

James Monroe – Democratic-Republican (1817-1825)

John Quincy Adams – Democratic-Republican (1825-1829)

Andrew Jackson – Democrat (1829-1837)

Martin Van Buren – Democrat

William Henry Harrison – Whig (1841)

John Tyler – Whig (1841-1845)

James K. Polk – Democrat (1845-1849)

Zachary Taylor – Whig (1849-1850)

Millard Fillmore – Whig (1850-1853)

Franklin Pierce – Democrat (1853-1857)

James Buchanan – Democrat (1957-1861)

Abraham Lincoln – Republican (1861-1865)

Andrew Johnson – Democrat-Union (1865-1869)

Ulysses S. Grant – Republican (1869-1877)

Rutherford B. Hayes – Republican (1877-1881)

James A. Garfield – Republican (1881)

Chester A. Arthur – Republican (1881-1885)

Grover Cleveland – Democrat (1885-1889)

Benjamin Harrison – Republican (1889-1893)

Grover Cleveland – Democrat (1893-1897)

William McKinley – Republican (1897-1901)

Theodore Roosevelt – Republican (1901-1909)

William Howard Taft – Republican (1909-1913)

Woodrow Wilson – Democrat (1913-1921)

Warren G. Harding – Republican (1921-1923)

Calvin Coolidge – Republican (1923-1929)

Herbert Hoover – Republican (1929-1933)

Franklin D. Roosevelt – Democrat (1933-1945)

Harry S. Truman – Democrat (1945-1953)

Dwight D. Eisenhower – Republican (1953-1961)

John F. Kennedy – Democrat (1961-1963)

Lyndon B. Johnson – Democrat (1963-1969)

Richard Nixon – Republican (1969-1974)

Gerald Ford – Republican (1974-1977)

Jimmy Carter – Democrat (1977-1981)

Ronald Reagan – Republican (1981-1989)

George Bush – Republican (1989-1993)

Bill Clinton – Democrat (1993-2001)

George W. Bush – Republican (2001-2009)

Barrack Obama – Democrat (2009-2017)

Lesser of Two Evils

Political parties in the United States have seen and wide and varied existence since the Federalists were formed in the late 18th Century. Today, this election year, the two major parties – Republican and Democrat – have given us candidates Trump and Clinton. Two seemingly polar opposites and both appear to be wrong for this country. I’ve heard people say they’ll vote for the lesser of the two evils. But which one is that?

There have been discussions where Trump is the lesser evil, but also that Clinton is the lesser evil. My opinion is that Clinton is the lesser evil of the two. But sometimes it seems hard to tell. It is difficult to see. Clouded is their future. The shroud of the dark side has fallen and clouds everything.

Okay. I digress.

Back to Trump and Clinton. It seems some, or most, of America does not approve of either candidate. That’s when they say they’ll vote for the lesser of the two evils. But again, which one is that? I guess some people don’t seem to take the time to look for other options. That’s where third and fourth parties come in. The trouble is they don’t get a lot of publicity until late. But this year, right now, there is a third party candidate on the Libertarian ticket that is making headway. Check out Gary Johnson and his running mate Bill Weld. Green Party candidate Jill Stein is supposedly still in the race, but is not getting numbers like Johnson is. So come September in the first presidential debate, there might be a third member on the stage with Trump and Clinton, something that hasn’t been done since Ross Perot in 1992.

Johnson/Weld

If you don’t like Trump or Clinton, look into the other candidates. There is plenty on them. Johnson and Weld are both former Governors and both former Republicans. Check them out. Here’s an introductory ad for Johnson/Weld:

Johnson/Weld Ad

You can listen to an interview with Johnson below:

Gary Johnson Interview

A vote for Johnson, if (and hopefully when he gets there), will not be a wasted vote. Check out their website: Johnson/Weld 2016

Let’s give America another choice. This election year is too important to just check a box in order to check a box.

kellym40 film review

Four friends bring fun, sentiment to ‘Last Vegas’

Rating 3/5

The premise of Last Vegas brings the idea of four life long friends coming together again for a big hoo-rah after nearly 60 years. This kind of formula has been seen before and since the release of this movie. However, it still works. It works, due in part, to the acting talents of Michael Douglas, Robert De Niro, Morgan Freeman, and Kevin Kline. That’s not to say the film isn’t flawed, but the flaws are minor and are somewhat lost through the fun overall story.

The film generally has a nice story of friendship and forgiveness, mixed with a love triangle (twice). The film begins with four young boys who seem to do a lot together. They protect each other. They have fun together. Flash forward to nearly 60 years later and we find the four are living their lives, but they still have a yearning to have some fun. It starts with Billy (Douglas) who is dating a much younger girl and suddenly proposes to her. So what does he do? He calls his childhood buddies to the wedding in Las Vegas. We then see Archie (Freeman), after suffering a minor stroke, living with his son (who treats his father as a child, becoming very protective). Sam (Kline) is married, but still misses his youthful times. Archie and Sam, on their way to the airport, decide to stop by and pick up Paddy (De Niro). Here we learn Paddy and Billy have had a falling out. Paddy reluctantly agrees and the three head off to Vegas.

Upon arrival, they meet up with Billy and get to the hotel only to find the hotel is still being renovated as they squabble over who was supposed to make the reservation. They go to the casino, to the bar, to the pool and manage to obtain a room for the rest of the weekend until the wedding. While there, they meet a beautiful lounge singer Diana (Mary Steenburgen) who Paddy seems to instantly fall for, and Billy is not far behind. This brings up a similar love triangle from their childhood where they both liked the same girl. This ultimately resulted in their riff between each other. This plays out, though, through comedy and a touching gesture that turns their friendship around.

Jon Turteltaub directed the film written by Dan Fogelman who created likeable characters and an enjoyable story with humor, love, and sentiment. The film ran for 1 hour 45 minutes, which seemed a tad long to tell the story, but the story was good and the pace seemed to flow. However, one problem of the film’s story was when the guys meet Dean (Jerry Ferrara), a seemingly obnoxious 20-something and that whole line in the story just didn’t seem to satisfactorily play out. There were a couple of decent moments with the character, but it just didn’t seem to fit in as well with the rest of the film.

De Niro, Freeman, Douglas, and Kline all turned in fine performances, as did the supporting cast. It wasn’t stellar. But it didn’t have to be. It was a very enjoyable film. And now it seems there is a sequel in the works with an unknown release date. Time will tell if it will be as enjoyable and satisfying as this first go around.