Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
The film Sympathy For Lady Vengence was interesting and somewhat confusing. The film was visually well shot but the story left me in the dust. It introduced characters that did little to nothing to the main story. Her jail moments only showed a side of her that I would call an angel of death. She killed bad women in prison. Perhaps its how she has the will and drive to kill in the end of the film. Other parts of the film seemed useless such as her relation with a coworker in a bakery. I saw it as just something to distract you from the main story. In all the movie was good dispite the headache but I dont believe I would go out of my way to watch it again.
P.S. Did the main character die at the end?? I am so confused!!
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
This movie was really interesting I liked it. It was all in spanish that was a negative, I did understand and read the captions but I wouldv'e liked to understand it more. This movie was purely about love and how it can change your life for good or bad. It was mainly about cheaters and affairs. It was a really good movie and I liked how the director tied the three stories into the one accident. All three stories were at the accident even if one just witnessed it he was there as well.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Overall this movie was very long, and I was beginning to get antsy. Its one of those movies that you really have to pay attention to in order to really understand it. But I enjoyed the story line, and the whole mafia concept. I would like to watch it again, so I can get a better understanding.
Sunday, November 20, 2011
Friday, November 18, 2011
Thursday, November 17, 2011
Tuesday, November 15, 2011
Monday, November 14, 2011
Last Friday only three of my fellow classmates decided to make a two hour trek to Albuquerque in order to watch two 3-D movies for the grand cost of nothing! JUST THREE OTHER KIDS?! I’m just a college freshman with only a few bucks to his name, and when I hear that there will be a FREE field trip to the Museum of National History where we would be required to watch two FREE IMAX 3-D Movies, I flip my beans! When free food is involved I sign up immediately. Apparently, the majority of our class had more pressing matters to attend to (or righteous raves in Albuquerque), but I won’t accuse anyone of being “lazy” or “to cool” to visit the Museum. All I’m saying is that Friday proved to be relatively entertaining.
The day was magnificent! Even the ride was eventful. Mr. V edited my essay and Doug enlightened me on some righteous music. Once we arrived, we were greeted by a very energetic security guard. He assured us college students that our teachers would purchase our tickets and urged me to stick my head between the protective perimeter bars of the T-Rex exhibit (which I proceeded to do for a great picture). The class then made a conquest upstairs to view a 3-D exhibit that the students here at Highlands created. It was pretty mind blowing, but things got even better once Mr.V let us loose to peruse around the Museum for an hour or so. Doug and I teamed up and cruised around the dinosaur exhibit. We both tripped out looking at this almost stained glass color changing collage, and we witnessed the mighty Saber-Toothed Tiger in its’ natural environment (dead on top of a man made mountain inside a museum). The video below describes what I was hearing while I gazed upon the flesh less Apatosaurus
It was then time for the 3-D movies, which we got some industrial looking 3-d/welding glasses for the experience. The first movie “Ultimate Wave Tahiti”, directed by Mr. Loewen himself, was awesome. At one point the narrator was discussing the importance of the moon’s orbit around the earth and it looked like as if the planets were trying to enter my brain because it was so 3-D!
The movie was also interesting beyond just using 3-D visual effects. It discussed the beliefs of the Tahitian people and their gods that they worshiped (which at a few points their deity faces would float off-screen and look like they were flying towards us). The film also had some awesome footage of sea life, massive waves, ladies in bikinis, and of course gnarly surfing. The movie ended right when Mr. Loewen entered the theatre, but he explained to us in much detail on how 3-D is filmed. Things like polarization, mirror images, and colors used for lenses on the opposite sides of the color wheel gives people the visual illusion that things are three-dimensional on the big screen. He also told us that 10% of people have too good of vision to witness 3-D, which I guess is both a blessing and a curse.
The second movie was about a group of tornado chasers and to be quite honest, I was not very impressed. The footage they captured was a landmark in film I suppose, but I thought a tornado in 3-D would be a little more engaging. Flying 2x4 and cows or something!
After we had viewed both the movies, we all boarded the bus and headed to a fine dining establishment known as “Flying Stars”. I have never been to Flying Stars before, and I was expecting to get some fast food or a few bags of corn nuts in order not spend too much of class funds. This was not the case in the slightest! Flying Stars has some delicious food to say the least. Not only did a majority of the class miss out on a dinner of a lifetime, they missed out on a discussion of a lifetime. I know in college the relationship between teacher and student is superficial, but how can you avoid fun conversation after going to the Museum? It was as if our professors were not only human beings (say what!?), but down-to-earth people who love movies for the same reasons you and I do.
Everyone excluding the few who attended the trip also missed out on me almost spilling someone’s chewing tobacco nasty-ness on a ladies dress when I was trying to dispose of it (apparently chewers now think it’s appropriate to spit into juice cans and leave them on the bus).
The whole trip was way cooler than anything I would have done that Friday, because honestly I would have been watching “Hey Arnold” or drawing. It may have been different for everyone else that Friday. I hope your Friday was just as good, because I feel like my Friday made my weekend!
Sunday, November 13, 2011
The film was brilliant. The entire idea and content were so original and the scenes took your breath away. Showing the vast beauty of Tahiti and the ocean itself in 3D was definitly a new, different and exciting experience. These are the kind of films that should be in 3D. Films that capture humans and the earth in harmony and brings us a great story.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
This movie was very,very random. I did not like how it bounced around so much and I did not think it needed to be that long.
Tuesday, November 8, 2011
I have mixed emotions about this movie. I think it has a great story behind it but at times, it can be confusing and has a few boring scenes. I think I would watch this movie again to get a better understanding of it.
“2001: A Space Odyssey” begins by showing the beginning of time. The film shows how the apes begin to evolve with their use of bones for tools and weapons. The film then goes forward into the future where you see people navigating around space. You hear speak of an epidemic on the Clavius base, which you later learn is a cover story as the Americans search for something. The venture to the moon is that of several humans, and one computer system, HAL 9000. HAL is a computer that is said to make no mistakes. The computer can talk to the humans and is programmed to portray the emotions that humans have. HAL believes he (though it is a computer and therefore an “it,” it has a male voice so I shall refer to it as “him”) must take over the mission and takes such drastic measures as killing off the humans. The film continues with Dr. Bowman’s fight against HAL and he continues his search on Jupiter, the search that only HAL knew about until he was terminated.
This movie was strange. I didn’t really understand most of it. It was like one minute you’re seeing a point but then it keeps changing. I’m not sure if I was supposed to be digging deeper, looking for some deep hidden meaning or not, but I kind of wanted to. Either way, it’s pretty crazy to see the technology imagined back then. While it’s slightly, disappointing that the technology isn’t that advanced today, I’m still slightly relieved robots aren’t taking over our lives. I can live without the fear of my MacBook deciding I can’t do my homework. Though, that might make a pretty good excuse for not doing it! Jokes aside, I didn’t really like this movie. It made me feel so weird. I began humming along to the music and making up songs for everything everyone did. (“I’m walking on the wall. Now I’m upside down! La la la!”) It sort of brought out the weirdness in me, which is pretty bad because I’m kind of weird to begin with.Thankfully, I watched the film in the comfort of my own home. Also, the length of the film was almost unbearable. I understand why it’s so long--the journey to the moon isn’t a short one! But, within the first half hour I was thinking, “Alright! I get it! The journey’s long! But, if I were in space, I think I’d be having a lot more fun than they are!” I don’t know. I don’t think I’ll be watching this film any time soon. A part of me really wants to, though, just to see if I can get a better understanding of it.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
this movie is awesome and funny in away the corny music and effects of the stabbings just priceless i like the music for the movie overall a 4 out of 5 in my book interesting none the less. they have even teased on this movie for a south park episode i love it awesome film.
Marion agrees to have dinner with Norman. after when Marion is alone she takes the money and puts it in a folded newspaper, and puts it on a nightstand. When Marion is taking a shower someone comes in and stabs her to death. Norman then comes in and cleans up the mess. He puts her body in the trunk of her car along with the newspaper with the money, and pushes her car into a near by lake.
Marions sister begins to search for her at Sams store. She doesnt find her there, so her Sam and a private investigator begin to search for her. The investigator goes and questions Norman. He is then brutually murdered by the same person that killed Marion.
This was a sick twisted movie which I oddly really enjoyed. It definitely kept me on edge. I went in thinking Marion was going to be the psycho, but just by watching Normans behavior, hes definitely the psycho. I was really shocked when I came to find out that Norman was playing not only himself, but his sick mother. It was crazy. I would defintely watch the movie again, and refer this to other people.
The film, “Psycho,” begins with Marion and her boyfriend Sam in a hotel room in Phoenix, AZ. Marion is on her lunch break, the only time she can see Sam. She returns to work where a man enters with her employer and decides to do his transaction in cash, $40,000 to be exact. Marion’s employer instructs Marion to deposit the money in the bank, but she takes it instead. Marion packs and leaves town, headed for Sam’s store in California. On her way out of town, her employer sees her driving away in her car. Paranoia begins to set in, but she continues to drive.
Marion wakes up in her car parked on the side of the road to find a policeman at her window. The policeman sends her on her way, but appears to follow her. Marion goes to a car lot and trades in her car for a different one. The policeman is still following her at this point. Marion drives, guilt and paranoia nagging at the back of her mind, until she can drive no longer. She stops at Bates Motel, a small motel that usually goes unnoticed by any potential customers. A young man, Norman Bates, runs the motel with his sick mother. Norman gives Marion her room and asks her if she’d like to have dinner with him; Marion agrees.
As soon as she is alone, Marion takes her money, folds it into a newspaper and sets it on the nightstand. When Norman goes back to his house, Marion overhears his conversation with his mother. She hears how he argues with his mother because she is appalled at his desire for Marion. After a strange conversation with Norman, a very strange man indeed, Marion goes off to her room. As Marion is taking a shower, someone comes in and begins to stab her until she is dead. Norman then comes in to clean up his mother’s “mess.” He takes Marion’s body, places it in her car, and pushes her car into a nearby lake.
Lila, Marion’s sister, goes in search of Marion at Sam’s store. When she doesn’t find her, it is up to her, Sam, and a private investigator to find Marion’s whereabouts. Little do they know that they are no longer looking for someone who ran away with a load of cash, but they are actually looking for someone who has been brutally murdered.
I really enjoyed this movie. It was definitely a change of pace from the movies we’ve been watching being that it is a horror/thriller film, but that’s a good thing. Throughout the movie, I just sort of sat there watching Norman’s behavior. He is definitely psycho. One thing that really got me was his constant laugh. It’s like that of a little boy, which at the end of the movie you find makes total sense. After the film was over, I was creeped out and, oddly enough, intrigued. Norman’s character really intrigued me and I think I’d like to learn more about the workings of his mind. To Norman, it wasn’t actually him committing these murders, it was his controlling mother. He truly believed that. That’s what makes me extremely curious about his psychological disorder. All psychological curiosity aside, the film was really enjoyable and I’d definitely watch it again.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
This was a good movie. I liked how the director made me feel bad for this little girl. She knew what she had to do and she was ready to take on her challenges. The girl playing Pei I think does a very good job of making people feel what her character is feeling. The grandmother I think could have been a little bit more emotional when she notices that Pei is missing and could have done a better crying act. The grandfather does a good job of acting stone cold towards his granddaughter, and making the transition to a much softer person when he sees her riding the whale.
The film Whale Rider is a great film. I have always been taught to be a strong man. A warrior or chief like the boys in the village but I also learned to respect strong women. This film shows how Paikea pushed through adversity and kept her chin high. She had to fight for her acceptance and to be recognized and loved by her grandfather. She is knocked down several times but stands up again. This film has a great feel to it and is a good movie for a saturday afternoon. Id recommend it to my family and friends.
This film is extremely interesting and shows you that no matter what happens or who tells you not do do something don't listen and follow your heart and be brave. She is probably one of the most bravest girls i know i mean at her age who says "I'm ready to die" crazy like a boss she has my respect to save her people and the whales she was ready to giver her own life great movie.
This movie is definitely a “Have to see.” I really enjoyed this film. It was very interesting and I loved the way Paikea never gave up. It stood out to me because anything a man can do, a woman can do also. I also liked the fact that she showed her grandfather that tradition isn’t always right. She then believed in her heart she was the chief. I would definitely love to see this movie again.
“Whale Rider” begins when a young woman is giving birth. The woman gives birth to a set of twins (a boy and a girl), one of which (the boy) dies. The mother also dies. The death of the male baby spells trouble for the community of Whangara because the first-born, who has always been male, is considered Paikea’s direct descendant. These descendants are destined to be the new chief. From that moment, Koro, the twins’s grandfather, believes that the community of Whangara is doomed.
As Pai grows older, she believes herself to be destined to be the new chief. However, due to Koro’s belief in tradition, she has to fight him all the way through. Koro assembles an all-male school designed to teach the boys the old ways of their people, and hopes to eventually find his chief. Pai hides and watches the lessons, attempting to learn from her observations. Unfortunately for her, Koro catches her many times and she believes that he has begun to despise her.
When Koro has lost all hope, he calls unto their ancestors for help, but they do not listen. In an attempt to help, Pai calls unto them as well and is successful. However, her success isn’t what she’d hoped for. The whales from the ocean wash up onto the beach and all begin to die. When the people can’t get them back into the water, it is up to Pai to take action and try to save the whales, as well as her people.
I really enjoyed watching this film. It was interesting to see the different traditions of their people. I always find it somewhat interesting to how different other cultures are from ours. Just the little things that they do differently stood out to me. For example, when the people greet each other, they touch noses in a sort of embrace. In our culture, I feel that would be extremely uncomfortable. I also really liked Nanny. I enjoyed how she let Koro believe he was the boss, but really she was in more control than he would have imagined. She was a very strong woman. All in all, this was a very good film and I think I would enjoy watching it again sometime.
This movie deserves two thumbs up from me. I felt that this movie truly sent out a message to all girls that may have to deal with something like this. Women are always discriminated against because of who they are. Women are aloud to do anything a man wants or thinks he can do. Paikea showed to her grandfather that tradition is also not always right. Certain things in a family line aren't always made for a man. I can relate to this movie alot. I am so happy to have been able to watch this.
Your WP 3 assignment sheet states that your Rough Draft is due tomorrow for peer review. However, I'm not sure we're there yet, and I want to discuss your summaries more before you turn it in. Lucky for you all, this gives you till Monday to continue drafting, visit the Writing Center, and ask questions in class about this very complex paper topic.
In the mean time, keep preparing for our Practice Debate tomorrow, and we'll hammer out the draft details tomorrow.
With editors for many text books trying to write out that they were religious is almost elephant dung. I really do think that they had their religion influence them in writing the constitution but that doesn't mean that they were trying to enforce it on others. They took accountability towards everyone's religion.
The First Amendment stating that it doesn't keep state and the church separated. But it does keep the government from invading on the affairs and likes of the church.
Whatever our Founding Fathers believed shouldn't necessarily affect us or hinder us in todays world.
It has been around two hundred years since the constitution was written and states of change are always in play. If our nation were to become a nation of church. There would be uprisings. If we were a nation of pure government and limited church, still there would be uprisings. There needs to be an equilibrium but it seems that will probably be an ongoing case of "whimsical fuckery" in courtrooms, board meetings and congress.
Monday, October 24, 2011
Based on this reading I have to protest and take a firm stance against the Texas Board of Education changing the social studies curriculum because the changes were made unethically. America is considered the melting pot, this includes religion, therefore by making a Christian curriculum you are hurting students whom don’t believe in the faith nor want to learn about the faith itself.
The way I feel about this is that they should seperate religion from state. I my self go to church on Sundays and I respect the religions but some people want to keep their belifs seperate. It's just the way of America not everyone wants to read upon it everyday. They read upon it on their own. Texas revisers aren't thinking of the other side, they seem to be doing what they feel is right. Yes they have to hire workers to look over their revisions but those workers may just be on their side.
This article is about putting by not separating church and state and combining the Christian faith in with the student’s social studies books. That these new guidelines will affect grades from kindergarten till twelfth grades. Many people are against the vote to put Christianity into books just because of their thoughts on gay marriage, abortion and government spending. They also want to say that the United States was found devout Christians and according to biblical precepts. A big problem was the process of revising the social studies guidelines was the desire of the board to stress American acceptance. David Barton states that students should be taught the following principles that there is a fixed moral law derived from god and nature, there is a creator, the creator gives to man certain unalienable rights, etc. these right were taken from the Declaration of Independence. By March 3 all the decisions on Texas curriculum will be history.
Putting the Christian belief into the curriculum is a dictates religion saying that the United States was founded by a bunch of Christians by changing the components of history itself. They might as well just change the whole entire outcome of everything not just the science and the social studies books all of them so they everything would just be the way Texas curriculum wants it to be.
The article "How Christians Were the Founders" illustrated how the Texas Board of Education is editing textbooks in order to shine more light on religion. Currently, conservatives are trying to put a heavy emphasis on Christianity in the classroom. The Board members aren't changing public schools into church houses, but there is much controversy over some of the amendments passed in order to change Social Studies and History textbooks. A lot of the changes deal with religious issues in current history text books and how, in the eyes of the Republican Party, textbooks today do not have enough emphasis on religion.
Some of these amendment changes vary from calling creationism a theory to how "The United Stated was founded by devout Christians." (McLeroy 91) One of the conservative persons that is trying to change curriculum and believes he's smarter than historians is dentist Don McLeroy. He is saying bias things like "There are two basic facts about man, he was created in the image of god, and he has fallen." He says that the founding fathers recognized this, but that is irrelevant to how our country was formed. Even if our fathers were heavily Christian which in some ways the founding fathers were: Missionaries, Imprinting God's name on currency, etc.) it doesn't mean we should exclude other religions. In my opinion, if religion is going to be taught in the classroom (which I think children should be familiarized with it), all varieties of religion should be taught. I think it is selfish to want to teach religion in the classroom, but only focus on one because the old white men who founded our country happened to all be Christian.
The text “How Christian Were the Founders?” gives detail about how the different discourse communities (Christians, Jews, housewives, naval officers, professors, and many others) view the teachings of the current social studies curriculum. These people were meeting to give their input on what should be taught. As you would have it, each community is partial to his/her own community’s people. For example, one elderly Hispanic man told the Texas State Board of Education insists, “Please keep Cèsar Chávez.” With each person’s bias, how is the board to decide what goes into the textbooks and what stays out?
Unfortunately, not only are those giving their piece bias, but so are those of the Texas State Board of Education. Don McLeroy, he who dominated the board’s meeting, has been moving for amendments in the curriculum all the way through. McLeroy is a dentist, but claims that he’s read a lot about history. The text states, “The injection of partisan politics into education went so far that at one point another Republican board member burst out in seemingly embarrassed exasperation, ‘Guys, you’re rewriting history now!’” This shows how the bias of the different discourse communities is not only excluding historical events from history but rewriting them entirely. Still, the majority of McLeroy’s amendments passed in a vote held across the board.
The specific argument among the people, reported in this text, was whether or not the founders of America intended for the United States to be a “Christian Nation.” Those who are Christian like to believe this is true and attempt to prove so by insisting, “But Christianity has had a deep impact on our system. The men who wrote the Constitution were Christians who knew the Bible. Our idea of individual rights comes from the Bible. The Western development of the free-market system owes a lot to biblical principles.” These people believe that America’s system of government derives from teachings of the Bible and also point out that no “wall of separation” was ever officially published in any government documents. The Christian activists also assert that in school, science teachers should cover the strengths and weaknesses of the theory of evolution. They argue that “to bring Christianity into the coverage of American history is not, from their perspective revisionism but rather an uncovering of truths that have been suppressed.”
David Barton is a nonacademic expert who is nationally known as the leader of WallBuilders, who aims to “present America’s forgotten history and heroes, with an emphasis on our moral, religious and constitutional heritage.” Barton urged the Texas school board that students should be taught principles that derive directly from the Declaration of Independence. These principles are: “1. There is a fixed moral law derived from God and nature. 2. There is a Creator. 3. The Creator gives to man certain unalienable rights. 4. Government exists primarily to protect God-given rights to every individual. 5. Below God-given rights and moral laws, government is directed by the consent of the governed.”
Another expert, Daniel L. Dreisbach, a professor of justice, law and society at American University recommends to the guideline writers that “the founders were overwhelmingly Christian; that the deistic tendencies of a few-like Jefferson- were an anomaly; and that most Americans in the era were not Christians but that ‘98 percent or more of Americans of European descent identified with Protestantism.’” Thus proving the Christians who believed America to be a “Christian Nation” wrong. Richard Brookhiser, the traditionalist columnist and author of books on Alexander Hamilton, Gouverneur Morris and George Washington reports, “The founders were not as Christian as those people would like them to be, though they weren’t as secularist as Christopher Hitchens would like them to be.” Basically, each argument presented is biased in the opinion of he who presents it.
The text states that McLeroy met with the publishers to discuss that Christians wanted books to include classic myths and fables as opposed to newly written stories whose messages they didn’t agree with. McLeroy states, “I met with all the publishers. We went out for Mexican food. I told them this is what we want. We want stories with morals, not P.C. stories.” The text goes on to state that McLeroy showed an e-mail message from an executive at Pearson stating, “Hi Don. Thanks for the impact that you have had on the development of Pearson’s Scott Foresman Reading Street series. Attached is a list of some of the Fairy Tales and Fables that we included in the series.” McLeroy didn’t even appear to have a valid reasoning as to why these changes should take place. The Christian activists wanted these changes because they didn’t agree with them, not because they were what was factual. Still, they were taken into consideration and made their way into the textbooks.
I feel that every argument being presented is biased. The only ones that are not biased are those of the experts. Now, why might that be? I would think this is because a fact can’t be argued. History is all about the facts. This is what the social studies curriculum should be based on. If it’s factual, it should be covered. Of course, the length of a term is not far long enough to learn all of the information, so the more cultural impacting events should be covered more than those that are not so relevant. I feel that the board members voting on what goes into the curriculum shouldn’t even have a say. Being a self-proclaimed expert does not make you an expert. When it comes to the social studies curriculum, who should you believe, those who have an education in the subject or a dentist with a little reading? Think about it, would you trust the professors of justice, law and society to give you a root-canal?