This was a good summer movie that was very obviously aimed at a worldwide audience. You did not have to speak English as a primary language in order to understand or enjoy this movie. In some aspects I guess that's a good thing but in other ways it wasn't. But you don't go to movies like this for character development or long soliloquies that only are of interest to aspiring screenwriters. You go to movies like this to watch things go boom and to enjoy (depending on the angle of your dangle) the fleeting down blouse shots of attractive women or shirtless shots of attractive men. The dialogue, when you could hear it was pretty snappy, but as mentioned forget about character development. This will be an atypically short review because of time constraints and because this film is not at all that different from the first Avengers film. If you liked that film or generally enjoy comic book movies you will enjoy this film. The differences are few. I am not an Avengers expert but my brother, who is, assures me that this storyline and primary villain was created long before the somewhat similar storylines in Terminator and The Matrix. If you will permit an aside some of the oldest myths and actual histories feature a creator begetting children who will kill him/her. The Greeks had the Uranus-Chronus-Zeus cycle. King Arthur had Mordred. The Roman emperor Nero murdered his mother (and alleged lover) Aggripina. The Norse Aesir will do battle at Ragnarok with some of their own monstrous offspring and lose. And so on. Maybe there is something in human nature that continues to be called back to this theme. Perhaps Freud was onto something. Or maybe not. Who can say. Anyway that old myth is what drives this movie. It's updated technologically but it's the same story. The mad scientist/creator brings his "child" into being. But the created child doesn't want to play his assigned role and proceeds to attempt to destroy or take over the world. It goes without saying that it has a special dislike for its parent. It resents its parent and wants to show that it is better than its parent.
Here the "child" with the Daddy complex is the artificial intelligence/android Ultron (James Spader). He is created by Tony Stark/Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.) with the reluctant assistance of Dr. Bruce Banner/The Hulk (Mark Ruffalo). In what is a return to some of the themes of the previous Avengers movie as well as the Iron Man movies, Tony Stark remains a complex individual who prefers to do good as much for the kicks and excitement as from any sense of morals. He also doesn't really play all that well with others. His animating ethos is that it's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to ask permission. Not that he really believes in asking for forgiveness either. When you're as rich and intelligent as Stark is, little things like regulations, rules and teammates are annoyances to be overcome. This is in direct opposition to Steve Rogers/Captain America's (Chris Evans) beliefs. Rogers is the titular leader of the Avengers. He thinks there must be structure, rules and order. The fact that the people he's dealing with are superpowered make such rules more, not less important, as Stark believes. And Rogers does what's right because it's right. Period. He's not interested in glory, publicity or shortcuts. The two men clash more and more throughout the film, setting up future more serious conflicts.
Stark's intention was to outsource the Avengers' responsibilities to Ultron. Ultron decides that humanity itself is the greatest threat to Earth. He goes rogue. The other Avengers, including Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson), Hawkeye (Jeremy Remmer), Thor (Chris Hemsworth) and associated lesser superheroes and S.H.I.E.L.D agents must try to stop Ultron. Ultron is growing more powerful by the day. He has also recruited superheroes of his own, Wanda and Pietro Maximoff (Elizabeth Olsen and Aaron Taylor Johnson) who have a bone to pick with the Avengers, Tony Stark in particular. This movie was 141 minutes long. As you might imagine some of the extended fight scenes dragged a bit. I can't say I was ever bored exactly but I wasn't always on the edge of my seat either. When trying and failing to lift Thor's hammer (no phallic tension there right?) Tony Stark makes a snarky aside that attracted some feminist ire. The joke was silly but was very in keeping with Stark's persona. People overreact. There is a fair amount of humor in the film that plays on silly gender stereotypes. And that's fine. A subplot with two of the Avengers struggling with romantic feelings for one another really doesn't go anywhere. I did like Hawkeye's verbalization of the truism that compared to the other Avengers he's significantly underpowered. Nevertheless he keeps up. And he has a few secrets of his own. James Spader's voice oozed evil and disdain. He was very well cast. Other actors and actresses includeDon Cheadle, Andy Serkis, Idris Elba, Cobie Smulders, Anthony Mackie, Claudia Kim, Paul Bettany,Josh Brolin, and Hayley Atwell. To sum up, fun film but not quite as good as the first one. Marvel godfather Stan Lee makes his customary cameo. TRAILER
The 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals just ruled that the NSA bulk collection of phone records or metadata was unlawful. It is not authorized by Section 215 of the Patriot Act. You can read the entire 77 page decision for yourself here if you are really into such things. I'm no legal expert but I am quite happy to see that at least somewhere in some part of our government there are some people who still take seriously the idea that the government doesn't automatically have the right to know EVERYTHING about you. Many people have cursed Edward Snowden and called him out of his name but this metadata tracking warrantless program was one of the things he revealed. This is why I think Snowden is and remains a hero and a whistleblower. Now that the legality of warrantless metadata collection has been found wanting, I hope that both the legislators who will be tinkering with the relevant sections of the Patriot Act and the citizens whom they purportedly represent will take some time to cogitate on what kind of world we want to build. Laws that are written in haste and panic as the Patriot Act was can often have some unforeseen and unpleasant consequences. But if we truly believe that a citizen has, absent individualized suspicion of wrong doing, a right to be left alone then we should applaud this ruling. This decision could start to ever so slightly hinder the government's "eye in the sky" as it were from rifling through our every communication and digital thought.
I don't want the NSA performing the equivalent of "stop-and-frisk" in cyberspace. On the other hand, if we really want the Bill of Rights to be altered or suspended (or at least weakened for certain people or groups) then let's have that debate openly and honestly. But for now, although the court didn't specifically address all of the Constitutional issues inherent in these questions it's good enough for me that the court found that the NSA exceeded statutory limitations. As we've discussed before I remain amazed and a more than a bit peeved that people have been accepting of governmental misconduct and expansion of powers under the Bush and Obama Administrations that would have caused outrage and possibly impeachment under earlier Administrations. As a nation, we've become too trusting of the executive branch and too eager to give it more power and authority. I understand the desire to be safe and keep others safe. But there is no perfect way to do that. And grabbing everyone's email and phone metadata just because isn't allowed. I don't see this as a right-left issue but an issue of civil liberty and privacy.
The US court of appeals has ruled that the bulk collection of telephone metadata is unlawful, in a landmark decision that clears the way for a full legal challenge against the National Security Agency. A panel of three federal judges for the second circuit overturned an earlier rulingthat the controversial surveillance practice first revealed to the US public by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden in 2013 could not be subject to judicial review.
But the judges also waded into the charged and ongoing debate over the reauthorization of a key Patriot Act provision currently before US legislators. That provision, which the appeals court ruled the NSA program surpassed, will expire on 1 June amid gridlock in Washington on what to do about it. The judges opted not to end the domestic bulk collection while Congress decides its fate, calling judicial inaction “a lesser intrusion” on privacy than at the time the case was initially argued.
“In light of the asserted national security interests at stake, we deem it prudent to pause to allow an opportunity for debate in Congress that may (or may not) profoundly alter the legal landscape,” the judges ruled. But they also sent a tacit warning to Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader who is pushing to re-authorize the provision, known as Section 215, without modification: “There will be time then to address appellants’ constitutional issues.”
“We hold that the text of section 215 cannot bear the weight the government asks us to assign to it, and that it does not authorize the telephone metadata program,” concluded their judgement.
"The orders at issue here contain no such limits. The metadata concerning every telephone call made or received in the United States using the services of the recipient service provider are demanded, for an indefinite period extending into the future. The records demanded are not those of suspects under investigation, or of people or businesses that have contact with such subjects, or of people or businesses that have contact with others who are in contact with the subjects – they extend to every record that exists, and indeed to records that do not yet exist, as they impose a continuing obligation on the recipient of the subpoena to provide such records on an ongoing basis as they are created. The government can point to no grand jury subpoena that is remotely comparable to the real‐time data collection undertaken under this program."
Why she can win: Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated. All your votes are belong to us. Clinton has the money, the name, the media attention, and the air of invincibility. For those voters who really, really, really want to see a woman in the Oval Office, she could also be the culmination of years of dreams. And right now there's no one else in the Democratic Party who has the name or the organization to compete. The Clinton machine is sucking up a lot of the available donor money and the professionals who are needed to run a multi billion dollar campaign. Clinton is in it to win it. She obviously wants to be President very badly. There's no shame in that. There is in some quarters a nostalgia for middle class accomplishments during her husband's Presidency. Clinton is ready to take any and all rivals to poundtown. She's back. And this time...it's personal. Why she can't win: She has a lot of negative baggage around her husband's honesty and the couple's alleged history of playing fast and loose with facts, restrictions and laws. Most of this won't matter to her likely voters but some of it will matter to voters on the right who view her as Satan's daughter. Some voters on the left also may see her as too beholden to corporate interests and just another big business democrat. To the extent that the 2016 campaign will include questions around race and the criminal justice system, Clinton will be hurt as until recently those are issues she avoided. Also she was supposed to be the inevitable candidate in 2008 before she got mollywhopped by the Hawaii Kid. I'm not sure she thinks fast on her feet or actually enjoys the campaign scrum. If the economy should worsen or there is some unforeseen foreign policy crisis over the next eighteen months then Clinton will have to perform a balancing act of explaining what she would do differently than the current Administration without enraging voters who support the Obama Administration or legitimizing the loons on the right who claim that the Obama Administration is the worst ever. Also, as NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre snidely stated, "Eight years of one demographically symbolic President is enough." There are some voters out there who want to see a white man as President, apparently quite badly. Clinton won't be able to change their minds. Clinton also needs to be able to justify to likely voters why she wants to be president. If she can't then expect the caricatures of "Because it's my turn dammit!!" to fly fast and furious, as some have already started. Bernie Sanders
Why he can win: He's far more verbally adept than Clinton and enjoys getting into a good robust discussion around economic inequality, corporate malfeasance and health care. Given a fair shot, some of this rhetoric might resonate outside of his northeast liberal base. There's a fair amount of Don Quixote in his appeal. He could definitely surprise some people. Why he can't win: Neither the Democratic Party nor the larger American electorate will vote en masse for a declared socialist to be President of the United States. Despite the rising economic inequality, outsourcing and falling wages and numbers of the middle class, most voters will never get past the socialist title to look at Sanders' record or ideas. We haven't reached that point yet. And a skilled opponent can easily turn Sanders' passion against him by using it to portray him as just another doctrinaire East Coast liberal who wants to take your guns, make you marry someone of the same sex and eat tofu to save the environment. Even though the South has a (well-hidden) progressive streak in spots, as Democratic nominee, Sanders would probably lead the Democratic Party to a nationwide whupping unparalleled since 1984. The media will do its best to ignore Sanders. He won't have the money to rival Clinton. He's relying on individual contributions, not a SuperPac. Carly Fiorina
Why she can win: On any given Tuesday anything can happen. It's a long shot but if I could see the future I certainly wouldn't be where I am currently. Go big or go home. We all have dreams to pursue. If someone wants to be President, step into the ring and battle it out, I say have at it. Why she can't win: Most people only know her, if they know her at all, for spectacularly failing at Hewlett-Packard. She laid off 30,000 people before being forced out. She later decisively lost the 2010 California Senate election to Barbara Boxer. In other words: loser. Now everyone has to take a loss sometime in life but I don't see how Fiorina will be able to rebrand herself as a winner when her most recent and most important public performances have been disastrous. Is it possible? Sure. Just not very likely. Her primary role will be to remind women voters of all political persuasions that Hillary Clinton may not necessarily represent their interests. Ironically though much like Clinton, Fiorina has yet to show that anything except ambition is driving her interest to be President. That's true of all candidates of course but the trick is to not make it so obvious. A candidate must find the balance between saying vote for me because I want to be President as opposed to here's why you should vote for me because you want me to be President. Marco Rubio
Why he can win: He's young and photogenic. He has a home field advantage in the swing state of Florida. He can help to try to neutralize the media image of Republicans as the party of "old white men". He's conservative but often manages to come across as reasonable instead of judgmental or scolding. Why he can't win: He's young and photogenic. That could work to his disadvantage. Rivals will claim that low information voters chose President Obama for similar reasons so why in the world should the country make the same mistake again. He's also shown some flexibility on immigration issues. Such flexibility tends to be anathema to the Republican base. People remember such things. His appeal to Hispanic voters who aren't Cuban Floridians could be highly overestimated. Rubio's positions on climate change and evolution could be and have already been easily mocked. Rand Paul
Why he can win: People are tired of war. Paul is at this point the only candidate on the right who seems to even occasionally question the number of wars the US is involved in, why we have so many military bases over the world, the level of foreign aid, and if the Constitution still applies on questions of civil liberties and domestic surveillance. He's also questioned the number of people we imprison. If you're eager for some serious conversations about the correct application of law and the Constitution, if you want to discuss the proper limits of banking and the dangers of loose money, if you are fiending for someone to stand up and say "No. That's not America's job!" then Paul is someone to whom you should pay attention.
Why he can't win: Paul straddles the line between libertarianism and conservatism. Where his father is a libertarian with conservative leanings, Paul seems to be more of a conservative with libertarian leanings. When push comes to shove, as it often does when you are in positions of leadership, Paul usually totes the conservative line. For example his co-signing of the letter to Iranian leadership sent a message to everyone that regardless of what his father or some other libertarians might think of neo-conservatives, Rand Paul is a man who is willing to do business with them. Although he's one of the few conservatives willing to talk about the impact of the War on Drugs on black communities, he still manages to be tone deaf in his associations with open racists and his statements about the black community. Paul gives off the strong vibe that given the chance he'd just as soon eliminate the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act of 1964 and 1965. That won't help him make any inroads in the black community. And he's still not trusted or well liked within the neo-conservative community. For everything he says or does with which I agree there's an equal statement or vote that leaves me saying "huh?". I suspect that's a feeling shared by a number of likely voters. Ted Cruz
Why he can win: If you want your conservatism uncut and don't want your conservatism stepped on, make your conservatism the C-Funk and watch Cruz drop the bomb. This man is 99.44% conservative. He wants you to know that. He wants everyone to know that. He will spend a great deal of time making sure that you know that. If you are really really really really really really really really really really really angry about the direction in which the country has gone over the past eight years you're probably not as angry as Cruz is. Why he can't win: Outside of movement doctrinaire conservatives and apparently a majority of Texas voters, no one likes this guy on a personal level. Apparently his intelligence and drive are off the charts, as even people who disagree with him admit, but his tendency to see the world in strictly Manichean terms strongly limits his ability or desire to work well with others. A rather strong resemblance to Senator Joe McCarthy won't help his chances. Cruz was not born in the United States. Although he's probably eligible to be President and is more nativist than most nativists, the issue of his Canadian birthplace will come up by hook or by crook, you can be sure of that. His racist father's statements will also play a part in defining Cruz should he somehow win the Republican nomination. Ben Carson
Why he can win: He's a brilliant surgeon with a compelling backstory who could appeal to those conservatives who are primarily interested in cultural issues. Why he can't win: Many of the conservatives who are primarily interested in cultural issues also have zero desire to vote for a black man for President. See that Wayne LaPierre quote about Hillary again. That little problem notwithstanding, Carson occasionally comes across as the benignly demented bigoted uncle at family gatherings. Just out of the blue this person will say something that if said by a non-relative would have you calling them out of their name, throwing up hands or angrily leaving. Carson seems to enjoy saying things like this. In fact I suspect that he sees being able to say such things as the point of running for President in the first place. I believe he will discover that the point of running for President is to win. It's not to run your mouth or lead a moral revival. Although Carson has run hospital divisions and sat on corporate boards I think he will discover that running a campaign is a little different. Mike Huckabee
Why he can win: He's going to work the same side of the street as Carson but without the disadvantage of being black. He could lock up the social conservatives who are sick and tired of being taken for granted by the Republican establishment. They want one of their own in the driver's seat or failing that someone they can trust implicitly. They need a hero. Huckabee just might be that man. He's also hit the "Islamic terror" meme pretty hard which might endear him to the neo-conservative pro-military intervention wing of the Republican party. He wants to recapture the Reagan magic and unite all of the disparate wings of the Republican party. Ahem. Those libertarians will have to sit at the back of the bus and not complain. Why he can't win: The genial smile, careful cadence and aw shucks Southern accent hides a mean streak. Huckabee also has a history of saying some rather nasty things about people who differ from him politically or otherwise. Like Carson and to a lesser extent Cruz Huckabee seems to think that running for President is all about fighting for certain cultural and moral values and emphasizing that he's not one of those transgender-loving gun-hating Prius-driving soy-latte-sipping secular sissy boy coastal liberals. He's a real God fearing grits eating American!!! This might help in some primaries but would be disastrous in a general election. Some other Republicans have questioned Huckabee's overemphasis on geographical and cultural affinities to stand in for political identification. Huckabee has also gained back most of the weight which he initially lost after a Type 2 diabetes diagnosis. Looks matter. I don't think people are going to send an overweight man to the White House, which is why Jeb Bush is currently on a crash diet.
This episode walked right up to the edge of fan fiction. However it also made the strongest hints yet to a fan favorite theory which GRRM has not confirmed but is pretty much accepted as gospel among his fans. I liked this episode a lot more than I thought I would. One of the things which GRRM has done in his books and that the showrunners have done with their version is to show that different people can have wildly different interpretations of the same events, even to the point that different conflicting realities are constructed. It's the fantasy version of Rashomon. How do you know what you think you know? More on that in minute. First let's start with everyone's favorite lonesome loser Jorah Mormont. He steals a boat and sails off with Tyrion. Groaning thru his bonds Tyrion finally convinces Jorah to take the gag out of his mouth. The first thing Tyrion asks for is wine but of course receives none. But a sober Tyrion is an even sharper Tyrion than normal. When Jorah tells Tyrion that they're going to see Daenerys, even though Jorah hasn't identified himself Tyrion quickly figures who Jorah is from his accent and family crests. Tyrion also remembers that Jorah was a spy and deduces almost instantly that Jorah must be on the outs with Daenerys. Unfortunately Tyrion isn't smart enough to keep his thoughts or scorn to himself. Jorah belts him one. I guess unrequited love can make a fellow pretty mean. Mace Tyrell, the pompous in-over-his-head Master of Coin, informs the Small Council that the Iron Bank is calling in 10% of the debt that the Crown owes to it. He says the Crown can only afford 1/2 of that but that the Tyrells could make up the difference. Cersei declines the offer but suggests orders Tyrell to go overseas to work on terms with the Iron Bank. To ensure that he goes she sends Ser Meryn Trant as "protection". We start to see that just as you should never count your chickens before they hatch it's not very wise to laugh at lionesses when you're on the same side of the cage as they are. The meek Cersei of last week is gone. She goes to see the High Sparrow. Cersei pretends dismay that the war has seen the robbing, raping and murder of septons and sisters. She gives permission to the Church to arm itself again both to protect itself against such crimes and to root out sinners. And by the way Cersei happens to know where a few high placed sinners might be hiding. The High Sparrow says all sinners are equal in God's eyes.
The newly reconstituted Faith Militant organization attacks sinners (gamblers, drinkers and fornicators) across King's Landing. They don't care who you are. They seem to take special pleasure in taking down rich people or gay people. As Loras, Queen Margaery's (cleavage alert!) brother happens to be both, things don't look good for him when he's arrested and imprisoned. A less fortunate gay man was either castrated or killed when caught in a Littlefinger owned brothel. Margaery is furious with this turn of events and demands Tommen act. Tommen is clueless. He has trouble standing up to Margaery's anger. He certainly doesn't want to lose access to her good thing. He runs to Cersei to order her to release Loras. But Cersei calmly points out that she didn't arrest Loras. She suggests that Tommen visit the High Sparrow. Tommen does just that but is prevented from seeing the High Sparrow by the Faith Militant who rudely point out that it's the High Sparrow's prayer time. No visitors. Not even kings. This is a serious power play here. The Kingsguard and soldiers on one side and the Faith Militant on the other are ready to hold court in the street. But Tommen backs down. Tommen also hears the catcalls about his non-forking family tree. When Tommen tries to explain his decision to Margaery she all but calls him a punk-a$$ b**** . She talks about going home and says she's sending word to the Queen of Thorns. Margaery is as much disappointed in as she is angry at Tommen. Up North Selyse notices that Stannis has taken an almost paternal interest in Jon Snow. Selyse blames herself for giving Stannis only a crippled daughter. Apparently people in Westeros haven't figured out how chromosomes work and who determines a child's sex. Selyse also rags on Jon, calling him a bastard son of a tavern slut. Stannis questions that, pointing out that adultery was not consistent with Ned Stark's character. He also doesn't blame Selyse. Melisandre (cleavage alert!) questions Stannis about marching on Winterfell. She wants to know if he is taking her this time. He is. Shireen visits her father. Stannis is a hard man but he has a soft spot for his daughter as most fathers do. Shireen knows that her mother Selyse doesn't like her very much and didn't want to bring her along. She questions if Stannis feels the same way. Stannis assures her that he doesn't. It turns out that Stannis blames himself for the greyscale disease which afflicts his daughter. Although he was urged to get rid of her he refused to do so and instead did everything in his power to save her life. He loves her. With Sam acting as secretary Jon is signing letters to various northern lords urgently asking for men and supplies for the Night's Watch. He balks at sending a letter to Roose Bolton (that whole "he stabbed Robb Stark in the heart" thing again-did Roose take out an ad in Evil SOB Monthly Digest boasting of this?) but when Sam reminds him of the Night's Watch responsibilities, Jon signs the letter. Melisandre enters and explains she wants to speak to Jon alone. She asks Jon again to come to Winterfell, telling him there is something powerful inside him. He refuses. At that point Melisandre opens up to Jon. Literally. She's wearing a robe and nothing else. She places Jon's hands on her chest and a slightly warmer spot. She talks of the power of sex and love and how God has sanctified man and woman. Why don't more evangelicals recruit like this? I think more people would see the light. Melisandre is laying on more than hands. Jon is tempted. But he declines. Again. Not only did he swear an oath. But he's also still in love with the late Ygritte. Leaving, Melisandre looks Jon dead in the eye and uses Ygritte's famous catch phrase. Creepy.
At Winterfell Sansa is lighting candles in the crypts just like her Dad used to do. She lights one in the statue of Lyanna Stark, who was involved in the events which precipitated the rebellion which overthrew the Targaryen rule. Littlefinger finds Sansa. He's leaving, to Sansa's apparent dismay. Littlefinger anticipates that Stannis will march on Winterfell and take it. At that point Sansa, as the last known surviving Stark, could become Wardeness of the the North. Should this not happen then well Sansa will be married to the new ruling family of the North and in a good position to manipulate Ramsay. Sansa doubts this but Littlefinger is dismissive of her worries. Of course he won't be the one sleeping with Ramsay Bolton or having a father-in-law who murdered your mother and brother so it's easy for him to be tranquil. Littlefinger does take the opportunity to kiss Sansa on the lips. Littlefinger also tells the story of how Prince Rhaegar Targaryen, having won a tournament, gave the prize not to his wife but to Lyanna Stark. Sansa angrily interjects that Rhaegar later kidnapped and raped Lyanna. Littlefinger doesn't say anything to this. Jaime and Bronn have arrived in Dorne. Out of politeness Bronn has accepted Jaime's explanation that they're going to rescue Jaime's "niece" but still thinks a different approach might have been better. Dornish border patrol apprehends the duo but Bronn and Jaime kill them all once it's apparent that their cover story doesn't work. However Ellaria Sand and the Sand Snakes (Oberyn's illegitimate daughters) already know that Jaime is in country. They all want revenge for Oberyn's death. If Prince Doran won't act, they will.
In Meereen, Ser Barristan tells Daenerys about her brother Rhaegar's kindness and his habit of walking the streets as a poet and singer. If he earned anything from his songs he gave them to other singers. Hizdahr visits Daenerys again to request the fighting pits be reopened. He thinks the fighting pits are something that the classes have in common. The sport could act as a diversion from political activities. Speaking of diversions, the Second Sons are caught unawares in a marketplace where they're relaxing. The Sons of The Harpy butcher them. The Unsullied come to their assistance but are misdirected into an alleyway ambush. As any Greek Hoplite could tell you, a seven foot spear is an awesome weapon on the battlefield. But as any Roman Legionary could tell you, a short sword is a better weapon for getting close and personal with someone. And as Nathan Bedford Forrest would have told you, getting there fustest with the mostest is usually a formula for success. The Unsullied (including Grey Worm) are outnumbered by about ten to one. They don't quite have the room they need to effectively lock shields and wield their long spears. But they're Unsullied. They don't die easy. A brutal street fight occurs. No mercy is asked, and none is given. The Unsullied have mostly been overcome by the superior numbers. Grey Worm is a bad$$. Like Tolkien's hero Hurin, Grey Worm is standing alone, wounded but still in the fight, when Ser Barristan arrives on the scene. He doesn't hesitate. He pulls out his trusty longsword and starts slicing and dicing Sons of the Harpy just like that ginsu knife on late night TV. Rumble old man rumble!!! But it's not enough. Barristan is grievously wounded, as is Grey Worm. They collapse together. They've killed all the Sons of the Harpy but judging by next week's previews it looks like at least one of them (Ser Barristan?) may have departed this thing we call life. Electric word life, it means forever and that's a mighty long time... What I liked
It is a fact that before GRRM gave permission to Benioff and Weiss to adapt his book he wanted their take on who they thought Jon Snow's mother is. Evidently he liked the answer. GRRM has not yet published the definitive answer on who Jon Snow's mother is but as tonight's episode asked via Stannis, was Ned the kind of man who would cheat on his wife? Why did Barristan think of Rhaegar as a good man? This is HUGE.
The fight between the Unsullied and The Sons of the Harpy. Barristan and Grey Worm impressed.
The scene with Stannis and Shireen was pretty powerful for both characters. There are a lot of different kinds of bravery. Not all of them involve fighting or killing.
Tyrion's ability to very quickly deduce both his captor's identity and motivations would have felt forced from any other character. But he's Tyrion so it was perfect for him.
Cersei's showing that she is still a player in the game. Getting Mace Tyrell out of town was essential.
The High Sparrow remaining calm. Remember that he had mentioned that people often hear things he didn't say.
I like that Littlefinger's motivations for marrying off Sansa to Ramsay Bolton remain opaque to reader and viewer alike. Littlefinger is not a Stannis fan because otherwise he would have helped Ned place Stannis on the throne. So what is Littlefinger's game? I don't know. And that's a good thing. Is he really clueless about Ramsay?
What I didn't like
I was underwhelmed by the introduction of the Sand Snakes. They felt over the top.
The Bronn: Jaime storyline also didn't do much for me. We know already that Bronn is a dangerous fighter and that Jaime no longer is. Ho-hum.
*This post is written for discussion ofthisepisode and previous episodes. If you have book based knowledge of future events or have seen future leaked episodespleasebe kind enough not to discuss that here. NO SPOILERS. NO BOOK DERIVED HINTS ABOUT FUTURE EVENTS.Most of my blog partners have not read the books and would take spoilers most unkindly. Heads, spikes, well you get the idea....
The evil that police do has been in the news a lot of late. In some communities it's never far from people's minds. Whether it's killing people, beating them, robbing them or even going into business with other criminals, a few bent cops can do a lot of harm to a society precisely because society is not designed to protect itself from the police. Hyena is not really interested in the larger societal issues around police brutality and corruption but rather stays focused on the internal and individual costs of such activity, primarily to the corrupt cops. In this way the film is almost a homage to such flicks as Bad Lieutenant, Filth or Rampart. Other than a few of the victims there aren't too many sympathetic people here. The default "hero" who has his conscience jogged may be as much motivated by lust or ethnic prejudice as by anything else. This film also serves as a reunion of sorts for the two leads from Kill List, though they are decidedly secondary players here. The accents aren't that bad or more likely I've just gotten used to them. More than the story what I liked about Hyena was the settings, cinematography and lighting. The film uses all of this to ooze griminess and realism. The leads are mostly not square jawed white toothed heroes nor are they people who would automatically invite distrust once you see them on screen. They are very realistic middle aged men who may have had a few too many rich dinners over the years. Many of them are going to seed physically. But of course generally speaking they don't have to rely on physical brawn to intimidate people. They're cops. Most of the people they brutalize or steal from are not going to have the guts to fight back. The cops know this and revel in it. Their badge is literally a license to do whatever they want to do.
Over the past few decades the UK has greatly changed demographically. This is particularly true of London. Some "indigenous" English aren't too thrilled about this but that's another post. One Englishman who shrugs and deals the best he can with the changed social milieu is the West London narcotics detective Michael Logan (Peter Ferdinando). Although he's not averse to beating up and robbing addicts before arresting them, Logan's primary source of income comes from providing protection and information to the local branch of the Turkish mob. He's friendly with the local boss and associates. Well times change don't they. As Logan attends a restaurant meeting with his Turkish counterpart a raid occurs. Thinking it's some stupid cops he didn't bribe, Michael hides in a nearby closet. That was a wise decision for the wrong reasons. The local Albanian mafia has decided to move up the food chain. They have indicated this desire by bursting into the Turkish restaurant and killing everyone they see. The two Albanian leaders, the Kabashi Brothers (Orli Shuka and Gjevat Kelmendi) hack apart Logan's Turkish contact. This puts into motion a chain of events that finds Logan working with the Kabashi Brothers and helping them to thrive in the narcotics underworld. That's his plan anyway. The brothers aren't entirely convinced they need Logan's help. They've been very successful on their own just by speaking softly and carrying sharp machetes. An opportunistic scumbag like Logan wants to find blackmail worthy information on new partners. His bumbling efforts convince the Kabashis that an employee, Ariana (Elisa Lasowski), is telling tales out of school. Meanwhile an internal affairs watchdog (Richard Dormer) is sniffing around Logan and his detective crew. Logan's former partner (Boardwalk Empire's Stephen Graham) has just become his new boss. The stress strains Logan's relationships with his street smart girlfriend Lisa (MyAnna Buring) and his buddy Martin (Neil Maskell). I thought Buring deserved a larger role.
This movie had its violent spots but was rarely gratuitous. There was one completely unnecessary sex scene that I probably didn't need to see. Because there aren't any good guys in this film if you must have that sort of framework to enjoy a story then this probably isn't the movie for you. The director doesn't give viewers an easy way out or tie up everything in a big nice bow for them. Although I wouldn't go so far as to say they stole the film, the new actors Shuka and Kelmendi provide suitable mostly understated intensity as the Kabashi Brothers. They are not people you want to cross. They don't speak much but are very watchful. The larger (younger?) brother speaks no English but manages to guess most people's intentions just by their body language and vocal inflection. This story was inspired in part by conversations that the director had with corrupt cops or other people who occasionally crossed the line. This is a powerful British drama anchored by Ferdinando's turn as a sweaty drug abuser with a dying conscience who happens to be a skilled detective. TRAILER
President Obama recently invoked a surly and petulant tone when he lashed out against critics of the proposed Trans Pacific Partnership fast track trade deal (TPP). TPP is a so-called free trade agreement that would theoretically increase economic integration among twelve Pacific Rim countries with the notable exclusion of China. President Obama claimed that the critics of the legislation didn't know what they were talking about. President Obama said that if this deal wasn't good for working Americans he wouldn't support it. It's ironic that at the same time President Obama was telling Senator Warren that she didn't know what she was talking about and angrily denouncing anyone who would question his advocacy of certain trade deals that he also had temporarily to break stride and apologize for bombing and killing people who shouldn't have been bombed or killed. In other words he made a mistake. He was wrong. I might discuss the drone situation sometime later but contrary to what the Boxers among us might think, Napoleon President Obama is not always right. Like many corporate bosses when things go well, (Bin Laden is dead), the President takes credit. When things go wrong some supportive media suddenly releases detailed information on how the drone program doesn't need the President's signoff for every target and so mistakes really aren't the President's fault. Fascinating. The President might want to remember that just because he supports something doesn't mean other people need to accept his judgment without question. The President's interests are not synonymous with America's interests. If he was wrong about something like a drone program, he just might be wrong about a trade deal. President Obama's good intentions do not necessarily make something good. There was no need for President Obama to make policy differences personal, but I guess when you don't have to run for election again you can drop certain masks. So it goes.
It's alternately amused and irritated me that President Obama tends to save his most biting personal criticisms not for the open racists on the right, who have continuously insulted him, his wife, father, daughters, and mother in the ugliest and most personal of terms but for people on the left who question his policies. In what universe does it make sense for President Obama to compare Senator Warren to Sarah Palin? TPP, divorced from economic and historical reality, might sound good in theory. But like everything else the devil is in the details. Of course we don't know all the details because those are secret. We do have some general outlines though. It's safe to say that just as with NAFTA, the TPP is not as much about free trade as it is about increasing the ability of corporations to exploit labor and sidestep restrictions on profit making activities across nations. It's about wage arbitrage. TPP would reduce the ability of governments at all levels to "interfere" with corporations as they pursue their happiness. This is a good thing if you happen to be a corporation, a lobbyist, a trade or patent attorney, or perhaps someone at a high level who works for the aforementioned entities. But if you're not in that group you might want to consider if the TPP is a good thing for you. Hint, it's not. You also might want to review how median income has done over the past fifteen years. You might wonder if helping corporations to outsource more jobs from the First World and raise drug costs in the so-called developing world really is the path we ought to be taking. You might want to go down to your local clothing or electronics store and see how many goods you can find that are still made in the US. You might wonder how it is that so many jobs have moved overseas and what that means for American workers. But if you want to know the answers to these questions and have your Senators and Representatives debate and discuss them openly the President will accuse you of not knowing what you're talking about. People like MSNBC analyst Chris "tingle up my leg" Matthews will say you're a protectionist. Well someone who does know what he's talking about and is not a protectionist is Nobel Award winning economist Joseph Stiglitz. Over a year ago he sounded the alarm here. And he hasn't changed his tune, pointing out that those in favor of these deals are all corporations and wealthy capitalists. This isn't news to the people on the streets. The working class, the people of all colors who are most impacted by crappy trade deals, isn't buying it. And some members of the Congressional Black Caucus, which as a group has often given cover to the President's more centrist or rightist agenda elements, may have found a limit to how far they will go.
To make up for what could be dozens of Republican No votes in the House, the administration may need to persuade 20 or more House Democrats to vote Yes. The White House hopes some of those votes will come from members of the black caucus. But the going has not been easy. Rep. Yvette Clarke of Brooklyn is a loyal Obama supporter, but she found she couldn’t say yes earlier this month when the president engaged in some personal lobbying. Ms. Clarke promised to “go back and have a conversation with my constituents,” she said, recounting the conversation. But she isn’t optimistic: “The people in my district—they are radically against” the Pacific trade deal, Ms. Clarke said in an interview. But by last week, Mr. Rangel sounded pessimistic about finding common ground with the Obama administration. He said the White House hadn’t offered him anything concrete that would assure jobs—at least “nothing that I could explain to my voters.”
Two-thirds of the House members in the caucus signed a letter to Mr. Obama complaining that any trade deal would need to do more to strengthen workers’ rights. And only Rep. Gregory Meeks (D., N.Y.) is on record in favor of the fast-track legislation, and Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D., Texas) is thought to be a swing vote.
“There’s too much downward pressure on wages,” said Rep. David Scott (D., Ga.), a frequent ally of businesses who said he has made clear that the White House shouldn’t even bother trying to win his vote.
President Obama should know that snark and sarcasm are no substitute for facts and transparency. Various corporations have been able to see the text of the TPP. Duh! They're the ones writing it! If, as President Obama claims, the TPP is a great deal for workers, then as Senator Warren suggests, declassify it. Let's have it openly debated and discussed. Perhaps the President is correct. Once we all know the details maybe there will be hundreds of thousands of $14/hr American workers marching in the streets demanding passage of the TPP. American IT workers may rejoice at the prospect of training their Pacific Rim lower cost replacements. Maybe American workers in general think that they have too much safety in their job and want their boss to have more flexibility to replace or fire them. But I doubt it. I think that the TPP is just the latest in a long line of moves by corporations and the wealthy to reduce labor costs and limit democratic oversight of business. Senator Warren is right. President Obama is wrong on this one. He needs to be fought tooth and nail on this. And he needs to lose.
"I've heard that it's best to keep your enemies close." "Whoever said that didn't have many enemies." Hmm. Imagine that in the film adaptation of Mario Puzo's Godfather novel instead of Michael Corleone being the one to kill Sollozzo and McCluskey, Francis Ford Coppola filmed the scene with Clemenza as the assassin. Now in the short term maybe it doesn't matter that much but looking past the immediate such a change would alter many character developments and motivations as well as the larger story themes and threads. Some of this might be for the good but then again perhaps not. I felt that kind of way after watching Sunday's episode. I'm not sure if all the changes worked. However, given that the showrunners have run out of published material for some characters they may have had no choice but to alter events while presumably still trying to tie things into George R.R. Martin's ending. They know the ending and we don't. There are small butterfly changes which are adding up to increasingly huge differences between text and screen. I will write more about that after the season. Multiple book storylines were shot in the back of the head and dumped in the river in last night's episode. Again, I urge you to read the books. Anyhow. We have a creepy open in the House of Black and White where Arya watches as Jaqen H'ghar gives a man a drink. Arya is impatient to get on with the business of becoming a world class assassin instead of just sweeping up but Jaqen reminds her she's not ready for that yet. That drink Jaqen gave the man was apparently poison as the fellow drops dead. Jaqen says everyone must serve the one god, death. Another young woman is apparently jealous of Arya's precocity and attacks her with a riding crop(?) wanting to know who she is.
Arya reaches for her sword Needle and is about to put holes in this fool but Jaqen intervenes (rather suspiciously quickly-did he order the other girl to do this?) and peevishly reminds Arya that although she is supposed to be no one she still has the name, clothes, gear and sword of Arya Stark. Arya throws everything away in the canals with the notable exception of Needle, which she hides. This is important. Needle was made by the Winterfell blacksmith and was a gift from her brother Jon. It's her last link to her previous life. She can't get rid of it. In King's Landing the wedding between Margaery and Tommen takes place. The couple do what newlyweds typically do. Tommen lost his virginity but it's pretty obvious this wasn't Margaery's first time at the rodeo. She uses a little reverse psychology plus the allure of her Highgarden to suggest to Tommen that (1) Cersei would be happier back at Casterly Rock and (2) Tommen doesn't need Cersei around any more. When Cersei gets wind of this she goes to see Margaery, who is sharing details of her wedding night sexcapades with her ladies in waiting. With feminine guile and indirectness, Margaery points out that she, not Cersei is the Queen and that Cersei is old, a drunk, a dowager and will be a grandmother soon. Atypically Cersei does not rise to the bait but merely smiles and says that if there is anything Margaery ever needs, Cersei would be happy to help. She need only ask. Hmm.
Winterfell has been re-opened under new management. Bolton management. Theon watches as the skinned bodies of recalcitrant northern lords and their families are raised for all to see. This is Ramsay's doing, something for which his father chastises him. Roose says that the Boltons do not have enough men to forestall a northern revolt, a certainty if Ramsay continues his reign of terror. Without Tywin Lannister backing them up the Boltons need legitimacy as much as anything to defend their gains. And that legitimacy will be gained by a Ramsay marriage to Sansa Stark. This was brokered by Littlefinger of course. Littlefinger has taken Sansa to Moat Cailin, the entrance point to the North. He says that Sansa has been a bystander who has watched as events have turned against her family. Marrying Ramsay Bolton will give her an opportunity to shape events and take vengeance. Sansa is not exactly thrilled to marry into the family which destroyed her own and have as a father-in-law the man who murdered her brother but still agrees. From afar Brienne and Podrick watch and exchange origin stories. Brienne has figured out where Sansa and Littlefinger are heading. She offers to train Podrick. At Winterfell Sansa curtsies to Roose and his kin while Ramsay gives flowery entreaties. Ramsay's previous mistress Myranda is not happy about this turn of events. Remember she has helped Ramsay torture, rape and murder. Littlefinger and Ramsay talk. Littlefinger claims he hasn't heard much about Ramsay, which seems extremely unlikely. Roose interrupts and dismisses Ramsay.
Roose is suspicious of Littlefinger and his reasons for delivering Sansa to the Boltons. Roose tells Littlefinger that Littlefinger is taking a big chance by going against the Lannisters. Littlefinger looks around Winterfell and reminds Roose of his own risky betrayal of the Starks. Big risks = big rewards. Still distrustful, Roose hands Littlefinger a message from Cersei, who had thought Littlefinger was in the Vale. Littlefinger notices the message has been opened, but Roose shrugs. Roose also demands to read any reply. A serving woman leads Sansa to her room (as if she needed guidance in her own home) but before leaving tells her "The North remembers!". In King's Landing the High Septon (Westeros' equivalent of the pope) is engaging in some blasphemous sex games with prostitutes when the Sparrows (the religious fundamentalist group) break in and just ruin his day. They whip him naked thru the street. The disgraced High Septon goes to Cersei and the Small Council to demand action. However they are displeased with the spectacle of a so-called holy man being caught cavorting with hookers. Cersei goes to see the leader of the Sparrows, the High Sparrow. She is impressed to see that this man practices what he preaches as he walks barefoot and ministers to the sick and poor. As with Ned Stark, Cersei respects rectitude provided she can find a way to use it. She also notices that the High Sparrow isn't afraid of her. She explains to him that the crown and the church feed off of each other's legitimacy. Having one of them called into question harms the other. So Cersei threw the High Septon into prison instead of killing or imprisoning the High Sparrow. When Cersei goes to Qyburn to have him send a message to Littlefinger we see that something large is tied to Qyburn's examination table. It makes no sound but it moves.
At the Wall, Jon again formally declines Stannis' offer of Winterfell and asks him when he's leaving. Stannis is impressed with Jon's Ned Stark inspired tenacity and honor but doubts it's for the best. Davos tells Jon that oath or no oath the Boltons are not good for the North. Jon should remember his responsibility to all of the realm, not just the Night's Watch. As Lord Commander Jon raises Alliser Thorne to First Ranger. He also orders Janos Slynt to go take control of Greyguard, a ruined castle. Janos tells Jon no and fervently explains where Jon can insert his order. Jon explains that this was an order, not an offer and gives Janos a chance to reconsider. When Janos still refuses, Jon has him taken outside. Just like dear old Dad would have done, Jon personally executes Janos. Janos died whimpering and crying. In Volantis, Tyrion finally convinces Varys to let him out for some rest and recreation. They see a Red Priestess who seems to recognize Tyrion. Disquieted they retreat to a brothel where Tyrion discovers to his horror that he's not interested in having sex. Whether this is the result of too much wine, grief over Shae, a bout of erectile dysfunction or worse, an attack of morality, is not explained because out of nowhere Lord Friendzone himself, aka Jorah Mormont, appears and kidnaps Tyrion. Jorah intends to take Tyrion to Daenerys and use this gift to get into her smallclothes good graces. What I liked
Michael McElhatton continues to impress as Roose Bolton. Unlike his crazy son Roose is always under control, but there's something off and cold about him. However he has a very commanding presence. When he talks you listen.
Jon Snow coming into his own as Lord Commander. It's also important to remember that Janos Slynt betrayed Ned Stark and helped to murder him, something of which Jon would have been very much aware.
Cersei's refusal to respond to Margaery's antagonisms.
Arya's inability to throw away Needle.
Identity was very important in tonight's episode. Arya is being forced to throw hers away. Sansa's is only important to the Boltons as a symbol. As with Joffrey Sansa will have to hide her true feelings. Jon is finding his. Theon has seemingly lost his forever.
Does an oath have to be upheld no matter what? That's an ongoing question in this series.
Stannis' grim and wholly unselfconscious sense of humor as exhibited in the quote at the top of the post. He has his moments.
What I didn't like
If Sansa believes that she has a choice, there's no way she would agree to marry into the families that murdered her mother and brother. Her proposed father in-law stabbed her brother through the heart and her mother-in-law is a Frey. What's next Ramsay dies and Sansa marries one of the Freys?
The Brienne: Podrick adventures felt shoehorned in the episode.
The Vale and The North are different kingdoms which are far apart. It would take ages for a rider to get from one to another. And as Littlefinger didn't tell anyone where he was going how would anyone at the Vale know to send the message to Winterfell?
*This post is written for discussion ofthisepisode and previous episodes. If you have book based knowledge of future events or have seen future leaked episodespleasebe kind enough not to discuss that here. NO SPOILERS. NO BOOK DERIVED HINTS ABOUT FUTURE EVENTS.Most of my blog partners have not read the books and would take spoilers most unkindly. Heads, spikes, well you get the idea....
