Predator-11

The smartest thing for Fred Leuchter to do when confronted with the notion of providing proof as to the reality of the Holocaust would've been to simply say no. But since he was clearly unwilling to do so, the next best thing would be to would be to approach the situation objectively and scientifically. In the film he says several times that he was looking for evidence to prove the existence of gas chambers in Auschwitz, and was unable to find any. He also states that the sites were exactly the same as they were back in the 1940s, although he offers no evidence to back-up this assumption. He has absolutely no way of knowing what has happened to the chambers over the course of 40-50 years. A scientist would've realized this and come to the conclusion that the evidence he was gathering could potentially be flawed. Instead he approaches his task with the assumption that any information he gathers is 100% correct and that no tampering is possible, which is a fatal mistake. The fact of the matter is that Fred Leuchter has absolutely no idea what he's talking about, the way in which he gathered evidence and conducted his investigation was fundimentally flawed. He should've understood this and testified to that effect. For whatever reason he decided to jump to the conclusion that he was correct under any circumstance and propagated lies because of it. For this reason he is deserving of any repricussions that resulted from his actions. I have no sympathy for a man that is blinded by his own ego, or whatever it was that caused him to close his mind to many legitimate possibilities.

Browsing through the user reviews here on IMDB, I noticed a very recognizable trend. For every 3 or 4 rave reviews, proclaiming the show to be the funniest thing to hit television since Seinfeld, there is always that one scathing review, denouncing the show and, most predominantly, its unappealing main character, Larry David.

Many reviews, both negative and positive, will draw comparison to the Seinfeld show, and both seem to agree that its humor seems more or less derived from a similar source. Detractors claim the show lacks the innocent humor of Jerry Seinfeld and many of the supporting actors, and loses it's charm to simply become grating. Supporters claim that it has a sharper edge than the Seinfeld show, and delving into the more uncomfortable situations makes it more entertaining. However, one thing that never seems to come up, is whether or not the viewer likes or hates what they see, the show does its job perfectly.

The intention of CYE is to cause one of two specific reactions within the viewer. The first reaction, one shared by people who dislike the show, is usually one of disgust. The viewer will strongly dislike Larry David, seeing him as shallow and distasteful. The dialog will seem messy and awkward. The main reaction is one of confusion, questioning how anyone in their right mind could enjoy such tripe. The viewer will then stop watching the show, tell his/her friends not to watch it and possibly even post a harsh review on an internet movie website.

The opposite reaction, one shared by those who like the show, starts as simple association. The viewer will begin to recognize traits that look familiar. Usually these traits will start associated with fictional characters, most commonly those in the Seinfeld show. Soon these associations will begin to spread, to people you know, and finally to yourself. Once the viewer has become a true fan of the show, they will have made numerous connections between Larry David's personality and their own. At that point, Larry David ceases to be the annoying little jerk that he starts out as, and suddenly becomes a representation of all the little things that can, and frequently do, go wrong during the tasks of everyday life. From here you will not only grow to empathize with Larry David, you will actually appreciate him. For all the little mishaps and blunders that can seem so frustrating in life, Larry David can come along and twist them into a huge tangled mess that you couldn't have possibly imagined.

The trick of the show is to display those two main reactions, especially the ones from people who hate Larry. It's no coincidence that Larry is constantly surrounded by people who hate his guts, it makes for better entertainment. Sheryl, Jeff, Richard, and (for those watching Season 3) Mel Brooks, are Larry's fans. Nearly everyone else is an antagonist. The situations and dialog in the show, while fictional, are not made up. There is no doubt that Larry David has had plenty of similar situations in his real life. So you see, if everyone loved Curb Your Enthusiasm, there would be no show.

I recently picked up The Godfather DVD Collection, having seen (and loved) the first two films. I proceeded to watch the first two over again, enjoying every minute almost as much as the first time around. Then I watched the third one, which I had never seen before. I'd heard how bad it was, and how Coppola ruined the series with Part III, so my hopes were less than high, even though the brilliance of the first two films was still fresh in my mind. So I watched it all the way through, trying to keep an unbiased oppinion.

Well, it's not great, that's for sure. But I wouldn't call it horrible either. It certainly lacks the wonderful mood and appeal of the first two films, and it doesn't hold together nearly as well. The first two are so masterful that it takes a very keen eye and many repeated viewings to find even the most minute flaws in them. In Part III, there's plenty of cheesy scenes, forced acting and hammy lines. On the other hand, a lot of the scenes were really good. I liked most of the time spent in Rome, especially the confession scene with Michael and the soon-to-be Pope. The construction of the story itself was pretty decent as well, although it's ruined a little bit by some bad acting.

The main problem with the story of Part III was that it wasn't about anything the audience really cared about, and it certainly wasn't anything new. Part I gave us the story of an aging Mafia crime boss, who's family goes into chaos when he's shot. And Michael, the moral son who doesn't want to get involved with his families business, but feels it's his duty when he sees the corruption in the law and the government. Part II gave us the continuing story of Michael Corleone, trying to vanquish his enemies, and it also had the side story of Vito Corleone as a young man coming to America and his rise to power. To me the scenes with De Niro as Vito was the best part of Part II, and I don't think the film would've been nearly as great without them. Part III was the story of the aging Michael Corleone, but we'd already seen the same type of thing in Part I. So we start looking for parallels between Parts I and III, but they're just not there. So we start looking for originality and redeeming qualities of Part III on it's own, but we have a hard time looking past some of the flaws.

Frankly I just didn't really give a damn about any of the characters in Part III. Michael was an old man, and I could guess he would be dead by the end of the film. Connie had suddenly turned into this hard Mafia consultant, which didn't seem to fit her character from the originals at all. Vincent was basically James Caan's character, Sonny, from the original, only Andy Garcia isn't as good an actor and didn't pull it off as believably. Also it seems hard to believe that Michael would leave the family in the hands of someone so brash and forward as Vincent. The character we were really supposed to care about, Mary, was completely blown by a terrible acting performance by Sofia Coppola, that has to be one of the worst casting calls I've ever seen. I literally laughed at the end (you all know what scene I'm talking about), her acting was just so canned and cheesy it was really pathetic.

On an up note, the cinematography was great once again. Although the film didn't have the same play on light and shadowing that the first two had, it did have some amazing shots of Rome and Sicily. The film was very pleasent to look at throughout. The music was also very good, although I think they used Nino Rota's original theme a bit too much.

Of course, if you compare Part III to the first two films, your going to come up with tons of problems with it and probably won't like it very much. But on it's own it's a pretty decent movie, there have been tons of better Mafia films (Goodfellas, Casino, Donnie Brasco etc..) but it's still alright. What's so disappointing is that the first two are amazing, and the third one is just pretty good. But it says a lot about a series when the worst of the bunch is still a good movie. On a scale of 1 to 10, I give The Godfather Part III, 6 stars.