Ebert is not the most sophisticated movie critic and he has a soft spot for the schmaltz, but I've always enjoyed his writing and mostly agreed with his reviews. I love the fact that unions got a positive mention.I know that I sound just like a liberal, but at this point in history I am sick and tired of giant corporations running roughshod over decent people -- cutting their wages, polluting their work environment, denying them health care, forcing them to work unpaid overtime, busting their unions and other crimes we have never heard George Bush denouncing while he was cutting corporate taxes. I am sure lower taxes help corporations to function more profitably. Why is that considered progress, when many workers live in borderline poverty and executives have pissing contests over who has the biggest stock options?
But enough. I have "Flash of Genius" to review. Yes, I am agitated. I am writing during days of economic meltdown, after Wall Street raped Main Street while the Bush ideology held it down. Believe me, I could go on like this all day. But consider the case of Robert Kearns, played here touchingly by Greg Kinnear. He was a professor of engineering, a decent, unremarkable family man, and had a eureka! moment: Why did windshield wipers only go on and off? Why couldn't they reflect existing conditions, as the human eyelid does?
Roger, you've earned the OG's highest honor: BOOM!
8 comments:
i would say "double-boom!" - 'cept Dave's clearly the one with the most gravitas when it comes to laying down the BOOMs.
Is it me, or where there more comments here just a little while ago, specifically from ash and dave?
curious.
sometimes you find things someone ought not to have said in unlikely places...or not, as the case may be.
Ah. I get it. These aren't the droids I'm looking for!
But I do get it.
I distinctly remember commenting.
Maybe the fine folks at blogger were so disgusted with my "I totally agree he shouldn't have aid that" even though I posted and praised it, they thought they were doing me a favor by deleting it.
no, that's not the case dave.
i deleted my comment and was attempting not to draw attention to the fact that i had done so.
your response, now lacking a referent, seemed to be a strange non sequitur. so i took that one out, too.
it was nothing personal. in fact, it was quite the opposite: an effort to remove all traces of the (way too) personal.
what i meant to say was: yes, BOOM!
Post a Comment