Best Spider-Man 3 review

I had to see Spidy-3. Had to, because my two little ones needed a ride.
I’ll tell you, it did not seem so bad while I was watching it (to their credit they stuck pretty close to the actual story as was laid out in the original comic book), it’s after I left the theatre that I regretted spending the time there. I was surprised to learn about their record breaking premiere. In this age when so much of the special effects are done by computer graphics – it just takes away the magic element. But then again, it all depends on which audience demography you are asking for opinion.

I took my girls to see SHREK-3 last night. Now that was BRILLIANT! Simply brilliant! What a pleasant departure from the mushy stuff Disney had been producing with typical portrayal of pretty but inept princesses waiting to be rescued and “ever-after” crap.
Beauty is after all skin-deep and exists only in the eye of the beholder. It has all the elements from family values to sense of loyalty and even emphasize on self esteem issue.
Excellent stuff for kids these days. And for the parents, there are those witty dialogues and unmistakable humors. I give it a two thumbs up.

Thanks ZaFa! I’m looking forward to watching Shrek 3 now. Had been reading some reviews of it online earlier, but they were all negative. But they were negative about the other two Shreks as well, so I’ll take your word for it rather than theirs!

Well, you need a different kind of audienceship to appriciate movies like Shrek. If you liked the first two - you’d like this, if you didn’t like those - slim chance you’d like this one either.

I know this thread is about movies but since you brought up Friedman, I couldn’t resist sharing my 2 cents on World is Flat, not withstanding Taibbi’s review (he’s a jerk - remember the Pope fiasco?).
And please be aware mine is just rambling, not an articulated piece.

Friedman I think has gone over board on glorifying India’s emergence in global economy, but that’s because he feels (as do many people) that the techno evolution will rule the 21 st century. Will it be enough to resolve socio-economic crisis in places like India or Pakistan? May be, may be not.

When Friedman referred to the Indians that U.S. should watch out for, he meant the bright engineers in Bagnalore who are making more money working in the foreign owned IT companies than they would in other native companies. So between the IT companies and the Indie engineers – it’s an every-body-is-happy situation. At this point some argue “but how does it help eradicate poverty?”

India’s problem with social and economic disparities would prevail despite the boom in IT industry. Some argue that labor-force had not been utilized enough by Indie govt. India is one country that manufactures a lot of stuff locally (including cars and parts) that other countries (including U.S.A) prefer importing. I don’t see how the growth in IT can be a negative or act as a catalyst for pushing the labor force backwards. The people without tech skills may feel vulnerable as compared to their peers in IT sector, but that is a pre-existing condition. They seem fallen far behind because their techno counter part has moved forward in a much faster pace.

Friedman IMO could have been more neutral and civil while portraying the mid-easterners and their attitude towards opening up to the worldwide trading. But the mid-east leadership, with their callous attitudes makes them an easy target for stereotyping. FYI, out of the 470 pages in his book Friedman talks abut the mid-east in 5 pages only (about 1% by volume). He also asked Americans to practice more compassion in partnership.

Friedman analyzed how accelerated change is made possible by intersecting technological advances and social protocols, e.g ., cell phones, the Internet, open source software, etc. Friedman is a strong advocate of these changes, calling himself a “free-trader” and a “compassionate flatist”; he criticizes societies that resist these changes. I have to mention something here – his use of the term ‘flat’ is misleading because in terms of connectivity it is easier to connect if the world is round rather than flat. But he meant that it’s easier to reach out when it’s flat, not necessarily using the metaphors to mean that the worlds’ wealth will not pile up, instead be distributed across the earth.

Friedman’s theory is that “need for human resources will continue to be on rise and that competitive advantage will no longer apply in a globalized economy with revolutionized information technologies” ==> which I don’t entirely agree with, but then again it’s just a theory.

Anyway, India’s emergence as IT giant is only one of the ten forces that Friedman argued that helped the whole world become more communal. Others are::
ending of cold-war,
software evolution (thanks to IBM, Netscape),
open sourcing (podcast, blog etc),
discount supply chain (Walmart),
improvement in logistics (FedEx, UPS etc),
googling, file sharing… etc.

I don’t see how anyone can disagree that all these mentioned here did help the world and its resources become a part one big community (figuratively speaking).

He also mentions the downsides of the IT blow-ups such as dotcom burst, Enron scandal etc which are like a counter balancing act of the whole system.

He cautions America for lagging behind in science and engineering (possibly threatened by Chinese or Indians). We all know that it’s true. 9 out of 10 students in eng grad school are foreigner, and most of them are Asian.

I am in NO WAY trying to glorify Friedman. I think he does possess a pompous view like a typical capitalist. He started his book with his theory of globalization as beginning in the 15 th century with Columbus’ voyage (I have to mention comparing his trip to India to the voyage of Columbus is ludicrous). What does he mean by globalization? It was a forceful occupation and brutal intervention on the American natives. He called the British colonization as a fair trade between two nations (east and west). ‘Fair trade’ my a**! I say it was an aggressive occupation (who gave them right to build colonies in somebody else’s land), calculative loot in the name of trading by the British, backed up by local traitors.

ZaFa, Friedman does say some interesting things, but my main beef with him is how he packages it all. I think the right word to use for it is “smarmy”. It’s just over-the-top in its cutesyness. Additionally the ratio of BS to actual substance is extremely extremely high. He says the obvious what should have taken him 10 pages to say in 500.

The things he point out that he raises are good ones - except others have talked about them with far greater nuance and ability than he has. Check out Jagdish Bhagwati for example. Or Martin Wolf. (Your criticism of him is fair, btw, IMHO.)

Friedman’s “theory of globaliztion” in the 15th century (like anything he spouts) is of course not his theory, btw. It’s actually a theory that many prominent economic historians have made - my own undergraduate thesis advisor, Jeffrey Williamson, an incredible economic historian and an amazing guy was among the earliest who made the argument. I guess the definition of globalization that they are going for is a descriptive one about interconnectedness of markets. Check out some his papers. They’re fascinating!