The Gray Man

[4 stars] [IMDB Link] [The Gray Man]

This is a pretty expensive movie to have never been released in theaters. (IMDB backs me up on this.) I swear they shot up, blew up, and burned down a couple European cities some nice mansions, and a big old airplane. I hope they asked permission first.

It has a mediocre IMDB rating as I type, and that's because the plot is only the latest mutation in the boilerplate spy thriller genre: likeable, semi-ethical assassin (Ryan Gosling) becomes targeted by the CIA folks he ostensibly works for. He keeps prevailing despite being vastly outnumbered and outweaponed by his foes. He acquires some unlikely allies along the way, and loses some of them. His primary nemesis is another hitman (Chris Evans), charismatic but psychotic, too dirty for regular government employment, but available for freelance gigs like this.

Oh yeah: throw in a cute kid in danger.

I had fun. The acting (in service of a ludicrous and predictable plot) is first-rate. As noted, the action is amazing and non-stop. Locations are scenic (until they're destroyed). And Ana de Armas is extremely easy on the eyes.

At the end, I noticed that they left plenty of room for a sequel. Then I looked at Amazon and found out (yes, I'm not up on these things) that it's based on a character from a 12-book (so far) series. Yeah, I guess they could do one or two more.


Last Modified 2024-01-30 7:22 AM EDT

URLs du Jour

2022-08-28

  • Mr. Ramirez points out… American suckers.

    [American Suckers]

    I believe I've linked to the Quote Investigator checking out "Look Around the Poker Table; If You Can’t See the Sucker, You’re It" in the past. The way things are going, I'll probably link it in the future too.


  • If you've been wondering‥ whether there's a neoliberal poltergeist in Higher Ed, UNH alumnus Jason Brennan and Phillip Magness have checked it out, and: No, There Is Not a “Neoliberal” Poltergeist in Higher Ed. It's an excerpt from their (excellent) book Cracks in the Ivory Tower (on which I reported back in 2019).

    Higher education suffers from a multitude of flaws. University marketing departments habitually over-promise the benefits of their degree programs to unsuspecting high-school students. Mandatory “general education” classes extract sizable tuition fees from students while delivering little discernible benefit in knowledge or critical thinking skills. A student-debt crisis leaves college graduates in the financial hole for decades as they work to pay off degrees of arguably marginal value. An oversaturated job market plagues faculty ranks due to decades of self-serving professors pumping out graduate students with few job openings to employ them. The traditional classroom functions of the university exist in near-perpetual budgetary strain, even as administrative ranks explode and seemingly endless resources are redirected to on-campus amenities such as lazy rivers, rock climbing walls, and luxury dormitories.

    Rather than tackling the bad incentive structures that create these problems, much of academia has chosen to place the blame on a poltergeist called “neoliberalism.” A vast and growing academic literature—particularly in the humanities and Critical Theory journals—purports to have identified this ghostly troublemaker on campus. Like the havoc-wreaking spectres of horror films, the neoliberal poltergeist allegedly moved into the university system over the last 30 years and made a mess of things. Higher-education commentators now routinely call for full-blown exorcism rituals to drive “neoliberalism” out of the university system.

    But there’s a fundamental problem with this line of attack. Poltergeists aren’t real, and neither is the neoliberal takeover of higher education.

    Unfortunately, in my view.

    However: "Neoliberal Poltergeists" anagrams to "Teetering Abe Spoils Rolls". This is no accident.


  • Also needing a dose of neoliberalism… In his (free) G-File, Jonah Goldberg looks at journalistic malpractice and self-congratulation by turning around a famous quip: Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted.

    … let me explain why I don’t like the idea that journalists must “afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted.” It’s become a mantra for journalists, particularly of the Columbia Journalism School set. As this piece over at Pulitzer.org put it, the sentiment “captures a time-honored purpose in journalism: Comfort the afflicted, afflict the comfortable.”

    But here’s the thing: There is nothing inherently wrong with being comfortable, and afflicting the comfortable—or anyone else—without good reason is almost the textbook definition of being a jerk. According to the dictionary, to afflict is to "to distress with mental or bodily pain; trouble greatly or grievously.”

    “Hey, look at that guy sleeping comfortably in that hammock, let’s poke him with sticks!” isn’t some high-minded ideal of courage, it’s assholery reified. 

    Taken literally, this credo is an open-ended warrant to be a jerk.

    [Which explains a lot about modern journalism right there — your blogger]

    But even figuratively, it’s got problems. Because buried within it is a very radical, very self-serving vision of what journalism is and who journalists are. If you start from the assumption that the “comfortable” are in the wrong for no other reason than that comfort qua comfort is prima facie evidence of complacency, unfairness, or wrongdoing, then you are starting your journalistic inquiry with a bias against the comfortable and putting the burden of proof upon them to justify their comfort. There’s another assumption in there: That it’s the journalist who has some special insight, some higher moral standing, to decide who deserves to be comfortable and who doesn’t.

    It's a good column, and Jonah makes the case that, ackshually, modern journalism does a lot of ideological "comforting" of people already "comfortable" with their political and ethical beliefs. "Here's a story that will reinforce your dogma. You're welcome."


  • I'd be happy with less. But as eronique de Rugy points out: As Washington Gives Us 'More,' Americans Want 'Better'.

    Congress' annual August recess is a good time to think about the big picture. Most Americans want government reformed for the better. We notice its many breakdowns, dysfunctions and failures to deliver on promises. Yet politicians of both parties usually only talk about more new programs, more spending and more regulations. Will either party listen, or will they continue down their destructive and unpopular path?

    In case some of them are listening, I have a few ideas.

    Paul Light, a scholar at the Brookings Institution, writes that while a small majority of Americans prefer that government shrink, what they want more is reform. He reports that public demand for "very major" government reform is up to 60% from 37% in 1997, when the Pew Research Center first asked this question. Meanwhile, those who believe the government is "basically sound and need(s) only some reform" is down to 28% from 58%. All of that while confidence in government to do the right thing hovers around a historic low.

    Vero's suggestions:

    1. "[E]end all forms of government-granted privileges, whether these are subsidies, guaranteed loans, tax credits or bailouts."
    2. Reform the tax code, particularly the fundamental unfairness of treating "individuals who make the same income differently."
    3. "[M]ove away from all age-based eligibility criteria, such as the ones used for Social Security and Medicare."

    Pretty huge ideas. It would probably be suicidal for an actual politician to embrace them.


  • For a comparatively minor reform proposal… check out Colin Grabow's article at Cato: New England Governors Seek Jones Act Relief as Spike in Winter Heating Bills Looms.

    Concerned by high and volatile global energy prices, New England’s six governors dispatched a letter to Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm last month asking for assistance. At the top of their wish list: exploring the conditions under which the Jones Act might be suspended to allow the region expanded access to U.S. natural gas. It’s an eminently reasonable request that Congress and the White House should embrace.

    Although geographically part of the U.S. mainland, in terms of energy New England is almost an island. Lacking pipeline connections to refining centers outside the region, it also has insufficient pipeline capacity to transport natural gas—New England’s dominant fuel for electricity production—from other parts of the United States during wintertime spikes in demand. Instead, the region must turn to marine deliveries of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to meet its needs. That means imports. While U.S. natural gas is both plentiful and substantially less expensive than elsewhere, there are no ships to transport it to New England.

    More accurately, there are no ships to transport it that comply with the Jones Act.

    Boy, now we're sorry about blocking all those pipelines. Also, Northern Pass.


  • Seeing semi-fascists under the bed. Mary Chastain reports on recent droolings: Deplorable: Biden Says ‘Extreme MAGA Philosophy’ is ‘Like Semi-Facism’.

    Biden showed his true feelings for “extreme MAGA philosophy” at a Democratic donor event in Maryland:

    “What we’re seeing now is the beginning or the death knell of an extreme MAGA philosophy. It’s not just Trump, it’s the entire philosophy that underpins the – I’m going to say something, it’s like Semi-fascism.”

    And then he went on to advocate "Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State".


Last Modified 2024-01-30 7:22 AM EDT