Your Opinion on the Palestinian vs. Israeli Conflict

This post was previously deleted by Malexandria. She has said that it is okay to re-post the thread so here I am. Don’t make any derogatory comments about one side or the other, or the thread may be deleted. Please keep an open mind and listen to eachother’s ideas…

For weeks I have wondered about the Palestinian vs. Israeli conflict in Israel. As a Jew, I feel that I should support Israel and anything they do, yet I feel they have gone overboard lately. When Israel was created as an Independent state on April 16 1948, they built on land that was owned by the Palestinians. They proceeded to treat the Palestinians poorly. The Palestinian response has been a bad one. Instead of targeting the military, they attack Israeli citizens with suicide bombers to make their point. Recently Israel has invaded Palestinian towns and camps and bulldozed everything in sight. Homes have been razed, families in those homes killed, men are all taken away for questioning and the Israelis won’t allow foreign aid into Palestinian areas. The question is, how do you feel about this?

If I was a Palestinian child and my home is bulldozed, I know I would want to kill Israelis. On the other hand, If I was Israeli and my neighbor was killed by a bomb, then I would want to kill Palestinians. That is why the conflict is so confusing. Israel won’t grant Palestinians a true state of their own, but if they did and they had an army, they would probably just attack Israelis anyways. There is a stereotype that all Palestinians are terrorists. THIS IS NOT TRUE.

There are Palestinian doctors, Palestinian lawyers and families just like ours. Their homes are destroyed and they can’t even get into Israel to work. I feel that Israel should withdraw from the West Bank and again offer the Palestinians a state of their own. Arafat hasn’t been helping at all which is also very annoying. What do you think they should do? How do you feel about the situation?


The Scorpion King — Sean’s Review

Can a bona fide summer popcorn flick released in the cinematic doldrums of Spring still succeed when it shuns high-priced CGI effects, alienates its source material and pins its hopes on a larger-than-life WWF star with approximately 9 minutes of screen time to his credit?

Apparently so. The finest compliment I’m able to give Chuck Russell’s sword and sand epic “The Scorpion King” is that it’s “better than I thought it would be,” which is high praise, indeed, though it might not sound like it. It’s a judgment I reserve for films victimized by poor marketing campaigns, and prequels to sequels that stunk.Such is the case with “King,” an adequate jolt of brain candy that easily surpasses benchmarks set (actually, lowered) by last summer’s “The Mummy Returns,” which introduced this film’s lead character and gave him a backstory that‘s never referenced here. Instead, “King” stands on its own as the beginning of a franchise, for better or for worse.“King” also resurrects The Rock (aka Dwayne Johnson) as its hero, Mathayus, who comes to the table with acting experience under his belt. Remember, he got his start in the WWF, after all. And as an action hero, The Rock offers the complete package. He’s brawny enough for the ladies, flippant enough for the dudes, and packs his own heavy metal soundtrack that cues up every time he enters battle. Sure he’s prone to overacting, delivering lines with forced intensity and a Barry White baritone, but the material practically begs just such a reading.Still, Universal lacks 100% faith in their new star, so “King” features an array of supporting characters that balance out the proceedings while shifting some focus off our hard-to-miss star. Equally massive Michael Clarke Duncan co-stars as Balthazar, the leader of a diminished tribe who fluctuates between friend and foe, while the exotic Kelly Hu plays Cassandra, the powerful sorcerer Mathayus is paid to assassinate. The inconsequential plot pits Mathayus against a Napoleonic empire who resembles Russell Crowe, who has a right-hand man who resembles Tom Cruise. It’s eerie.In the grand scheme of things, “King” falls squarely between the first and second “Mummy” films in terms of pure popcorn entertainment. Where “Mummy Returns” plugged up illogical plot holes with disturbingly bad special effects, “King” possesses a low-budget charm. It guarantees the studio a profit, but also proves in the process that a well-cast ensemble is more valuable to a summer blockbuster than an ill-used blue screenFrom opening sequence to climactic (and fiery) battle, “King” establishes itself as a comic-book caper. The fight scenes exude the energy of most Hong Kong imports, and select set pieces pay homage to Spielberg‘s “Indiana Jones” adventures (the one where The Rock runs from a room under the cover of a spinning dish a la “Temple of Doom” stands out in my mind). Still, Russell gets points for creativity despite the familiar material. “King” isn’t afraid to borrow from multiple sources, but it certainly has its own brand of fun. Grade: B-By Sean O’ConnellApril 19, 2002

The EM Weekly Newsletter

Ok, due to technical issues, and the simple fact that I haven’t felt like doing it on a weekly basis, I haven’t done one in awhile. Starting next week, I’m going to get back on a weekly schedule of sending out the weekly newsletter.

What day of the week do you guys want to see it? On Monday or Thursday? What type of info would you like to see included in it, besides news from the site?

Norah Jones’ Debut Album “”Come Away With Me””

[img align=left]/images/features/comeaway.jpg[/img]One can’t help being curious about the contents of Norah Jones’ music collection after listening to her debut , “”Come Away With Me””. They would probably not be far off in assuming she grew up singing into various makeshift microphones around her household alongside the vocals of Billie Holiday, Ella Fitzgerald, Joni Mitchell, and Sarah Mclachlan.

Despite the album’s various jazz standards, one should not be so na

CQ – An Intriguing New Sci-Fi Film

CQ is an intriguing looking advante garde, film noirish sci-fi flick. Normally I run away from the the theaters at the thought of seeing something “”advante garde””, but this trailer looks intriguing.

CQ is set in Paris, 1969: during The filming of a sci-fi movie set in the distant year 2000 is in trouble. The director’s obsession with the actress who plays sexy secret agent Dragonfly (Angela Lindvall) has clouded his judgment and the film has no ending.A young American (Jeremy Davies) in Paris to document his life on film “”with total honesty”” is brought in to finish the movie. THis prives to be difficult when the line between his fantasy life and reality becomes blurred and he, too, finds himself seduced by the charms of Dragonfly.[url=]CHECK OUT THIS INTRIGUING TRAILER[/url]

EclipseMagazine The TV Show Episode 10 Is Up!!!!

Hey, folks, due to some technical issues I wasn’t able to post the latest Episode of EMTV. Now your prayers have been answered! We’re back, and have a big show for you this week. On this week’s edition we review “”Frailty””, “”The Next Best Thing””, “”Changing Lanes””, as well as discuss Filmfest DC, and we have an exclusive video tribute to Microsoft’s fab X-Box.

Joining me on the couch this week is our man Caramel, the most embarrassing person in the world to go to a movie with, and Lora. To watch the show simply click the “”watch now”” link below.[url=]WATCH NOW!!![/url]


In a crowded Manhattan department store, Jonathan (John Cusack) and Sara (Kate Beckinsale) meet over a pair of gloves they both intend to buy for their significant others. The mixup leads to coffee and conversation, but since they’re both involved, they reluctantly part ways.

To be safe, though, the superstitious Sara conducts two tests, writing her name and phone number on the inside cover of a book while having Jonathan do the same to a five dollar bill. She then explains that if either of them should find the book or bill, they’ll know they’re relationship is meant to be.Fast forward what we’re told is a “”few years”” later. We assume the book and the bill have gone undiscovered, as Jonathan and Sara are both set to marry different people, though neither of them seems to have forgotten the magical evening they spent together. In a last ditch effort to find his true love, Jonathan recruits best friend Dean (Jeremy Piven) to help him find Sara, just as she hops a plane with her friend Eve (Molly Shannon) bound for the Big Apple and what she hopes will be her soulmate’s arms.With a tender blend of self-effacing sarcasm and sentiment, as well as a “”lovers on opposite coasts”” subplot, “”Serendipity”” draws comparisons to Nora Ephron’s “”Sleepless in Seattle.”” But Peter Chelsom’s wistful romance embarks down a different path, actively pursuing the requisite coincidences that typically drive such fare instead of merely relying on them. Sara would refer to them as “”twists of fate,”” though we call them plot devices, and they move Cusack’s fruitless search for Sara along all-too-smoothly. The last one, involving a jacket left on a park bench, is a doozy, but completely acceptable in the context of the film. “”Serendipity”” exists solely in the saccharine-sweet fabrication of Manhattan reserved for romantic films like “”An Affair to Remember,”” “”Breakfast at Tiffany’s,”” or even “”When Harry Met Sally.”” As expected, the ideal date picture enchants, but in unconventional ways, as various “”new age”” detours addressing destiny and soulmates, as well as a jazzy soundtrack of original tunes by Alan Silvestri, make the familiar material seem lively and original.Grade: B-THE EXTRASWhat is already a light and fluffy romance comes off that much lighter and fluffier, courtesy of Miramax’s crisp widescreen anamorphic transfer. A Dolby Digital 5.1 audio track backs up the action, both amplified beautifully.In terms of extras, there are a few. Not only does Chelsom contribute a feature-length audio commentary track, he re-appears over the deleted scenes to explain why he felt these particular cuts could be exercised. Since the finished product flows so nicely, I’m inclined to agree. Finally, Chelsom includes his production diary, diving one step further into his thought processes during filming.Foregoing to typical HBO featurette, “Serendipity” instead includes a Starz/Encore “On The Set” look behind the scenes. The name is different, while the content remains the same: interviews, anecdotes, etc. The DVD rounds out with the requisite trailers, while s still gallery and storyboard comparisons will please the more visual folks in the audience.Grade: BOVERALL EXPERIENCE: BPeter Chelsom’s contributions elevate what could have been characterized as a standard “romantic comedy” release. The film is extremely entertaining, and the extras are worth your while.By Sean O’ConnellApril 15, 2002

Entertainment News for The Rest of Us