Logos contest

Win a MacBook Pro, iMac, iPad or one of 100 other prizes! Join the Logos Bible Software 4 Mac launch celebration! http://t.co/1TFleyF

Movie Review: Cape Fear (1991)

This was my first time seeing Martin Scorsese's Cape Fear. The fact that Scorsese directed it was the reason I put it on my Netflix queue.

Cape Fear is a remake of a 1962 movie by the same name. Both are based on a book by John D. Macdonald titled The Executioners. I remember my Dad having several of Macdonald's books, but I have not read any of Macdonald's books. However, I subscribe to the belief that one does not need to read the book on which a movie is based -- on can approach a movie adapted from a book based on its own merits; the director should not feel compelled to require viewers to have read the book nor feel bound to satisfy fans of the book. This remake features several stars from the 1962 version in different roles.

I have also not seen the 1962 version, but I have read that the character of Sam Bowden is played as a less-flawed character trying to defend his family from a crazy man by the name of Max Cady. In this remake by Scorsese, Bowden is presented as a character who has his own flaws. In other words, there is no hero in this movie that wears a white cap and prevails in the end. This is typical not only of Scorsese but other movies of this time made by movie creaters who do not subscribe to the belief that right and wrong are so black and white.

I also read that this movie was being made around the same time as Schindler's List and that Scorsese had been originally tapped to direct it and Steven Spielberg was to direct Cape Fear. Scorsese felt Spielberg was more suited to Schindler's List and so they swapped films. That got me thinking, though, how Schindler's List would have turned out with Scorsese at the helm.

In Scorsese's directorial resume, Cape Fear comes just after Goodfellas and before The Age of Innocence. This movie was definitely sub-par for Scorsese considering the quality of Goodfellas. Many of Scorsese's directorial touches can be seen, but they seem less refined rather than more.

I did not know much about the movie going into it. It has its scary moments and it made me look in the dark corners that night. It is not scary overtly so much, and I see that the 1962 version is even less overt -- but the scaryness is still there.

The most memorable and creepy scene is the one ad-libbed and gotten right on the first take by Robert De Niro and Juliette Lewis where Max lures Danielle to a secluded part of her school. I was on the edge of my seat throughout the whole scene waiting for De Niro to attack.

As far as casting goes, I think De Niro plays the part sufficiently, but it is nothing spectacular. Nick Nolte was a second choice, and I believe Harrison Ford would have played the part better and may have stolen the spotlight from De Niro. Jessica Lange and Juliette Lewis both played their parts well.

Overall, this film was average. I enjoyed it, but it was nothing that stood out either from a directorial standpoint or acting standpoint.

Star rating: ** out of ****

Random thoughts

It feels like I haven't posted to my blog in ages, so I decided to post some random thoughts running through my mind. Here we go ...

The company I work for is ramping up their software development procedures. We are aiming for CMMI compliance. This is very much a welcome change. Ever since a course in college on software engineering, I have been very interested in software development processes, with a particular interest in emphasizing and enforcing requirements. Our process model is one that I forgot about: the V model. Most of my work in university was using the waterfall model, but with a number of years in the field, I recognize that the waterfall model is not very practical (a quote I remember from somewhere goes something like, "In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice, but in practice there is"). I definitely now believe in practical use of a software process that allows for iterative development. However, I always like to fall back to my waterfall model and continually modify it with ideas I encounter in other process models. The following is a very basic outline of the process model I like to follow for my personal projects:

1. Requirements
2. Test Generation
3. Design
4. Implementation
5. Testing
6. Delivery

This is a fairly basic outline, and maybe I will post details on each in future posts. It is probably similar to other models, but one thing I do emphasize here is the Test Generation phase immediately after requirements. In my observations, I notice that Test Generation (or writing test cases) doesn't happen until after Implementation and right before Testing ("OK, we are ready to test. What do we test? Let's write some test cases to go by"). At least in this case, a list of test cases is written out and kept to go by in future testing (regression testing). But, what I am getting at is that if Test Generation occurs right after Requirements and correlate directly to the requirements that are written, I think that Testing will be more fruitful.

First, I propose heavy use of use cases during the Requirements phase. Each use case has a main success scenario and extensions. If a test case is written for the main success scenario and a test case is written for each extension, there should be excellent coverage. If someone tests something that is not prescribed by a test case generated from the requirements and complains something is wrong, then the requirements are wrong! The exception case that was tested and complained about should be addressed in the requirements.

-----

A new album from one of my favorite bands King's X was recently released called Ogre Tones. I haven't managed to purchase it yet but I am definitely looking forward to it! I also see they are starting a new tour up, and I hope that they come to Atlanta.

-----

Another release I am looking forward to is WWE's Wrestlemania Anthology DVD set. It comes out on November 1. I used to be an avid wrestling fan, but my interest waned soon after I entered college. My high school friends (Nicolas Tergeoglou, Shane Hayes, and Kris McWhite) and I would always get together during our high school days for about every pay-per-view for not only WWF, but WCW as well. When I got to college, I continued watching occasionally and now I rarely watch. However, I still go back to the oldie shows every now and then and relive the memories. With Wrestlemania, Wrestlemania X was about the last one that I watched on PPV and had much interest in. I am definitely looking forward to this set not only to catch up on the last ten years, but also to relive the first ten on DVD as I have not watched them in some time.

-----

Well, the fall season of TV is kicking off with a bang and I have a couple of shows to catch tonight. They are about to start, so I will sign off for now.

John Roberts

For some reason, I love finding interesting things on CSPAN to watch late at night. Maybe it is just because I am bored and there is nothing else on TV, but nevertheless, some things are interesting -- particularly those shows where senators grill people, in this case John Roberts.

I was watching it last night and the prevailing word was stare decisis. I remembered hearing this word in my political science class and from context I reminded myself that it meant relying on previous decisions for cases before you. I am questioning myself as to whether I believe in this principle. On the one hand, I agree with it because of the reliability and consistency of the court decisions. On the other hand, if court decisions are based on the constitution being a living document, then cannot court decisions be "living decisions"? Isn't it a question of whether the times change and so must court decisions? Certainly the other line of questioning comes into play here about some things decidable at face value versus others must take into account the facts, but what about the times? To what effect do they play in relation to stare decisis?

The other thing I want to comment on is this line of questioning about not only using "domestic stare decisis" but "foreign stare dicisis" as well; that is, using decisions from foreign courts as basis for domestic court battles. What a bunch of crap! Roberts certainly handled this line of questioning well, but the one common sense answer was not spoken. If the purpose of the United States Supreme Court is to interpret the (American) law (judicial branch), how in the world could a foreign court based on foreign law even remotely have a possibility of involvement?

And one final comment: I am very much in favor separation of powers meaning that the judicial branch should not in any way shape or form legislate. True, there are some aspects of the Constitution that are open for debate an interpretation, but isn't there a difference between interpretation of current law and legislation? The argument may be made that by interpreting vague phrases in the constitution, the judical branch is thereby legislating, but I am arguing that the process must be much more careful here.

Anyone have any thoughts out there?

Homepage updated

I just updated my homepage to have a better format (read: no frames) so maybe search engines will pick it up better. Check it out here.

Learning Japanese

My latest "on the side" learning effort is learning Japanese, and of particular interest, is learning the writing aspect of it. It looks like there is a lot to memorize, and I am starting with the Hiragana alphabet. The best site I have found on the Internet so far for memorization is The Japanese Page (Learn Hiragana), for strokes and actually writing the characters is Japanese Writing Tutor, and a handy chart at Free Japanese Lessons.

It looks like memorizing Hiragana and Katakana will be straightforward, but Kanji on the other hand ...

Pig tail and beef stew, Scotch bonnet, and Scoville scale

So I am helping to cook dinner and the menu for tonight is pig tail and beef stew. One of the secret ingredients is a Scotch bonnet pepper and I was told that the trick is to put it in the stew near the end and let the aroma seep into the meat but without letting the pepper pop.

I had never heard of a Scotch bonnet, so I looked it up on Wikipedia and found out some more interesting things. First of all, there is an official scale called the Scoville Scale that measures the hotness of a pepper. Secondly, the weakest Scotch bonnet is more than ten times hotter than the strongest Jalapeno.

Well, I am being called for dinner, so I am off to eat my pig tail and beef stew. Yummmm ...

Me