|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Oh, Hollywood. You’re always messing with our heads. The opening titles to “Middle Men” say it’s “Inspired by a True Story,” but the end titles say, “This film is, in its entirety, a work of fiction.” Those statements aren’t technically contradictory, but I guess the truth is somewhere in the “middle.”
“Inspired,” then, by the exploits of Internet billing mogul Christopher Mallick, the film’s story stretches back to 1988 and sprawls forward to 2004. But most of it takes place in the “middle,” the 1990s, when slovenly, bickering roommates Wayne Beering and Buck Dolby (Giovanni Ribisi and Gabriel Macht) inspire each other to reinvent porn as an instant and private pastime — via the Internet. Otherwise dumb as rocks, they’re in desperate need of rescue by a man with a business plan. Enter Jack Harris (Luke Wilson), an all-purpose business-fixer who sees a chance to get in on the ground floor of something big.
Those expecting a comical look at how two losers stumbled on “the greatest invention of all time” (online credit-card billing) will be satisfied with the film’s opening movements. Unfortunately, “Middle Men” swiftly turns into a pastiche of Scorsese movies and their many descendants, contrasting a high-roller lifestyle with its seedy underbelly as Jack goes on a journey of temptation to sin. As if this trajectory weren’t immediately obvious, it’s foretold to us step by step in the portentous narration scripted by George Gallo and Andy Weiss.
Gallo’s self-consciously overstated direction feeds the impression that he’s trying to remake “Goodfellas” (by way of “Casino”). Side note: Can we all agree by now that the use of “Sympathy for the Devil” in crime pictures ought to be outlawed? At any rate, “Middle Men” stocks up on career-threatening drug and alcohol abuse, political corruption (represented by Kelsey Grammer’s sleazy senator), conspiracy (represented by James Caan’s sleazy lawyer), and, of course, the Russian mob (headed up by Rade Serbedzija).
The married Harris sees himself as “a family man,” but he’s more cunning than he’d care to admit to himself. At least Wilson does soulfully conflicted well. Despite being an absentee father seduced by the availability of money, power and sex, Jack is meant to be implicitly sympathetic. We’re supposed to root for him to dig himself out of a hole, and hiss both Jacinda Barrett as his wronged wife (Gallo makes sure we don’t miss the bling adorning her as she hypocritically insists, “I despise this hypocrisy”) and Laura Ramsey as the porn star who wants Jack to herself.
Meanwhile, the potential satire of the “pure Americana” of porn and entrepreneurship fades into memory as Ribisi and Macht turn out to be plot devices rather than characters. Mostly, “Middle Men” ends up being derivative and distasteful. I guess that’s why my star rating fell … in the “middle.”
Rated R for strong sexual content, nudity, language, drug use and violence. 1 hour, 45 minutes.
By Peter Canavese
Rated R for strong sexual content, nudity, language, drug use and violence. 1 hour, 45 minutes.
By Peter Canavese
As Laura Danielson writes: “Again, it’s more complicated than they want to let on.”
This letter doesn’t talk about the amount in property tax that will be contributed to the schools for operational costs. Nor does it mention the current bonds. Or put another way, the amount these properties will contribute for the bonds subsidizes what you owe.
Go ahead, call the district and ask them if they think they’ll come out ahead or behind with regards to operational funds they’ll receive as a result of Oak Grove compared with how much additional costs they’ll incur as a result of Oak Grove.
Or maybe they can use it to pay off their interfund loans like from the Sycamore fund.
Hi ‘concerned neighbor.’ The agreement with the City specifies that the 496 acres of open space at Oak Grove will be given to the City when the final map is recorded, and before a single lot is sold or a single home is built. In addition, the developer must build the trail system and trail staging area before the sixth lot is sold.
And to give you an idea of how this park will compare, it will be about five times the size of Pleasanton’s Sports Park.
14 posts and 5 from “Stacy”. Shouldn’t you be supervising the housekeeper or yelling at the gardner for trimming the bushes back too far? One bit of advice: collect your thoughts, collect your data, make one post and go out and enjoy life!
Dang near forgot to ad my thoughts about Ms. Danielson editorial. I doesnt matter how or when PUSD gets the money. No contractor fees are ever used for operational budgets of PUSD. The addition of students from 51 new house is laughable compared to the new 3000 “affordable” units our buddies from the Peoples United Habitat for Free Housing of Bezerkley want to build by the bart station. Very few things devalue a neighborhood/area MORE rapidly than subsidized housing. Do you need specifics? Get a huge map and about 5000 push pins! Oh, please vote yes on “D”
Let them build the homes. There is no sane reason to oppose this. I know people who have lived in Pleasanton for over FIFTY YEARS, and new homes were being built all the while. We are doing just fine. The no on D people are just using scare tactics.
2. Is decimation of the ridges a good trade for mega-mansions?
The letter has not been approved by the district or the city which is required. So if the developer has recently “discovered” that people found out he did not sign it, it is still not a done deal. There are also caps in the housing size that is used for the payments so the 12,000 square foot house is not paying more than a 6,000 square foot house. As stated, this money is for facilities to house the additional students, not for operations.
There are no mare tax dollars to the school district. The property taxes do not go to the schools. The schools get paid by the state on a per student basis. We already know that is not enough per student and that is why the district is doing fundraising.
The bond will not be receiving more money. As properties are added to the city, each property pays their percentage of the total value of the city. The amount to the district is the same whether there are 1,000 homes or 1,000,000 homes. The only difference is how much each home, or commercial property pays. Because of the total value of property in Pleasanton, these 51 homes, no matter how expensive they are, are really such a small percentage of the property value of the city that each existing property tax bill might go down a penny. It will be lost in the noise because of other costs.
While the city will receive more property taxes from these houses, they have to provide services also. These homes are not in the 5-minute fire response time so if there is any fire there, it will cost more to service them since there will be more damage by the time the fire crew arrives and there will most likely be an all-call for every available fire crew to go in site because of the high fire danger. Fires here will most likely need air support which is quite expensive.
The developer is throwing around numbers about fees being paid (which are near the same fees being paid by any other new house in Pleasanton that is not in an environmentally sensitive area). These fees will not really help the city as the fees mostly pay for the increased services. You should base your vote on the housing project and the location and not on the fees.
If you voted for PP or QQ in the last election to preserve the ridges, you should be voting no on measure D.
The signature property issue was totally different. It was an agreement in lieu of fees. It was poorly written from the beginning.
The gift fees are part of the school district website and John Casey has said he was going to execute the agreement for the Oak Grove development.
The school district stands to get between 2.2 million and 3.5 million in one time gift fees depending on the size of the homes.
We all know what the Pleasanton Ridge looks like. We can see it from most of Pleasanton. This is NOT the Pleasanton Ridge.
Where are these ridges that you speak of? If it was a defined ridge area like the Pleasanton Ridge, you would be able to see it from Bernal near downtown looking East. Or perhaps from Sunol Blvd looking behind Raley’s or even driving up Bernal near St. Augustines? Realy try and get a picture of this from the flats.
You can’t seen them from the flats of Pleasanton because the Kottinger Ranch neighborhood is in the way. Some of those homes are higher than the proposed homes among the hills.
You have to be all the way up the hill at the gate beyond the homes to see the hills. See for yourself.
What about the trail connection and the open space? Insignificant? I say no. It protects Pleasanton from encroachment from the South. With the housing cap gone, we need this protection. It makes this space accessible to all the people of Pleasanton, not just the ones on top of the hills in Kottinger and Grey Eagle who enjoy the view and are trying to protect private property from the rest of us so they can enjoy a private open space area in their backyard.
Vote yes on D
Well of course you want to remove any talk about money being given to the schools ‘anonymous,’ that might make people think that Oak Grove is a good deal for Pleasanton, and we simply can’t have that, can we?
Well said Diana! This mess is like the captain of the Titanic trying to steer away from the iceberg and a group of passengers saying “but the iceberg owns the property!”
Why are so many property rights proponents in this community so stubbornly committed to heading into almost certain disappointment?
We gave Signature Properties the benefit of the doubt and lost millions for our city and school district.
The Oak Grove developers have already bent the truth in their slick advertising and sued the city and it’s citizens, so why are folks who teach their kids qualities of character willing to accept this?
Stand up for your community by sending the Oak Grove developers and Charter Properties packing as Livermore did.
Vote NO on D
Diana,
BTW, here’s some things I had found on school impact fees: “A Planner’s Guide to Financing Public Improvements – New School Facilities” http://ceres.ca.gov/planning/financing/chap5.html
“Calif. City, School District Lower Impact Fees” http://www.housingzone.com/article/CA6662390.html
There’s a “level one” cap and a “level two” cap. The “level one” cap is lower than the number you cited from the school board meeting, which leads me to believe that the higher number is attributed to “level two”. Apparently some school districts in California charge something like an additional $4 to $6 per square foot as “level two”. So yes, despite there being a statutory cap, many jurisdictions find the ability to charge more.
but the fees are optional under the title of “gift” i am told. Oak Grove can’t obligate a home builder/developer, the can only suggest they pay the higher rate.
and Oak Grove land owner will pay zip. the individual developer or homeowners will pay.