BasiliskSt

Wonderful movie. Loved the Western scenery and the story of second chances and redemption. Marvelous casting was a treat against a sound track of genuine music. We thoroughly enjoyed Soda Springs. Not a lot of movies command a second or third watching, but this one does. The modern Western still conveys the timeless virtues of hard work and personal sacrifice for others. It feels human and real. Soda Springs unwinds a story without giving it all away upfront. It's the rare movie that successfully manages that unpredictability that makes you reconsider all that went before in a new light. Soda Springs lets the story unfold so that you care about the destination.

The cinematography and directing are first rate without being self- conscious or obtrusive.

Actors are uniformly excellent and included a couple of personal favorites, Tom Skerritt and Victoria Pratt. Skerritt commands the screen with quiet dialog. Victoria is both approachable and gorgeous in her denim clad small town persona. Star and co-screenwriter Jay Pickett plays the protagonist in a quiet, determined and ultimately winning fashion. Smaller roles feature effective newcomers like Hollis Welsh and established veterans including the perfect Patty McCormack.

The Western theme carries over in a soundtrack dosed with some great, fresh Alt Country with a touch of Western Swing. I knew none of the music going in but loved the music and its compliment to the mood and high, lonesome Idaho scenery. Steve Fulton, Mickey and the Motorcars, and Travis Ward & Hillfolk Noir are among those featured.

It's easy to see why this was an award winner in film festivals like Breckenridge, Sun Valley and Louisville. Soda Springs is engaging, personal and meaningful. It stuck with me far longer than many big dollar, big star productions. Soda Springs is highly recommended.

I'll confess I like sweet movies. I'm not automatically alienated by predictability or lack of originality.

Elle: A Modern Cinderella Tale is not an ambitious movie. The bad guys are painted broadly as self-absorbed celebrities. The good guys are sweet and deserving. Acting is uneven but some of it is clearly intentionally bad and meant as humor or parody. I can see how it would be annoying for many. It didn't bother me. I wasn't looking for Paul Newman in The Verdict or Daniel Day Lewis as Hawkeye. This is light Disney-esq or ABC Family style fare. I've seen far worse movies.

For me, Ashley Hewitt's singing redeemed all. When Ashley's character Elle was singing she carried the story and lit up the stage or screen. The songs were both catchy and well-delivered.

I found myself rewinding to the songs and replaying them. The movie ends on a musical performance high note, emphasizing that the Cinderella plot device and character development are not the focus of the movie. The music is the raison d'etre and Ashley Hewitt's voice and pretty face are enough to frame the music. It left me feeling the beat, lyrics repeating in my head, and with a smile. Not so bad. Yes, it is not the best example of film making nor a model for method acting. The producer's ambitions were low and many elements are cartoonish, but a few catchy songs sung by a pretty girl won me over. Unlike many technically better movies I'd watch it again.

Dinesh D'Souza, is a conservative scholar, President of King's College, New York, originally from post British Raj India. The movie starts with how much Dinesh and Barack Obama share in observing America from a world view influenced by the experience of post-colonial countries. This background tends to humanize both President Obama and D'Souza and the post colonial experiences of their families.

I'm sure that each was influenced by their history and personal experiences. Dinesh's circle of friends was distinctly American conservative. Barack's circle, by his own admission, radical and foreign. But Dinesh is in the position to recognize anti-colonialism because he's seen it in India and academia.

2016 feels serious and well-researched. But the conclusion is still controversial because it suggests that the President does not share the same view of America's benevolence and inherent goodness as much of even his own electorate.

2016 presents anti-colonialism as a hypothesis to explain Obama's actions and words. The test of a hypothesis is how well it fits the observed facts. Here it is really up to the observer to test the hypothesis. Dinesh suggests a few Obama facts that to his eyes fit the anti-colonial world view, but it is hardly an exhaustive list. The real test is for voters to ask if the long list of facts now known about President Obama fit the anti-colonialist hypothesis.

There are competing hypothesis. Some suggest he's just an extension of traditional 1960s big government American liberalism; others that he's a communist/socialist; others that he's just looking for payback for African-Americans (reparations in other forms); he's a puppet of George Soros; he's owned by Wall Street's Goldman Sachs just like every other President; and more. The fact that people are still searching for an explanatory framework highlights the lack of vetting by the media before 2008. It's an admission we don't quite understand his actions as President based upon our expectations in 2008.

In fitting the puzzle of Obama together we're hindered by not having all the pieces. Obama's history is remarkably opaque compared to other Presidents. In fact for much of Obama's personal history, all we have are the President's own version of the story, contained in autobiographies that by self-admission includes constructs and fabrications, not just "facts". The lack of examination in advance invites explanatory theories like Dinesh's in retrospect.

As someone well versed in history, economics, political science and law (my various degrees), Dinesh fairly presents the anti-colonial world view and the results produced by its advocates in the third-world. Incorporated in the anti-colonial view is anti-capitalism, a desire to punish the oppressors (balance the scale), and pro-collectivist economics (e.g., Marxism).

When I first heard about the return of the Churchill bust, I thought no surprise given Obama's background. I never thought to extend that into a larger hypothesis to explain other policy positions and actions. Dinesh had the insight, fueled partly by his own experience, to recognize the possibility of anti-colonialism as a defining philosophy and the focus to explore the facts for further confirmation.

Anti-colonialism may not fit perfectly with the observed facts (no model ever does), but it seems to fit well with a lot of the observed differences where Obama departs from long-standing, bipartisan positions by predecessors.

2016 is a valuable movie and idea even if you conclude there are other models that better explain President Obama's world view.

Regardless, 2016 highlights we still don't know the mind of our President, leaving room for speculations like the anti-colonialism hypothesis. I found Dinesh pretty convincing. I suspect that the real Obama is more complex than a single source of inspiration, but I'd be surprised if anti-colonial theory isn't part of the President's world view given his personal history and associations.