Rise Of The Tomb Raider Collector’s Edition For PS4 Spotted On Amazon

rise of the tomb raiderIf you’re a fan of collectibles, you might be interested to learn that thanks to an Amazon Germany listing, it has been discovered that gamers could be looking forward to a Rise of the Tomb Raider 20th Anniversary Collector’s Edition for the PS4. Unfortunately the listing on lists the game but does not tell us what to expect.

However if the Collector’s Edition is anything like the version for the Xbox One and the PC, there’s a good chance its contents will be the same. This means that we can look forward to a 12-inch Lara Croft statue, a Collectible Steel Case crafted with various symbols, a replica of Lara’s leather in-game journal, a replica of Lara’s Jade Necklace, and obviously copies of the game.

The Amazon listing has it pegged for 100 Euro which is rather pricey, but given its contents we guess there are probably several collectors out there who wouldn’t mind paying for it. It also has a release date set for the 11th of October, but to date we have yet to hear anything from Square Enix so take it with a grain of salt.

Then again Amazon as a retailer should get some information ahead of the public and as we have seen in the past, some of their listings have indeed come true, but either way we’ll keep an eye out for the official announcement all the same.

Rise Of The Tomb Raider Collector’s Edition For PS4 Spotted On Amazon , original content from Ubergizmo. Read our Copyrights and terms of use.

Trump’s Immigration Stance Just Got More Confusing

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){‘undefined’!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if(‘object’==typeof commercial_video){var a=”,o=’m.fwsitesection=’+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video[‘package’]){var c=’&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D’+commercial_video[‘package’];a+=c}e.setAttribute(‘vdb_params’,a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById(‘vidible_1’),onPlayerReadyVidible);

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

This Labor Day: Think Big

As we mark Labor Day, the same dismal long-term job-patterns persist. The economy is nominally in a recovery, but far too many jobs are insecure and fail to offer a middle class standard of living. Whether the Federal Reserve makes things worse by raising rates, or continues its policy of low interest rates, nothing on the near horizon offers hope of significant change.

Is this just the new normal for reasons that are structural to the new economy — or are major changes possible?

There is no doubt that the economy could provide better jobs for more people. The problem is that political assumptions of what’s possible preclude the policies we need.

For starters, we should be investing many trillions of dollars in the nation’s rotting infrastructure, trillions more defending against the coastal flooding that is already upon us, and trillions more on the transition to a sustainable economy.

We can fund most of this by borrowing, and some of it by restoring historic tax rates on the rich.

This is a great time for the government to borrow. Interest costs of funding the debt will never be lower. Those low rates reflect the fact that the private sector cannot find enough productive investment, even given cheap money. Hence the need for public investment.

History’s great example is World War II. Despite seven years of New Deal programs, unemployment in 1940 remained stuck at over 13 percent until the War buildup in 1941-42 produced the greatest accidental public investment program ever known. For four years, federal deficits averaged about 25 percent of GDP. Unemployment melted away. Today, fiscal conservatives break into hives when deficits exceed two percent.

The result of all that spending was a wartime full employment economy, whose legacy was the great postwar boom. The debt was not a problem because all of that public spending allowed the economy to at last realize its suppressed potential, and the debt gradually shrank relative to GDP.

In the late 1930s as now, academic economists were gravely stroking their chins and warning that maybe 13 percent unemployment and lackluster performance was the best a modern, automated economy could do. Then as now, they were wrong, as the war proved.

But if we spend, say, a trillion dollars a year for ten years, is there really that much worthwhile to spend on?

Are you kidding?

The American Society of Civil Engineers, not a Bolshevik group, puts the shortfall in basic infrastructure at $3.6 trillion.

That doesn’t even buy smart grids and high speed rail, but plain old water and sewer systems, roads, bridges, tunnels, public buildings and the like.

If we want 21st century infrastructure — modernizing power grids, burying power lines so that they are hurricane proof, transit systems up to European (and Chinese!) standards, the fastest rather than slowest Internet access, that’s trillions more. All of this stuff not only produces jobs, but increases the economy’s productivity, and creates new domestic industries.

And then, we also need massive investments in a green transition — so that saving the planet doesn’t mean a decline in living standards. Politically, how do you ask Americans to tighten their belts for the sake of the environment when about 80 percent of us have been tightening belts for decades?

But contrary to some who advocate drastic de-materialism, this is mostly a false choice. If we shift to all-renewables and limit resource-intensive predatory agribusiness and find substitute technologies, we can have our planet and good living standards too.

Trillions are also needed for outlays on reclamation of locales destroyed by industry plundering, from the coal canyons of Appalachia to the lead-tainted cities to the ruined bayous of the Gulf Coast. We need a state-of-the art strategy to keep our coasts from being inundated, something the Dutch have been doing for centuries. That means not just construction jobs, but engineering and design jobs.

All of this could provide lots of good jobs and careers, for at least a decade. But the free market and the private sector won’t produce any of these outcomes. It will take a national commitment on the scale of World War II (without the war.) Even after our deferred investments are made, we need a permanent, ongoing program of infrastructure spending.

And in the meantime, as manufacturing becomes ever more automated, we can be converting service sector jobs to middle class jobs.

A registered nurse earns about $70,000 a year. A public school teacher earns about $60,000. How about a national policy that everyone providing health and education services shall earn in this range?

How about a far higher minimum wage and policies to bar union-busting, so that retail workers also get paid middle class wages, too. Costco and Trader Joe’s manage to pay middle class wages. Why not the whole sector?

All this is attainable. American can be a middle class society again. It just takes far more political imagination and nerve than we have seen lately — and a politics to demand that our leaders deliver it.

A Happy Labor Day to all.



Robert Kuttner is co-editor of The American Prospect and professor at Brandeis University’s Heller School. In his spare time, he writes musicals. His latest book is Debtors’ Prison: The Politics of Austerity Versus Possibility.

Like Robert Kuttner on Facebook.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Hillary's Win Will Not Be A Landslide

Don’t count on a landslide.

As the presidential campaign enters the final stretch, two things are becoming clear. One is that Hillary Clinton is almost certain to win. Donald Trump suffers from sheer implausibility. It becomes more apparent every day that he is not qualified to be President by knowledge, experience or temperament. The other is that the election will be fairly close.

Trump can win only if something unexpected happens. Like another financial crash. Or criminal charges against Hillary Clinton. Or a sensational terrorist attack (both Russian President Vladimir Putin and ISIS have indicated a preference for Trump).

Democrats hoping for a landslide — like 1964, when Lyndon Johnson beat Barry Goldwater by 23 points — are likely to be disappointed. Hillary Clinton rarely breaks 50 percent in the polls. And the polls have been narrowing as her convention bounce has faded. As of Labor Day, she had a four-point lead in the RealClearPolitics polling average, 46 to 42 percent.

Clinton is losing a lot of young voters for whom she has never had much appeal. She lost young voters big time to Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primaries. While young voters don’t trust Clinton, they are strongly opposed to Trump. Right now, third-party candidates are pulling about a quarter of the youth vote. Sooner or later many young voters will realize that by voting for a third-party candidate, they are helping Trump. They need to be reminded of how Green candidate Ralph Nader elected George W. Bush in Florida in 2000.

There are other reasons why the outcome is likely to be close. It’s an open race. There’s no incumbent President or Vice President on the ballot. That’s only happened twice since 1950 (1952 and 2008). The relevant incumbent this year is President Obama, and his approval ratings are hovering at just over 50 percent.

The increasing polarization of the electorate means that Republicans and Democrats will stick with their party. Polls show roughly 80 percent of partisans doing just that, with Independents closely divided.

Then there’s the “time for a change” factor. After a party has been in office for eight years, voters usually want change. The only exception since 1950 was in 1988, when voters elected George H.W. Bush because they wanted a third term for Ronald Reagan. Expect Republicans to repeat incessantly that a vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for a third term for Obama.

Clinton has become the status quo candidate. She’s linked to eight years of Barack Obama and, before that, eight years of Bill Clinton. The prevailing sentiment is, elect Clinton and nothing will change. That puts her in a marginally better position than Trump. Voters believe if they elect Trump, things will change for the worse.

Clinton’s biggest problem is that she is a charter member of the political establishment. She’s the elitist, while Trump is the complete populist. He speaks the language of the disgruntled white working class. He says “notsupposedtas” — things his supporters believe but establishment politicians are “not supposed to” say. Like foreign trade is a rip-off and immigration is a threat and torture is O.K.

Trump’s hostility to foreign trade and immigration and military intervention are pure populism. Hillary Clinton supports immigration reform. She favors foreign trade (though she has shifted her position on the pending Trans-Pacific Partnership and now opposes what she once called the “gold standard” of trade deals). She has a record of supporting military interventions. Pure elitism.

Back in the 2008 Democratic primaries, Clinton was the populist. Obama was the elitist. Remember how he criticized economically disgruntled small-town voters who “cling to guns or religion . . . or anti-immigrant or anti-trade sentiment”? Obama mocked Clinton as “Annie Oakley” because she boasted about how her father took her out behind the cottage her grandfather built in Pennsylvania and taught her how to shoot.

Obama is still the elitist. He has always been the prince of education. Mitt Romney, his 2012 opponent, was the prince of wealth. They represented two bitterly competitive elites. Neither has a populist bone in his body. Obama’s elitism gave us Donald Trump, the populist un-Obama.

Which leaves Hillary Clinton in the awkward position of defending Washington, the political establishment and the status quo. Her handling of government emails, her Wall Street payoffs and her hobnobbing with ultra-rich donors re-enforce the impression of privilege and elitism. It made her vulnerable to a surprisingly strong challenge from Bernie Sanders, an economic populist. And it’s creating a alarming amount of support for Trump, a social populist who has scandalized the Republican establishment by embracing economic and foreign policy populism.

Bill Clinton tried his best to redefine his wife as the candidate of change. Speaking at the Democratic convention in July, he called Hillary Clinton “the best darn change-maker I have ever met in my entire life.” Nice try. But Trump will never concede the change issue, and Clinton is not in a good position to claim it.

She will win, not because she represents change, but because the kinds of changes Trump is talking about are threatening to minority voters and scary to voters with an informed understanding of the issues. But it won’t be an easy victory. Elitism is always a tough sell.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

ASPIRATIONS 🍃🍂🌿🌷

2016-09-05-1473035145-5051623-image.jpeg

2016-09-05-1473035016-8562757-image.jpeg

2016-09-05-1473035925-426569-image.jpeg

If only we could stop the greed
If only we could share
If only we could see the same
Then show them that we care …

If only we could know their pain
If only we could heal
If only we could pause to see
And genuinely FEEL …

If only we could understand
If only but to listen
If only we could comprehend
The messages so hidden …

If only through our busy lives
If only we could reach
If only we could just absorb
The lessons that they teach …

If only to acknowledge
If only for the truth
If only just to teach effects
Of KARMA to our youth …

If only much less anger
If only ego gone
If only love and laughter
Filled the worlds we build upon …

If only there was peace
If only no more wars
If only there was beauty
From the skies unto the shores …

If only there was kindness
If only gratitude
If only we could look inside
To deep perceive our moods …

If only just to watch our breath
If only just to see
If only we could truly find
This Power YOU and ME …

___________________________________

Soe Moe Lwin
7:36 am
05/09/2016

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Trump Will Release <em>Fake</em> Tax Returns

Donald Trump is many things — a petty tyrant, a thug, a sociopath — and, a con artist, a confidence trickster that is a large part of his persona.

His campaign has reflected his life, one con job after another. He says, e.g., that he, and he alone, will bring back jobs from overseas. Yet, he cannot even bring his own jobs back from overseas, where he has absolute control. He says global warming is a hoax invented by China, but claims he needs government assistance in Ireland because global warming is causing rising seas.

He claims Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are responsible for the troubles in the world and that he, Trump, opposed the Iraq War, the Libyan intervention, and the troop pullout from Iraq. But, he supported each and every one of them.

His business life has been one con job after another — witness the astounding 3500 lawsuits with which he has been involved. That is one every three days, weekends and holidays included, for 30 years. Think of it.

Tax returns provide a con artist with a ready-made opportunity to fake it. All he need do is hire accountants to fill in the forms, making “adjustments” from reality where they help. Since the IRS cannot, by law, utter a peep about their authenticity, it is rather simple.

Hence, rather than take the flak for refusing to show his tax returns, he can just fake it. Dr. Bornstein must have counterparts in the accounting field.

Thus, Trump should not be credited with releasing his tax returns if he does it himself. The only release that counts is Trump giving permission to IRS to release them. Hillary, of course, would do the same. She would have no problem with that.

Otherwise, any returns released by Trump or his campaign should be given the same credence as everything else he has said or done.

That is, zero.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Weight Loss Pills And Products Don't Work And Aren't Safe

Our ancestors lived in a feast or famine world. When you don’t know where your next meal is coming from, or when it will arrive, the smart play is to pig out every time food is available. Our genes are programmed to extract as much energy as possible from what we eat and to store any extra energy in fat reservoirs, available in reserve for future famines.

These deeply ingrained genetic tendencies worked great in the austere world of our ancestors, but are a disaster in our current world of refrigerators, ubiquitous fast food joints and milk shakes.
Only one third of Americans are now able to maintain a normal weight; one third are overweight; and one third are obese. Excess weight is a risk factor for most illnesses, and for many people is also a consuming cosmetic concern.

Pharma knows that a safe and effective diet pill would be one of its biggest potential cash cows. Over the past 80 years, drug companies have done extensive research and have developed many products trying to capture the enormous market of unsuccessful weight watchers. None have worked well; all have had considerable risks.

But hope and hype always spring eternal. Dick Bijl is the perfect person to describe this troubling story and provide much needed cautions against our future credulity. He is president of the International Society of Drug Bulletins, representing 53 national drug bulletins, each engaged in evaluating the pluses and minuses of medications. Drug bulletins are essential-truthful antidotes to the misleading falsehoods turned out by the Pharma propaganda machine.

Dick writes: “The rate of overweight and obesity in adults and children is increasing rapidly all around the world. This results from a long lasting energy imbalance — people who take in more calories than they burn. Being overweight increases the risk of cardiovascular diseases and certain types of cancer — and of death related to these diseases.

Desperate consumers eagerly turn to fad diet programs and diet pills to obtain weight reduction. But treatment for overweight is difficult, the results are poor and the risks are great.

The FDA has an extremely low standard in approving weight control drugs — all they have to demonstrate is a weight loss that is statistically different from placebo — but the weight losses the meds actually achieved have always been very small and usually vanish almost immediately after stopping the drug. It is doubtful whether small statistically significant differences in weight are at all clinically relevant in promoting any real health benefit.

History has also shown that diet pills can cause severe, and sometimes even fatal, side effects that appear only after approval and that force them to be taken off the market.

In the 1930s, Dinitrophenol was introduced as a safe and effective drug for weight loss in the USA and Europe. Its mechanism of action seemed ingenious- cells were made less efficient in storing energy and instead burned it off as heat. Soon hundreds of thousands of people were using the new wonder drug. But after just four years, dinitrophenol had to be taken off the market as doctors noticed that many patients lost their vision, completely or partially, through cataracts.

Others suffered from renal disease or died because of fatally increased body temperature. Of note, these harms haven’t stopped some reckless body builders, who still use the substance despite its risks.

The basic message from the disaster that followed the introduction of this first approved diet pill should have been clear — careless tampering with our body’s energy system can be dangerous.
This lesson has never been learned. The same scenario of groundless hope, disappointment, and damage has been repeated over and over again.

In the 1960s, aminorex was the promising new diet pill, but it led to pulmonary hypertension.
In the 1970s, dexfenfluramine was the great hope, but it caused disorders of cardiac valves.
The market-authorization of rimonabant was withdrawn in 2008 mainly because of psychiatric side effects.

The market-authorization of sibutramine was suspended in 2010 because of severe and sometimes fatal cardiovascular side effects.

Phentermine and fenfluramine have been used for the treatment of obesity, but gave rise to pulmonary hypertension and disorders of cardiac valves.

The balance of efficacy and side effects of orlistat, now the only registered and available weight losing drug in the EU, is also not positive. This drug has only marginal efficacy, often leads to gastro-intestinal side effects, and sometimes causes severe liver damage. Recently, it came out that the reporting of side effects in orlistat publications was systematically understated.
The combination of topiramate and phentermine has been approved in the U.S.A., but not in Europe — because of serious doubts regarding long term safety.

Recently two products were granted approval for the treatment of overweight: naltrexon/bupropion (an opioid antagonist and an antidepressant) and liraglutide (which already was approved for diabetes mellitus). These produce only minor weight loss of four to five kgs — not worth the long term risks of side effects.

There are also lots of herbal preparations promoted as safe and effective in weight control. Great caution is necessary because they are not intensely studied before entering the market, or carefully monitored after. And safety and efficacy are both doubtful. In the past, many preparations contained ephedra, which can cause cardiovascular problems (hypertension, arrhythmia, myocardial infarction) and central nervous system side effects. In Europe and the USA, it is now forbidden to market preparations that contain ephedra.

It would be a great benefit to the world’s health and fitness, if an efficacious and safe weight losing drug became available — but at this moment weight control with drugs remains an illusion. It must be recognized that diet pills have so far produced meagre benefit and lots of bad complications.

The lasting effects of non-drug interventions, like counseling on diet and physical training, have also proven to be small- but they are safe and remain the first option in treatment.

The solution of the obesity-problem does not lie in the consulting room of the physician or in the pharmacy, but must be focused on prevention and changes in lifestyle.”

Thanks, Dick, for reminding us that there is no mystery to achieving healthy weight — and no shortcut. A long term dedication to proper diet and regular exercise are crucial to any successful weight control program. Diet pills are an attempted short term fix that doesn’t work and may cause a great deal of trouble.

And be skeptical of future diet pills that enter the market with extravagant claims. If a pill solution to overweight were easy, we would already have it. 

There is no low hanging fruit, no easy answer.

Many promising scientific discoveries have been made revealing the brain and gut mechanisms regulating appetite and weight. But the treatments derived from them never work because each addresses only one simple target in a very complicated system. Maintaining weight in the face of famine was so essential to the survival of our ancestors, going back millions of years, that we have many inbuilt, overlapping, redundant systems to ensure that we use energy efficiently and develop fat stores whenever possible. Try to change the workings of one system with a diet pill and others kick in to restore the previous balance.

And a remarkably delicate balance it is. Eat just one extra candy bar a day for a year — a very easy thing for me to do — and you gain thirty pounds. In a world that ubiquitously offers ridiculously tempting food choices, gaining weight is for most of us the inevitable default position.

So how can we fight the good fight against overweight without resorting to diet pills?
On a personal level, the only answers are insight into the absolute necessity for lifestyle changes, combined with the discipline to effect them.

On a national level, we must target being overweight as our number one public health risk and number one policy priority. Stop subsidizing the sweetener makers; start subsidizing veggie products. Make exercise and good dietary habits an essential part of the school curriculum, recess periods, and lunches. Give tax deductions for exercise equipment and gym memberships. Spend more public dollars on weight control programs and fewer on medical treatments.

There is not a pill for every problem. As individuals and as a society, we must face the fact that weight control in a time of plenty will be an ongoing and never ending struggle- but one we cannot safely avoid. 

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Sport and Society for Arete – The National Anthem

It has been over a week now since Colin Kaepernick sat during the playing of the National Anthem prior to an NFL Exhibition game. He was protesting discrimination against African Americans and police brutality in the United States. These issues have been in the forefront of public discussion since the shooting of Michael Brown just over two years ago. At various points and venues since the Brown shooting athletes have protested and offered various forms of support directly and indirectly to the “Black Lives Matters” movement. Kaepernick’s action joins a long list of protests, and as has often been the case, Kaepernick has set off a wave of noise that has done little to stimulate the discussion of the subject under protest.

What has followed Kaepernick’s action has been massive public criticism of the 49ers quarterback for the act of sitting during the national anthem. Critics have in turn denounced him for disrespecting the flag, attacking the police, and insulting the military especially those who have been casualties in what has turned into our state of perpetual undeclared war. He has been criticized for being an ungrateful athlete who has made millions from his football skills, for assuming that anyone wants to hear from a mediocre player on any subject, and for being an African-American who has the nerve to speak publicly on matters of social concern.

Protests involving the national anthem and the flag have a long history and I don’t want to recapitulate the details of that history here. The playing of the national anthem at sporting events in the United States goes back a century of more, although the playing of the anthem before any and all sporting events dates back to World War II. The practice did not end when the war ended and it became permanent with the coming of the Cold War. It is now a requirement rather than a special practice. It is of interest to many that the United States is the only country in the world that uses its national anthem to introduce its sports events.

What interests me about the current uproar over Colin Kaepernick’s action is the intensity and volume of the reaction, and the notions of what his action represents. As a starting point it might be useful to think about what the anthem represents and what the flag represents. Does the anthem represent the flag? By protesting during the anthem is this an attack on the flag? How so? Or does the National Anthem represent the nation or perhaps the values and ideals of the nation?

As to the flag, what does it represent? As with the anthem for many it represents the ideals and values of the nation. It is a symbol of those ideals and values. It is not the nation, but a symbol of it. It is not the military, it is not the police, it is not veterans who have served the nation, nor is it those who have served the nation in any other number of ways. It is a symbol of all of these collectively and the ideals and values they hold as a community.

For as long as I can remember, roughly the past sixty-five years, when I went to a sports event and the anthem was played it was a community exercise of commitment to our shared values. The fact that most people in the arena or stadium didn’t know the words really didn’t seem to matter.

For the two years I lived outside the United States the anthem was a reminder of the United States and all the best that it represents. When I returned to the United States and heard it played for the first time in a public setting it was a special moment. During all of this time it never occurred to me that somehow the anthem was to be equated with the flag, military personnel, police, or authority figures of any sort.

As the era of the civil rights movement and the Vietnam war played itself out, it seemed quite natural that the National Anthem might be an object of protest highlighting the shortcomings of the nation, especially its failure to live up to its ideals. The protests by Smith and Carlos at Mexico City, or even the Jimi Hendrix version of the anthem, seemed to me to be an excellent forum and form of protest. People were angered by these protests, but the level of vitriol that we have seen in the past ten days seems to me to be much greater and much broader than in the past.

So what has changed over the last two or three decades in reference to the national anthem and its connections to sport? First, I would point to the ways in which sports organizations have sought to tie themselves to flag waving patriotism. It has been the National Football League that has taken leadership in this practice and others have followed. In pre-game activities the use of flyovers, the size and number of flags on display, the honoring of veterans and indeed the exploitation of veterans and their families has been shameless, and it is growing with each and every season.

There have always been connections made between sport and the military including the idea that sport is a way of preparing young men for war. It has also been seen as a substitute for war, or as William James suggested “A Moral Equivalent of War.” What is new, I think, is that the sporting culture in America, and perhaps elsewhere, has been militarized and in the process the flag and the anthem have been tied to the military in very direct ways. This has pushed aside the symbolic functions of both flag and anthem and made them a vehicle of aggressive patriotism and nationalism.

Perhaps it is time to step back and suspended the practice of playing the anthem at the start of our sports events, and try to think about what this practice means. Even more important it would give the nation time to talk about its values and ideals, as well as the accomplishments and shortcomings in achieving them.

As to Colin Kaepernick’s or anyone’s right to protest, that is one of the basic and fundamental values of the nation. Let’s celebrate that!

On Sport and Society this is Dick Crepeau reminding you that you don’t have to be a good sport to be a bad loser.

Copyright 2016 by Richard C. Crepeau

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

SpaceX asked to pay $50 million after losing a satellite

SpaceX may have to deal with more than equipment losses and Mark Zuckerberg’s disappointment in the wake of its launchpad explosion. Spacecom, which owned the AMOS-6 satellite destroyed in the incident (and part of Facebook’s free internet plans), i…

"The Light Between Oceans" Shines Through Its Stars

Movie Review – Jackie K Cooper
“The Light Between Oceans” (DreamWorks)

“The Light Between Oceans” is a movie based upon a best selling novel and therefore has a built in audience. The question is whether or not those who have not read the book will find it in theaters. It helps that Michael Fassbender and Alicia Vikander are the stars of the movie and they have chemistry aplenty. They bring every nook and cranny of the plot into the light and make audiences’ hearts swell with the tragedy that unfolds.

The first part of the film deals with the love story of Tom (Fassbender) and Isabel (Vikander). He is the lone occupant of an island which houses the Janus Rock lighthouse. Tom is a veteran of World War I and he has seen enough death and sorrow to last him a lifetime. The solitude of Janus Rock suits his mood and his manner.

Then he meets Isabel while on a trip to the small Australian town in which she lives. They are instantly drawn to each other and after a few months of corresponding by letters they marry. Isabel is more than willing to leave her family behind and live alone with Tom on “their” island. But soon the realities of life come into play and serious situations arise that threaten their happiness. Tom is desperate to do whatever it takes to make Isabel happy and this leads to a situation that could have a long term horrible effect on their lives.

Fassbender fully portrays the conflicts that go on within Tom’s soul. The pain of his choices flit across his eyes and reside in the lines on his face. It is an amazing performance that is only heightened by Vikander’s own brilliant portrayal of Isabel. This actress has to create a woman who is the heroine and the villain of the story, and this is not an easy thing to do. Still for the story to succeed the audience has to be in her corner at one moment and against her in the next.

Some may argue the story is too slow at the start but I had no problem with the pacing. Every scene was necessary to make the portrait of the couple and the turmoil that they face complete. To have short changed any of the detail would have made the movie less effective.

The film is rated PG-13 for mild profanity and violence.

“The Light Between Oceans” has one of those plots that will not turn you loose after the movie ends. It will haunt your mind for days to come as you replay the love story of Tom and Isabel. There were so many pivotal points in their lives where things could have ended up much better or ended up much worse.

I scored “The Light Between Oceans” a brightly shining 7 out of 10.

Jackie K Cooper
www.jackiekcooper.com

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.