JACK,+Jon

A8
**CHECK-MINUS** Bluejay, Michael. “Is online gambling legal in the US?” __Vegas Click__. Dec. 2007 .

This article tells you whether or not certain types of gambling online are legal or not. I am going to use this to tell the readers in my paper what the current laws are. It also gives a timeline of legal events.

“Legality” __Gambling Planet.__ .

This article gives you the clear cut laws of online gambling. It discusses the legality of online gambling in Europe and in the United States. It also tells you what things are trying to be in done towards online gambling.

Provance, Phil “International: Woerth unveils proposal to legalize online gambling in France” __Gambling Planet__. 07 Mar. 2009 

I will use this source to show the reader what things are being done in other countries, to make online gambling legal. This article talks France’s proposal to make online gambling legal, and to regulate and tax it.

A7
My research paper is going to be about whether or not charity poker games should be legal in michigan? Why should charity poker be allowed but charity roulette or black jack is not???

**Jon -- Depending on how much information you find, you might want to broaden your search to charity "gambling" instead of limiting it too much to a specific kind of game. I'm not sure what you will find out there; you might find tons of info on poker specifically. Start with poker and broaden if necessary. The idea of whether gambling for charity vs. gambling for recreation is an interesting one, and I look forward to reading your paper.**

Into the Wild I found the film __Into the Wild__ to be a very inspirational and touching film. It is a true story based off of the book __Into the Wild__ about the life of Christopher McCandless, who was a 24 year old graduate from Emory University. Starring Emile Hirsch as Christopher McCandless, and is directed by Sean Penn. This movie takes place in the early 1990’s. __Into the Wild__ won 12 awards, including best picture and was nominated for 35. This movie has a very slow pace. I think that it would have been more enjoyable if they shortened it and got to the point. This movie did not need to be 148 minutes long and I think they could have done without many things. At times I found it hard to focus on what was happening and it got to be really boring. __Into the Wild__ had lots of value in the story, and I feel that it made up for the boring parts of the movie. This movie showed how shallow and materialistic our society is; it especially focused on rich people like his parents. I feel that this movie motivated a lot of people that feel cooped up and just need to escape from everything. **[WHILE I'M GLAD THAT YOU WERE ABLE TO SEE BEYOND THE "BORING" PARTS OF THE MOVIE AND FIND VALUE, THESE KINDS OF STATEMENTS REALLY DO NOT HAVE A PLACE IN YOUR PAPER. UNLESS YOU RE-FRAME THIS DISCUSSION TO BE AN ANALYSIS OF THE PACE OF THE FILM/SEQUENCE OF SHOTS (OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT), IT WILL ONLY WEAKEN YOUR ETHOS BECAUSE YOU SEEM TO BE WHINING. THE TONE YOU TAKE HERE HIGHLIGHTS A SHORT ATTENTION SPAN ON THE PART OF THE VIEWER, NOT A LEGITIMATE CRITICISM OF THE FILM ITSELF.]** I did not like the plot of this movie very much. The sequence of the events became confusing with all of the flash backs. His little sister narrating during the film helps to explain things a little bit better. This movie is an autobiography of Christopher McCandless. There also was not much action in it, but I understand that because they did not want to misrepresent the story. The theme of this movie had a lot to do with his rebellion and his parent’s selfishness and shallowness. It showed how selfishness caused a vicious cycle of pain. He and his sister were hurt during their childhood by their parents, and he ended up kind of doing the same thing to them by going off by himself and eventually dying, and not letting anyone know where he was. He hurt his sister and both of his parents. There are four main characters in this film. All of them are super realistic, and believable, most of the reason is because they are real people. His parents are both really materialistic and selfish people, and they seem to change through out the film. Losing Chris impacted them greatly towards the end of the film. Chris is very independent, rebellious, and in some ways the same as his parents. My opinion is that he is a selfish person for putting his family, especially his sister through all of that pain; he probably inherited this trait from his parents. The story does not elaborate much on his sister, but it seems as if she is the innocent one in the family. The movie is set in various places across the United States. It starts off in Virginia, where he was originally from. Then he travels across the United States and stopped at many different places including Arizona, South Dakota, California, and then went up to Alaska where he died in 1992. He worked on a grain elevator in South Dakota. The most significant moment in the film is when he finds the magic bus. This is so important because it serves as his home/shelter while he is in Alaska up until he dies. Another significant event in the movie is when he burns all of his money and donates the rest of it to charity, this is so significant because after he does that there is no turning back and no way that he could go back home or go to Harvard Law. I found it to be very important when it flashes back to show his childhood and what his parents were really like. This is so crucial to the plot of the movie because you figure out why he is the way that he is, and it explains all of his actions. **[THIS SOUNDS NOT ONLY LIKE SIGNIFICANT MOMENTS, BUT ALSO LIKE SYMBOLISM. YOU COULD DEVELOP THIS POINT QUITE A BIT MORE.]** Eddie Vedder wrote the score for this movie, and made songs with lyrics and everything to fit the movie. The movie won a Golden Globe award for best motion picture original song, for the song “guaranteed”. I thought that the score of the movie was very different; overall I think I liked it. It was all original rock n roll songs instead of background score music. “Eddie Vedder's obvious original songs only worsen Penn's natural tendency to drive subtleties home with a hammer”. I disagree with Ken Fox’s quote when he says that Eddie Vedder’s sound track worsens the effect of the subtitles I think that it gives the film a nice background music. This film has small portions of nudity and violence. The nudity appears when Chris meets the couple on the river and the woman is topless. The nudity in this film is completely unnecessary to the plot and the movie as a whole. There is a little bit of gore when Chris is skinning the moose, but this gore is completely necessary and gives the viewers a sense of what he has to go through when trying to survive. Overall I thought that this was a pretty interesting movie. I think it could have been a lot better; if they would have made it a little bit shorter. Ken Fox brings up a very good point when he says, “The film rambles a bit, but that is actually effective given the rootless nature of the subject”. This is very true and provides a good explanation for the dryness of the film.
 * [YOUR INTRODUCTION SHOULD BE FOLLOWED BY A SUMMARY OF THE MOVIE -- ONE THAT WOULD BE INFORMATIVE TO SOMEONE WHO HAS NOT SEEN THE MOVIE. DO NOT ASSUME THAT YOUR READERS HAVE THE SAME KNOWLEDGE YOU DO. YOU NEED TO PROVIDE A CONTEXT FOR YOUR DISCUSSION. ALSO, I THINK YOU SHOULD REVISE YOUR INTRO PARAGRAPH AS WELL: TRY TO NOT BEGIN WITH A PARTIAL SUMMARY. AND WHAT IS YOUR THESIS? YOUR CRITERIA FOR ANALYSIS? AND DO YOU NEED TO CITE THE INFORMATION ABOVE?]**
 * [YOUR PARAGRAPHS ARE VERY SHORT AND UNDEVELOPED. I THINK YOU ARE TRYING TO DISCUSS WAY TOO MANY CRITERIA. CHOOSE 2-4 OF THEM, AND THEN EXPLAIN AND ILLUSTRATE EACH IN DETAIL. WHILE YOU MAY HAVE SOME GOOD POINTS HERE, YOU DROP THEM AND MOVE ON TO ANOTHER TOPIC BEFORE TELLING YOUR READER ANYTHING MEANINGFUL. FOCUS ON EXPLAINING //WHY// AND //HOW// THESE ELEMENTS OF THE FILM WERE SUCCESSFUL AND PROVIDE EXAMPLES FROM THE MOVIE TO ILLUSTRATE. USE THE STUDENT EXAMPLES IN YOUR TEXTBOOK AS MODELS FOR YOUR BODY PARAGRAPHS. THERE IS A WHOLE LOT OF TELLING HERE AND ALMOST NO SHOWING -- SHOW ME WHAT YOU MEAN!]**

I felt that this movie has a very slow pace. I think that it would have been more enjoyable if they shortened it and got to the point. This movie did not need to be 148 minutes long and I think they could have done without many things. At times I found it hard to focus on what was happening and it got to be really boring. __Into the Wild__ had lots of value in the story, and I feel that it made up for the boring parts of the movie. This movie showed how shallow and materialistic our society is; it especially focused on rich people like his parents. I feel that this movie motivated a lot of people that feel cooped up and just need to escape from everything. I did not like the plot of this movie very much. I feel that the sequence of the events became confusing with all of the flash backs. The plot was very plausible because it was a true story. What I didn’t like about the plot was that there was not much action in it, but I understand that because they did not want to misrepresent the story. The theme of this movie had a lot to do with his rebellion and his parent’s selfishness and shallowness. It showed how selfishness caused a vicious cycle of pain. He and his sister were hurt during their childhood by their parents, and he ended up kind of doing the same thing to them by going off by himself and eventually dying, and not letting anyone know where he was. He hurt his sister and both of his parents. There are four main characters in this film. All of them are really realistic, and believable in this film, most of the reason is because they are real people. His parents are both really materialistic and selfish people, and they seem to change through out the film. Losing Chris impacted them greatly towards the end of the film. Chris is very independent, rebellious, and in some ways the same as his parents. I feel that he is a selfish person for putting his family, especially his sister through all of that pain. The story does not elaborate much on his sister, but it seems as if she is the innocent one in the family.
 * A 5 (not 6 as i put it before)**


 * A 6 (the real one this time)**

Jon Jack Eng 101.16 Mrs. Vetne

I believe that this film review most accurately describes this movie. I feel that Roger is dead on, and I find it a very interesting way to describe Chris when he says “Certain young men, of which I was one, lecture patient girl friends about how such a life of purity and denial makes perfect sense”(paragraph 1). Roger Ebert seems to think that the movie follows the book very closely. This review also gave me a little bit different perspective on judging Chris when Roger Ebert describes him as a heroic loner that sees himself in third person. I agree with Roger Ebert when he says that Emile Hirsch did a wonderful job playing the role of Chris, he even looked eerily identical to him at the end when it showed the self picture. The author of this review also thought that the movie was too long, but he looked past that and didn’t see it as a big deal. He brought up the point that he like how the movie used passages from the book to piece the movie together and organize it. I think it’s interesting that he brings up the question about Chris possibly having a mental illness because I have never thought of that being a reason why he did what he did. I agree with him when he says that the film explores Chris’ psyche as much as anyone can. The reviewer thinks that the films rambles a bit, but I think that the movie rambles excessively and it would have been more enjoyable if it wasn’t 2 hours and 30 minutes, and if it actually got to the point. I agree with Claudia Puig when she says the film is effective given the rootless nature of the subject, I feel that it is a very deep film and is very touching and inspiring. This film review written by Ken Fox is basically just a detailed summary of the movie that basically tells you everything that happens and then at the end it has a little bit of criticism. The author says that the film is too long and that the scenes have extra improvising added to the scenes that really contribute nothing to the movie, and I couldn’t agree more with him. I also agree with him when he talks about Eddie Veder’s original songs not going well with the subtitles, I thought that the songs were kind of awkward sounding and out of place because the lyrics and everything were written specifically for the movie and it sounded very strange to me.
 * Roger Ebert**
 * USA** **Today**
 * TV Guide**