BEAUTIFUL GIRLS A film review by Steve Rhodes Copyright 1996 Steve Rhodes
RATING (0 TO ****): **
From the opening scene in a late night diner, BEAUTIFUL GIRLS appears to be DINER II.  When they meet each other, they grunt like squealing pigs and run at each other in order to smash shoulders together. Gosh, what fun we males have.
Any movie like BEAUTIFUL GIRLS that frequently uses loud rock music to fill in the gaps in the dialog makes me suspicious. The sometimes insightful, sometimes ridiculous, but highly uneven script by Scott Rosenberg needed all of the help it could get I guess. Let me say upfront that this is not a bad movie overall, and there are many characters in it I liked a lot and wish I could have seen even more of, but too many were caricatures of people I would be happy never to have known. With better editing (Jeffrey Wolf) and directing (Ted Demme) the movie could have survived the script, but alas it was not to be.
Tommy (Matt Dillon), Kev (Max Perlich), and Paul (Michael Rapaport) are blue collar workers who make extra money during the winter as snowplow operators. They are also best buddies with Mo (Noah Emmerich) and Willie (Timothy Hutton).  As Paul puts it, "They're all sisters. It's one big conspiracy. Trust me." In an example of how the script is all over the map, in another scene we have a wise Paul advising his friend on choosing a wife, "One comes to a decision based on what one wants, not on what one doesn't want." In another he is back again to balderdash with, "A beautiful girl is all powerful and that is as good as love gets."
In hands down the best part of the movie, Willie forms a strong platonic relationship with a 13 year old girl next door named Marty short for Martin and played in a wonderful, wise, and witty performance by Natalie Portman. Although it may sound like a Lolita role, actually it is quite innocent and realistic of the crush that young girls can form. Here the script is at its best, giving her one funny line after another. Marty is fond of tall tales, and Portman is great at delivering them. The best scene of the show is when Willie tells Marty their relationship will not work. Very poignant.
Like the guys in the movie, some are interesting and some aren't. Mira Sorvino plays Tommy's girlfriend Sharon. I liked her role here better than the one in MIGHTY APHRODITE that got her an Academy Award nomination. She clings to Tommy no matter how much he cheats on her with his now married ex-girlfriend. Sharon tells him, "How can I get to you when the high point of your life was high school? You were king of the hill then." When her love life with Tommy starts falling apart, she tells her girlfriends, "Why is it when a relationship doesn't work, we say its because he can't commit? Don't I bear some of the blame here?" A sad, but realistic performance of how some people can become obsessed with others when evidence tells them it is a bad idea.
One of the least interesting roles is that of Gina Barrisano (Rosie O'Donnell). She has to utter one preposterous line after another. A typical one is, "You guys, as a gender, will have to get a grip, or the future of the human race is looking down." At least she manages to say such gibberish with a straight face.
In a show where some of the twenty year olds have families, but children are treated as creatures rarely seen or heard. It is surprising, therefore, that one of the most touching scenes occurs when a little girl asks her Daddy what is going on.
Beside Sharon and Gina, the other women in the movie include Jan (Martha Plimpton), Darian (Lauren Holly), Andera (Uma Thurman), and Tracy (Annabeth Gish). Gish doesn't appear until the last part and is mainly wasted in the film.  When her boyfriend Willie wants to give up his poorly paying career as a pianist and become a salesman, she advises him, "I don't think you should take that job. Piano players are sexy, salesmen are uncles."
The worst part of the show is the way it treats alcoholism. Everyone of the buddies has major alcohol problems as do many of the females, but in the film they drink like fish and yet it rarely affects their actions, speech, or abilities. The message of the movie seems to be that young people drink constantly, but somehow this represents no problem to them or their lives. The insidious message for all of the teenagers who will see this film is that heavy drinking is natural, everybody does it, it is required for proper bonding, and anyway, there are no consequences to worry about. Given the stars, the demographics of the audience will be heavily tilted toward those most vulnerable to alcoholism. Scary.
Finally, there are great visuals. One of my favorites is a huge Saint Bernard sitting up in a pickup between two of the buddies while on their snowplowing adventures. The cinematography (Adam Kimmel) has some great scenes of a small Northern town in the snow. The most beautiful scene is a time-lapsed sequence of the snow capped town as night turns to day. The sets (Dan Davis) are accurate reproductions of the claustrophobic clutter of worthless nicknacks from blue collar homes.
BEAUTIFUL GIRLS runs 1:53.  It is rated R, and whereas I would like to think the MPAA is punishing the film for its flippant treatment of alcoholism, actually I think it is because there are a couple of uses of the F word in a film mainly of fairly mild language. I would want to talk to teenagers about the dangers of drinking if they do see this show. It is a close call, but I am not recommending the film. Some characters were great, namely Willie, Tracy, Marty, and Sharon, but the others made me almost ashamed to be a member of the male sex. I do not blame the actors, but I do hold the screenwriter and the director accountable. Oh well, there is a lot of potential not quite realized here; maybe next time. Finally, I award the show **.
**** = One of the top few films of this or any year. A must see film. *** = Excellent show. Look for it. ** = Average movie. Kind of enjoyable. * = Poor show.  Totally unbearable.
REVIEW WRITTEN ON: February 21, 1996
Opinions expressed are mine and not meant to reflect my employer's.
The review above was posted to the
rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup (de.rec.film.kritiken for German reviews).
The Internet Movie Database accepts no responsibility for the contents of the
review and has no editorial control. Unless stated otherwise, the copyright
belongs to the author.
Please direct comments/criticisms of the review to relevant newsgroups.
Broken URLs inthe reviews are the responsibility of the author.
The formatting of the review is likely to differ from the original due
to ASCII to HTML conversion.
Related links: index of all rec.arts.movies.reviews reviews


My name is Keith O'Hara. I obtained my Ph.D. in Economics from NYU in 2018, where my research focused on econometrics and computational methods.
I am the author of several open-source C++ libraries and R packages in the areas of:
Other open-source projects that I like and, on occasion, contribute to:
My contact details are below.


This document describes the mathematics behind the transformation from ICRS to Galactocentric coordinates. For examples of how to use this transformation in code, see the Examples section of the Galactocentric class documentation.
We assume that we start with a 3D position in the ICRS reference frame: a Right Ascension, Declination, and heliocentric distance, . We can trivially convert this to a Cartesian position using the standard transformation from Cartesian to spherical coordinates:
The first transformations will rotate the axis so that the new axis points towards the Galactic Center (GC), specified by the ICRS position :
The transformation thus far has aligned the axis with the vector pointing from the Sun to the GC, but the and axes point in an arbitrary direction. We adopt the orientation of the Galactic plane as the normal to the north pole of Galactic coordinates defined by the IAU (Blaauw et. al. 1960). This extra “roll” angle, , was measured by transforming a grid of points along to this interim frame and minimizing the square of their positions. We find:
The full rotation matrix thus far is:
With the rotated position vector , we can now subtract the distance to the GC, , which is purely along the axis:
where .
The final transformation is to account for the height of the Sun above the Galactic midplane by rotating about the final axis by the angle :
where is the measured height of the Sun above the midplane.
The full transformation is then:


Class DT_DateTimeCalculatorParams
Data holder for DateTime calculation service
Author:
Nuwan
Version: 1.0 Date 2014-05-11 ****************************************************************************** Change log Date / Time Version Issue ID User Description 20140511_2010 1.0 - ndesilva Defined the code ******************************************************************************
Located at library/DT/DateTimeCalculatorParams.php
Version: 1.0 Date 2014-05-11 ****************************************************************************** Change log Date / Time Version Issue ID User Description 20140511_2010 1.0 - ndesilva Defined the code ******************************************************************************
Located at library/DT/DateTimeCalculatorParams.php
public
|
|
public
|
#
__construct5( mixed $fromDateTime, mixed $toDateTime, mixed $fromTimeZone, mixed $toTimeZone, mixed $outputUnit )
|
public
|
|
public
|
|
public
|
|
public
|
|
public
|
|
public
|
|
public
|
|
public
|
|
public
|
|
public
|
|
public
|
|
public
|
|
public
|
|
public
|


Just saw an announcement about Falcon, a new programming language (via). Reading the documentation, it seems quite reminiscent of Python, or maybe it's just that I'm not getting a wide enough perspective. Anyway, following similar posts on Boo and Prothon, here's the differences with Python that I can see:
The VM is written in C++. This seems to be an important point to the author. I wonder if it is hard to embed in a C application as a result (but that much easier in a C++ application?)
Doesn't use whitespace for blocks (uses end). Does use newlines to separate statements.
One line control structure if you use a colon. E.g.:
if a do stuff end /* equivalent to: */ if a: do stuff
No print statement (it's a function: printl(args)).
/* ... */ and // comments.
Conditional expression (aka ternary operator): expr ? true_value : false_value.
switch structure, like switch; case a; ....
Two for formats. Python's for var in sequence and another BASIC-like for var = start to finish [step amount].
No tuples. [] is optional, kind of how () is optional around tuples in Python. But [item] is unambiguously a single-item list, where (item) is one of Python's weirdnesses (you need (item,)).
I don't think you can iterate over strings. Good call.
Dictionaries look like [key1 => value1, key2 => value2, ...]. Kind of like PHP.
Functions defined with function, not def. Bizarrely, after all these years programming Python, if I spend an hour or two in Javascript and go back to Python, I'll use function instead of def.
Functions can begin with a block of static variables (static; assignments... ; end).
"Stateful" functions are a special case of static variables I guess...? I really don't get this. I feel like you could use generator functions to a similar effect in Python, but it would be idiomatic, not something codified in the language.
Seems to be prototype-based. I don't know exactly why this is popular; it always confuses me, and I feel like classes make a better baseline with prototype extensions. So you define objects with an object keyword.
You have to use self.var just like in Python, but methods don't have a self parameter. I strongly disagree with people who think Python's self.var is a wart, so kudos to Falcon. Like Python, self actually seems to be a parameter, it's just hidden (and null when a function isn't called as a method). So you can do the same kind of reassignment of methods like in Python.
Methods in object blocks aren't introduced with any keyword at all, they are just kind of declared (basically just like a normal function declaration, but without the function). You can also have assignments in the block, like in Python.
Objects can "inherit" from classes by using object <name> from class1, class2, .... I say "inherit" because we don't seem to be using traditional classes.
Has a property operator, so that obj provides method is equivalent to hasattr(obj, "method"). Encourages look before you leap, but also makes duck type checking seem more natural and less hackish.
A has operator, that is basically a bitmask. So you can do obj has 2 to do something like obj.attributes & 2. Making it somewhat less hackish, you can enumerate these attributes. Presumably you cannot use expressions on the right side of has, because the attribute names are locally scoped to the object. There is a fixed 32 bit limit on the attributes. You use give obj attr_name and give obj ! attr_name to set and unset these attributes. Weird.
Ah... now we get to classes. Weird to start with objects and not classes. Anyway, this makes me feel better. Classes look like:
class ClassName(params, ...) from SuperClasses, ... use params here to initialize object function method(): ... end
It's weird to me that the equivalent of Python's __init__ is right in the body, and there's no formal transition to the method list. Classes are called to instantiate them, just like in Python.
Uses try; statements; catch [var]; end for exceptions. The exceptions look wack. Uses integer codes to distinguish exceptions from each other. No way to catch specific exceptions. Not extensible the way Python exceptions are (Python exceptions are full object that can be specialized). Why wouldn't you make a special form to limit what errors you catch?
Variables are explicitly exported, export symbol1, ...
Modules are loaded by path name, like load library/module_name. It's not strings, so the loads can be (more or less) statically determined (like Python imports) -- this is good. Using path syntax gives you a clear distinction between absolute and relative paths, and the meaning thereof. This is good too. Seems to fold together multiple directories (with a path); this isn't so good. I at least like C's distinction of #include <stdio> and #include "mylibrary". It seems to not use namespaces, and just include all the symbols -- very bad!
Has "variable aliasing", so that one variable tracks the changes in another variable. Looks like var_alias = $var. Weird. Also in a function call, $ passes the variable by alias, so that:
function modify(param): param = "new" var = "old" modify($var) var == "new"
Ick. This just enables bad smelling code.
Has constants. That's nice.
Uses include "filename" to textually include another file. Ick!
If you use sender in a method (or function?) you get the object that called you. It's like dynamic scope for the call stack. Ick!
Allows blocks (maybe?) in expressions, at least for lambda:
func = lambda (a, b); return a * b ; end
The syntax feels weird. People keep talking about this in the python list, fantasizing (and it'll never be more than a fantasy) that extended lambdas will happen sometime. The weirdness of the syntax is why I think it's a fantasy. And lambda is a dumb word -- Church's use of the lambda character doesn't make it an intuitive term!
Has coroutines, which are basically cooperative (as opposed to preemptive) threading.
I can't say what Python has that Falcon doesn't (since I don't know Falcon), but it's probably quite a lot. Many parts seem somewhat sloppy -- like load -- and make me think of it more like Tcl or Lua than Python. The author uses the term "scripting language" a lot. I honestly can't figure out what it offers; it doesn't compare itself or justify itself with respect to other languages. Considering its similarity to Python (since there's many more points where they are identical, compared to these points where they differ) it would be nice to see a why-Falcon-instead-of-Python document or something. Actually, I don't know Lua, but if I did I suspect I'd see strong similarities there as well.
If this were a language based on Parrot (if it was ready), or .NET, or the JVM, it could be a plausible language to use. I don't really get it as a standalone language, though -- the investment cost is too high for very little return.
There's a thread of discussion here, though it seems to focus on lambdas, because functional programming obsessives care about lambdas and equivalencies even when most programmers are busy thinking about programming (okay, maybe it's just that I'm tired of Lambda The Ultimate discussions).
Looks very very similar to Lua (www.lua.org).# Jonas Galvez
I think being implemented in C++, this has one of the same problems Prothon had. There are no standard libraries or existing 3rd party libraries that you can use. You can't directly use Python modules, .NET libraries, or Java libraries. You have to start all over. No GUI toolkit, for example. Other languages like Jython, Groovy, IronPython and Boo don't suffer from this problem.
You might also check out LiveLogix. It runs on top of the CPython VM, so you can still use Python modules.
# Carson
Thanks for your reviewing; I am absolutely pleased you found many things in Falcon "kudos"; for the rest, we'll do something before beta ;-).
Some note about Falcon:
Falcon is not meant to build BIG applications out of it. I.e. this is a clear statement in RUBY (a language capable to do small + large apps), and this is also somehow claimed but never quite attained by Python. The target of Falcon is to be fast enough to be a sensible choice over C for some duty, embeddable and powerfull to do small thing quite well. Also, yes, to be C++.
You know there's no problem in linking C in C++; the other way around is often more hacky, and that's was the reason of my choice. Also, I have proof of the fact that C++ compilers provide better optimizations for quite a lot of things. Finally... the api is more clear, and that's important to me.
A couple of precisations: - About try/catch; actually, what you are going to catch is 99% an Error class or subclass item. The fact is that in 99% of the progrmas I noticed that selecting which kind of error have been raised is just a pain. So, if you really need that, you may easily use the switch statement over the error variable to detect it's error type. Remember that you don't have switch in python... so, having a pre-branch has more sense.
However, this is not a (completely) fixed decision. I may introduce a per-type or per-class catch filter later on, but the catch-all catch statement will stay. Also, the Falcon VM provides unstoppable exception, that may not be handled by scripts; they are not present in Python (i.e. you can block a syntax error if you use a catch-all statement), so a catch-all statement as LESS sense in python...
- Functions: static blocks are not just assignmens, but whole code slices done only once. Same for the class static statement: they are executed only when the first object of a class is created.
- Why starting with objects: we are programmers, and we know OOP, but I found in my teaching experience that newbies are better introduced to OOP if you first talk about objects, and then about classes. Also, I always felt the lack of singleton objects in every language I dealt; I used them in some contexts, and I felt quite comfortable with them.
- Attributes can be matched against expressions: they are NOT object or class specific. Once defined, you may assign an attribute to any object in your program. They are meant for EXTREMELY fast passage of data between embedding applications and internal scripts, (apps/scripts can read and set attributes without accessing the object structure and decoding the retreived item) but being a "trasversal" extra-oop thing, they may be useful also in a more general context. They are currently limited to 32, but before beta stage I will use 64bit integers; I am just considering if using them ALONE or continue to use also int32 if the number fits it.
- Stateful functions are an elegant way to implement stateful machines. This also allows to bind every function (or method) with a "state" value, that may be kept inside the function, instead of having to record and use the return value of it.
- Self and Sender objects are special registers of the VM, so they are not held in the stack, and do not weight in calls.
- The load statement is meant to provide a "logical" module loading capacity. The command line, that is, a minimal embedding application, will just load all that the script requires. More sophisticate embedders (i.e. your app), may filter out easily load requests and provide other things instead. Also, the embedder may provide its own function, objects and classes to the scripts, without having them to load any "application specific module". Falcon wants to be your application configuration language...
- In Falcon you can change the behavior of object and classes on the fly. I.e., instead of having a method to check if some condition exists and then act accordingly, you can just change the method depending on the condition.
Falcon is alpha. It may change a lot before beta, but I am currently quite satisfied with it now; I am just making module serialization more clever and much smarter object data access, but for the rest I am really happy with it. For the ppl that was lamenting lack of GUI, I will add an embedded AWT (abstract windowing toolking), something like the Java one but more focused on GTK concepts (that is, intelligent placement instead of fixed one, unless otherwise specified). So we'll have an AWT and many DRIVERS that will provide the AWT with real output.
Bests, Gian.
Oh, I forgot. About namespaces, I don't think they are necessary in untyped languages, especially not namespaces a-la-python. A very similar thing may be easily implemented by exporting a singleton object with the same name of the module, if the need arises.


Articles Blogging Like A Hacker October 15, 2013 Why Jekyll? Hello World October 13, 2013 An introduction of sorts.


TravelPal!
TravelPal is a mobile application developed as an individual practical project for Mobile Development course in CCT college.
Developed by: Siddhartha Tamang Student Number: 2015307 Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Github: TravelPal Icons by Icons8