Frédérik Sisa

It gets me every time. I look at the label of this or that nutriceutical product and find a claim related to improving bodily functions, only to then find the small print that says, “This product is not intended to diagnose or treat medical conditions.” Say what? Then comes the kicker in the fine print: “This product has not been evaluated by the FDA.” In other words, the only thing these nutriceutical products have going for them is a marketing campaign and a massive case of cognitive dissonance.

"Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian" may be pure fluffy entertainment, but surprisingly it’s more than that – enough to be simultaneously disposable and memorable.

All right. Count me in. I’ve been resisting, because there are a few other topics I want to write about, but what the heck. It is, after all, the fad-du-jour. The flavour of the month. All the popular kids are doing in. Dagnabit, even the unpopular ones are doing it. Might as well join in. I refer, of course, to picking on President Obama.

“I exercised my freedom of speech and was punished for doing so,” said the runner-up in the Miss Solar System Pageant, Miss Enhanced California Katie Preechin. The statement came during a press conference addressing the growing controversy over her answer to the now infamous “What is 2 + 2?” question posed by celebrity blogger Pezhed Milton.

Unlike it’s predecessor “The DaVinci Code,” “Angels & Demons” doesn’t come burdened with ambition it can’t live up to. Caught in its own structure as a murder-mystery, the first film adapted – faithfully, I assume – from Dan Brown’s inexplicably popular books presented as destination what should have been the journey. “Angels & Demons” involves nothing so grand as the Church-sanctioned cover-up of a history-busting secret; it settles for a murder conspiracy involving the Illuminati and an anti-matter bomb set during the Vatican’s conclave to elect a new Pope.

With the wheezing franchise overloaded by bloated narratives and crippled by a drifting direction, the need for a fresh start was, of course, logical – regardless of how it might offend purists. Enter J.J. Abrams’ simply named “Star Trek,” a resurrection more problematic than promising.

At the end of the World War II, the Major Allied Powers set out to deal with the masterminds behind Nazi atrocities. The preferred option: a political hearing followed by summary executions. A dissenting voice, however, resisted on the basis that a show trial undermined the very spirit of the judicial process.

The reports of Mark Twain’s death are, as always, greatly exaggerated; his spirited wit lives on. It seems it was living in a file cabinet at U.C. Berkeley until scholar Shelley Fisher Fishkin rescued it, gave it some fresh air and exercise, and found it every bit the Twain we know and love. A buff and a shine later, courtesy of playwright David Ives, and voila, a new offering of the quintessential American author’s impish, incisive humour.

A recent conversation with an archery pal began with discussing the price of food at Disneyland – it’s expensive. To this observation I added, “Try being vegetarian or vegan!” The point being, of course, that trying to find healthy food that doesn’t involve meat is oftentimes a task worthy of Hercules. But out of that discussion came two sticking points I’ve been struggling with as a (baseline) vegan. It all boils down to how rigidly one defines “vegan,” and I’m not sure I agree with the strictest interpretation.

“Earth” is worth seeing on the basis of the photography. These are snapshots of our beautiful blue, ever-vulnerable planet and its amazing diversity of life. If nothing else, the film may remind us of our increasingly tenuous connection to the environment we are an integral part of.