Sometimes it is the people no one imagines anything of who do the things that no one can imagine. | |
— Alan Turing | |
“Codebreaker” (2011) — movie review | |
Codebreaker is a “docu-drama” about the life of Alan Turing, the famous mathematician who lead the team which developed the computer which broke the “Enigma” German code machine back in World War II. Turing is played by Ed Stoppard. The “drama” portion of this film is mostly from the journals of Dr. Franz Greenbaum, who was the psychiatrist Turing was forced to see for counseling. Dr. Greenbaum is played by Henry Goodman. | |
This film was made for TV and was aired in 2011 in the UK under the title: “Britian’s Greatest Codebreaker“. The title was changed and the film had a limited theatrical release in the US in 2012, so you may find it noted with either year of release. | |
The documentary portion of the film is interspersed into the drama and features a series of interviews with relatives of both Turing and Greenbaum, a few of Turing’s colleagues / contemporaries and some otherwise famous folks from mathematics and the computer industry. | |
Of course the “psych” interviews delve into Turing’s childhood, schooling and his homosexuality. The documentary interviews try to give a lay-person’s explanation of some of Turing’s main computer breakthroughs. For those who don’t know, Turing is considered one of the creators of both digital computers / computing, and of artificial intelligence (AI). | |
Turing is reputed to have died from suicide by poisoning. This film does nothing to explicitly contradict that conclusion, but it offers slim insights into the conspiracy theory that Turing might have been killed off by the British government in the interest of state secrecy. In any case, some 50 years after the fact, Turing was given a full pardon for his “crime” (indecent acts) as well as a formal apology from the British government. | |
Final recommendation: Strong to highly recommended. Although no where near the “movie” which followed in 2014 (see below) for production value or drama, this made for television movie was just as interesting and probably more informative. If you are interested in computers, AI or the history surrounding WWII, I think you’ll enjoy this film. | |
“The Imitation Game” (2014) — movie review | |
This is my third or fourth time viewing this movie and my initial review can be found here. | |
This movie is based on the book / biography: “Alan Turing: The Enigma” written by Andrew Hodges. The movie is a dramatized version of “basically” historical events with liberties taken for “drama”. Benedict Cumberbatch stars as Alan Turing, (Alex Lawther plays a young Alan Turing), Keira Knightley plays Joan Clarke (the female / “love” interest), Allen Leech plays John Cairncross (a Russian agent / collegue of Turing on the project), Rory Kinnear plays Detective Robert Nock, Mark Strong plays Stewart Menzies (the MI6 super-spy), Matthew Goode plays Hugh Alexander (one of the brilliant collegues), Charles Dance plays Commander Denniston (Turing’s commanding officer at Bletchley Park ). The basic premise is that a brilliant Turing invents a general purpose computer to defeat the Nazi coding machine “Enigma”, thus saving lives by helping to end the war faster. Their work is performed at Bletchley Park. Turing (and the team) are successful, but because it is all TopSecret, there is no record of his achievements until much later (several decades) and Turing has committed suicide in the meantime. | |
The movie (and presumably the book) is based on fact. Turing was a real person; he was brilliant, he did come up with this codebreaking machine. Also, he was homosexual; he was subject to hormonal “treatment” to “cure” his desires; he did die in 1954. Beyond that, there are a number of points which are probably better handled in the “Codebreaker” TV movie reviewed above. To begin with, I don’t believe he was autistic (as is implied in this movie). I gather he had a mild stutter, but nothing like what is implied in the movie. He was homosexual, but he was not as closeted as the movie implies. My understanding is while he was open about it with his friends and colleagues, he was not what would be described as “flaming”. He was “in love” with Joan Clarke and did propose to her and later break off the engagement. By “in love” I mean he cared for her deeply, although it appears the relationship was more than Platonic but less than physical. At any rate, as portrayed in the film, Turing does tell her he is gay and she did appear to not care (in real life) about his sexual preferences. | |
There are also a number of other factual inconsistencies: the character Hugh Alexander did handle most of the supervisory / administrative duties for the team. He was not “really” Turing’s supervisor and Turing was uninterested in those duties and most office (and real) politics. The character John Cairncross may or may not have been a Russian agent. In either case, he and Turing did not work together and I’ve read it’s unlikely they even met or knew each other. Finally, Turing was not add odds with Commander Denniston, but it seems there was some issue with funding, a letter was sent to Churchill by the team and Turing’s name was on the letter, but it was from the whole of the team, not just from Turing. | |
Okay. So after all that, was the movie any good and did I enjoy it? Yes and very much so. I admit I am a fan of both Cumberbatch and Knightley. I also quite like Mark Strong as I see him in more things (the “Kingsman” series is top of this list). Because I spent a career in computing, I already knew of Turing and some of his accomplishments, so it was nice to see it dramatized and put up on a big screen film. Final recommendation: (still) highly recommended. I am a fan of the two leads, the specific (codebreaking / history) and general (computing / WWII) topics are also of personal interest, so I had a natural predisposition to enjoy this film. But, beyond my personal interests (biases), I do think this was a good film / drama and worth the time of anyone who happens to view it. | |
For those wondering about the movie’s title… Turing wrote a paper about computing and artificial intelligence which proposed that if a person sat in front of typing instrument (what we today would call a terminal or workstation) and could type in a series of sentences and questions to “someone” at another workstation using normal language and could not tell the responses came from a machine, then the machine, was in fact, intelligent. This is the simplified version. The more complete version had three participants: the human testing / judging, a human responding, and a computer responding. In this case, the judge had to decide which responder was human and which was the machine. In some variations, the judge isn’t advised one responder is a machine until after completing several question / response cycles. Basically, the test was evolving to add a blind control situation: the judge didn’t know there was a test or what was being tested until after the cycles. I found it interesting that the producers of the movie would try to educate the audience about this aspect of computing and AI even though it had little to do with the premise of the movie, that is, a long-suffering individual genius breaking the German code machine. | |
As an aside (and final note), the movie shows Turing out running cross-country several times. What isn’t specified is that he was a world class distance runner who nearly qualified for the British Olympic team in the marathon. Again, nothing earth shaking, but I found the detail interesting. | |
. | |
On This Day In: | |
2018 | Until Integrity, Decency, Wisdom, And Humility Return |
Just Tell (And Re-tell) The Big Lie Often Enough On Fox News | |
2017 | To Laws, Not Office Or Individuals |
Beast / General / Civil | |
2016 | Patronage |
2015 | For Blogs, Too! |
2014 | Righteous Anger |
2013 | An Irish Blessing |
2012 | But Is It Worth It? |
2011 | Let Us Start |
Posts Tagged ‘Highly Recommended Movie’
No One Can Imagine
Posted in History, Leadership, Movie Review, Movies, Philosophy, Reviews, tagged AI, Alan Turing, Alex Lawther, Allen Leech, Artificial Intelligence, Benedict Cumberbatch, Bletchley Park, Charles Dance, Codebreaker -- movie review, Commander Denniston, Cross-country Running, Dr. Franz Greenbaum, Ed Stoppard, Enigma, Henry Goodman, Highly Recommended Movie, History, Hugh Alexander, Joan Clarke, John Cairncross, Keira Knightley, Leadership, Mark Strong, Matthew Goode, MI6, Quotes, Robert Nock, Rory Kinnear, Stewart Menzies, Strong To Highly Recommended Movie, The Imitation Game - movie review on June 4, 2019| 1 Comment »
A Little Magic
Posted in Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged Danny DeVito, Embeth Davidtz, Highly Recommended Movie, Mara Wilson, Matilda -- movie review, Matilda Wormwood, Miss Jennifer Honey, Movies, Pam Ferris, Rhea Perlman, Telekinesis on February 17, 2019| 2 Comments »
“Matilda” (1996) — movie review | |
Today’s review is for a children’s fantasy movie about a young girl growing up in a dysfunctional family, attending a dysfunctional school. Ah, but the young girl is a self-taught math wiz with telekinesis power. Basically, she is a genius and can move things with her mind. | |
The movies stars Mara Wilson as Matilda Wormwood, Danny DeVito plays her father (a crooked used-car salesman), Rhea Perlman plays Matilda’s mother (who spends all day off gambling), Embeth Davidtz plays Miss Jennifer Honey (the only decent grown-up), and Pam Ferris plays the wicked school headmaster / principal. | |
The movie traces Matilda’s life from birth through (ultimately) getting adopted by Miss Honey and them both living happily ever after. | |
As a kid’s movie, is it any good? Does it work as a fantasy? Is it funny? Yes; definitely; and, mostly, but not ha-ha funny (for me). This is not a “Disney” live-action movie, but it feels like one. There are lots (and I mean LOTS) of amusing lines for adults and enough sight-gags to keep the kiddies engaged. | |
Final recommendation: highly recommended! I have seen “Matilda” numerous times over the last 20+ years and it remains an amusing little gem of a film. A couple of the scenes with the horrible principal may be too intense for children under six years old, but I think any kids, nieces and nephews older than that will enjoy the movie. Teens may find it a bit too childish, until they are old enough to know how to listen to dialogue. | |
Two shout-outs: Danny DeVito is excellent in this role (even if a “little” type-cast) — pun intended; and, the movie has a great song in it: “Send Me On My Way” performed by Rusted Root. | |
. | |
On This Day In: | |
2018 | Nice To Meet You |
2017 | All Nations & Religions |
2016 | Given The Choice |
Why Is He Wearing Red? | |
2015 | Within The System |
2014 | None But… |
2013 | Obviously Longer |
2012 | A Childhood Poem |
Who Are You Callin’ Leather-Faced? | |
2011 | In No Particular Order |
The Need For Proof | |
After Life
Posted in Movie Review, Movies, Other Blogs, Reviews, tagged Albert Lewis, Annabella Sciorra, Annie Collins-Nielsen, Cr. Christopher James "Chris" Nielsen, Cuba Gooding Jr, Cubby's Blog, Highly Recommended Movie, http://reowr.wordpress.com, Ian Nielsen, Jessica Brooks Grant, Josh Paddock, Leona, Marie Nielsen, Max von Sydow, Oscars, Other Blogs, PG-13, Robin Williams, Rosalind Chao, The Tracker, Vudu.com, What Dreams May Come -- movie review on February 14, 2019| 9 Comments »
“What Dreams May Come” (1998) — movie review | |
Today’s review is for the 1998 movie starring Robin Williams. If you haven’t watched this movie and intend to AND want to avoid spoilers, stop reading now and come back after you’ve seen the film. | |
Okay, Robin Williams stars as Dr. Christopher James “Chris” Nielsen, Annabella Sciorra plays his wife: Annie Collins-Nielsen, Cuba Gooding Jr. plays Albert Lewis / Ian Nielsen (Chris’ son in disguise), Josh Paddock plays Ian Nielsen (Chris’ son), Rosalind Chao plays Leona / Marie Nielsen (Chris’ daughter in disguise), Jessica Brooks Grant plays Marie Nielsen (Chris’ daughter), and, Max von Sydow plays The Tracker / Albert Lewis (Chris’ mentor when he was a young doctor). I’ve now given away most of the movie… You were warned! | |
Chris is a pediatrician. Annie is a artist / painter and art restorer. They meet in idyllic circumstance and fall immediately in love. They have a wonderful life, but trouble is on the horizon. Suddenly their two children die in a car accident. Life is turned upside down and there are hints of other “issues”. On one of their anniversaries, Chris is also involved in and dies during a car accident and Annie is left alone. | |
Through a series of flashbacks we discover the “issues”: Chris was unable to deal with the death of the children and throws himself into his work to avoid the pain. Annie had a nervous breakdown. In the end, they comeback from the brink of divorce and are restarting their lives when Chris dies. Chris is not ready for death and seeks out Annie as a “ghost / spirit”. Annie is not ready for the loss of her love, has another breakdown and commits suicide. There follows a lengthy, colorful and brilliantly imagined (sometimes disturbingly illustrated) imagery of heaven, hell, life, death, self-sacrifice, the meaning of love and, finally, reincarnation. | |
The film won two Oscars for Best Visual Effects and Best Art Direction and it was almost certainly deserving as some of the imagery is at times beautiful and horrifying. This is an adult drama and although rated “PG-13” is really not appropriate for children. Some teens could deal with the imagery, but I am not sure they will get a lot of the philosophy. Heck, I’m not sure most adults will, either. | |
Anyway, is this movie any good? Did I enjoy watching it? Did I find all of the philosophy reasonable and / or explained well? Yes! So-so. And, mostly yes. To start off, I purchased this movie as a one-off on discount with Vudu. They had a sale of 5 films for $20 and I figured, what the heck, I usually enjoy most of Robin Williams’ work, so I’ll take a chance. Just after that, one of my followers (and a blogger I follow) said in a comment that this movie was one of her favorite movies. (If anyone is interested, she goes by “Cubby” and her site is: https://reowr.com/) …So, I bumped this up my list of films to view sooner rather than later. | |
Good decision… As mentioned, the visual effects are imaginative and stunning. Imagine heaven as your own personal painting and you get to wake up in it and move around in it. At first, it is blurry and “van Gogh”-ian (if that is even a phrase). After about three minutes, it is almost funny because it makes “perfect” sense. Well, it did / does to me anyway. | |
So, it is a great “viewing” experience… But, did I enjoy watching it? No. And, yes. Mostly, yes! This mixed answer is because there are multiple levels of “enjoyment”. The sound was variable and dipped to barely audible at points. Because this is a “deep” movie, I had to replay some of the scenes to catch the dialogue. This breaks the “fourth-wall” between the film and the viewer, but I recognized almost immediately that I would miss too much of the film if I couldn’t hear or didn’t understand all that was being said. There are two other things which made the movie “uncomfortable” for me. The imagery (some intense – as mentioned above) and the plot revolving around losing one’s family through chance accident. The latter has always terrified me personally. It’s never happened to me (thankfully), but it is a common plot device in movies and music and I never like it. | |
Anyway, this is a movie which you come to for the entertainment and stay for the philosophy – or at least I did. Everything, and I MEAN everything in the movie is meant to make you think. If you like that in a movie (I do), then you will enjoy / love this movie. Does it explain “philosophy” well. No. It’s a movie! It’s trying to get you to think about life and love while still entertaining you. I think it does that. | |
Final recommendation: highly recommended movie. Again, this is a sit, listen, watch and think about movie. It may make you cry (I did). It may leave you cold – it is not very “Christian” in it’s overall philosophy. If you can’t get past that part of the film, you will almost certainly NOT like this movie. If you have ever felt like you found the love of your life, not “just” a lover or a spouse, this movie will probably touch you. It did me. | |
. | |
On This Day In: | |
2018 | Happy Valentine’s Day – 2018!! |
2017 | Happy Valentine’s Day – 2017!! |
2016 | Happy Valentine’s Day – 2016!! |
2015 | To My Special Lady |
2014 | Awakening |
2013 | Drowsy In Comfort |
2012 | Happy Valentine’s Day |
2011 | Own Your Bible |
20 / 20 Foresight
Posted in History, Movie Review, Movies, Reviews, tagged Congressional Medal of Honor, Congressman Frank R. Reid, Darren McGavin, Elizabeth Montgomery, Gary Cooper, General MacArthur, Highly Recommended Movie, History, Jack Lord, Lt. Cmdr. Zachary 'Zack' Lansdowne, Maj. Allan Guillion, Margaret Lansdowne, Movie Review, Pearl Harbor, Peter Graves, Ralph Bellamy, Rod Steiger, Sergeant York, The Court-Martial of Billy Mitchell -- movie review, William ("Billy") Lendrum Mitchell, YouTube on January 17, 2019| 9 Comments »
“The Court-Martial Of Billy Mitchell” (1955) — movie review | |
Today’s review is for an oldie but a goodie. It’s a fictionalized version of mostly real events surrounding the court-martial of an Army officer who would later be considered a prophet and the “founder” of the Air Force: William (“Billy”) Lendrum Mitchell. The movie stars Gary Cooper in the title role. This is one of my two favorite war genre movies starring Cooper. The other is another semi-biography: “Sergeant York“. In this movie Mitchell is an Army General who gets busted in rank for disobeying orders by destroying a battleship to prove it can be done by aircraft with bombs. (In real life, Mitchell did sink the battleship, but he didn’t disobey orders. Also, he didn’t lose rank for that act. He lost rank as a result of a general reduction in forces after the end of WWI.) After the death of a naval aviator friend and a squadron of his former pilots, Mitchell makes public statements to the press bring disrepute to the armed services (Army and Navy). For this, he is brought up on charges to be court-martialed. | |
I saw this movie a couple of times in my youth and remembered it generally as a courtroom / trial movie. Because of the age of the movie and when I first saw it, I assumed it would be in black and white. I can only guess that was because it (a black and white TV) was all we had when I was a child. I was pleasantly surprised to find the movie is actually a “color” movie. | |
Besides Cooper, the movie stars Ralph Bellamy as Congressman Frank R. Reid (attorney for the defense) and Rod Steiger as Maj. Allan Guillion (the prosecutor) and multiple future 60’s / 70’s TV stars: Jack Lord as Lt. Cmdr. Zachary ‘Zack’ Lansdowne (the Navy officer / friend who dies), Elizabeth Montgomery as Margaret Lansdowne (Zack’s wife) and Peter Graves and Darren McGavin as a couple of Mitchell’s pilots. | |
The movie is interesting because it shows (accurately) that as early as the 1920’s that it was predictable the Japanese would attack Pearl Harbor using aircraft. What it failed to predict (in the movie and in real life) was the use of carriers to deliver those aircraft. Mitchell believed the aircraft would come from “nearby” islands. In real life, Mitchell died before the attack on Peal Harbor, so he never saw his predictions come true. He was posthumously awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for service to his country. The award was a bit unusual because it was awarded for his effort to promote aviation and not for any specific act of valor in the act of combat as is usually the requirement. | |
Final recommendation: highly recommended movie. Aside from the historical “prediction”, I found the movie to be very entertaining as a courtroom drama and as a view into the institution of the military and the integrity of the officers represented in the movie – both Mitchell and the court-martial board. General MacArthur comes across particularly well in the behind the scenes “Board” arguments. This surprised me as I am not a big MacArthur fan. Finally, I want to give a shout out to Rod Steiger as one of the prosecuting officers. This is one of my favorite of his roles, too. I watched this movie on YouTube. It is also available on DVD / disc and periodically on TV. | |
. | |
On This Day In: | |
2018 | Be Someone’s Kindling |
2017 | When The Moment Comes |
2016 | Changed Clothes Lately? |
2015 | Like Stone |
2014 | Resistance Is Futile |
2013 | Subtle Humor |
To Look Behind Green Eyes | |
2012 | The Path Is Endless |
2011 | Happy MLK, Jr Day!!! |
A Factor Of Ten | |
Better Late Than Never? | |
Whoops! | |
Acceptable Beginnings | |
Slow Progress | |
Useful Confrontation | |
When Phenomena Are Different | |
Creative Avoidance | |
Thinking | |
Fast And Flexible | |
Surrender Certainty | |
Techniques | |
Vive La Difference | |
Destiny | |
Completeness | |
Art | |
Growl
Posted in Movie Review, Movies, tagged Adamantium, Boyde Holbrook, Dafne Keen, Eden, Highly Recommended Movie, Hugh Jackman, Logan, Logan -- movie review, Patrick Steward, Professor Charles Xavier, Professor X, Richard E. Grant, Wolverine on May 7, 2018| Leave a Comment »
Logan (2017) — movie review | |
Today’s review is for the “R” rated live action adaptation of the comic book “hero / anti-hero” Wolverine, aka Logan. The main actors / characters are: Hugh Jackman, (Logan / X-24), Patrick Stewart, (Charles Xavier / Professor X), Dafne Keen, (Laura / Wolverine’s daughter), Boyd Holbrook (Pierce – the “physical” bad-guy), and Richard E. Grant (Dr. Rice – the “brains” bad-guy). | |
Basically, Logan is getting old and dying from “something” related to the Adamantium he has infused in his bone structure. Professor X is dying from old age. Logan is protecting him until he dies. Opens with fight scene. Blah, blah, blah… Logan meets Laura and has to escort her to “Eden” so she’ll be safe. Blah, blah, blah… Multiple fights. Blah, blah, blah. Logan figures out Laura is his daughter – sort of. (I did NOT see that coming. Just kidding…) Anyway, more fights and more blah, blah, blah. Logan meets a young Logan (his “son” – again, sort of). More fights. Blah, blah. Big fight at end. Laura and friends get away to start a new series of X-men movies with younger actors. | |
One note: this is “supposed” to be Jackman’s last appearance in the Wolverine role. I never thought Jackman fit the role as he is tall (over 6ft) and Wolverine is supposed to be about 5ft 6in and broad, but I have to admit, like Robert Downing, Jr. and Ironman, Jackman made this role his own to such an extent that it is difficult to imagine who Hollywood will find for the eventual character reboot. I hope they can give it at least five years… | |
Is this a good movie? If not, does it work as a “comic-book” movie? If you can get past the graphic violence (“R” for a reason), then yes, this is a very good movie. Even beyond being a “comic-book” movie, it is a good adult movie. The main issues are aging, friendship, loyalty, family and parenting. All are dealt with in an adult / contextual way. I admit to being very pleasantly surprised… Even accepting that, the violence is such that I never would have thought this version of Wolverine would ever make it a screen – big screen or cable. This is the Wolverine I could imagine from reading the comics way back when, but never fitting into a “PG” release to get the most money from a typical comic-book demographic. | |
Final recommendation: highly recommended! This is the way I imagined Wolverine. The movie, however, is not appropriate for young children – excessive / graphic violence and very little humor. But, and it’s a BIG “but”, if you can see past it, the violence is what makes the movie dark (for Wolverine and the mutant children) and what ultimately gives the resolution emergent hope. | |
. | |
On This Day In: | |
2017 | Decisions |
2016 | Along The Path |
2015 | Make Mine Rare, Please |
2014 | Passion Flooding |
2013 | On Purpose |
2012 | Sans Gall Bladder, Day 4 |
How Did You Spend Your Day? | |
2011 | It’s Hammerin’ Time!! |
Convenient Auxiliaries | |
No Boundary
Posted in Faith, Movie Review, Quotes, Science and Learning, tagged A Brief History Of Time, ALS, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, Atheism, Black Holes, CoE - Church of England, Cosmology, Eddie Redmayne, Faith, Felicity Jones, Highly Recommended Movie, Jane Hawking, Lou Gehrig's disease, Quotes, Science, Singularlity, Stephen Hawking, The Theory Of Everything -- movie review, Time on April 5, 2018| Leave a Comment »
It is clear that we are just an advanced breed of primates on a minor planet orbiting around a very average star, in the outer suburb of one among a hundred billion galaxies. BUT, ever since the dawn of civilization people have craved for an understanding of the underlying order of the world. There ought to be something very special about the boundary conditions of the universe. And what can be more special than that there is no boundary? And there should be no boundary to human endeavor. We are all different. However bad life may seem, there is always something you can do, and succeed at. While there is life, there is hope. | |
— Stephen Hawking | |
The Theory Of Everything (2014) — movie review | |
Today’s review is of the romantic drama / biography – story of the college and adult life of Stephen Hawking (played by Eddie Redmayne) and his first (and longest) wife: Jane Hawking (played by Felicity Jones). Both Redmayne and Jones received Best Actor / Actress Oscar nominations for their respective roles with Redmayne actually winning the Oscar. The movie received three other nominations, too, including Best Picture. | |
The movie roughly covers the time between 1960 and 2010, with some after-notes about the subjects lives. Basically, Hawking is a brilliant student, who falls in love, finds out he has a deadly disease and then goes on to outlive the medical prognosis and become a world-famous celebrity physicist. His “popular” fame arises from both his brilliance and his overcoming his illness (motor neurone disease, aka ALS – amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, aka Lou Gehrig’s disease). | |
The movie makes a passing attempt to explain the general concepts of a black hole, a singularity, time, and the creation of the universe. It also spends a fair amount of time establishing the belief disagreements between the two leads. Steven is an atheist and Jane is CoE (Church of England / Protestant). | |
Hawking achieved general fame by authoring a book (“A Brief History of Time“) in which he tried to explain his work / theories in terms the “common man” would grasp. I remember reading the book a few years after it was published and by then it had firmly established its reputation as the most widely un-read coffee table book of the 20th century. Just as a side note: I asked the few friends who did display the book on their coffee tables (or book shelves) if they’d actually read the book. The response was 0. Only 1 admitted to having even started reading it. Granted it was a limited sample size, but it made me feel a bit sad – mostly because it meant I had no one to discuss it with. The sad life of an unrepentant nerd… | |
Anyway, this is a very good movie which is instructive about human character (Jane’s and Stephen’s) and ends with the message that what is achieved through love is often the greatest accomplishment of any life. Final recommendation: Highly recommended. | |
. | |
On This Day In: | |
2017 | Don’t Sink Now |
2016 | A Burning Passion To Teach Freedom |
2015 | Before Debit (And Credit) Cards |
2014 | Herding Cats |
2013 | Ooops! |
2012 | Understand A Great Truth |
2011 | Start Here… |
2010 | Random Acts of Vandalism On Easter Weekend… |