i was watching a bit of Apocalypse Now on cable last night.  it was that scene with Col. Kilgore and the Air Cavalry where they go plop plop on a vietnamese village like the fucking blitzkrieg on a cocaine bender.  you know that little twist where the colonel is coincidentally an avid surfer and fan of Lance Johnson?  that made me think of what i said about Gran Torino and how i found every stupid step of that movie to be contrived and unbelievable.  now, how likely is it that in the middle of a brutal and unpredictable battle, a colonel, the one guy that can help the mission, happens to be such a huge fan of surfing that he completes his segment of the mission just to hold a beach to surf on it with a surfing legend that just so happens to be with Willard?  highly unlikely, right? 

right. 

but it works in Apocalypse Now.  it’s not contrived.  i couldn’t swallow something way more mundane and common happening in Gran Torino.  why is that?  (i don’t know the answer.  i’m just thinking out loud here.)  how does Apocalypse Now set up a story that allows the most unpredictable and insane things to happen and we just accept it as awesome coincidence? 

(you didn’t see it but i just paused with my fingers on the keyboard, my mouth open and eyes to the ceiling as i contemplated this.)

the answer that should have been obvious just popped into my head:  Apocalypse Now is about the descent into madness, set in a place that resists all definitions of normal, therefore the uncommon seems commonplace.  therefore we accept Kilgore as someone in his natural element, behaving like he normally would.  crazily. 

but still.  if that itself were the reason we can accept Col Kilgore’s coincidental and highly uncommon portion of the story, then we should be just as likely to accept a team of vietnamese fishermen dressed up as circus clowns casting their nets while blowing on kazoos, but i don’t think i would.  that would be crazy. 

there’s something more complete about way the characters in Apocalypse Now were set up and fleshed out,  about how the landscape of vietnam was introduced as an alternate reality, all of that proper set up that let events happen naturally, even if they were crazy.  i’m not a fan of voiceover narration but it worked extremely well here, especially in the interests of time economy.  Willard started out half nuts.  Chef was a neurotic.  Clean was a punk ass city kid.  Vietnam was hot as shit (aka crazy).  the mission had no moral basis. 

as opposed to Gran Torino that glossed over all the essential things thereby rendering them completely uni-dimensional.  but you never get the sense that Eastwood wanted to make a simple film like he did.  i can guess that his goals are actually extremely complex, digging into the depths of moral grayness.  but for some reason he treats the pieces in his complicated stories so sloppily.

i am now realizing what an unfair comparison this is.  Apocalypse Now is one of the greatest film masterpieces of all time.  i love Unforgiven but Clint Eastwood is a sloppy story teller.  the end.

cons:
-  AT&T coverage really is that terrible.  i’ve had a small few dropped calls.  some calls i don’t get at all.  i got a voicemail like two days after it was sent.  during a call, i’m often hearing fuzzy breakup shits.  i feel like progress has been rolled back a decade. 

-  it’s significantly bigger than the phone i used to have and is heavy as shit in my pocket. 

-  i prefer a silicon case just because i want some impact (read: drop) protection, but my silicon case, which is slipperier than other silicons, still grabs shit when i pull it out of my pocket, namely money.  i am constantly double-checking to make sure i don’t pull out my cash when i pull out my phone.  this is obviously a case thing, not a phone thing, but just saying.

-  i have a feeling my text message bill is going to balloon to unmanageable sizes.   

pros: 
-  typing isn’t nearly as big a pain in the ass as i thought it would be.   in fact, i am pretty sure that the touch-screen keyboard helps me type faster than with a button keyboard.  think about it.  you don’t have to push down on anything.  just tap tap tap.  add to that the self-correcting feature that automatically corrects misspelled words, and my thumbs are flying.  don’t get me wrong.  i still love to feel the real buttons, but the act of typing isn’t hurt by the lack of buttons. 

-  the location type apps are super convenient.  movie theaters and listings, maps/directions, gas stations, restaurants.  all instantly locatable.  awesome.  i feel covered when i have the phone.

- the big screen.  i can’t imagine not having a screen this size to access instant information from for the rest of my life. 

-  if i ever have any downtime, i have instant entertainment with little to no fuss.  i’ve gotten in the habit of whipping it out while i stand on line.  i could do anything like play games, read stuff, check the weather. 

-  oh yeah.  now that’s it’s so convenient, i read the bible much more often than i used to.  which is to say i read it at all. 

-  instant games.  my current frequently played games: ChessFree, Sudoku, TokiTori, TapWord, TapDefense, UnblockMe, Lux Touch.  am always open to more suggestions. 

clearly i’m pretty happy with the phone. 

peter travers – 3.5/4 stars.
roger ebert – 3.5/4 stars

variety, ny times, chicago trib & sun, new yorker, usa today, salon.com, washington post, etc.  all gave it positive reviews. 

wow, seriously?  i thought Gran Torino was kind of a piece of shit.  (spoilers abound beginning here, but read anyway.  this movie is so predictable that i won’t be ruining a single moment.)

i thought it was a piece of shit on several different levels but let’s start at the most basic: as a film.  more specifically the writing, acting and probably directing.  this movie is a ramshackle house just barely standing and the weakness starts at its foundation, the writing.  almost every single story element felt a little too convenient, aka contrived, to me.  nothing ever felt like a natural occurrence, or like it naturally progressed from the previous scene.  why does the cousin care so damn much that thao join his gang?  how is walt just perfectly there to save sue from the thugs.  why does thao go along with the plan to steal walt’s car?  how is walt perfectly around to notice this girl likes thao?  why does that girl in purple talk to walt?  why does walt care enough to talk to thao about it?  how did he raise such money-grubbing selfish children?  why does walt talk aloud to himself except to explain to the audience what he’s thinking?  didn’t it all feel a little too made up?  nothing happened that didn’t make me question why.  the film just took for granted that the audience would follow this long series of, in my mind, unlikely events.  and it did it almost like it felt like it had to, like the film just tried to plow through the required elements to make this very standard film formula. 

and the dialogue.  gawwwwwd.  “you know something?  you’re alright, kid.”  i can’t tell if it’s all the crappy writing this movie had to suffer or the crappy acting, but the dialogue, again, felt incredibly unnatural.  every time sue or thao opened their mouths, i squirmed a little in my chair because i felt uncomfortable for them.  even eastwood.  his line delivery at times was laughable.  i felt like i was watching some high school kid fucking around with the AV equipment. 

now let’s talk about the other parts of the movie i disagree with.  this is much more an interpretation, so fuck you.  this movie is a blanket absolution of racist america.  now i’ve heard countless comments about how it’s actually the opposite, and how it shows asian immigrants in a human way.  i think that’s bullshit.  now, i doubt clint eastwood sits at night hatching plans to subvert race relations in america.  in fact, i genuinely believe he’s trying to help race relations, so whatever offends me here, it’s probably unintentional, but i feel like it’s misguided. 

this character Walt.  an obvious racist, and this is made obvious by his flippant use of words like zipperhead and gook.  but otherwise a great citizen.  he’s racked with guilt about a minor tax cheat, decades ago.  he scorns the youths that don’t help the old lady with her groceries.  he fought for his country and won awards for it.  he’s the only one in his neighborhood that maintains his house nicely.  he seems like he’s worked hard all his life.  aside from his outpouring of racist epithets, he’s the standard good american, grumpy but good. 

then he meets this family next door and he sees the err of his ways?  not.  he takes them in because he sees them as human beings, yes, but it’s never quite clear if he gives up his racism altogether or if he just sees this family as an exception.  the fact that he never, to the very end, gives up his hurling of racist labels at everyone hints at the fact that he never really does give up his racist thoughts.

now here’s the tricky part.  is his racist speech a symptom of his racism?  or is he just “talking like a man”?  by the end of the film, walt has saved the family through his own sacrifice, yes, but he pretty much behaves exactly as he always behaved, calling people spic, zipperhead and spook.  you can say that that’s just Walt being Walt, and i’ll agree with that, but only if “being Walt” means “being racist”.  by the end we understand Walt better and he’s obviously some kind of good man — a good American — therefore his racism becomes more palatable to us, especially since he earned some respect by making the ultimate sacrifice, but is his racism then negligible?

if you are more comfortable with his racism by the end of the film, so be it, but call it like it is.  it’s still fucking racism, no matter what he did at the end.

and this is what i mean by this film being a blanket absolution.  the moral i get from this film is that a lifetime of hate can be forgiven if we make a huge sacrifice at the end to make up for all the wrongs we did.  did his sacrifice at the end make his lifetime of racism disappear?  i feel like the movie would like us to think so.  personally, i think, rather than count on complete, one-step absolution, racist america should just stop being — and acting — racist.  how’s that? 

***

and wtf was up with that shaman?  no, that’s not racist.  exotic asian in touch with the otherworlds, speaking truths that only a real mystic spirit-walker can know.  me love you long time. 

***

john hughes!  awwwww, man.  that sucks.  i mean i won’t say that his previously living form was doing anything for me lately that his death brought a sudden end to.  but i have to show at least some affection for possibly the only person in movie history that wrote movies about teenagers that didn’t talk down to said teenagers.  as a teenager in the 80s, i totally appreciated that.  plus, i’m not sure a single filmmaker captured the 80s, at least my 80s, like john hughes did. 

i think i’ve done this before, but for nostalgia’s sake i’m going to run through my list of favorite john hughes films in descending order of preference.

1.  Some Kind of Wonderful – hughes wrote but did not direct this.  such a sweet story, with detestable villains, a princess in waiting, and a kick ass awesome soundtrack. 
most memorable scene: Keith and Watts fighting in the club when Watts ends it with “the only thing i care about in this world are me, my drums…  and you.”  the song Turn to the Sky was playing in the background.  great song.

2.  The Breakfast Club – all you young bucks out there, watch and learn.  this is our 1980s (minus people of color). 
most memorable scene: it’s hard to pick one scene since so many characters were given equal weight and had different great moments, but one definite memorable scene for me was Ally Sheedy emptying out her bag and mashing all these different bits of weirdness between two pieces of bread and eating it for lunch while everyone else watched in horror.

3.  Sixteen Candles – this movie gave us Long Duck Dong and permanently unraveled any cultural and social good for the Asian American community that one thousand Bruce Lees could have accomplished.  but still, i have to love this cute story about the “diamond in the rough” getting what she wants.
most memorable scene: i think this is pretty predictable.  the wedding. Sam is standing alone at the top of the church stairs.  If You Were Here by the Thompson Twins is playing when the limo pulls away to reveal…  Jake and his Porsche waiting for her.  to this day i’m not sure which of those two the girls wanted more.  between Risky Business and this movie, Porsche seems to have become the symbol of style and success for people in my generation. 

4.  Pretty in Pink – there seems to be a very minor stink about Andy (molly ringwald) ending up with Blane (andrew mccarthy).  i say fuck that noise.  for starters, she didn’t want Ducky.  and in the end if Andy doesn’t pick Blane then there’s really no heroic sacrifice that Ducky must endure, which, imo, was one of the only redeeming qualities about that annoying guy.  he sucked it up, stfu, and let her get what she wanted. 
most memorable scene: i can’t remember.  this is the one i’ve seen the least.  i remember little bits like her making a dress pattern and making her own prom dress, or the record store owner shooting staples at a shoplifter but those don’t really count, right?  i remember the icky feeling of james spader being a complete douchebag.  i dunno.  what’s your most memorable scene from this?

5.  Ferris Bueller’s Day Off – did you know that location they used for Cameron’s house just went up for sale?  it also includes the glass house that the ferrari was in.  i also read an interesting piece somewhere hypothesizing that the whole movie was actually Cameron’s imagination.
most memorable scene:  Rooney on the phone talking shit to Cameron, who is pretending to be Sloane’s dad, because he suspects that Cameron is actually Ferris.  until Ferris actually calls on the other line and Rooney realizes his grave mistake and has to run around trying to kiss Cameron’s ass.  goodness.  that wasn’t explained very well.  well if you didn’t understand, i’ll take it that you never saw the film, and i have no time to explain elementary stuff to a commie bastard like yourself. 

in a strange coincidence, Netflix sent me a movie that’s been in my queue forever and i saw it last night.  it’s coincidental because it’s about an older woman who gets alzheimers and eventually forgets who her husband is, and i posed a question the other day about your capacity to love someone who doesn’t love you back.  the movie is called Away From Her, and it was fucking heart-breaking. 

so again, how would you feel about your spouse/s.o. if they simply stopped loving you for whatever reason? 

ok, let me try to clear this up one more time.

this whole exercise is more an attempt to figure out why “my friend” doesn’t feel romantically attracted to this girl, one possible explanation being the fact that she has given no signals whatsoever.  this question arising from the simple fact that, on paper, there probably should be some kind of romantic attraction.  but there isn’t. 

***

on to other things.

i take the subway to work everyday.  it’s been very hot.  sometimes the air conditioners don’t work on the subway.  it gets very crowded.  people smell bad. 

i was sitting on the subway this morning.  it wasn’t crowded.  the man sitting next to me was an older gentleman in a very nice suit.  he looked clean.  he was a mouth-breather.  his breath fucking stank.  and then it stank and stank and stank and stank. 

but i didn’t want to give up my seat, so i just sat there trying to read while being poisoned by his nasty unfiltered mouth germs.  i think i am blind now.

***

so i was watching the end of season 1 of The Wire recently because either i had forgotten or simply never saw those episodes when they aired on HBO all those years back and i thought i’d catch up.  Weebay.  that muffugah cracks me up.

i’m not sure i could ever give up HBO because you never know when the next The Sopranos/The Wire/Big Love/Flight of the Conchords will pop up.  Hard Knocks starts next week, too.  LOVE that show, man!  football is coming!  woot woot! 

***

speaking of football.  let’s get serious here and talk NY Giants.  opinion seems to be unanimous that WR is the biggest hole coming in to this season.  i disagree.  an equal or bigger hole, imo, is the LB position. 

Pierce’s second half of last season was a fucking abomination and that carried through to the playoffs.  we lost those games because we gave up the big plays and i think every big play went through Pierce, that fat bastard softy.  he’s made comments this off-season acknowledging as much.  at least he knows where the problem is and can try to fix it.  we’ll see if that works or not. 

the off-season acquisition, Boley, just had surgery so will miss all of training camp.  couple that up with his upcoming one game suspension and this motherfucker will be short bus remedial for like half the season trying to learn a new team’s game plan.  don’t expect much from him for a little while. 

Chase Blackburn and Danny Clark.  both have apparently been improving, but, let’s face it, neither really have the potential to anchor a LB core.  that leaves second year plays Kehl and Goff and second round rookie Sintim.  cross your fingers.  Sintim actually could turn out to be very productive, but probably not in his rookie year.  who the fuck knows with Kehl and Goff. 

i’m actually not as worried about the WRs as i am about the LBs.  steve smith is coming a long way.  reliable.  he’s too small to be the outside deep threat, but there are other places he can play and be effective.  remember that the tiny Wes Welker playing slot nearly single-handedly destroyed us in the Superbowl two years ago.  Nicks, the first round rookie, supposedly has amazing hands.  never drops anything.  Nicks is only 6-1 but awesome hands is exactly what Eli needs to offset his wobbly and inaccurate throws. 

Mario Manningham, now in his second year, was supposed to be a “steal” as a third round pick.  he apparently lit it up at U Mich and was a threat to score whenever he touched the ball.  he fell in the draft due to some legal trouble, i think, not his ability.  hopefully, his lackluster first year puts a burr up his ass to break out this year. 

Ramses Barden is slow, but can maybe play the Plax “jump ball” role in the end zone plays.  Hixon…  i don’t expect shit from him.  if he ends up not dropping the easy, wide open, touchdown passes, then i’ll just be pleasantly surprised. 

so basically i like Smith and am optimistic about Nicks, while being cautious but hopeful about Barden.  oh yeah.  Moss.  we’ll see if he can stay healthy.  i’m not holding my breath.

(actually now that i think about it, maybe the LBs aren’t worse off than the WRs.)

***

this conversation is making me sad about Amani Toomer.  my boy.  the Giants shouldn’t have played it out like that, man.  threw him out like he was the daily garbage.  the young dudes need the Toomer around.  there’s no way Hixon, the projected starter, can carry Toomer’s jock.  Toomer was a gamer. 

-  was i the only NY Giants fan secretly hoping Antonio Pierce gets indicted? 

-  the girl i was asking about yesterday…  yeah i was asking for a friend.  or not.  or yes!  who knows?!  maybe me.  but definitely not you!  but yeah, things aren’t even going on that romantic angle there even remotely.  but The Friend is just wondering if his feelings might change if she sent out any signals, something we are pretty sure she has not done even in the slightest.  he’s not sure yay or nay, but just playing around with the possibility.  the answer came out decidedly no because there were no signals there whatsoever that he could detect and just needed some confirmation on that because he is, he admits, a fucking idiot when it comes to the women.

did that make any sense?  basically, there are no feelings, possibly — but not definitively — because there are no signals. 

but i guess the question comes up, is it real attraction if the guy needs a signal to be attracted?  very good question.  let’s think about this. 

from the outside, my quick answer is no, it’s not true attraction to the other person if the guy needs a signal in order to get going in that direction.  a true, selfless attraction should exist whether it’s reciprocated or not.  is she not just as beautiful, funny, grounded, gentle, understanding and/or fun to be around regardless of whether she likes you back or not?  because if reciprocation is required to like someone else, i think that’s more evidence of love of self, or the ego, rather than love of someone else.  you like them because you like you and you like that they like you.  right? 

BUT who doesn’t need a little nudge every now and then?  a little eye-opening elbow to the ribs.  because, let’s face it, in most cases, people like it when other people like them and this positively effects their opinions about the people that like them.  are we not more likely to defend a murderer, if we understand the murder to have taken place in our defense, even if our lives were never threatened?  to proclaim 100% objective judgment about people is inhuman on Howard Roark-ian levels.  we’re simply not built in that robotic way.  the nudge might be enough to set the wheels in motion, but not necessarily take over the conversation. 

BUT isn’t our subjectivity a weakness that should be overcome in some cases?  the very nature of our subjectivity renders our conclusions temporary, because our subjective opinions change as our moods change.  as opposed to our objective conclusions that should only change as our understanding of the facts change.  in the case of boy and girl, the subjective opinion of the boy about the girl might change with the setting.  girl A might seem like awesome girlfriend material in the club where she looks like she’d be adventurous in bed, but she might seem like totally inappropriate gf material at home with the parents.  an objective analysis might serve us all better in the end to prevent impetuous disaster.

you people with significant others.  how much of your current feelings for your partner would remain if you learned that they have no feelings for you anymore?  they changed in no other way other than to have cooled off on you completely.  they are still the same person in every other aspect.  once you’re over your hurt of rejection, would you (or have you) completely lose all interest or would you keep loving them from a distance? 

it would be good to remember the past few weeks next spring when movies will undoubtedly suck again, good to remember that these awesome movies come in batches.  i’ve been to the theater three times in the last few weeks, and i have to say that all three films were pretty great.

The Hurt Locker
In The Loop
Funny People

The Hurt Locker and In The Loop were particularly awesome for different reasons.  suspense for the former and lyrical comedy for the latter.  Funny People will definitely get sandbagged by the requisite expectations associated with Judd Apatow and Adam Sandler though, which is unfortunate because once you get past the fact that Funny People isn’t nearly as funny as an Apatow film can be, it’s still a great drama that just happens to have a shit ton of penis references. 

anyway, i won’t expand on any of these movies any more than to say that if you’re looking for a nudge in any direction, these three films, The Hurt Locker and In The Loop in particular, might be worth the effort.  i laughed my fucking ass off in In The Loop. 

***

question.  if a girl never ever calls, IMs or in general ever asks about you, it’s pretty safe to assume that she has zero interest, right?  even if you have spent a lot of time together (all at your invitation), alone and in groups, right?  if you are pretty positive that if you stopped calling and asking to hang out, that she would pretty much never be heard from again, that’s a sign that things are nowhere, right? 

right.  just checking.

***

“…the Cambridge Police acted stupidly…”

if President Obama says those words before November 7, 2008, John McCain would be our president and Sarah Palin would be the vice-president. 

obama was elected because he got support from all groups, black or not.  he very carefully and strategically avoided all issues that required him to answer as “the black candidate”.  he answered almost all questions as a race-neutral candidate.  he was someone sensitive to race, but not beholden to it.  and it’s because he positioned himself as the truly post-race candidate that he won the support of millions of non-black voters, and rode that support to the presidency.

but this statement about the Cambridge Police…  this statement made before all sides were heard, puts him squarely on the black side in the black vs white fight, a fight that he so cautiously avoided until now.  if he makes this statement as a candidate, the black voters would have supported him before his Iowa primary victory, the turning point, but the white voters would have started looking elsewhere, imo.

it’s a curious thing to witness, like Icarus losing his wings.  this transcendant figure who was the first minority candidate to ever successfully position himself as a post-race minority, just dropped himself into the realm of mortals. 

UPDATE:
now this is more like the candidate we elected. 

“My sense is you’ve got two good people in a circumstance in which neither of them were able to resolve the incident in the way that it should have been resolved and the way they would have liked it to be resolved.” 

nice and neutral.  and a total about-face, backtrack of what he actually said on wednesday.

previous reviews here.

Public Enemies (2009) – michael mann film starring christian bale and johnny depp.  this movie sparked my thoughts on johnny depp’s overratedness. he gives another one-note, caricaturish performance here as the notorious bank robber john dillinger.  christan bale gives an entirely forgettable performance (it’s not really his fault since the role was so limited) as special agent Mervis assigned to hunt him down by the aggressive J Edgar Hoover.  this movie is a bit schizophrenic with michael mann’s slow and bland taste of filming paired with some semi-dramatic music and depp’s wise-grinning thief.  i couldn’t tell whether i should be sucked in, laughing, admiring Depp’s “cool” character or just bored.  the subdued pace and tenor of Mann’s films, a realistic tone that served him well in Heat, is more like listening to someone talking through thick glass here.  sort of muddled.  that being said, it’s not a bad film!  haha.  the action scenes are pretty engaging in that raw michael mann kind of way, it’s never really shoot-myself-in-the-head boring and it wins points for outstanding production design and just hitting the Old America that is the setting.  3 stars.

Kung Fu Panda (2008) – animated.  a fat underachieving panda is revealed to be a “chosen one” type kung fu fighter destined to fight off the bad dude.  entertaining enough though not nearly the great and fun film people led me to believe it was.  jack black is silly gold, as is the under-utilized david cross, but the other voices — and even just most of the story itself — didn’t really add much by way of comedy or drama.  not bad for the kids, and not bad for catching something on cable but i’d be disappointed if i paid money to see it in a theater.  3 stars.

Two Lovers (2008) – joaquin phoenix in possibly his last film role, gwyneth paltrow, isabella rosalini, some other people.  joaquin is a clinically depressed survivor of a suicide attempt who lives with his parents and works at their dry cleaner.  his life is shown new doors and new drama when two beautiful women enter his life simultaneously and force him to choose.  it’s a pretty simple premise but is given so much more depth because of one shining strength:  this movie is expertly acted by everyone but especially joaquin and gwyneth who give outstanding performances.  the dialogue and scenes are also written so well-roundedly.  it looks and sounds like real life.  the first half is a little hard to swallow just because joaquin is a little too convincing as a mopey depressive, self-conscious about his past, but once that’s over, the second half offers some good drama.  i can understand why someone might disagree with this but i am giving this one 4 stars.

Up the Yangtze (2007) – documentary about two chinese children who look for a new life as employees on a tourist cruise boat on the yangtze river.  it’s a story about poor people’s chances.  it’s a story about the quick and destructive effects of the new economy on china’s rural areas.  it’s a story about hard work and humility.  it’s a story about america’s hugely influencing role in the world.  it’s a story about a family.  it’s a story about education.  i can go on and on.  this movie very economically packs many things into this one story about the yangtze river.  4 stars.

Waltz With Bashir (2008) – animated documentary.  an israeli filmmaker interviews old war buddies about what happened in the israeli invasion of lebanon.  the resulting interviews and what those interviews say is portrayed on screen as animated re-enactments.  the interviews themselves are kind of dry even though they are describing some pretty dramatic and even horrible events, so it’s good to remind yourself that it’s a “talking head” documentary, not a narrative film.  the animation helps ease the pain of watching (listening to) 90 minutes of talking heads, but i found the style a little awkward for my tastes.  like watching moving paper or a puppet show, which was probably the point.  in any case, in the end it is what it is.  it tells a great story about something i knew nothing about previously, but i just can’t get around the talking heads.  always hard for me to watch in large quantities.  3 stars. 

Fanboys (2008) – road trip film about uber Star Wars fans that try to break into george lucas’ skywalker ranch to steal a copy of the first prequel before its release.  it has a great cast and lots of fun situations and cameos, but ultimately it’s a flat movie.  not much by way of pure comedy but i’ll give it this one thing: it’s LOADED with star wars and overall geek references.  like jammed to the max with them, and i’m kind of getting the idea right now of how geeky i might be because i recognized this about the film.  so as a tribute to Star Wars, it’s great.  but it wasn’t as funny as it could be, imo, and an incredibly weak attempt to give this movie a heart was so contrived and fizzled so pitifully, i’m embarassed for the writer.  embarassed!  anyway, watch for the star wars references but nothing else.  2 stars.

Revolutionary Road (2008) – leo dicaprio, kate winslet.  they’re a once young and romantic couple that got sucked into the trap of suburbia and middle-agedness.  i realized something about kate winslet while watching this.  she’s incredibly inconsistent as an actor.  for a few brief moments in this film she was quality.  a strong look.  an expression that speaks novels.  but for the most part she just suuuucked, especially in the first half.  leo, on the other hand, was really good as a flawed working man trying to keep his life together.  this movie is basically an indictment of everything.  of maintaining romantic notions, of not maturing and giving those notions up, of giving up on living, of giving up on the family.  morally, it’s all over the place.  everyone is an asshole here (some more than others, imo, but that’s another discussion.)  the real juicy bits come towards the end as the built up drama comes to a head and the veins on Leo’s face look like they are about to explode into spots of grape jelly.  this movie has great balls for looking at a very dark and unhappy subject matter and plowing through it with relish.  3.5 stars. 

Frost/Nixon (2008) – based on the events surrounding and the original Frost/Nixon interviews themselves.  ron howard is the consistent B-/C+ director.  he never makes a totally shit movie but he’ll never make an awesome movie either, and this movie follows that pattern.  this movie is one of the few times i’ve ever seen richard nixon portrayed as anything but a comedy caricature, and it’s interesting stuff to see this clown come to life albeit in a very limited sense.  he was the president of the United States for chrissakes!  and a particularly famous one at that.  you’d think society would be used to little more immersion into his character.  in any case, this film was slightly compelling at parts, highlighting the risk the production team went through to put this interview together and the motivation nixon had to actually go through with it.  nothing that will blow you away, but not terrible for a quiet night’s entertainment.  3 stars. 

Blow Up (1966) – antonioni’s classic film about a london photographer’s spiral into a murder scene after he discovers that he inadvertantly took pictures of the crime while it was happening.  it is about the photographer and the murder and all that, but from what i can piece together it’s actually a commentary about the idea of art intersecting with life.  real life is what we perceive it to be?  something like that.  i found it a compelling thought piece, but i suspect it would be completely dry and unacceptable for the Transformers hordes.  3.5 stars. 

Vicky Christina Barcelona (2008) – woody allen.  javier bardem, scarlett johansen, penelope cruz.  two young Odd Couple-esque american women are on a vacation in spain when they meet a straight-forward and handsome artist who tries to seduce them both.  penelope cruz is the third beautiful woman in this lucky man’s very complicated love life.  scarlett jo…  not the best actress.  other than her though, everyone else was great, and formed a great ensemble.  moving well together, looking like natural pieces.  the craziness of the situation that i won’t get into all seems so natural because everyone looked comfortable in it.  3.5 stars.

The Hurt Locker (2009) – great film.  in theaters now.  will james (jeremy renner) is the new wild, hair-on-fire, team leader of a US Army bomb technician squad in iraq.  everyday is a new challenge living in a country surrounded by people that want to kill him.  this movie is a series of intensely suspenseful moments as everyday poses a new challenge to stay alive.  in between the nail-biting moments of playing with Death, the film is contemplative, but not sentimental, and never really a slave to convention.  the people that expect the extreme doses of hyper-melodrama (i’m looking at you, you k-drama watchers) might find this film a little unfulfilling, but when it’s done the way it is here, i find it nothing but refreshing.  watch it just so you know what it feels like to bite your nails to the nub, while sitting on the edge of your seat and any other cliche of suspense you can throw in here.  4.5 stars.

The Brothers Bloom (2009) – rian johnson (Brick) film starring adrian brody, mark ruffalo and rachel weisz.  if you’ve seen Brick (and if you haven’t, you should), you know that Rian Johnson has a crazy creative streak in weird ways.  the opening sequence of this film almost had me convinced that this is the perfect movie.  so creative, with a great pace and just a pitch-perfect tone of being uplifting, quirky, funny, and all with a heart.  the whole first half of the movie pretty much carries on like that.  it had such a strange and endearing sense of humor and likeability in its characters, and style of story-telling.  then the second half hit and the movie started to get too smart for its own good with its plot twists that spin out to infinity and its (intentional) abandonment of its initial sweet charm and craziness.  still though, it’s never terrible and the strength of the first half was enough to carry me happily through to the end.  3.5 stars.