Cloud Atlas on the Big Screen?

I was kind of blown away after finishing David Mitchell's Cloud Atlas last year; not only was it one of the best pieces of fiction I've ever read, it was also the most inventive, bizarre, and genre-distorting book that I've ever picked up. Long story short (and it is a long story, or rather group of stories), I highly recommend it.

So I was more than reticent when I just now discovered that it's going to be a fall film release. Not only is it the very definition of "challenging source material", but the choice of the Wachowski brothers as directors seems like a less-than-inspired choice. Sure, they knocked one out of the park with the Matrix, but that doesn't excuse the subsequent Matrix films. We'll see. I predict either disaster or Oscar nomination; I just can't imagine the middle ground with any interpretation of this book. Either way though, I doubt many people will see it.

"Supporting" Actor?

I must say that I'm pleasantly surprised, but also baffled, at the Golden Globe nominations. Inglorious Basterds for Best Picture? Excellent. Christoph Walz nominated? Awesome. But nominated for Best Supporting Actor? What gives? Sure, in such an ensemble film, he didn't as much screen time as your typical Best Actor nominee might, but good luck trying to convince anyone who's seen the film that he wasn't the star. I assumed that he had a Best Actor (Golden Globes, Oscars, what have you) nomination wrapped up after the first scene.

Makes me wonder; if one of Tarantino's original choices for the role of the Colonel Landa, Leonardo DiCaprio, had been cast instead, would he have been bumped up to the big-boy's category?

"The Dude" Gets Smacked Around at Sundance

To think that I always thought that The Dude was a lover, not a fighter ("Just take the four dollars, man!"). Well, maybe he's not really much of a fighter, since he apparently didn't get a punch in.

[for those of you non-Achievers, Jeff "The Dude" Dowd is the real-life person upon which the Cohen Brothers based Jeff "The Dude" Lebowski]

SiCKO, Part Three

So how is it that we have a health care "system" here in the U.S. that provides such mediocre care, on average, but costs so much more money per capita than other nations' systems? First, there are the problems that are specific to the health care industry; you may have heard some of these before, and some of them are actually true:

• The health insurance bureaucracy eats over 30 percent of all health care costs.
• Blame the lawyers! Medical malpractice insurance stemming from huge lawsuit awards drive up costs. Not really: malpractice premiums are less than 1% of total health care costs, according to the AMA. "Defensive medicine" administered to help guard against malpractice claims is estimated to be 2% of total costs.
• Too many doctors! You've probably heard that the opposite will be the problem as the Baby Boom generation ages, but it may just be that there are too many specialists and not enough primary care physicians.
  

Then there are the institutionalized behaviors and legal/political issues that are at the root of the problem, the breakdowns in how "our" government operates and how our political system works [this is where I start the real opionatin', so feel free to disagree and refute]. One scene in SiCKO that really struck me was of an American in France (in Paris?) commenting that in the U.S., people are afraid of the government, while in France, the government is afraid of the people. Then Moore showed footage of French protesters, footage that would probably elicit a "lazy French" - or worse - response from your average American. But joke all you want about white flags, surrender monkeys and the like, but when was the last time there were huge protests in this country? At least the French are fighting, even if they are sometimes fighting for rights that we might see as extravagances (then again, maybe we're just jealous of all their vacation time).

Meanwhile, back home we're stuck with an inept, corrupt government that few people trust. We have an entrenched two-party political system, strengthened by ridiculous congressional redistricting that protects incumbents. We have spectacularly expensive legislative and presidential campaigns that are almost entirely privately funded by corporations and trade groups. We have a Supreme Court that equates political donations with free speech, which serves to legalize this corruption. We have lobbyists that write legislation. We have ludicrous taxpayer-funded projects. We not only have private health care, but an increasingly privatized military. We have out-of-control educational expenses, expenses that are unheard of in other industrialized countries that provide free higher education to citizens. When that's the government that most Americans see, how could they ever be convinced to let it be in charge of their health? Looks like I am gonna need a Part Four....

SiCKO, Part Two

Michael Moore's website has a nice page that provides references to many of the assertions in SiCKO, it's definitely worth a look. I did take notice of a few of the film's facts that didn't sound quite right, however, that I wanted to check out myself. This also led me to seek out other bits of data:

• France has more productive workers than the U.S.? I could have sworn that the U.S. was at or near the top of the latest OECD statistics in this category, but I could be wrong. Alas, the link on Moore's website that leads to the specific OECD page is broken, so I had to look around a bit. I also kept in mind that whatever OECD numbers Moore was using were 2005 numbers; current stats may tell a different story, but one would think that these types of metrics wouldn't change all that much in a two-year period. I found my way to the OECD database portal, which as productivity data as of October 2006. For some reason the sort function didn't work, so I pulled the numbers offline, but this is what I found:
• surprisingly, the U.S. ranks 18th in hours worked per person - I assumed that this would be higher! We're waaaay behind the #1 country, South Korea, which has us beat by over 600 hours per year (2357 vs. 1708). Good for us! France, by the way, weighs in with 1555 hrs/yr/person, good if you can get it!
• When it comes to GDP per hour worked, we're #6 at $50.4 per, which is well behind leaders Luxembourg and Norway, which are at $72.2 and $71 respectively. Why is Norway's number so high, oil money? Ikea? Wait, that's Sweden. Anyway, France is right behind the U.S. at $49.9. Close enough that it could very well be that it was slightly different in 2005, and France was ahead that year.
  
• Searching for this data led me to what looks to be a pretty neat blog, The Big Picture, that I'm going to check out in greater detail a bit later. The particular entry that popped up as I was searching for productivity stats was this one, which is worth a quick read. It makes some fantastic - and succinct! - points about the future of America's economic might, and how current policies could cause problems for our economic engine going forward. One of my favorite questions also pops up in that post; who would/could sacrifice money-based wealth for time-based wealth? I know where I stand, which is why at some point in this SiCKO informational odyssey, I'll be looking up immigration policies of other countries...just for fun ;)
• Looking up OECD statistics in one's spare time ranks in the top five of most pathetic uses of free time for non-retired persons.
• The most recent United Nations Human Development Report (link to pdf) ranks the U.S. at #12, ahead of #14 U.K. but behind #10 France and well behind #4 Canada (the countries Moore visits in SiCKO). Our high per capita GDP boosts us up the list, while we take a hit for slightly lower life expectancy and eduction stats. Cuba ranks #51, with its low GDP number dragging it down but with life expectancy 0.2 years higher than the U.S. and its education score higher as well. All sorts of neat stats are available in this U.N. report! A few favorites that I picked out:
  
• Our use of coal has remained steady from 1990 to 2005, while it has dropped, sometimes precipitously, in Europe. The U.K. dropped from 29.7% to 16.1%; that's impressive. While in Japan, Israel, and Australia, coal use has actually increased. Yuck.
• Electricity consumption per capita - the U.S. isn't quite as bad as I thought, although when one considers the latitudes of the nations that consume more than us, then the U.S. numbers seem awful. Too bad we're so averse to paying more for efficient, long-lasting appliances.
• Hmmm, I don't think we're nearly as generous, as a nation, as we think we are.
• Finally, a metric that the U.S. leads the world in, health expenditures per capita!
  
• We also kick ass in homicide rate, although plenty of South and Central American and Eastern European countries have us beat. We'll have to work on that....
  
• How do these countries that provide universal health care do it? It's hard to find reliable tax data - the rates tend to be all over the place, depending on which site one visits - plus there are ranges due to tax brackets, and then VAT taxes and local/state taxes also throw wrenches into any objective comparison. But here goes:
• The World Taxpayers Associations indicate that the U.S. has it pretty good when it comes to tax rates.
• Wikipedia's numbers seem to indicate that, when one factors in state taxes and sales taxes, maybe the average U.S. citizen is being taxed like Europe and Canada.
• None of these sites provide a comparison of effective tax rate - how do I know if France gets all the deductions and credits that an America provides? Do they get more deductions? Fewer? This is almost impossible to figure out.
• Back to the OECD - Table 0.2, near the bottom of the page, indicates that the U.S. worker pays less than most other OECD nations in terms of income tax and social security contributions. That's actually quite reassuring - we're not paying too much for all those government services that we don't receive!
  

SiCKO, Part One

We watched SiCKO last night; maybe not the best film to watch during the holiday season, as it doesn't exactly leave one feeling warm and cuddly afterwards, but it was next on the Netflix queue.

How was it? Well, I would definitely give it 4 out of 5 stars, but there are caveats. I happen to be a Michael Moore fan - he's a great entertainer, he's provocative, and for better or worse, he gets people talking about the issues that his films present. No, he's not a journalist, he's not fair and balanced, but that's not his job, he obviously has an agenda and he's not trying to hide it. If you watch one of his movies thinking that you're going to get both sides of the story, you're going to be just as disappointed as if you were to approach Fox News or Salon.com with the same expectations. Not gonna happen. If you're looking for a documentary that presents facts without emotion, again, good luck. One of his most effective tools is giving a human face to the given issue, something that the evening news does all the time, albeit much more subtly and less effectively. One perfectly valid criticism of his past movies is that he's on screen too much, pulling dumb stunts that likely hurt his cause as much as help it. OK, I'll buy that, even if the stunts are usually entertaining. SiCKO, fortunately, moves away from the Fahrenheit 9/11 in-your-face style; Moore doesn't even make an on-screen appearance until the film's half over, and the publicity stunts are limited to a silly trip to Cuba at the end of the film that unfortunately isn't entertaining or effective (you want a good Cuba documentary, try Buena Vista Social Club, awesome movie).

It might be his best movie since Roger and Me in terms of content, but it's also the most frustrating film he's made. I think you would need three or four sequels to do this problem - health care in the U.S. - any justice, but even so there aren't enough Whys being asked in SiCKO. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that health care in the U.S. is fucked up, but why? It's helpful to point out countries such as Canada, Britain, and France where universal government-run care seems to be working, since I'm sure there are plenty of Americans that are ignorant that there are these kinds of systems in place that people are happy with, but how do they make it work? At one point, Moore asks a French doctor whether the national model that's in place in France would work in the U.S. He says "No", then walks away...what, no follow up? Just 'No'?!? I'm not expecting that this doctor would have all the answers, but I was waiting for someone on screen to at least attempt to explain this mess. It's easy to tag Richard Nixon with the blame, as Moore does at one point, but there is no possible way that it's that simple. I have my own theories and suspicions about who and what is to blame, but in the interest of brevity I'll save those for another post. There are also zero suggestions on how to fix the obviously broken American system.

I'll be spending at least one more entry on this topic, picking out scenes and themes from the film, delving into fact vs. fiction, checking some numbers, and searching for any practical ideas for fixing the system. Universal health care is also a great jumping-off point for discussions about the role of government in our lives, so who knows what tangential topics might end up being put in play - taxes, education, infrastructure, libertarians?

If You Took a Zombie Movie...

....and substituted sheep for zombies, what would you get? Probably something like this New Zealand film. I must admit, I'm intrigued.

The Salon.com reviewer also had an interesting yet succinct take on Eli Roth's "films", which as I've mentioned previously, I'm not a fan of:

These days I'll cut any horror director some slack who declines to follow Eli Roth down the dead-end path of gruesomeness for its own sake. My objections are aesthetic, not essentially moral, although you could argue that somewhere down the line the two intersect.

My own objections about Roth's chosen torture porn genre (yeah, that's what a lot of critics are calling it, even the ones who like his work) tends to start with the moral aspect, with the aesthetics following, but the overall sentiment is similar. And after seeing another undeservedly NC-17 rated film recently (Requiem For a Dream), it's even more shocking to me than it was back in January that Roth can get an R rating for his movies. Go ahead and Google for an in-depth Hostel II review and convince me that it's an R movie. An NC-17 rating doesn't ban a movie anyway, so that's not what I'm advocating. Adults who are entertained by this stuff - and I seriously question the mental well-being of those people - can still seek it out.

Look what happens, I start off with an innocent link to a fun little film about crazed killer livestock, then fall into this moralizing mode - sorry 'bout that.

Grindhouse!

If you don't mind a little gratuitous violence and blood, go see Grindhouse. As soon as possible. Seriously. Yes, I'd pay $8 to see it again in the theater, in case you're interested. Don't wait for the DVD - see this on as large a screen as possible, and with a big crowd. We caught it at the Senator, Baltimore's biggest screen, on Friday night, it was packed (700+, easily, in the 900 seat theater) with quite the enthusiastic crowd. It's the most fun I've had at the movies in years, no exaggeration. Better, in terms of sheer entertainment value (not story or acting, mind you) than Kill Bill.

Both of the films are excellent, but also take very different approaches; Rodriguez' Planet Terror is almost non-stop, blood-soaked, campy action from beginning to end, while Tarantino's Death Proof has a slow build-up, and is a masterful piece of emotional manipulation with a cool payoff. And then there are the trailers, 3 out of 4 which are hilarious, each in its own way.

For those of you who are fortunate enough to have already seen the movie(s), here's a clip that puts some of Death Proof into context. [recommendation: Don't visit this link before seeing the film!]

Also, if you've seen Grindhouse and didn't like it, please don't bother leaving a comment to that effect- it will be removed.

Nine Ways that Hollywood Flouts Physics

From Slashdot:

9 laws of physics that don't apply in Hollywood.

Best & Worst Film Adaptations of Comic Books

Inspired by a recent email thread, I'm soliciting opinions about the best and worst film adaptations of (reasonably well-known) comic books, preferably of the costumed/super-hero variety.

1. My top three, in no particular order: Batman Begins - Christian Bale is the best Batman, period (slight edge over Keaton), and the rest of the cast is awesome also; can't believe Frank Miller didn't get script credit though, plenty of nods to Year One and Dark Knight Returns. Tank Girl - fun movie, well-integrated comic-art cut scenes. Spider-Man 2 - both of Raimi's spider-movies are excellent, I'm just picking this one b/c Doc Oc was always one of my favorite baddies. Just missed my cut: Tim Burton's Batman, X-Men 2.

2. Worst three - so many to choose from here, and I haven't even seen the Fantastic Four or Hulk yet (although I know several people who really liked Hulk). And I'm not even going to link to Catwoman. I'm gonna have to go with Superman IV, which introduced us to Nuclear Man (anyone remember him?). Batman Forever, one of Schumacher's disasters, has to be next; could acting talent be wasted any more than Tommy Lee Jones' was as Two-Face? Fortunately, not many people saw the 1990 version of Captain America, which featured J.D. Salinger's actor son Matt as Captain A(wful).

Upcoming films, which certainly have the potential to make these lists:

• Jon Favreau-directed Iron Man, starring Robert Downey Jr., due out in 2008.
• Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer, 2007 release.
• Ghost Rider, starring Nicholas Cage. This could be spectacularly terrible.
• Wonder Woman, directed and written by Joss Whedon. Intriguing...
• Spider-Man 3, with Venom! I'm stoked, dudes!
• The Dark Knight, the next Nolan Batman, with Heath Ledger as the Joker (2008).
• X-Men prequel, Wolverine, 2008.
  

The Wizard of Ounce?

OK, I'm not the biggest Wizard of Oz fan, and I've never read any of the original books, but I was still surprised that I had never heard of this take on the story.

Am I alone here, or is this a new chunk of trivia for most people?

The Next Joker!

The rumors have been confirmed, and it's now official, from the director's mouth! Heath Ledger is certainly an interesting casting choice as the Joker in the next Nolan/Bale Batman film, The Dark Knight. I've been a fan of his ever since I first saw A Knight's Tale; hopefully he'll do the character proud. With this casting choice, Nolan continues to distance his Batman movies from the Burton films (and the tripe that followed when crap director extraordinaire, Joel Schumacher, took over).

Lingering thoughts and curiosities:

• Will the Dark Knight story borrow from existing writers the way Batman Begins borrowed from Year One? A Killing Joke story would be neat, especially since the origin of the Joker is so different than in Burton's film, and Gordon figures prominently in the plot (and when you've got Gary Oldman as Gordon, more screen time would be nice).
  
• How many films will Nolan and Bale do before calling it quits? Nolan has already hinted that he won't be around to bring Robin into the picture, so that rules out a Death in the Family storyline. That's probably just as well; in order to do that properly, it might necessitate an 'R' rating, which I don't see happening. Besides, Batman Begins was already dark enough.
• Speaking of 'dark' - when Nolan calls it quits, how about the Sin City team of Rodriguez and Frank Miller to pick up the franchise and take it in yet another direction? Based on how Sin City looked, that would be a Batman unlike anything seen before. Plus with Miller involved, it would increase the likelihood of The Dark Knight Returns coming to the big screen, which would of course be super-sweet.
  

I Hate Jeffrey Maier, The Movie

Talk about creative use of fan frustration. If this doees indeed come to the Senator this summer, I'll certainly go see it.

Falling Behind, Night Watch

Where have the posts gone? Well first off, I can't remember the last time I was this busy at work, so that certainly doesn't help. When I'm staring at a screen for 9+ hours every day (trying to get a simulation calibrated), I just don't feel like coming home and writing even the shortest entry. The other factor is, there hasn't been that much going on, that I've felt suitably inspired to write about. Let's see, I had back to back commutes this past week where I sat on the train next to two foul-smelling men - first, it was a guy who had every communication device known to man, but seemed to forget that communication can be olfactory as well, and thus deodorant should have been part of his arsenal of devices. Then the next day, it was the two packs a day smoker, who also snored! Talk about a winner.

Speaking of winners, that excludes the Terps, who are out of the NCAAs for a second year in a row after providing their own special brand of stench in a loss to Boston College a few nights ago. Maybe next year, who knows?

Jenny and I went to the cinema last night and saw Night Watch, a Russian sci-fi film and part one of a trilogy, that was more popular than Lord of the Rings in Russia. According to the Wikipedia entry, it diverges a great deal from the book that it's based on, but I could have told you that just by watching the movie - it was very...uneven. The sub-plot that the main plot has to work around is ridiculous and full of holes, the characters have some fantastic powers that you barely get a glimpse of, and one of the neat concepts that the film introduces, the Gloom, barely gets explored - a book with that many problems never would have been made into a movie. Even with that list of complaints though, I would still recommend it, especially if you're a fan of innovative filmmaking, or of that whole 'cosmic struggle between good and evil' schtick. Even the subtitles are cool (you'll have to see them for yourself, it's hard to describe). Wikipedia also says that the third movie - the second has already been released in Russia - will be made in the U.S., with an English-speaking cast. That would be a shame, because these actors were very good, and the 'look' of the all-Russian cast really meshed with the look of the film. Besides, the special effects were awesome, and with a film budget of only $4.2 million. What do you wanna bet that Hollywood will surely screw it up by over-doing the FX and casting Keanu Reeves in the lead?

The Very Definition....

...of the word schadenfreude. On Redick's and Williams' Senior Night, no less! Anyone who's interested in sending Roy Williams or Tyler Hansbrough a fruit basket, or maybe a nice selection of assorted cheeses, let me know, I'll chip in.

Haven't been posting much lately, mainly because I've been very busy at the office, and the last thing I want to do most nights is come home and cozy up to the mouse and keyboard some more. So here's a quick run-down since my last post:

Jenny and I saw Brokeback Mountain last weekend - it's the only Best Picture nominee we've seen this year, but all the same I'd be quite surprised if it didn't win. Before we went to see it, we hadn't been to the movies in about three months. Netflix is both a blessing and a curse, I suppose; we end up seeing so many great old films that we wouldn't otherwise see, but we miss out on some fantastic newer movies for a while, especially if we don't add them to the queue right after they're released to DVD. For example, we just saw Ray the other night. This year's Oscar nominees are somewhat rare for me, in that they're all movies that I'd like to see (eventually). Some years, not a one interests me in the least. Throw in films that didn't get the top nomination but got a lot of good press, like Walk The Line, Cinderella Man, The Constant Gardener, and A History of Violence, and it's certainly a "deep field" this year.

Get this - I received a letter this week from the MVA, stating that my license is in danger of being suspended because of some administrative action in Virginia, where I last lived almost six years ago. What a joke. So after 45 minutes on the phone with various mindless VA DMV bureaucrats (I know, redundancy), who gave me two wrong phone numbers for the insurance verification office, I was able to straighten it out. See, I had moved from Virginia in September 2000, and had all my MD licensing, registration, inspection, and titling done by December 2000. Virginia evidently tried to verify that I was an insured driver in October 2001, and then it took them four-plus years to take further action? Nevermind that it's a non-issue, that it's irrelevant whether I was insured in VA in 20001, because this is 2006. What, are they going to go back in time and suspend my non-existent 2001 VA license? Excuse my language, but what a bunch of fucking morons. It's too bad that I have to drive through that shitty state in order to get to the Carolina beaches or visit my sister in Charleston SC, because I'd much rather avoid it entirely. I did get it straightened out (I think), and they're supposed to mail me a letter that I then send to the MD MVA, which states that the matter has been resolved. But I'm unfortunately a bit dumber, having been forced to spend all that time on the phone with the idiot state employees in Richmond.

Hero, a Fanstastic (anti-) Kung-Fu Film

I'm not a big Jet Li fan by any means - I think his acting is wooden, sometimes painfully so; he's more of an action hero star than actor. So when I added Hero to our Netflix queue, it was with some reticence. My reasoning was that even Jet Li couldn't bring down a film that also featured the superb duo of Tony Leung and Maggie Cheung (check out In the Mood For Love).

My fears were unfounded though, as Jet Li turns in an adequate - even occasionally good - performance, and Leung and Cheung are given roles that allow them to show off their chemistry and range. The film is beautiful in a way that Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon was beautiful, but unlike that often-praised film that I consider one of the more overrated movies in recent memory, Hero actually has a neat storyline. Yes, the King is overplayed big-time, and comes off as a reject from a bad straight-to-video Kung-Fu movie, but otherwise, a very solid film. And why do I call it anti-Kung-Fu? See it, then I think you'll understand.

The Dark Knight Returns

Of course there are natural tendencies to compare creative works that share a protagonist. Batman Begins will be, appropriately enough, compared with Tim Burton's 1989 Batman. But most people will want to pick a 'winner', and that's unfortunate because I think there's room for both movies at the top of the pile. They are such dissimilar films, set in different universes, yet I think they both hit the mark in their portrayals of a billionaire with lots of neat toys and the lunatics that he battles (both externally and within his own head).

I'm not going to make any of those comparisons now. I'll just say that I loved Michael Keaton as Batman, Nicholson's Joker obviously hit the mark, and Tim Burton's vision of Gotham City was fantastic. It didn't hurt that a decent Batman movie was a long time coming (50 years), but when it finally arrived it sure blew Superman out of the water.

Now, onto Batman Begins. WOW. I absolutely loved this film. I'll get my only two complaints out of the way first: (1) It was a bit long and (2) Katie Holmes looks like she's 15, that does not make her a very convincing district attorney. Christian Bale as Batman - yeah. It works, big-time. He's got the look, he has a fantastic voice (the voice he gives his Batman is creepy as hell! Plus they amplified it somewhat I think, to give his raspy bellow more...bite?), and his transitions between Bruce Wayne and the Batman are seamless. Supporting cast? Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman aren't on screen enough to steal any scenes, but Caine as Alfred is the butler we all wish we had (I know my butler can't hold a candle to him, that's for sure), and Freeman is his usual charming self. Gary Oldman as Gordon wasn't really given that much to do, which surprised me - you cast an actor of his caliber, I would figure he'd be a bit more interesting. But as always, a solid performance. The bad guys? I don't want to give anything away, so I won't comment on them directly, other than to say that it's nice that Christopher Nolan chose two lesser-known but still intriguing baddies for his (hopefully first of many?) Batmans. Casual fans won't even recognize either of these villains, but they're worked into the plot quite well, and the performances behind the masks are solid, if unspectacular. But that's OK, because for this film, the focus is all on the Batman. None of the bad guys are half as scary as the good guy with the point ears, and that's how it should be.

Ok, I have to get my ass going this morning to help friends move. More on Batman Begins later...

The Fog of War

Jenny and I saw this Oscar-winning documentary this past weekend; it's essentially a long interview with its subject, Robert McNamara. Talk about a well-made film, I can understand why it won the Oscar instead of higher-profile films like Michael Moore's more entertaining but less coherent Fahrenheit 911. The archive footage that was chosen really hit the mark, but McNamara himself is a very able performer. I sure hope I'm that coherent when I'm 85 years old. He's extremely blunt and in-your-face, but just below the surface there's a lot of regret? Frustration? Defiance? All of the above, perhaps. He doesn't take full responsibility for anything (his roles in the firebombing of Japan in WWII and as Secretary of Defense for most of Vietnam are well-documented), but at the same time admits that he was at the center of this huge military decision-making apparatus that went horribly wrong when mixed with Cold War politics.

McNamara is a paradoxical figure. He was a master of efficiency and optimizing who helped develop the bombing technique that destroyed most of Japan long before the Bombs were dropped, but acknowledges in the film that if the U.S. had been on the losing side of WWII he would certainly have been convicted of war crimes. He was the public face of one of the most controversial military operations in U.S. history, but behind the scenes was working to extricate us from that mess long before the troops came home. At the end of the film though, he remains guarded, unwilling to directly address the emotional toll that's been taken, or any feelings of guilt or remorse (I'm assuming those feeling do exist, btw). He doesn't want to visit those places publicly, because he doesn't think that anything good will come of it. Likewise, as well made as this documentary is, it's unlikely that anything good will come of it anytime soon - the 'leadership' of the U.S. seems to be making the same mistakes in the Middle East that were made in Vietnam.

The footage of Lyndon Johnson was most striking - the president with the thick Texas accent, speeches filled with rhetoric about stopping tyranny and preserving freedom. Sound familiar? Too bad that our current president was busy getting drunk and doing lots of drugs while Vietnam was happening, otherwise he might have actually learned something! One of the most memorable scenes in the film was of McNamara meeting with the former North Vietnamese foreign minister in 1992. He told McNamara that the North Vietnamese leadership considered the conflict in their country as simply a civil war, and the U.S. as a colonial power looking to take the place of former occupant France. They never saw it as part of the Cold War, and were not concerned about Chinese influence. Big surprise, a U.S. war for no good reason! Hey that reminds me, have we found those weapons in Iraq yet?

That scene did remind me of something though - Brian Schweitzer, the current governor of Montana (of all places), a Democrat who spent time as a businessman in the Middle East and can speak Arabic, said this in a Salon Interview last month when asked about Iraq:

I had misgivings from the very beginning. We were told that this incursion was going to make the world a safer place. But that didn't square with me because I knew, in the Middle East, the days of the Crusades are like they happened just a few years ago. Any incursion of the West into Islamic cultures is going to be met with resistance.

Anyway, I could write four more pages on this film, but I've probably already lost some people. Check out the movie yourself, especially if you plan on supporting a war anytime soon - McNamara's eleven lessons (they serve as a loose framework for the film) may give you pause.

George Lucas Is Stealing From Me!

People keep asking me if I'm going this weekend to see the final installment of the Star Wars prequels. Probably not. Yes, I'll see it eventually, and probably while it's still in theaters. But I'm in no hurry.

I'll acknowledge that George Lucas is a good storyteller, but he is by no means a good director. And the nostalgia for the original Star Wars films - I still remember going to see Return of the Jedi in the theater with my family, and when the original Star Wars came out, it was the first time that my parents hired a babysitter for me - means that many of us who remember the original films fondly feel obligated to see the new films.

Fine, except for this unfortunate detail - the new movies just haven't been very good so far. The early reviews indicate that the third film is markedly better, but comparing it to the first 2 prequels, that's a low bar to clear. Lucas takes actors like Natalie Portman and Hayden Christensen, who have turned in good performances in other films, and turns them into cardboard. Only Ewan McGregor seems immune from being compressed by Lucas into a 2-D construct 'acting' against a blue screen (or green, or whatever they use these days). Ever wonder what the original films would have been like without Harrison Ford? Without his Han Solo, would we hold those movies in such high regard? Maybe. But take Ewan McGregor out of this series, and I'm not sure if the first two movies are even watchable.

The Star Wars saga tells a fantastic story, simplistic at times, but still engaging. George Lucas isn'ty the the storyteller that Tolkien is, but may be the closest thing to him in the realm of sci-fi filmmaking. But he's nowhere near Peter Jackson, Ridley Scott, Spielberg, Mel Gibson, or these guys when it comes to directing the epic film. I really wish he would have entrusted the directing duties to someone else. I'm out $15 to $20 after the first two movies, and I can't say that it was worth it. But I'll fork over my money for the third installment all the same. You're robbing us blind, George! At least make the 7th, 8th and 9th episodes, to make up for these last three films, OK?

Sin City Review, ipod mini battery: Unstoppable!

Jenny and I took in Sin City at the cinema last night. Wow, talk about loving and hating a movie. The film is gorgeous, the cast is fantastic, the noir style felt way more immersive than I thought it would be here in 2005. But it's a brutally violent, gory movie - afterwards I felt like I should go home and take a shower, like some of the blood and guts (yes, lots of both in this film) had stained me in some way. I've read the Sin City comics so I know what Miller & Rodriguez were trying to do, and they succeeded. You were in Sin City, and that meant that you had to get slapped around some too, if only mentally and emotionally. Would I recommend this film? Without hesitation. Should you bring a date? I'd lean towards, um...."NO!". Will I see it again? Perhaps someday. I'm not masochistic enough to sit through it again anytime soon though.

The ipod mini battery? Lasted longer than I did yesterday. Started at 6:15 AM, battery indicator went to zero around 7:15 PM, when I went to bed around 1:15 AM (19 hours later), it was still going. And this with a battery that probably hasn't been fully conditioned, and with some of the mp3s encoded at a higher-than-average bit rate! So if Apple ever made a car, I suppose it would go another 200 miles or so once the fuel tank hit 'E'? Sign me up! Wait, that car would only come in white or 3 different pastel colors. Never mind.