malschman

America Loses a Great One

2008-06-13T16:51:00.000-07:00

I am shocked and saddened to learn of Tim Russert's death.

At 58, he was too young. It was too sudden. He was too good a father. And he was too valuable to the American people.

The longest running host of Meet the Press, Russert was an interviewer of uncommon skill. His unwillingness to accept obfuscation and untruths from his subjects, constantly citing dates and playing tape of previous statements they were now contradicting, made him an indisensable asset to anyone attempting to navigate the waters of national politics.

His panels, consisting of top Beltway journalists, were always informative, comprehensive, and even entertaining. He was knowledgeable, professional, and driven to make the best show he could, and he succeeded.

Meet the Press, under his leadership, was simply the best political talk show out there, and it is very difficult for me to imagine anyone filling his shoes. Yet we need, desperately need, people like him. The Woodwards and Bernsteins get the glory, and the movies made about them, but Tim Russert was there every Sunday, asking the hard questions, reminding politicians who they work for, and keeping the American public informed about the nuances of the issues affecting their lives. It's a sad day for American journalism.

Tim, we're going to miss you.

What Can I Say? Indy's Back!

2008-05-27T20:17:00.000-07:00

The danger inherent in any sequel made decades after the original film(s) is obvious. Part IV's are not known to be succesful. Movie stars tend to give up action roles as they get older. This movie could have been quite a disappointment.

Yet, it wasn't. In fact, it was the second movie in the last twelve months to meet the above criteria and not suck (the other one being Live Free or Die Hard, the first film reviewed in this space).

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull is everything you want from a summer popcorn movie, in full Spielberg style. And Harrison Ford is not too old, and Shia LaBeouf is not lame, and it is good to have Karen Allen back.

One thing I did miss, was the feeling of endless different locations and dire situations. This aspect of the previous installments (especially the first) definitely delivered bang for your buck. You walk out of the theater thinking, "Wow! That was really a lot of movie!" This movie had a similar running time, but it felt shorter, because it just didn't seem to take very much time to get to the place they ultimately needed to be. It felt like, "They were here, then they went there, then they came to this place." Boom.

That being said, it had chase scenes, sword fights, death defying waterfall plunges, poison darts, terrifying entomological adversaries, all against fantastic backdrops, from the American desert to the South American jungle. Oh yeah, and it also had INDIANA JONES!

Seriously, Indiana Jones, as created and executed by Messrs Lucas, Spielberg, and Ford, is one of the greatest action/adventure heroes of all time. (For GenXers, dare I say, the greatest?) And Lucas and Spielberg give him plenty of things to do. Plenty of impossible situations, plenty of fights, plenty of one-liners. And Harrison Ford pulls it off. If you were willing to suspend disbelief for young Indy, you should be able to suspend it for 60s Indy, because Harrison Ford himself proves that it's possible to age that well.

In addition, the stunts and action are everything you could hope for in a movie bearing the Indiana Jones name. Let me just say: swordfight between two people standing up in the back of two Jeeps driving at top speeds side by side through the jungle. If that doesn't get you revved up, this isn't your type of movie.

But what of the supporting cast? Well, Cate Blanchette is sufficiently cold and evil and badass as the Soviet villain. Mr LaBeouf is actually quite engaging as the young, arrrogant, but still badass sidekick. John Hurt turns in a fine performance as the old, wise professor. And Karen Allen brings back the chemistry missing since the first film.

Some will question the underlying mythology, but I accepted it as the MacGuffin, albeit without quite the payoff provided by the Ark of the Covenant. Really, not so left-field when we consider other notable projects from Spielberg and Lucas. (Vagueness intentional, I don't wanna spoil...)

I know I've been gushing, but the fact is, if you like Indiana Jones, you'll like this movie. No, it's not the magical ride the first one was, all those years ago. But it is as good a sequel after a 19 year break that you could want. You like Indy? Go see it!

Stephen Malkmus and the Jicks

2008-05-01T20:16:00.000-07:00

If you were alive in the 90s and even remotely interested in rock music outside the mainstream, you've either heard SM, or you've heard artists who were influenced by him. As leader and frontman for the band Pavement, Stephen Malkmus introduced ideas that would influence a generation of aspiring college radio rockers. From his quirky melodies and bizarre, loopy lyrics to the non-equal-tempered tunings, and the bursts of lovely, crunchy noise, Pavement were like the Beatles of the 90s indie-rock scene.

When the breakup news came after their fifth album, much concern was had by all. "This can't be happening", we said, with our heads in our hands. As it turned out, our fears were without merit.

Not to disparage any of the other musicians from Pavement, but it turns out SM is the kind of singer-songwriter who takes his style and feel with him, regardless of the other musicians playing with him. This is not to take away from the Jicks either, I'm simply saying Pavement fans have enjoyed an organic development of music through the two bands.

With the release of his fourth album with the Jicks under his belt, he brought his show to the WOW Hall in Eugene Wednesday night.

First the bad news. Even during Pavement days, old songs were poorly represented in their set. The older the album, the fewer songs from it they played, but I can deal with that. The bigger problem was that they would be the same from tour to tour. If you want to focus on your new stuff, fine. But if you're only going to play one song from your first album, at least re-learn a different one for the next tour.

Having seen SM with the Jicks for the second year in a row, I sadly report that this is still his MO. Last year we got "Jo-Jo's Jacket", this year we got "Jo-Jo's Jacket". Compounding the problem is that we didn't even really get anything new. While he may have had an new album out, the fact is those songs were done a long time ago... long enough to have played them on the last tour.

But enough of that. Let's talk about the good things (which far outweigh my complaint).

First of all, the band. Janet Weiss, drummer for Sleater-Kinney, joined the band last year, and she is a welcome addition. Powerful and energetic, her distinct style gives the band more edge and dynamics than it had previously. Joanna Bolme laid down solid bass lines, chatted with the crowd, and generally was a lot more pleasant to look at than Pavement's Mark Ibold. Both women provided back-up vocals, which added a nice, distinctly Jicks texture. Mike Clark on second guitar and keyboards filled in spaces and added power.

This band is more likely to go off on improvisational flights than Pavement, although they still remain grounded in the songs. SM has never gotten over his shyness on stage, facing Mr Clark more than the audience and letting his hair obscure his eyes. But you'd never know it by listening. His signature guitar style and vocal delivery were in evidence as always.

I already mentioned the lack of surprise in the set list proper, but that changed during the encore. I don't know if we got a little something extra due to Oregon being his adopted home state or if he was just in the mood to go nuts, but they played a hefty five songs, including "Jenny and the Ess-Dog" from the first album (which mitigates somewhat my forgoing complaint), as well as two covers.

The first cover (and first song of the encore) was "Remedy", by the Black Crowes. This one was obviously rehearsed and planned, and it rocked. A couple more new songs, and then it seemed like it was over, but then SM goes and talks to his band mates, and voila! An unrehearsed, unplanned "Jenny and the Ess-Dog". Bonus!

After this, both the audience and the band were looking to SM to see what the plan was. SM goes to Ms Bolme, teaches her a riff, and then they launch into... "Godzilla", by Blue Oyster Cult. I'm not even kidding, that was cool.

Overall, it was a great show, because it's a great band with a great singer/songwriter/leader. But as a standout show, only the encore saved it.

Breaking Up Is Hard to Do

2008-02-08T18:53:00.000-08:00

It's been a foregone conclusion since McCain emerged as the solid GOP frontrunner that the excitement in the 2008 primary season lies on the Democratic side. McCain's got it sewn up, the Dems are locked in a heated battle. True enough, but I think there is something interesting, and even historical, about the way the Republican race has played out.

Even though the GOP candidates have essentially held to the Bush line in many respects, they have certainly not gone out of their way to align themselves with Bush by name. The name they prefer to have associated with them is, of course, Ronald Reagan.

Why? Well, of course, not wanting to be associated with Bush is a no-brainer. The president has a 30% approval rating. But Reagan was popular, and is the icon of modern conservativism and Republican supremacy. He was the architect of the "three-legged stool" upon which the Republican party has been seated for a quarter of a century.

The three components of Reaganist Republicanism are foreign policy conservatives, economic conservatives, and social conservatives. These three groups' interests don't always coincide, but they have maintained an alliance that is showing definite signs of breaking down.

For instance, we have seen much greater interest and involvement by evangelicals when it comes to the environment and poverty. To me, these seem like entirely natural issues for Christians to take a left of center position on, but this is counter to the interests of the economic conservatives, so it has been repressed. The fact that this is changing, along with other factors, leads to the conclusion that the GOP stool has had its day.

One of the other indicators seems to be this primary season. The Republican Party is normally the party of unity, but that isn't the case this cycle. We have in fact seen a foreign policy conservative (McCain), an economic conservative (Romney), and a social conservative (Huckabee), splitting the Republican vote. Conventional wisdom says Huckabee and Romney were splitting the anti-McCain vote, and that may be true to some extent, but I think the data show that the Reagan coalition is fractured, probably fatally.

What does this mean? I think it may portend the rise of the "New Republican", The Giuliani's and Schwartzenegger's, and even the McCain's; people who take a hard line on foreign policy, but may be more relaxed economically, and who could even be described as liberal on social issues.

Everything changes, and I feel we may be witness to a number of them this cycle, not the least of which is the evolution of the Republican party.

From South Carolina to Tsunami Tuesday.

2008-01-27T13:38:00.000-08:00

Well, this is an interesting cycle so far, isn't it? Looking ahead the next few weeks, what can be said?

On the Republican side, Giuliani seems washed up before he started. What made him think he could blow off the first few weeks of voting? Now he's losing ground in Florida, and with Gov. Charlie Crist's endorsement of McCain, things don't look good for the former New York mayor. It's hard not to see Florida as a must win for Rudy. I guess people needed to hear more than 9/11. As a footnote: Thompson ends his non-campaign (yawn).

Mike Huckabee created a sensation, but seems unlikely to have the base to win many states on February 5th. He's surprised before, and predictions have gone quite wrong many times this cycle, but I suspect his more-maverick-than-McCain image will force the party to rally (ironically) around McCain.

The only real question mark left on the GOP side is Romney. It's hard to imagine anyone voting enthusiastically for another flip-flopper from Mass., but whether he looks good enough to the pro-business and establishment elements to beat McCain remains to be seen.

On the Democratic side, Edwards is pressing on, as he should. He is still viable, with solid support and the vast majority of delegates still to be awarded, and he has a message of economic inequality which should continue to be part of the dialogue.

But that brings us to my real question: Obama or Clinton?

First let's address qualifications. Clinton claims the mantle of experience, but let's acknowledge that the truly experienced Dems (Dodd, Biden, Richardson) have all dropped out of the race. I'm not sure that "living in the White House" is ultimately that relevant. It may be that Clinton is familiar with day-to-day Presidential doings like no other current candidate, and she may have been involved like no first lady before her, but does that really translate into the kind of experience advantage she is claiming? She held no office, she had no security clearance.

That being said, she is a wonk. You don't want to get get into a detailed policy debate with her. She has been a hard working senator. Contrast this with Obama, reportedly disinterested with the inner workings of the Senate, and long on poetry, short on prose, according to the Clinton camp.

On the other hand, Ruth Marcus, writing for the Washington Post, gives Obama's stimulus plan an A-. It's got credits/rebates going to those who need it and are likely to spend it quickly. Edwards gets a B- for being on top of things, without including the best ideas, and Bush gets a B- for not insisting on making tax cuts permanent (a big deal for him). Both lose points, in Bush's case for not putting money where it will be spent, and Edwards for too much lag time in his ideas to truly act as a stimulus. Other Republicans get D's, except for Giuliani, who is too incoherent to be graded. Clinton gets a C+, points for being early, but no ideas to actually "soften the landing". I guess Obama may have good crisis solving ideas after all.

But isn't the poetry part important? I say yes. In office, the president will have to persuade Congress, the American people, and leaders, governments, and people of foreign countries of the value of his/her policies. The bully pupilt is an important, albeit extra-constitutional part of the president's job.

I believe Obama has demonstated an ability to transcend political boundaries. Not only have moderate "liberal's conservatives" such as David Brooks spoken highly of Obama and his presidential potential, but so have iconic conservatives such as George Will and Charles Krauthammer.

Furthermore, Obama appeals to independents. So does McCain. In many ways, independents decide elections. When electability is taken into account, it seems to be Obama's advantage. This is especially important if McCain does indeed win the nomination.

All things considered, I believe Democrats should support the ultimate nominee, but in the meantime: Vote Obama!

Ladies and Gentlemen, the Leader of the Free World

2007-11-09T20:01:00.000-08:00

Editor's note: The following is a reprint of a post by Tim Grieve on Salon.com's War Room. My conclusion? Our president doesn't have a clue.

Thursday, Nov. 8, 2007 06:26 EST

Business is great, people are terrific

Here's the New York Times this morning with the latest news on the economy:
"Stock markets plummeted and the dollar sank to a record low against the euro yesterday as investors worldwide grew skittish over rising oil prices and the prospect of a substantial economic slowdown in the United States.
"The Dow Jones industrial average fell 360 points and the broader stock market dropped nearly 3 percent, driven down by fear that the troubles in housing are likely to continue well into next year, contributing to further losses in credit markets and spreading pain to the rest of the economy. After a relatively strong summer, consumer spending is expected to tighten and business profits slow in the months ahead, analysts said.
"''We are experiencing among our clients an awakening that the United States is in big trouble,' said Erik Nielsen, chief Europe economist at Goldman Sachs."

And here's George W. Bush yesterday on why he thinks that a Republican will win the White House in 2008: "The economy is in pretty good shape, and we've got some issues, but the economy is pretty strong, which -- and the other side does want to raise taxes."
In other news, Bush said yesterday that, "If you lived in Iraq and had lived under a tyranny, you'd be saying, 'God, I love freedom!' -- because that's what's happened." And asked what message he has delivered to Pakistan's President Gen. Pervez Musharraf, Bush said: "You can't be the president and the head of the military at the same time."
― Tim Grieve
Posted in: George W. Bush

Westboro Baptist Church: Agents of Satan? Or merely contemptible, low-life, black-hearted, despicable pieces of shit?

2007-11-01T19:38:00.000-07:00

If you're not aware of this morally bereft, disgustingly offensive organization, it is a group that believes that the war in Iraq is punishment for the US's tolerance of homosexuality. This idea is bizarrely stupid and deeply offensive on its own, but they're entitled to it, and it's not what earned them this diatribe.

No, their sin is that they've used this idea to justify, get ready for it, the picketing of funerals for soldiers, carrying signs with such egregiously, colossally offensive slogans as "God hates fags", and "Thank God for dead soldiers". Read those again. It's unconscionable, isn't it? Remember, they are doing this at funerals, with these soldiers' poor parents forced to endure this unbelievably immoral onslaught on top of their burden of grief... one reels at the awful, callous, detestable wrongness of the dregs of humanity that call themselves the Westboro Baptists.

I don't believe in hell, but I hope there is one, for the sake of terrorists and Westboro Baptists. May they both burn there forever.

Q: Does Helmet Rock? A: Boy, Do They!

2007-10-04T12:54:00.000-07:00

The band Helmet, formed in New York in 1989, and reformed in 2005 after an eight year absence, played a high-octane show at Eugene's WOW Hall last Wednesday. Leader Page Hamilton showed why his band has been so widely influential, and proved that he can still give a blistering performance.

Helmet is the foundation of post-hardcore, as if punk bands decided to play metal. The funny thing about Mr. Hamilton, is he has a Master's degree in jazz performance. He hadn't really listened to rock for years before he started Helmet. And even today, he says only 20% of what he listens to is rock. Given all this, it's amazing he's so good at it. But then, multiple influences are always beneficial, I think.

If Helmet has always been consistent musically, their lineup has not been. For some bands that works; I think Helmet is one of them. Page's top down management of the band's sound requires musicians who are capable of the odd rhythmic patterns in the music, and people who can project the power of the music. It doesn't really require any individual expression on the part of the musicians. Therefore, much like a symphony orchestra, you find capable, like minded players, and the leader's vision can prevail.

All this brilliance was in evidence at the WOW. Helmet tore through a set that included some new songs, from both the newest release, Monochrome, and their comeback album, Size Matters, but also plenty of old songs to please the hardcore fan. The raw energy of the music was well communicated through the sound system. The volume was perfect, and the head bangin' flowed like water.

For all the anger that comes through in his music, on stage Page was very friendly and down to earth. His hometown is Medford, and fittingly, his parents were in attendance. It was kind of odd, to see these septo/octogenatians at this kind of show, but also touching. Page attended the U of O for his undergrad, and he gave some shout-outs, including the revelation that the first gig of his career was at the Saturday Market!

As much as I enjoyed Helmet's set, the openers were less than impressive. The first slot went to Page's brother's band, Fluid, which I missed. For all I know, they were brilliant (but I kinda doubt it). The second band, a local outfit called On the First Day They Were Kittens, or some such garbage, were loud but uninteresting. Second billed were the Dub Trio, also very loud, slightly more interesting, but ultimately kind of boring. Nevertheless, well worth the price of admission for the headlining act.

If you want to see heavy rock at its finest and most pure, check out Helmet.

Required Viewing: No End in Sight

2007-09-23T19:40:00.000-07:00

Charles Ferguson's documentary No End in Sight details the gross incompetence pervading the management of the Iraq war by the Bush administration. It's a sobering account, but one that I think everyone should see. This is, after all, our government, and we should be informed as to what can happen when we don't keep a watchful eye.

Writer/director/producer Ferguson is not a filmmaker or journalist by trade. He is an MIT educated political scientist, and has been a consultant to the White House and the Pentagon, among others. He was originally a supporter of the war. In other words, he is no Michael Moore.

Nor are his interview subjects left-wing activists, anti-war types, or "Bush haters". They are people directly involved with the Administration and the war, including military and civilian leaders on the ground in Iraq, career analysts, and officials as high up as former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage.

The picture these people paint is staggering in what it reveals about the administration's naivete, incompetence, fantastic beliefs, and above all, an unwillingness to even hear anything that didn't fit into its narrow, impossible vision. Nothing is really new, but the presentation, the credibility of the interviewees, and the lack of sensationalism make for a comprehensive account of the myriad (and avoidable) errors perpetrated by Bush and co., which is simply stunning in the breadth of the consequences.

The film's assertion that this debacle of a war was pursued by a tiny group of policy makers (which may or may not have included the president), with no military experience, shunning the advice of those who did, is deeply disheartening. It's almost impossible to comprehend the damage done by a few ill-informed, ideologically driven people. Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith and Condoleezza Rice have seriously undermined democracy, rule of law, and national security, and the consequences of their (and our) misadventure in Iraq will be felt for a long time.

Inland Empire: A Masterpiece

2007-09-09T16:55:00.000-07:00

"A Woman in Trouble". That's the tagline for Inland Empire, and all writer/director David Lynch would say about the movie during production. Lynch is famous for saying little about his bizarrely complex creations. He feels viewers should be left alone to figure it out for themselves. Boy, do we have our work cut out for us here.

To say what this movie is "about" would be to mislead. This movie can be experienced on many levels; the one to start with is the raw, emotional one.

Art exists, at least in part, to communicate emotions that can't be articulated. The images and raw power of this film communicate something deep that goes beyond words. It's often terrifying, but always moving.

Music, as always, is important. Rather than rely on longtime collaborator Angelo Badalamenti, Lynch instead chooses music from Polish composer Krzysztov Penderecki (many scenes take place in Poland, with Polish actors, speaking Polish). The soundtrack is rounded out by Lynch's typically impeccable popular choices.

The story, such as it is, focusses on Nikki Grace, an actress playing the part of Sue Blue in director Kingsley's (Jeremy Irons) new movie. Justin Theroux plays co-lead Devon, who in turn plays Billy. The line between character and actor, fact and fiction blurs, and Nikki/Sue is in for a ride, along with the audience.

David Lynch has always dealt in the surreal, and this film is the epitome (so far) of his exploration of this aesthetic. The most blatant example is a "sitcom" involving people wearing rabbit heads and speaking in non-sequiters (former Lynch collaborators Laura Harring and Naomi Watts , along with Scott Coffey provide voices).

What else can be said? This movie exists on so many levels simultaneously, reflected in the characters' experience of multiple times at once, the blurring of actor and character, almost Joycean in its multiple levels and profound character representations. This is a film to be experienced, not watched, and multilple times.

And what of Laura Dern (the "Woman in Trouble")? A talented actor throughout her career, this is her tour de force. If she does not get an Oscar nomination for this role, it will be a crime. Utterly brilliant, a perfect creation of conceiver (Lynch), and performer (Dern).

This movie is probably not for everyone. There are many disturbing elements, and let's face it; three hours of wondering what the heck is going on may not be everyone's idea of a good time. But for those who take the plunge, a unique and rewarding experience awaits.

Still not convinced? Check out my man Roger Ebert. Keep in mind, he hasn't always been a Lynch fan.

Superbad=Superfunny

2007-08-28T19:23:00.000-07:00

The movie Superbad, written by Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg, is another vulgar yet hilarious comedy in the vein of Knocked Up (in which Rogen stars). I say another, but that implies movies like this are a dime a dozen, which they are not. To make a movie with this subject matter (high school boys trying to score liquor and get laid) both smart and funny takes talent, which Rogen, Goldberg, and director Greg Mottola have in abundance.

Rogen and Goldberg are former high school buddies, who apparently started work on this idea back in high school. While it is certainly not an attempt to tell a "true story", their experiences in high school together undoubtedly influenced the film.

The story involves best friends Seth and Evan (Jonah Hill and Michael Cera) during their senior year. They've spent virtually all their time with each other. No parties, no girlfriends... their best hope is to rag on the only guy geekier than themselves. The lifelong codependents have just learned they'll be going to different colleges next year (Evan got into Dartmouth; Seth didn't). They decide they need to experience a big blow out party, with the hopeful conclusion involving the loss of their virginity.

The oppurtunity to accomplish this comes when Jules (Emma Stone) tells Seth about a party she's having, but indicates she needs alcohol. Seth gladly offers his services as the possesor of a fake ID. Actually, aforementioned uber-nerd Fogell (Christopher Mintz-Plasse) is the one with the fake ID. Hence Seth, Evan and necessary collaborator Fogell set out to acquire liquor for the party as if their lives depended on it.

Of course, things do not go as planned. The rest of the night sees the boys meeting a series of challenges on the way to their goal. They meet many characters on their way, and the funniest are two out of control cops, played by Bill Hader and writer Seth Rogen. A classic running joke has to do with the fact that Fogell's fake ID simply reads, "McLovin".

Of course, this being a good hearted movie, by the end the boys realize that being some girl's "regret guy" is not something to shoot for. More specifically, Seth learns a lesson, and Evan confirms what he already knows.

All in all, a sweet but vulgar, hilarious but touching (sort of), and ultimately successful movie. If you can stand the language, I highly recommend it!

PS I have no idea why the paragraph breaks don't work like I want 'em to. I apologize for any inconvenience, and if anyone knows how to make it work, let me know!

Gonzales Resigns!

2007-08-27T20:09:00.000-07:00

What can I say, I'm stunned by this news. After all the clamor and all calls for his resigntion had finally died down, and we'd moved on to other issues, why now? I don't know, but I do know that his resignation is proper.

This country operates (or should) based on the principle of rule of law. What does this mean? Does it mean that executive branch officers behave as automatons? No. Is it acceptable for a President to expect U.S. Attorneys to share (or operate as if they share) the priorities of the Whie House? Yes.

So what's the problem?

The problem is, while the President and/or Attorney General theoretically have the right to fire any U.S. Attorney at at any time for any reason, there is still at least one way that such action can be criminal: if it constitutes obstruction of justice.

Although it has been pointed out that there is no hard evidence that such crimes took place, the circumstantial evidence is compelling. New Mexico Senator Pete Domenici places call to U.S. Attorney David Iglesias. Domenici pressures Iglesias to more aggressively pursue investigations against Democrats ahead of the election. Iglesias resists said pressure. He is fired.

On the other side, Carol Lam, a U.S. Attorney in California, puts Randy "Duke " Cunningham, a corrupt Republican Congressman in jail, and is rewarded by...wait for it...by being fired.

This kind of circumstantial evidence is hardly enough to convict, but that's not that the point. Combined with the AG's highly suspect testimony to Congress (and of course, lying to Congress is a felony), quite enough reasonable doubt exists to cast doubt on DOJ's ability to carry out its primary mission: enforcement of the law.

So was Mr Gonzales the victim of a political smear campaign, as President Bush says? It seems highly unlikely that he would resign if that were true; consider all the guilty politicians who have refused to resign in similar situations. And of course we know they have been quietly preparing for this for some time. Then there's the adage that the truth lies somewhere between the two sides. In this case, the two sides both come down on the side of Mr Gonzales being untrustworthy and incompetent. The difference is only in degrees.

The bottom line is this administration has, from the very beginning engaged in an intense campaign to improperly politicize all levels of the executive branch, from making up their own science to firing anyone who disagrees with their inane ideas. They might be starting to realize that there is only so far you can push. Americans aren't the sheep the Bushies believed them to be.

Knocked Up: Seriously Funny

2007-07-29T22:29:00.000-07:00

Romantic comedies, like most other genre films, are usually good at best; rarely are they great. One problem is that if the romance is to be taken seriously, the movie has to occasionally be, well, serious. This of course can detract from the comedy, as well as having potential pitfalls of its own. We're not talking serious drama here, which leads all too easily to a finger-in-the-throat reaction. The comedy, for its part, can all too easily exhaust its potential for premise-based jokes, and either succumb to stupidity, or disappear entirely.

Judd Apatow's second film, Knocked Up, is that rare mix of gut-busting humor and touching-but-not-saccharine light drama which is often attempted and so rarely acheived. Much like his first film, The 40 Year Old Virgin, the idea for which should have led to a disaster but instead it was brilliant, this film shows writer/director Apatow's skill in dealing with unusual subjects, which could easily be one-joke movies, or unfunny sap-fests. Instead, in Apatow's hands, they become original, funny, and real. In short, this is a contemporary classic in the romantic comedy genre.

The film stars Seth Rogen as Ben Stone, a slacker-stoner whose greatest ambition is to launch a website detailing the exact time any given actress gets nude in any given movie. Nevertheless, he's a good-hearted, caring individual, who is of course capable of redeeming himself. Rogen, an Apatow regular, has always had an immensely likable on-screen charm, and delivers a wonderful performance in his starring role debut. He's consistently funny (and vulgar), but also convincing as the nice-guy-who-never-gets-the-girl type.

Katherine Heigl plays Alison Scott, an up and comer in entertainment media. She is smart, succesful, ambitious, responsible, and good-looking. She is out of Ben's league. And yet they meet. And talk. And have sex.

The next day, Alison clearly feels that she has had drunken sex with someone she ordinarily wouldn't be with, but Ben is oblivious. Over breakfast, she clearly bristles at his inability to grasp their myriad differences, but once again, this would be news to Ben. She is evasive when he asks for her number, but he gives her enough information to contact him (he doesn't have a phone right now, he tells her, because of a "billing problem").

One might expect at this point that he never hears from her again, but that wouldn't be any fun, would it? Of course, as we all know from the title, she gets pregnant. She tracks him down, and the rest of the movie concerns her attempts to deal with her pregnancy, and to figure out what she needs/wants from Ben, and his attempts to prove himself worthy to her.

The romance is handled sweetly without being cloying, and dare I say, realistically? Judd Apatow's TV shows, Freaks and Geeks, and Undeclared were improv driven. Seth Rogen was on both those shows, and it's hard to believe some of those same techniques weren't used in this movie. Although I don't have information to that effect, Ben's friends all have the same first name as the actor who plays them, which I think supports the theory. In any event, it would explain how Rogen is able to come across so naturally.

The supporting cast is equally impressive. From to Paul Rudd, as Alison's restless, sarcastic brother-in-law, to Jason Segel as Ben's lecher friend, the movie is full of minor characters who keep the laughs coming, without getting in the way. The multi-talented Harold Ramis also appears in two scenes as Ben's dad, but the scene-stealing Kristen Wiig turns in the most memorable performance with her portrayal of Jill, one of Alison's bosses. It would be impossible to give an example here, because the hilarity was all in the delivery.

Knocked Up expertly weaves romance and comedy, but for me, the romance was satisfying but inevitable. The true measure of this movie's success is that it is ridiculously funny. It's hard to be that funny, especially over the course of a whole movie, and I'm always thankful when someone pulls it off, because who doesn't like to laugh?

The Simpsons Movie

2007-07-27T23:48:00.000-07:00

Well, it's finally here, the movie version of the (arguably) greatest TV comedy of all time. This is big news, and apparently not just for geeks like me. The Simpsons Movie even got a mention in The Economist this week. If that doesn't scream "major event", I don't know what does.

The biggest question for me when I first heard there was going to be a Simpsons movie was, can they stretch what's already a dense 22 minutes into 90? I mean, a lot of things happen in an episode of The Simpsons, given the pacing differences of animation. How many things would have to happen to cover feature film length?

Well it turns out that wasn't a problem. It didn't feel too long and drawn out, nor was it so byzantine it failed to hold interest. It was a good length, with an engaging story, and wound up feeling a lot like any other episode (which is basically a good thing).

So, to quote Homer at the beginning of the movie, why pay for something that you can get for free? The most obvious answer is the big screen. The big screen (and sound system) is still a reason to go to movies. Is this a "big screen movie", you know, one that loses something important on TV? No. Clearly The Simpsons was meant to be seen on TV. But that's just it. After 18 years of 20 inches and 1:1.33 aspect ratio, the novelty of The Simpsons in the theater has definite value.

Another difference is that the movie is released from the restrictions of broadcast TV. This is hardly an enterprise that tries to offend, but sometimes what's funny is unacceptable for broadcast (and sometimes that very status is what makes something funny). This movie cleverly gives us a few (I counted three) instances where they're clearly saying, "this is the movie, we can do this, haha". This is worth a laugh or three.

The other main difference is that it is longer, and for those of us who have always been disappointed to see the credits at the end of an episode, this has some kind of value.

But this brings us to the real question: how does it rate against the best episodes? Unfortunately, by this yardstick, it rates somewhere below the cream of the Simpsons crop. Nevertheless, OK Simpsons is still great TV, and good Simpsons makes for a very funny movie.

The bottom line? If you're a Simpsons fan, you'll enjoy the movie. If you're not, this probably won't be your first foray into their wonderful world. In other words, you know if you're going; what do you need me for?

Here's One for the Rental List

2007-07-22T19:30:00.000-07:00

Looking for a movie to rent, but tired of the same old, same old? Well let me come to your aid, with a recommendation guaranteed to tickle.

"I Like Killing Flies", a documentary by Matt Mahurin, explores the world of Shopsin's General Store, a Greenwich Village restaurant. This is a one of kind restaurant, run by a one of a kind man named Kenny Shopsin, along with help from his wife and grown children.

Shopsin's is a unique place, with a lot of character, and an enormous menu (check it out here ). Kenny Shopsin is apparently a very talented intuitive cook, putting things together simply because he thinks they'll be good. He makes the hundreds (I'm not exaggerating) of menu items from scratch as they are ordered. However, the phrase "the customer is always right" does not resonate with him, and if you break one of the rules, even unknowingly, you will find yourself hungry.

The film is shot in a cramped style, to match the cramped kitchen in which Kenny works, and it deals with a period of upheaval for the restaurant. It seems developers want the space, and Kenny must find a new location. Despite these hinderances, Kenny is able to continue cooking for his loyal regulars, as well as dispensing rough wisdom for the camera.

"I Like Killing Flies" is a unique film about a unique man and his unique business, and I highly recommend that you rent it. At least check out the menu.

Bush and the NIE

2007-07-22T12:08:00.000-07:00

The National Intelligence Estimate, entitled "The Terrorist Threat to US Homeland", was released this week. As could be expected, the White House and presidential candidates all had self serving assessments. Is it possible, especially with a document filled with "likely's" and "maybe's", to arrive at an unbiased conclusion? Let's take a look.

In his weekly radio address on Saturday, Bush cited the passage, "greatly increased worldwide counterterrorism efforts over the past five years have constrained the ability of al Qaeda to attack the U.S. homeland". The report does also state that specific plots have been thwarted, although it does not elaborate.

But it also states, "the group [al-Qa'ida] has protected or regenerated key elements of its Homeland attack capability, including: a safe haven in the Pakistan Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA), operational lieutenants, and its top leadership." This seems like yet more evidence that the Administration has failed to focus on the real problem, in favor of the Iraq debacle.

Furthermore, the report states, "al-Qa’ida will continue to enhance its capabilities to attack the Homeland through greater cooperation with regional terrorist groups. Of note, we assess that al-Qa’ida will probably seek to leverage the contacts and capabilities of al-Qa’ida in Iraq (AQI), its most visible and capable affiliate and the only one known to have expressed a desire to attack
the Homeland." This is an organization that didn't exist prior to our invasion of Iraq. We didn't create it, but we enabled it.

So, are we, as Senator Clinton asserts, "safer"? Since 9/11, Al-Qa'ida activity is in evidence in Spain, Britain, and the Middle East. Not so far in the US. This says something, at least. But again, Mr. Bush: "we've strengthened security at borders and vital infrastructure like power plants and airports and subways." Yet these are exactly the kinds of areas in which the Bush Adiministration has consistently recieved failing grades. How can we really feel secure when we see evidence on a regular basis of how easy our "security" is to breach? Remember the 12 year old who not once, but multiple times was able to smuggle contraband aboard a plane? Just to see if he could do it?

So is there a solution? Should we look to the Dems to lead on this issue? Senator Obama says, "It is deeply troubling that nearly six years after 9/11, Al Qaeda maintains a safe haven, an intact leadership and the capability to plan further attacks". While this is true, his only solution is "to get out of Iraq, because you can’t win a war when you’re on the wrong battlefield". Unfortunately, this conflicts with an earlier NIE that said chaos would increase dramatically, were we to withdraw. Senator Clinton says, "Our involvement in Iraq continues to erode our position. It has damaged our alliances, and it has limited our ability to respond to real threats.” Once again, a true assessment of the current situation, but what real solution?

While the Iraq conflict may be about bigger things than our presence at this point, don't we still have a responsibility, in as far as we created the environment? At what point do intra-Iraqi conflics become their business and not ours? There is no easy answer, because our interests do not coincide with the interest of any Iraqi faction. Iraq is a manufactured country, with no real historical alliance among its disparate population. Our best bet is a federated Iraq, with equal share of oil revenues, but this is not going to happen.

The upshot is that this is an unbelieveably complex problem that requires real leadership, not political soundbytes. Add in other problems, at least equally if not more serious, like disease and global warming, and you're talking about the need for a real leader. Is that leader to be found among the current crop of presidential contenders?

One thing for sure is that President Bush has yet again failed to see the need for realism in this crisis, and has instead continued to justify his unwavering approach to foreign policy. As a result, Al-Qa'ida is at its strongest since 9/11. The Bush approach isn't working. Who out there has a plan?

24: The Movie, aka, Live Free or Die Hard

2007-07-08T00:22:00.000-07:00

In 1988, Die Hard changed action movies forever. The intensity, scale, and pace were pushed to such extremes that the slogan "it will blow you through the back of the theater", which had seemed silly prior to viewing, turned out to be an accurate description of how it felt leaving the theater. It raised the bar for action movies, and 19 years later, it feels like we've seen it all.

Enter Live Free or Die Hard, the fourth entry in the franchise. The comparison to the original is inevitable, as is the result. No, it is not as good as the first one, nor should anyone have expected it to be. It is however, a worthy sequel, and the twelve year interval since the third one is no cause for worry; Bruce Willis is still John McClain. He's a little grimmer this time out, but he still jokes around while kicking bad guy butt.

So now that that's out of the way, what can be said about this movie without yoking it to the past? For one thing, I couldn't escape the feeling that if we were to swap out Bruce Willis for Keifer Sutherland, we would be watching 24. It had the same kind of bad guy, the same high tech toys for both criminals and the law, the same terrible plot with unimaginable consequnces, even the same kinds of sets. The only thing different was the fact that John McClain's funny.

Unfortunately though, funny in movies depends, at least to some degree, on the writing. Not that there weren't laugh out loud moments, but Mark Bomback's script seemed weak at times. Some jokes fizzled, some cowboy-talk seemed cliched, and unfortunately, Die Hard movies are great in part because of McClain's personality. Without strong dialogue, this aspect of the movie suffers. What should have been a great scene, featuring Kevin Smith in a (speaking) role as a computer hacker named "Warlock", instead was only a good scene.

The movie's plot involves a disgruntled former government worker, Thomas Gabriel (Timothy Olyphant), who designed a top secret electronic backup system. Feeling unappreciated (awww!!) Gabriel exploits his own system to cause a meltdown of transportation, commerce, power, etc. The first step is killing all the hackers with enough knowledge to stop the "fire-sale", as it is known. The feds get involved in time to save the life of hacker Matt Farrell (Justin Long), thanks to the efforts of one John McClain. Needles to say, brain and brawn save the day.

Which brings us to the action, after all, the main reason we go to these movies. Most of it is stunning. It was reasonably well shot, but sometimes a little hyperkinetic for my taste. Were there many deeds and events that seemed highly unlikely? Yes. Did it matter? Not in the sense of not being able to suspend disbelief, but I couldn't help but feel inured after a while, and they lost some impact as a result. ("Oh, he fell off of an airplane, but he's OK! Of course he is, he's not really hurt.")

In sum, I'd say it's almost a given that if you're a fan of the franchise, you'll like this movie. And hey, if they didn't try to outdo themselves, we would be dissappointed. 4 out of 5 stars.