Irrational Kingdom

Fairy Tales

2011-10-02T11:58:00.000-07:00

Pictures from the upcoming film "Snow White and the Huntsman" have raised some eyebrows because they include large-scale battle scenes. What other changes can you expect in upcoming big-screen adaptations of fairy tales?

1) Cinderella to be woken not by a kiss from a prince, but by a totally-slammin' serving of Red Bull given to her by X-Games champion Shaun White.

2) Through magic of digital editing, all Seven Dwarves will be played by Snooki.

3) In a new, thrilling ending, Rapunzel blows up the tower that once held her. In final shot, she walks away from explosion in slow motion and doesn't look back.

4) Tale of Rumpelstiltskin periodically interrupted by commercials for gold exchange featuring Glenn Beck.

5) Hansel and Gretel re-imagined as pair of brother-sister assassins. To find their way home, they leave a trail ... OF CARNAGE!

Coining a phrase

2011-09-27T16:05:00.000-07:00

Last night, a friend and I were walking out of a bar when we passed a group of hipsters waiting to be seated. I haven't seen that many ironic T-shirts and thick-framed glasses since the last time I visited Brooklyn.

As we walked away, my friend and I discussed what a group of hipsters would be called. A flock? A gaggle? A murder?

I decided that this was a question that could only be answered by the collective wisdom of The Internet.

A few suggestions of mine are listed below ... feel free to chime in with votes or suggestions.

1) A porkpie of hipsters.

2) A Pitchfork of hipsters.

3) A trust fund of hipsters.

4) A Nader of hipsters.

5) A Gladwell of hipsters.

Get Irrational Kingdom on your Newfangled Reading Machine!

2011-09-22T22:13:00.000-07:00

Irrational Kingdom is now available via subscription on your Kindle. It's cheap (less than $2 a month) and fun. Please click here to subscribe.

More Palin Revelations

2011-09-16T14:47:00.000-07:00

Author Joe McGinnis recently made headlines with some of the revelations from his upcoming book on Sarah Palin — that she allegedly did cocaine, cheated on her husband and had a one-night stand with a future NBA star. However, those are only some of the details from the upcoming blockbuster. What are the most shocking facts revealed about Palin?

1) Earned her nickname "Sarah Barracuda" not through her tenacious play on the basketball court but by her fang-like teeth, large swim bladder and two dorsal fins.

2) Quit as governor of Alaska when she realized how fucking cold it gets there during the winter.

3) Ended all successful political campaigns by eating her opponent's heart so she could gain their courage.

4) During absences as governor while on McCain presidential campaign, left bingo-playing chicken in charge of state business.

5) Rider for all speeches includes bowl of M&Ms with chocolate removed.

6) Was almost Vice-President of the United States.

Dan Shaughnessy is an idiot. Let me tell you why.

2010-11-11T19:56:00.000-08:00

Dan Shaugnessy wrote a stupid column.

I am a Heat hater.

Miami’s basketball team can’t lose enough games to make me happy. When I pass under a television in a crowded airport and see the score crawl, if the Heat are losing, I crack a big smile. I hope they lose ’em all.

The Celtics are in Miami tonight to play the third-place Heat.

The third-place Heat. Don’t you love it? I want them to be the Miami Clown Machine.

"Miami Clown Machine"? Where is he getting these jokes, Jay Leno's trash can?

Remember the preening and the fog machines and the hideous chest-thumping at American Airlines Arena after LeBron James told us he was taking his talents to South Beach? That was the night he said he was planning on bringing multiple championships to Miami — “not two, not three, not four, not five, not six, not seven . . .’’ It was disgusting. How about winning one before you talk about seven?

Every single player in NBA history says he wants to win championships when he joins his new team. It's not like you're banned from saying the word "championship" unless you've won one. Jeez.

When LeBron and Chris Bosh joined Dwyane Wade, those blinded by the lights were quick to anoint the 2010-11 Heat as the NBA’s best-ever team. What rubbish.

Please show me one example where a single sports columnist or analyst said the 2010-11 team were the NBA's "best-ever team." Just one. Seriously. A lot of people said they had a chance to be very good, seeing as how they had just combined the talents of three still-young players who had 17 All-Star appearances among them; nobody said they were the "best-ever team."

Any way you cut it, the Heat are overrated. Take a long look at Bosh, for starters. How in the name of Elgin Baylor did Bosh get lumped in with James and Wade? He simply doesn’t belong. He has been a big numbers guy with a bad team. Now he is the answer to the question, “What’s wrong with this picture?’’

Bosh may not be quite as spectacular as Wade, who has won a championship, and James, who is a two-time MVP, but it's not like he's Jack Haley, either; he's a five-time All-Star (to James' and Wade's six). Hilarious note: a few years ago, Shaughnessy's beloved Boston Celtics acquired Kevin Garnett from the Timberwolves, and Garnett immediately helped lead them to a championship. I don't remember anyone in Boston complaining that he had just put up big numbers with a bad team. In fact:

Chris Bosh, first seven seasons: 20.3 points, 9.3 rebounds per game. Five All-Star appearances. Two playoff appearances. (Never got out of first round)

Kevin Garnett, first seven seasons: 18.9 points, 9.9 rebounds per game. Four All-Star appearances. Six playoff appearances. (Never got out of first round)

So by Shaughnessy's logic, Boston should have turned down the Garnett trade because he was a big loser. I guess Celtic fans are lucky he's not the GM.

Wade is leading the Heat with 26 points per game. LeBron is averaging a healthy 20.6 and had a triple-double against Utah Tuesday. Incredibly, he snatched his first offensive rebound of the season in Game 8. I am not kidding. The King has two offensive rebounds this year. Next time he asks, “What should I do?’’ let’s all stand up and say, “Follow your shot one time!’’ Moses Malone he is not.

Moses Malone was a center, a position generally expected to grab rebounds. LeBron James is a small forward, a position generally expected to play on the wing. Judging James against Malone would be as logical as judging him against Spud Webb.

And, incidentally, Moses Malone, first seven seasons: 18.5 points, 13.9 rebounds, 1.2 assists per game. One MVP award, two All-Star appearances.
LeBron James, first seven seasons: 27.8 points, 6 rebounds, 7 assists per game. Two MVP awards, six All-Star Appearances. BUT HE CAN'T REBOUND LIKE MOSES DID IN THE OLDEN DAYS!! *Finishes column on old-timey typewriter, puts on fedora, catches trolley home for a nickel.*

Simmons, Vick and Redemption

2010-10-10T08:47:00.000-07:00

Mocking espn.com columnist Bill Simmons is usually the territory of the excellent website Fire Jay Mariotti, but Simmons' latest column, about the resurgence of Eagles quarterback Michael Vick, has bugged me for weeks. So I'm going to take a few swings at it.

Before I take a closer look at Simmons' column, let me say a few things. I'm fine with Michael Vick playing in the NFL after his conviction and prison term on dogfighting-related charges; he's done his time, and if a franchise wants to employ him again, that's their call.

I'm fine with people rooting for Michael Vick; as a friend of mine accurately pointed out, we root for athletes who do thoughtless, cruel things to humans all the time. And I must acknowledge that, post-release, Vick has conducted himself well. I hope that continues.

That said: What I'm not fine with is sportswriters ignoring, minimizing or excusing Vick's substantial crimes.

When you're reading this column, keep the following in mind: Michael Vick financed, set up and helped operate a dogfighting ring. When the dogs didn't perform, Vick or his co-conspirators killed them by hanging and drowning them.

That said, let's plunge into Simmons' column.

My wife overheard me talking about Michael Vick this week. I made the mistake of mentioning how much I enjoyed his recent resurgence. In retrospect, I should have just said that women shouldn't have the right to vote, or that men should be allowed to trade their wives in every six years like cars. She waited for me to hang up, then asked calmly, "What's going on with Michael Vick?"
Oh, boy.
I explained that Vick had won the starting job in Philly, rejuvenated his career and emerged as the feel-good story of the 2010 NFL season. He's been the most valuable player in the league. It looked like a transition year for the Eagles as recently as halftime of Week 1. Now they think they can win the NFC East. All because of him.

I like how Simmons slips in the casual but matter-of-fact line about Vick being the league's most valuable player. Vick has been terrific, but was hardly a slam-dunk for MVP of the first three weeks.

If Vick didn't pay a reasonable price for his sins, it would be one thing. But he torched his career, blew a lucrative contract, went bankrupt, spent 19 months in prison and became a public pariah. That wasn't a reasonable price?

(1) Nobody's saying that they don't support Vick because his prison sentence wasn't long enough, or because he didn't lose enough money. They don't support Vick because he tortured and murdered dogs. (2) The prison part is true enough, but the list of trials Vick has endured is pretty weak. He "torched his career," then returned to the NFL and a quarterback job; he "blew a lucrative contract," but still makes more money in a year most people will see in 10; he become a "public pariah" but still manages to play in front of tens of thousands of cheering fans. Don't make it sound like he's living in the gutter and covered in boils, Bill.

What more do you want? Deny him a chance to make a living? Under what constitutional umbrella?

Again: Very few people are saying Michael Vick shouldn't be allowed by law to play in the NFL; they're just saying they don't want to root for a person who tortured and murdered dogs. Also, I like how denying Vick the chance to play in the NFL would be tantamount to denying him "the chance to make a living," as if he couldn't possibly work at any of the thousands of careers other people do every day.

Yeah, if I spent enough time looking at electrocution photos and rape stand photos, I'd inevitably end up despising him.

Translation: If I actually examined the crimes Vick committed, I wouldn't able to write a long column where I compare him to a character in The Shawshank Redemption! And I have to make that comparison! It has redemption in the title, people!

dogfighting isn't much more abhorrent than some of the other ways we abuse animals .... More of us are hypocrites about this stuff than we realize.

Translation: If you're a hypocrite some of the time, it's OK to be a hypocrite all of the time!

Generations of people grew up with dogfighting in the South (especially in poorer regions), and it's like anything else: Sometimes you don't fully realize something is wrong if you never knew anything else. We cannot ignore the cultural elements here. Not everyone likes dogs or sees them as companions, guardians or family members. I have friends who regard dogs warily and act rattled around them. Certain religions believe dogs are unclean. (I once lived in a West Hollywood neighborhood heavy with Hasidic and Orthodox Jews, some of whom could barely conceal their disgust with the Dooze. A few even hissed at her. This drove my wife crazy, but hey, dogs mean different things to different people.) When Vick's initial comeback was receiving so much attention last summer, I dined with "30 for 30" filmmaker Steve James (a Virginia native like Vick), who wondered if Vick's saga was more racially driven than anyone realized. James grew up with African-Americans who were terrified of dogs because of what happened in the 1960s and earlier, when police frequently used attack dogs to "quell" racial protests. Could a mistrust of dogs be handed down to future generations? Of course. Again, not everyone likes dogs.

Lots of people don't like dogs. Very few of them end up drowning, electrocuting or hanging them. Those Hasidic Jews in Bill's neighborhood may not have liked dogs, but they didn't spend their spare time setting up rape stands, either.

When Vick renounced dogfighting, many people (my wife included) thought he did so because it was the politically correct move. But what if he really did realize it was wrong? Maybe he never grew up with pooches that licked his face and jumped around happily when he came home. Maybe he never played fetch with dogs, took them swimming at special dog beaches, took them hiking or did anything that would humanize them. Had he done any of those things, it would have bothered him as his pit bulls were ripping each other apart. Can I blame him for organizing an illegal underground gambling ring, breaking the law and surrounding himself with the wrong people? Of course.

In other words, Bill wanted to offer a bullshit justification to blunt the impact of Vick's crimes - that they were excusable because some cultures hate dogs. But Bill knew that argument was bullshit, and didn't want to appear to make it himself. So he spent two looooooong paragraphs positing that argument, then in the last two words tried to divorce himself from it so it would seem like he hadn't made it in the first place.

Much like how O.J. Simpson raised awareness about domestic abuse, Vick did the same for animal abuse. Both men did it unwittingly and disgraced themselves in the process, but there's a crucial difference: By continuing his football career, becoming an animal rights activist and repeatedly acknowledging his mistakes, Vick will do more good than harm.

Unless, of course, young people get the message that you can commit grave crimes and, within a few months of release, sportswriters will be praising you if you achieve a high enough quarterback rating and avoid committing any more federal crimes. That could happen, too.

Fair enough. But I believe in second chances for anyone who screwed up because they were immature, came from a poor background or were surrounded by unseemly influences ... as long as that person makes amends. The difference between Vick and LeBron James -- another superstar who hailed from a rough background and tarnished his image, only unlike Vick, he did so without intentionally hurting anyone or breaking the law -- is that LeBron steadfastly refuses to admit his "Decision" was ruinously handled from start to finish. If he had a do-over, he would ram that butcher's knife into Cleveland's back all over again. How do I know this? Because LeBron never jettisoned the sycophants and opportunists who walked him into July's public relations disaster. And because he still doesn't seem to comprehend why so many found "The Decision" so revolting, as evidenced by LeBron playing the race card this week. You know, because we've been so kind to Brett Favre these past two years.

At some point, LeBron will realize his inner circle led him astray. He will clean house, apologize to Cleveland and seem sincere. He will re-examine his Cavaliers tenure, realize how enabled and coddled he was, then wish someone he trusted had looked him in the eye and said, "Look, you can't leave Cleveland this way ... it's wrong." For a variety of reasons, LeBron lived his first 25 years without ever finding such a person. Sometimes you can't shape your life; sometimes your life shapes you. Nobody knows this better than Michael Vick.

(1) Simmons sarcastically implies the media has been mean to Brett Favre over the last two years, which is hilarious, because no athlete in the past decade or so has had his ass kissed more than Favre. (2) Simmons actually uses the word "revolting" to describe LeBron James' TV special announcing which franchise he'd play for next. Huh. LeBron must of thought a lot of people would be interested in that announcement. Hey, Bill - author of a 697-page book in which you call LeBron James the 20th-best player of all time - where do you think he got that idea? (3) I realize he's not comparing their actions directly, but to compare LeBron's error in judgement - which, by the way, was a fundraiser for the Boys' and Girls' Club - to Vick's federal crimes in any way is abhorrent.

Ultimately, Simmons and I would both be happy if Vick conducted the rest of his comeback with good behavior off the field. In that sense, we're both rooting for Vick. The difference is that I'm not trying to excuse what Vick did before that comeback started.

Seattle Times Readers Enrage Me

2010-09-22T21:46:00.000-07:00

Whenever you run a column about education, you can be sure crazy people will make comments. They did.

Pick up a 1985 phonebook. Turn to the blue pages. That should be the size of government period.

Pick up a hedgehog. Hollow out the hedgehog (careful, he'll try to bite). Then light that dead, hollow hedgehog on fire. Government should be the size of the papers you can fit inside that burning hedgehog.

Get the labor unions off our campuses and truly open up those jobs to the best qualified rather than the union pecking order list. I've seen enough people hiding in campus parking lots in a van or asleep at their desk when you walk in.

I do not believe for one sweet second that you have literally seen somebody asleep at their desk at the University of Washington. Maybe you saw that in an episode of Barney Fife. Is that what you're thinking of? Barney Fife?

Children who wish to attend college need to work during the summers as teens, save that up for tuition, and then work while going to college, and not rely soley on parents or student loans to fund the college education.

The average expenses for students living at home in 2010-2011 is projected to be $15,000. The average expenses for students living on campus is $22,000. If a kid can find a job to pay for that over one or two summers, they should keep that job forever because it's amazing.

The Average (salaries) are approx $120,000 for a State worker vs $60,000 for a private industry worker.

In 2007, the Secretary of State made $114,000. Am I to believe that average state employee - and there are more than 400,000 of them - made more than the Secretary of State? Because I do not.

Someone mentioned there are six employees at the UW for every student, and those employees are well paid, have excellent health insurance, fixed pension, etc. And the professors earning six figures for part time teaching? Janitors at the UW earn about $18 an hour. In the private sector, is (sic) more like $9 an hour. Now you know the reason costs are high!

1) There are more than 40,000 students at the University of Washington. If there were six employees for every one of them, the University of Washington would employ more than 240,000 people, which is more people than there are living in Orlando, Florida.

2) I like how this commenter is angry that employees at one of the best universities in the country are "well-paid" and receive "excellent health insurance." WHY ARE THEY NOT LIVING IN SHANTIES AND DINING ON A STEW MADE FROM PIGEON BONES AND RAT MEAT?

3) There is no way every employee at the UW gets a pension. No. Freakin'. Way.

4) I'm too lazy to actually look this up, but I'm pretty sure professors who make "six figures for teaching one class a week" are usually researchers or scientists who spend the rest of their time curing cancer or whatever.

I'm Tired Too, Robert

2010-07-25T21:59:00.000-07:00

So, a guy named Robert A. Hall has written a screed of warmed-over right-wing talking points, and I'm afraid I can't pass up the opportunity to mock some of them. Sorry.

I'm 63. Except for one semester in college when jobs were scarce and a six-month period when I was between jobs, but job-hunting every day, I've worked hard, since I was 18. Despite some health challenges, I still put in 50-hour weeks, and haven't called in sick in seven or eight years. I make a good salary, but I didn't inherit my job or my income, and I worked to get where I am. Given the economy, there's no retirement in sight, and I'm tired. Very tired.

One of the most common right-wing tricks is to confuse good fortune with virtue. It's great that Robert worked hard to carve out a life and a living for himself, but the fact that he hasn't called in sick in seven or eight years is probably more luck than hardiness. There are people who work just as hard as Robert who get in car accidents or get cancer. They're no less hard-working than him, so maybe he should slowly climb off that cross. Don't cut yourself on the nails, buddy.

I'm tired of being told that I have to "spread the wealth" to people who don't have my work ethic. I'm tired of being told that the government will take the money I earn, by force if necessary, and give it to people too lazy to earn it.

First of all, I love the ominous-sound reference "by force if necessary."Apparently the government should only enforce its powers that are helpful to Robert. Secondly, I'm not quite sure who he's writing about when he says the government is giving money to people who don't have his work ethic. If he's talking about people on welfare, he's wrong.

I'm tired of being told how bad America is by left-wing millionaires like Michael Moore, George Soros and Hollywood Entertainers who live in luxury because of the opportunities America offers.

Those lefties are awful for always talking about how much America sucks right now! Now, please finish reading my rant about how America sucks right now.

I think it's cool that we have a black and that a black child is doing her homework on the desk where Lincoln wrote the Emancipation Proclamation. I just wish the black president was Condi Rice, or someone who believes more in freedom and the individual and less arrogantly of an all-knowing government.

Condi Rice believes in freedom and the individual, unless of course you count being apprehended, imprisoned without trial and tortured as not being free.

I'm tired of being told I must lower my standard of living to fight global warming, which no one is allowed to debate.

"The power that provides electricity for my house now comes from a solar plant I've never seen, rather than a coal plant I've never seen! LIFE IS AN INSUFFERABLE HELL!"

I'm tired of illegal aliens being called "undocumented workers," especially the ones who are not working, but are living on welfare or crime.

Illegal immigrants are not eligible for welfare. Apparently one of the things Robert is tired of is doing research.

I'll let myself be subjected to all the humiliation and abuse that was heaped on terrorists at Abu Ghraib or Gitmo, and the critics can let themselves be subject to captivity by the Muslims, who tortured and beheaded Daniel Pearl in Pakistan, or the Muslims who tortured and murdered Marine Lt. Col. William Higgins in Lebanon, or the Muslims who ran the blood-spattered Al Qaeda torture rooms our troops found in Iraq, or the Muslims who cut off the heads of schoolgirls in Indonesia, because they were Christian.

You probably won't be comparing notes if they treat you like Manadel al-Jamadi, who was tortured by a CIA officer and a private contractor until he died.

I'm real tired of people who don't take responsibility for their lives and actions. I'm tired of hearing them blame the government, or discrimination, or big-whatever for their problems.

So in short: Robert finished his long screed against government programs by telling people to stop blaming the government for their problems.

Seems about right.

Liveblogging: Transformers

2010-05-24T23:20:00.000-07:00

0:00. I've previously blogged about this movie, but decided to revisit its awfulness in a little more detail.

:55. The first identifying title shows the opening scene is set in Qatar, then helpfully specifies that Qatar is set in the Middle East.

1:10. We meet a group of U.S. soldiers in a helicopter. There's a tough black guy, a guy from the Bayou who talks about how tasty alligator meat is, and then, amazingly, a guy from Bawstan who tawks about how great Fenway park is. I'm not saying these characters are cliches, but I'm surprised the helicopter is not also occupied by a cop who doesn't play by the rules, a thief who needs to pull off one last job and a plucky, adorable newsboy with a suspicious cough.

2:32.07. Soldier Josh Duhamel chats with his wife via laptop. When she informs him that their infant daughter just laughed for the first time, he is thrilled, then asks, "Are you sure it wasn't just a fart?" Side note: Never, ever marry someone who can't tell these functions apart. Or at least don't tell them any jokes.

3:10.00. A helicopter lands at the military base, then turns into a big hurkin' robot that stomps through the base.

4:42.12. We meet Sam Witwicky, a high-school junior in California played by Shia LaBeouf. His great-grandfather was an explorer and LeBeouf is trying to sell some of his old explorer stuff, including his eyeglasses, to his classmates via a show-and-tell session.

5:10.13. LaBeouf's teacher tells him his presentation earned a "solid B+" and director Michael Bay actually adds a special-effects whooshing sound to convey LaBeouf's disappointment. Subtle. Maybe later, Bay will accompany LaBeouf's ogling of costar Megan Fox with a pair of animated eyes that pop out of his head and an AWOOOOGGGGAAA.

6:00.32. LaBeouf buys a magic yellow car that seems to have a mind of its own.

6:10.10. The movie's setting shifts to Washington, D.C. Jon Voight tells a group of super-nerdy hackers about the attack in Quatar, but doesn't tell them Quatar is located in the Middle East. How will they know where the attack was?

7:38.21. LaBeouf blusters charmingly while driving home his long-time crush, Megan Fox, whose facial expressions range from 'petulant' to 'slightly less petulant.' Also his car seems to have a mind of its own.

1o:21. Incidentally, these time stamps I'm using have nothing to do with how much time has actually elapsed. Sorry.

11:44.41. There's a boom box sitting beneath a seat on Air Force One, which immediately transforms into a slinky, slithery robot with glowing blue eyes that then scampers through the cabin, because who would notice a small, sentient robot with glowing eyes on the plane with the highest security on earth? Oh, and way to be current by disguising yourself as a boom box. What's next, a robot disguised as a Jordache jacket?

12:12.76. The scampering robot hacks into government files about LaBeouf's explorer grandfather.

13:01. The robot is caught in the act, so Air Force One is grounded. Despite the fact that Air Force One, and several Secret Service agents have been attacked, there is so little security watching the plane that the robot escapes by scampering across the open tarmac, past several guards and into a police car.

15:47. LaBeouf's car takes itself for a drive, but he's able to catch up with it on his ... bicycle? He briefly sees it transform before the cops show up.

17:30. LaBeouf is interviewed by several police officers. Apparently cops in California have oodles of time to dedicate to teenagers who are accused of ... stealing their own car? Wait, what's happening here?

19:10. Duhamel and the cliche commandos are still wandering through the desert and occasionally fighting transformers. Because apparently, the U.S. military didn't bother to search the surrounding area after a major attack on one of their military installations.

22:08. Duhamel and his team find a phone, then call in an air strike on a big scorpion-like transformer that is attacking them. After the transformer is destroyed, Jon Voight orders the team debriefed. Wait, you think the guys who witnessed an attack by a piece of technology never before seen on the face of the earth should be interviewed? No wonder you're the Secretary of Defense.

24:15. Anthony Anderson turns up as a buffoonish black man who yells at his grandmother to "drink her prune juice," ... but he's also a computer genius. Michael Bay is busting stereotypes left and right.

24:36. Anderson's helping a government computer expert. She's been in several scenes before, and has an Australian accent of varying degrees of intensity. Right now it's set on "Paul Hogan impersonator."

28:75.72. The FBI busts down Anderson's door. When they force him to the carpet, he yells that his (sassy) grandmother doesn't like anyone on the couch, especially "po-lice." I'm embarrassed to be watching this.

30:00. LaBeouf is chased through a warehouse by a police-car transformer that is seeking his explorer grandfather's glasses. When he sprints out of the warehouse, he runs into Fox and hurriedly explains that he's being chased by a monster. When the monster - which, by the way, is about 15 feet tall and has glowing red eyes - emerges from the warehouse, LeBeouf tells Fox, "Here it comes!" THANKS FOR CLEARING THAT UP DUDE.

30:01. Let me get this straight: The evil transformers have determined that LaBeouf's grandfather's glasses are very important in their plans for universal domination. But, despite the fact that they can (a) travel through space, (b) transform themselves from robots into common-looking vehicles, and (c) hack into the most advanced computer systems in the world, they still need to chase LaBeouf and threaten him into telling them where the glasses are? That's dumb. I mean, I realize this is a movie about giant robots fighting each other, but have some self-respect, screenwriters.

31:50. LaBeouf and Fox hop into LaBeouf's car, which is a good-guy Transformer named Bumblebee. Incidentally, LaBeouf was initially attacked by the police-car transformer in the morning, but now it's night for some reason. Not only can his car transform - it can speed up time!

31:51. I wish I had a car that could speed up time, because maybe it could bring on the end of this movie.

33:07. LaBeouf, on Bumblebee: "It's a super-advanced robot. It's probably Japanese." I wish I had a time machine so I could go back to 1987, when that joke would have been funny.

35:44. Bumblebee talks by switching rapidly from radio station to radio station to piece together words to form sentences. That's actually pretty clever.

40:04. I would vote for the disembodied voice of Optimus Prime for president. Not a joke.

41:90. We get a flashback of LeBeouf's explorer grandfather discovering Megatron, the leader of the evil transformers, under the ice at the North Pole. Incidentally, I love the fact that the exploration party's dogs are able to smell Megatron's presence under the ice, despite the fact that he's made of metal and about 100 feet under the ice.

43:38. The Aussie computer expert and Anthony Anderson are grilled by FBI agents about illegally accessing the recordings of some of the Transformers' communications. Anderson calmly rebuts the FBI agents' points. Ha ha, just kidding! He screechingly blames it all on the Aussie.

46:72.10. There's a comic scene where multiple good-guy robots walk outside of LeBeouf's house, while trying not to attract attention, despite the fact there's no reason for them to be there and they could easily remain disguised as vehicles. I think this movie is making me dumber. For example, I just ordered a DVD set of "Two and a Half Men."

49:31.45. A smarmy government agent referred to aeBeouf's dog, a chihuahua, as "the Taco Bell dog." Was this screenplay written in 1999? If so, I'm keeping my fingers crossed for a cameo by Jamiroquai.

1:01.00. Most of the main characters are brought together at Hoover Dam, where it's revealed that the government has been holding the leader of the bad transformers, as well as the powerful energy cube both sets of transformers are looking for. We see a montage of a bunch of evil transformers rolling to the dam, including, uh, a tank. I'm sure it'll arrive in 2016 or so.

1:03.84. The Aussie's accent is now set on "voice-over for Foster's commercial."

1:07.32. Giants robots are fighting each other. Now that's more like it.

1:10.00. A group of characters flees with the cube, and after they're attacked by the evil transformers it's determined that the best course of action would be for LaBeouf to run down the street really fast with the cube under his arm while all the members of the military stay behind to fight. Don't put him in a vehicle or give him an armed escort or anything, guys.

1:13.21. This climax is so interesting I check Facebook while it's still playing.

1:15.60. LaBeouf is supposed to put the cube in an opening in Optimus Prime's chest, which will destroy both Prime and the cube; instead he inserts it in the main evil transformer's chest, destroying both. How did he know that would work? Oh well.

1:16.99. Instead of keeping Megatron so they can study him or make sure he doesn't try to take over the universe, they drop him into the ocean where nobody will be able to keep tabs on him. Sometimes I think Earth deserves to be attacked by evil alien robots.

1:17.00. The conflict's over, so we get to see the characters' fates. Duhamel returns home to his wife and flatulent baby.

1:23.1. LaBeouf and Fox make out while lying on Bumblebee's hood. Um ... Eeeeww?

Liveblogging: I Know What You Did Last Summer

2010-05-08T23:22:00.000-07:00

0:00: I Know What You Did Last Summer, the tale of four teens hunted by a hook-wielding killer after they accidentally run over a pedestrian one night, has always seemed like an intriguing brew of schlocky "horror" and earnest young actors whom I could mock for not being awesome yet. Let's get started.

2:00: There's a guy who looks mournful sitting at the edge of a cliff. He's wearing overalls. Working theory: The overalls are making him mournful.

5:19: Sarah Michelle Gellar is a contestant in a summer beauty pageant. Meanwhile, her "friends" Ryan Phillippe and Freddy Prinze Jr. watch and comment on her boobs. Hey, just like bloggers! Jennifer Love Hewitt rounds out the group of friends.

5:43: The host asks Gellar a question, then immediately opens an envelope with the winner's name inside. If you already have the winner's name, why ask her the question 10 seconds beforehand? Great. Now I'm not going to believe anything that happens from here on out.

5:54: Gellar wins, prompting Phillippe to pump his fist and scream, "That's my girlfriend!" The director is clearly a master of subtle exposition.

6:06: The characters attend a beach party to celebrate Gellar's victory. Johnny Galecki from Roseanne shows up. You can tell he's going to be a suspect later because his stage directions evidently said, "Deliver every word as if you're Jack Nicholson in The Shining."

7:20: Galecki asks Hewitt out. She then pauses awkwardly, turns her head, and gives Gellar a What-Do-I-Do-Now glance with the nuance of a Bugs Bunny cartoon. If Galecki didn't want to kill you before, he probably does now, you freakin' nitwit.

8:42: The main characters retire to a more private beach, where Prinze tells the urban legend about a killer with a hook for a hand. It's also revealed that Phillippe is a star high-school quarterback, despite the fact that he looks like someone whose parents probably named him after their favorite brand of yacht.

13:52: Phillippe is drunk, but still wants to drive. Huh ... maybe he will be a good pro football player.

14:04: Prinze is driving Phillippe's car when they hit a person. This is what's called the 'inciting incident.'

18:50: The four main characters seem to be talking themselves into dumping the dead guy's body when a truck drives up from behind. Amazingly, Prinze and Phillippe decide that this would be an excellent job to pick up the body and begin carrying it across the road. Aw man, this movie was so close to being Weekend at Bernie's.

19:20: The truck's driver turns out to be Galecki, who, when he sees the damage to the car, says, "Daddy's gonna be maaaaaaaaaaad" then flashes an evil grin. He's also sharpening a knife and singing a creepy nursery rhyme to himself while wearing a hockey mask.

21:04. They've chosen to dump the body off a pier that's approximately three and a half feet long. The water's probably about eight inches deep. If Phillippe doesn't make the pros, I'm guessing he's not going to have 'criminal mastermind' to fall back on.

21:46. The dead body turns out to be not so dead and the guy grabs Gellar's princess crown before sinking to the deep. I hope later in the film, we get a scene with a hard-bitten cop saying, "We've narrowed it down to Sarah Michelle Gellar and Cinderella!"

24:10. It's a year later.

24:30. I had hoped Hewitt would deal with her guilt by taking constant showers with fellow female students, but instead she's gotten all pale with stringy hair and dark circles under her eyes. Also, she's going back to New Bridgeport. That's not the actual name of the town, but it looks like some place that should be called "New Bridgeport."

27:33. The town is called Southport. Wow I was pretty close.

27:46: Hewitt gets a handwritten note indicating that somebody Knows What She Did Last Summer.

29:49. There's a bitchy blonde girl who hates Hewitt and Gellar. COULD SHE BE THE KILLER? (Answer: No.)

30:46: The bitchy blonde girl works with Gellar, and as Gellar and Hewitt discuss the note, she eavesdrops with the same subtlety Galecki brought to his role. I'm surprised she doesn't hold a drinking glass up to a door to hear better.

31:46: Gellar is smoking and wearing her hair in a matronly style. Apparently she's going to hide herself from the killer by disguising herself as the matriarch on a soap opera.

32:04. Phillippe dismisses the note, saying, "How do you know what this is even about? You did a lot of things last summer." You were very wise to hitch your wagon to his star, ladies. Very wise indeed.

34:11. They think the letter came from Galecki, so Phillippe goes to his workplace and roughs him up, threatens him and comes pretty close to admitting what they did. I don't even have a joke - that's just stupid.

35:00. It's revealed that Phillippe has played college quarterback. Who for? DeVry?

37:47: The killer just offed Galecki,. That's a shame, because I'm pretty sure he was about to grow a long moustache just for twirling.

40:40. Someone steals Phillippe's car, then chases him down with it. Phillippe's character stays consistent by attempting to escape by running in a straight line in front of the car. Oh, then he's run over.

40:40: I watch Phillippe get run over by a car again.

40:40: I watch Phillippe get run over by a car again.

40:40: I eat some Cheez-Its.

40:40: I watch Phillippe get run over by a car again.

42:31: Wait, he's still alive and in the hospital? Aaaawwwwww man.

48:34: Hewitt and Gellar talk themselves into the home of the accident victim's family by pretending to have a stalled car, making up fake names for themselves on the spot and pretending to use the family's telephone. Best moment: Gellar pretending to use the phone, but not talking into the speaker despite the fact that the victim's sister is standing about five feet away. I get the feeling those two don't spend their down time by going to Mensa conventions.

49:40: The victim's sister fixes Gellar and Hewitt with a long, creepy stare as they drive off. Johnny Galecki has died but his acting style lives on.

53:43. Gellar, to Hewitt: "We used to be best friends." Hewitt: "We used to be a lot of things." Wait, what? What does that mean? Amateur astronomers? Aspiring rodeo clowns?

58:40: Something is rattling around in Hewitt's trunk. It's Galecki's body, crawling with crabs. Gross.

59:46: Now the body and crabs are gone. So wait, the killer followed Hewitt, waited for her to stop her car and look in the trunk, then ran up to the car, which was parked on a street in broad daylight, and removed a dead body and numerous live crabs, then cleaned the trunk and escaped before Hewitt could return? I like your style, hook-hand guy.

1:04.45: Gellar has to be in the town's 4th of July parade, so Phillippe protects her by sitting on the edge of the float while wearing a pair of khakis and a yellow polo shirt. If anyone tries to attack Gellar, Phillippe is going to challenge them to a pheasant-hunting contest.

1:06.04: Unsolicited advice to Jennifer Love Hewitt: If you ever travel to a creepy house and Leadbelly's "Where Did You Sleep Last Night" can be heard from inside, haul your ass out of there as fast as possible.

1:07:16 - 1:07:25: Best moment of the movie: Gellar, while perched on one of the parade floats, sees approximately 27 town residents who are wearing the same rain slicker and floppy hat the killer has been wearing, despite the fact that it is the middle of a summer day.

1:07.41. One of them menacingly raises a hook he has clenched in his fist. OK, that one may be the killer. Or he's a hook salesman, shopping his wares. They're often the victims of misunderstandings.

1:12.13: Phillippe's killed via hook. Abercrombie & Fitch's stock plunges.

1:15.44: Gellar, who is trapped in the back of a cop car, sees the killer approaching with a hook. She then kicks out a window, increasing her chances of death about 100 percent.

1:16.39: Gellar runs. The killer follows at what appears to be a leisurely walking pace. The distance between them does not change.

1:17.49: Gellar slams her palm on the door of the store in which she works. hoping to get her bitchy blonde co-worker to open the door. The co-worker pauses to grab a set of keys, because apparently the door locks from the inside with a key. Wait, what?

1:18.23: The bitchy blonde co-worker is killed via hook.

1:19.24: The store's mannequins are covered with plastic to prevent unsightly mannequin dust. Oh, wait, one of them is the killer.

1:22.38: I think Gellar just died. Hold on.

1:25.42: The killer is revealed. It's some guy, and Hewitt's stuck on a boat with him.

1:26:17: Hewitt runs to the deck of the boat, then swears when she sees that land is approximately 75 feet away. Despite growing up in an ocean-side town, she evidently could never swim that far.

1:30.57: Yup, Gellar's dead. But on the plus side, Hewitt had to strip down to a white tank top and crawl around in a bunch of ice for some reason. If they had called this movie Jennifer Love Hewitt Strips Down to a Tank Top and Crawls Around in a Bunch of Ice For Some Reason it would have raked in more cash than Avatar.

1:32.42: The killer dies in a Rube Goldberg-like way involving ropes and pulleys and hooks and a severed hand. This is exactly the kind of thing that would happen all the time if the Three Stooges became homicidal maniacs.

1:34.10: Funniest line of the night: The small-town sheriff sees the killer's hand, still clutching a hook, hanging from the ship's netting and says, "The body will turn up. They usually do." Yeah, it's just the standard situation where a hook-wielding maniac has his hand severed on a fishing boat, then plunges screaming into the ocean. I'm pretty sure that's a code 151 on the scanner.

1:34.30: One years later.

1:34.52: Hewitt's about to take a shower.

1:34:58: A new note distracts her from stepping into the shower. DAMNIT HOOK MAN THIS WAS YOUR GREATEST CRIME OF ALL!

1:35.00: There's a twist.

1:36.00: I look up Southport on Wikipedia and discover it's a real place.

A Closer Look at Textbook Controversy

2010-03-16T11:22:00.000-07:00

The Texas State Board of Education recently imposed controversial new standards for textbooks that some say are too heavily tilted toward conservative thought. What are some of the changes in the new textbooks?

1) In cost-saving move, list of presidents already includes Sarah Palin.

2) Fifteen pages devoted to civil-rights struggles replaced with tasty but historically irrelevant barbecue-sauce recipes.

3) Book asserts that founders meant most constitutional amendments sarcastically, "like when you write 'Hope we hang out soon!' in a fat kid's yearbook."

4) Section devoted to Ronald Reagan accompanied by Photoshopped image of Reagan performing the Moonwalk at the Motown 25 show in 1983.

5) Loss of Vietnam war blamed primarily on premarital sex by Billy Thomas and Suzie Watkins on Nov. 21, 1971 in Thomas' parents' basement.

6) Every scientific achievement mentioned illustrated with a photo of characters from "Revenge of the Nerds."

7) Claims that Joseph McCarthy was vindicated; also claims that he wrote the "Twilight" series.

8) Free-market economy is championed, but note in back claims that book "can be burned for warmth."

9) Portion devoted to George W. Bush's presidency to be blacked out in each book with Magic Marker.

10) Al Gore sarcastically listed in index as "inventor of the internet."

Seattle Times Readers are Inhuman Monsters

2010-03-09T12:52:00.000-08:00

The Seattle Times recently ran a story about a boy who has become a health-care advocate after the death of his mother. Leaving aside the fact that the story raises some unanswered questions, I'd like to point out that it has spawned a crazy, mean-spirited host of comments clinging to the story's belly like a parasite to a host. Let's dive in, shall we?

I'm sorry, but I'm no more responsible for this family's healthcare than Bill Gates is responsible for my retirement.

Bill Gates presumably pays social security taxes, so he is kind of responsible for your retirement, unless you plan on turning down that money. Oh, and he's also helped pay for the roads you drive on, the public schools you or your children attended, the fire department you call when your house catches on fire, and ... well, you get the idea.

What did the woman weigh when she fell ill? Was this not a contributing factor? Senator Murray's webpage said she died because "she didn't have insurance". I suspect she died because of more than that. But that would speak to personal responsibility and that - of course - is anathema to those who want more government, more taxes.

Shorter version of that comment: Fat people deserve to die! Oh, and I like how this commentator "suspects" she died of "more of that." Tell me more, Dr. House.

the deceased made some seriously fatal errors in judgement that had little to do with whether she was insured. if she was a smoker as some have suggested, it changes the story even more.

First of all, there is no evidence whatsoever whether this woman smoked, and there seems to be no evidence that if she did, it was a risk factor for her condition. But, putting that aside, this author seems to imply that someone whose condition is caused by their own actions does not deserve health care, which is both mean and stupid. If you cut your thumb off while slicing vegetables, don't call 911! It's your fault, one-thumb!

Oh, and here's another thing: The Seattle Times doesn't specify if this family is American-born. Are they truly American citizens, or are they illegal aliens??

OR ARE THEY LIZARDS IN HUMAN FORM???? THE SEATTLE TIMES DOESN'T TELL US!!!

I don't mean to appear harsh, but a part of life is death.

If a burglar breaks into your house and starts stabbing you, don't fight back! After all, death is a part of life!

this kid is being used patty to promote her socialism-how sad!

Hey, you know what else is sad? Having your mom die of complications from pulmonary hypertension.

Let Obama have the 13,000 insurance companies compete across state lines, and go after the Tort lawyers, and you'd have at least a 50-75% reduction in cost.

I would really, really like to know where the author came up with that 50-75 percent number. I'm guessing he pulled it right out of his ass. On a related note, studies have repeatedly shown that tort reform will have little to no effect on health care costs.

Allow insurance companies to sell policies across state lines, let the market drive down prices.

Currently, one of the largest problems with this country's health care system is that insurance companies will not insure people if they are at risk to get sick. (Or they kick them off the insurance if they do get sick.) Nobody has ever explained how allowing insurance companies to sell policies across state lines will fix this. If a company based in California won't insure you because you had leukemia, why would a company in Ohio be willing to take you on? Oh, and even if you are able to fix that part of the problem, letting companies sell insurance in different states remains a questionable proposition.

Mocking Seattle Times Readers: An Ongoing Series, Part II

2010-02-22T23:10:00.001-08:00

I don't know about "blaming the poor." The larger problem is that those who would label America a heartlessly judgmental place cannot account for an entire class of people who are simply working the system rather than taking advantage of the most meritocratic nation in the world. I can hear it now..."but these people have been kept down by their social situation"...but here's the truth: no matter how much baggage your crappy background produced, there are really two classes of people: Those who move forward and make the best of it and those who live in the past and expect everyone to agree that they can't work because of various grievances they have with life. YES, there are many people out there who are in dire circumstances, and those people MUST be helped. But how do you tell the difference between them and the shirkers? The shirkers are NOT fictional, and people are angry at THEM, not the poor. The shirkers are the people that are killing the unfortunate poor because they are posing as impostors, the better to milk the system, overwhelming it and embittering those who hold up the social safety net with their taxes.

(1) When somebody begins a sentence by writing, "There are really only two classes of people," you can be 99 percent certain that, logically speaking, a sack filled with bullshit is about to be dropped on your head. In this case, the writer would have you believe that the only people to receive government assistance can be divided into two categories: (a) People who will escape poverty to get high-paying jobs or valuable college scholarships based on pluck, just like that guy in The Pursuit of Happyness, or (b) cheating scofflaws who use their food stamps to purchase paint to huff. This is an easy way to justify loathing those who receive government assistance, but it's simply not true, as anyone who pays the slightest bit of attention knows.

(2) I like how the shirkers are "posing as impostors." If you posed as an impostor, everyone would instantly know you're an impostor because that's what you're posing as.

(3) Did you know there are only two classes of people, those who love my blog and those who beat adorable penguins to death with ball peen hammers? TRUE STORY.

(4) The author refers to "those who hold up the country's safety net with their taxes." The implied argument, which you encounter frequently, is that poor people do not pay taxes. That is untrue; even poor people who do not work - and there are, incidentally, lots of poor people who do work - pay sales and excises taxes, and therefore should have some ownership and voice in our government and country.

Mocking Seattle Times Readers: An Ongoing Series

2010-02-05T12:46:00.000-08:00

True that there are many different reasons that one becomes homeless, but making it easy and relatively comfortable does nothing to inspire one to better themselves. I am all for a hand-up, but not for a hand-out.

I love it when people argue that homeless people are not "inspired," as if the only thing standing between them and success is one of those motivational posters with an eagle on it, and underneath the eagle it says something like "Only when you spread your wings can you truly fly." The implication is that if you give a homeless person a sandwich, they will immediately trade it for crack cocaine; if you, however, make them dance for the sandwich, they will go on to open their own chain of dance studios and name them after you.

Homeless people are typically homeless because of a complex web of problems that can include alcoholism, mental illness or disabilities. Treating those problems is difficult to begin with; it's impossible when the person being treated does not have a place to live, nutritional meals or basic medical care. Giving them those things will not make them lazy; it will make them more healthy. It's the smart thing to do, and the decent thing to do.

The Hollywood Jerk: A Field Guide

2010-01-12T01:44:00.000-08:00

I recently watched Up in the Air, which pretty much everyone agrees is one of the best movies of 2009. It was great, but I couldn't help feeling disquieted during much of it for reasons I couldn't quite grasp.

I grasped them later: It was a Hollywood Jerk movie.

It's difficult to explain what a Hollywood Jerk movie is, because the genre can be nebulous, but I'll do my best. Basically, if you see a character in a major-studio film who is financially successful or has lots of sex, that character will invariably be shown as having an empty, emotionally shallow life. They are a Hollywood Jerk, and they can only be redeemed by a one or more of the following actions: (a) finding a romantic partner with whom they will spend the rest of their life, because single people are losers (b) giving up their horrible, high-paying jobs, because lawyers and businesspeople who travel a lot are missing out on real life, and (c) rushing to see their child's baseball game or piano recital.

I'm not saying that Hollywood Jerk movies are always bad. They can often be excellent, and lately films like Up in the Air have been injecting new subtlety and ideas into them. (Up in the Air takes such unexpected and nuanced turns late that it can hardly be considered a Hollywood Jerk film at all.) But the cliches that can be found routinely in them have spread to every corner of filmdom. The Hollywood Jerk can appear, magically, in any genre. They can most often be found in romantic comedies, such as Sweet Home Alabama, but can also be found in dramas, such as Regarding Henry; broad comedies, such as Liar, Liar; raunchy comedies, such as Wedding Crashers; or even thrillers, such as Phone Booth. (Side note: Regarding Henry has been deservedly forgotten, but I'd like to point out that a studio actually financed and produced a film about a mean lawyer who only becomes nice after he is shot in the head and suffers horrific brain trauma. THAT IS ACTUALLY THE PLOT OF THE MOVIE.)

Here are some ways to spot a Hollywood Jerk.

1) They wear nice clothes. The easiest way to spot a Hollywood Jerk is by their clothing. The male will be wearing a suit, especially one with a loud, brightly colored tie, and will be carrying a briefcase, which will contain papers that his child will later finger-paint on, teaching the male the importance of Not Taking Things Too Seriously. The female will be wearing some sort of power suit, and her hair will be highly stylized so that later in the movie she will let it down, revealing that women do not actually need to style their hair to be beautiful. (Side note: Yes, they do.) Both sexes will frequently be walking quickly through an office building and be talking at a comical pace into a cellphone, because only powerful people who have lost touch with their emotions do this. Powerless people who have the wisdom to love only use land lines, making calls with old-timey rotary telephones or, in a pinch, Sports Illustrated phones that are shaped like footballs.

2) They have high-powered jobs. Hollywood Jerks, whether male or female are almost always lawyers or businessmen. This tells you instantly that the jerk in question is cold, calculating, focused on material gain and seemingly incapable of love. Later in the film, they will tell their boss off, usually in spectacular fashion during a Big Board Meeting Around a Polished Wood Desk, then quit to go do what they've always dreamed of, such as being a carny or selling a unique brand of chainsaw art.

3) They miss their kids' recitals, birthdays and/or baseball games. The Hollywood Jerk reveals his jerkiness in several ways - using hair spray, for example, or having money - but there is no more revealing one than putting their career first. This frequently manifests itself when the jerk in question misses a crucial day in his son or daughter's life. If it's a son, it was almost always be a baseball game, because god knows, the average youth baseball player only plays 26 times a week, and missing one of those games means Billy will grow up to prostitute himself out behind the bus station; if it's a daughter, it will almost always be a musical performance of some kind, and she will search in vain for her father's attentive face in mid-performance, an act that would cause her to fall into the orchestra pit in real life. The lowest of the Hollywood Jerk, though, will miss his son or daughter's birthday, and they will look really sad when they blow out the candles. Later in the film, the main character will have to resolve some sort of crisis, then rush like an ambulance driver to make it in time for their kid's event, which will then erase all the prior years of neglect.

4) They have attractive sexual partners. If you settle in to watch a mainstream movie and the main character has sex that actually looks fun, be suspicious, because you are probably in the presence of a Hollywood Jerk. Having vigorous sex with one or more attractive partners may look fun, but as Tom Cruise learned in Jerry Maguire and Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson learned in Wedding Crashers, it's actually a sign that you live a meaningless life. Later, the sex will be soft-lit and occasionally punctuated with wry, funny comments to show the characters Don't Take Themselves Too Seriously Anymore.

The Odd and Glorious Career of Patrick Swayze

2009-09-16T23:04:00.001-07:00

When Patrick Swayze died a few months ago, the tributes were heartfelt but brief, unlike the endless attention that had been given earlier to Michael Jackson. That's wholly appropriate; Jackson's death was unexpected and shocking, and his career cast a longer shadow worldwide.

Still, I feel it would be rewarding for a closer look at Swayze, who had a truly interesting and unique career, a cobbled-together filmography of odd delights, cult hits and familiar favorites.

For someone who was a star at one point in his career, Swayze made very few films. What's amazing is how many of those films occupy unique corners in the history of film from the 1980s on. Who else would be able to claim that he starred in two huge romantic hits (Dirty Dancing, Ghost), two genuinely awesome cult action movies (Road House, Point Break), one of the most influential indies in recent years (Donnie Darko), one of the oddest curios of the 1980s (Red Dawn) and one of the strongest collections of future talent in modern film history (The Outsiders)?

I'd like to take a closer look at a few of those.

Red Dawn. There are movies that examine the Cold War with more insight and nuance, but no other film reveals the violent, half-crazy way that this country sometimes views itself than Red Dawn. It opens with the Russians invading a small town in Colorado for some reason. (It lacks a scene where a Russian commander, preferably wearing an enormous hat with a red star on the front, says "We must secure the gas-n-sip!") All the citizens are forced into internment camps except for the local high schoolers, who take off for the woods, acquire some guns and eventually fight to take the town back. As an action movie, Red Dawn is two hours of pure cheese, but as a guide to the paranoid leanings of American thought, it's priceless. Many arguments in American politics today can be traced back to the idea made explicit in the film: that we may have to move to the woods and re-fight the American revolution. To many Americans, that's not a fear; it's a fantasy.

Donnie Darko. Swayze has a small role in this puzzling, atmospheric flick by director Richard Kelly. I won't say too much about the part, but it was a smart and unexpected choice by Swayze, and an unnerving performance as well.

Point Break and Road House. Generally speaking, I enjoy action movies that are fun, rather than those that are grim, violent slogs from the opening titles to the end credits. I suspect Swayze did too, since he starred in these two films, both of which are a blast. In the former he's a shaggy-maned surfer-turned-bank robber; in the latter he is a bouncer with a degree in philosophy. The important thing to note is that while both films tried to thrill audiences, neither took itself too seriously. Point Break offers lots of oddball moments, such as the split-second moment during a foot chase when the man being chased picks up a dog and throws it at his pursuer. And I've watched Road House probably six or seven times, and I still can't figure out if it's a straight action movie or a subversive comedy in disguise. (The moment when Ben Gazzara's crime boss boasts, "JC Penney is coming here because of me!" may be a giveaway, though.)

Dirty Dancing. You may not believe this, but there was a time when two movie characters could fall in love without one of them being a vampire. One of the most memorable examples of this trend was Dirty Dancing. Virtually every woman who has seen Dirty Dancing loves it, and will giggle and blush if you inject the phrase "Nobody puts baby in the corner!" into your everyday conversation. In terms of its stature as a romance, it may be the Titanic of its day, the romantic template that women always have in their minds. As a guy, I'm tempted to make fun of Dirty Dancing, but I can't. Unlike many films today, it is uncluttered with contrivances and utterly free of irony. It's completely sincere.

Judging from his roles, that's what I suspect Patrick Swayze was like, too.

Stop It. I'm Not Kidding.

2009-08-19T13:01:00.001-07:00

Over the years, I've become rather fond of the English language.

Sure, I may be biased because we grew up together, but I like to think the relationship between me and the language is true love, or at least a pleasantly broken-in friendship. I've even fallen in love with its smaller virtues: Its pleasing rhythm, its limitless flexibility, its weirdly endless number of words you can choose from to refer to your butt.

So please understand the seriousness with which I write this: Please, please stop murdering it by using the phrase going forward.

I don't know how this phrase was invented, but it's spread rapidly, popping up in articles, journals, broadcasts and conversations.

I usually abide writing tics such as this; almost everyone falls into their traps from time to time. But what's especially galling about this one is that it's useless. If you say, We're going to make fewer mistakes going forward, what you mean is We're going to make fewer mistakes. The difference is that you spent two words wasting your readers' time.

Let's say that you want to tell a friend that you are going to take piano lessons. Seems simple enough, right?

You: I am going to take piano lessons.
Friend: Hey, that's great!

Now, let's add two more words to that first bit.

You: I am going to take piano lessons going forward.
Friend: Thank you for clarifying that you will not take piano lessons in the past. For a minute I thought you had invented a time machine and were going to travel backwards in time and take piano lessons.

See? The phrase going forward can ruin friendships as well as sentences.

Please, please avoid it.

Belated Recommendations: An Ongoing Series

2009-08-13T22:56:00.000-07:00

Mission: Impossible 3

In the years since it was released, M:I3 has gotten a bad rap among some movie-biz insiders and fans. It was released when star Tom Cruise was suffering through a patch of bad publicity, made less money domestically than its predecessors and frequently had the adjective 'disappointing' added to its title by film pundits.

That's a shame, because it's not only clearly the best of the Mission: Impossible movies, it's also one of the sharpest action movies to come out of Hollywood this decade.

The plot has Cruise's super-secret agent, Ethan Hunt, traveling the world to take on a nasty arms dealer played by Phillip Seymour Hoffman. The plot isn't especially important, a fact which director J.J. Abrams cheerfully acknowledges before lavishing his attention on the things that really matter: wit, thrills and a fast-moving momentum that carries the audience along.

First of all, the wit. In most action movies, witty usually means that there's a hilarious computer nerd sidekick who lives in his mom's basement and eats Hot Pockets. Either that, or the hero says something like, "Mind if I play through?" when beating the villain to death with a golf club. But M:I3 has a more playful sense of wit and is willing to goose the conventions of the genre. One scene promises to be a knock-down, drag-out action sequence, but instead you see it from the point of view of the sidekicks waiting outside; in another, a villain is dispatched in a surprisingly creative and abrupt fashion. There's also the nature of the object both the hero and villain are pursuing at the costs of many lives; nobody seems to be sure what it does, but they do seem sure that it might just bring along the end of the world.

Second of all: Hoffman, who has a limited amount of screen time, manages to craft an unnerving villain in international arms dealer Owen Davian. There aren't any gimmicks to his character, and no back story to speak of. He's just a sadistic, confident and relentless bad guy who dominates every scene he's in. And his one-on-one confrontation with Cruise, which opens the villain, gives later scenes a weight they wouldn't otherwise deserve.

That's not all - the supporting cast (which includes Billy Crudup, Lawrence Fishburne and Simon Pegg) is fun; the action scenes are done with brio; and the gadgets are neat, adding an enjoyable wrinkle to a genre that has tilted toward stone-faced seriousness in recent years.

Check it out if you get the chance.

Wait a minute ... maybe Palin's right

2009-08-08T00:20:00.000-07:00

Sarah Palin has reportedly speculated that, under the health plan currently being debated in Congress, Americans would have to justify their health care in front of 'Obama's death panel.'

Many people immediately pointed out that this claim was utterly unfounded. However, further digging reveals more disturbing aspects of the health-care proposal.

Here are just a few.

1) Instead of recess, elementary-school students will spend 30 minutes a day smoking unfiltered cigarettes.

2) Major medical associations to recommend drinking eight glasses of Hollandaise sauce a day.

3) Old national pastime: baseball. New national pastime: shovel fights.

4) Americans will be covered by a nonsensical, patchwork health-insurance system that rewards greedy decisions by huge corporations and leaves large swaths of the population uninsured. Huh ... that one doesn't seem funny for some reason.

5) New food pyramid will recommend 3-5 servings of Lunchables per day.

6) Old NIH goal: finding new treatments for incurable diseases. New NIH funding goal: Buying every VHS movie in case the format makes a comeback.

7) Catchy ad campaign starring the cast of High School Musical about how only losers use headlights.

How to be an Idiot in Five Easy Steps

2009-08-02T13:36:00.000-07:00

These days, if you're not posting comments online, you're nobody. Whether it's an article on health-care reform in your local newspaper or a photo of a friend hitting a beer bong on Facebook, you can't go anywhere on the net without being given the opportunity to share your wisdom.

This raises a question: How do you get heard? How do you make sure that your comment - so witty! so caustic! - is more convincing than that of hated rivals such as beer_rules1235?

Well friends, I have ventured into the jungle of internet message boards and returned with a few tips for you to make your point, burn your rival and get showered with the praise your comments undoubtedly deserve. Read on!

1) Use that caps lock key. Scientists have established that any argument seems more forceful, logical and eloquent when shouted. It seems as if it would be difficult to replicate this cunning advantage online, it's not. Just type some of your most important words, phrases, or even paragraphs in all caps. I can assure you it makes you seem like a modern Lincoln, Darrow or Disraeli and not some moron in a bar who keeps yelling that this is the year the Patriots will go undefeated, right before showing everybody the multi-colored tattoo of Tom Brady you have on your upper back.

2) While you're at it, pour on the exclamation points. If I write, The stimulus package is a joke and Obama should be removed from office, you may recognize that I just made a wild statement without backing it up with facts. But observe what happens when I write, The stimulus package is a joke and Obama should be removed from office!!!!!! Suddenly, you find yourself drawn to my argument and you wish to subscribe to my mail-order pamphlets about how Jews control NASA. That's the power of exclamation points.

3) Engage in name-calling. One of the earliest masters of rhetoric, Aristotle, was quoted as saying, "Name-calling and punning is the highest forms of rhetoric. Also, STUPID LIBS can totally suck it!!!!" Or maybe he didn't; my copy of Aristotle is holding up one leg of my card table and it would take forever to move all my stuff off of it. Anyway, the point is that calling opponents and political figures names is a perfectly reasonable form of discourse. Lumping them into broad categories is good (libs, wingnuts, tree-huggers, etc.), but making a super-clever pun is better and shows your superiority. For example, if your opponent drones on and on about unemployment figures or the Constitution, you just write, "Yeah? Well you're just a DEMOCRAP!!" What's he going to say to that, huh?

4) Blame everything on illegal immigrants. Hey, did you know that illegal immigrants - many of whom were not even born in this country - are responsible for ballooning the deficit, stealing health benefits, taking jobs away from real Americans, raising crime rates, getting us into war with Iraq, creating an unsustainable credit bubble, torturing children in secret prisons, shredding the Constitution, aiding terrorists, producing shopping carts that have one bad wheel, making it so the Bills never win the Super Bowl, breaking up the Beatles, breaking up Wings, fueling the mystifying success of the Moody Blues, running out on the check, farting at face level while walking past your cubicle, starting World War I, starting World War II, starting the Crimean War, starting the Tekwars, writing and producing the film Crash starring Sandra Bullock and Chris 'Ludacris' Bridges, posting embarrassing photos of you on Facebook, raising oil prices and tangling up the string on your yo-yo then just handing it back to you? Be sure to point this out on message boards.

5) Offer lots of anecdotal evidence. One key to winning the message-board battle is to remember that people like facts as long as they're from real life and not from reports or books or newspapers or anything like that. For example, if some stupid democrap posts a bunch of boring numbers about how many losers are unemployed, be sure to mention that your cousin Larry is also unemployed, and all he does is fish for Wild Turkey bottles under his bed and wait for his check from the government. That'll show 'em. That'll show 'em real good.

Don't Quit Your Day Job ... Whatever That Is

2009-01-18T11:32:00.000-08:00

There's an opinion piece on cnn.com right now by Republican Congressman Eric Cantor. The piece points out some of the risks that come with the stimulus bill being pushed by President-Elect Obama.

If you think I'm going to do a nuanced breakdown of the economic misconceptions behind that piece, you, sir or madam, have vastly underestimated my laziness, because I'm going to do no such thing.

I am, however, going to mock Representative Cantor for the most confused simile I have had the misfortune of reading. Check it out:

Like bears sniffing out food at a campfire pit, those looking for a piece of the multi-billion dollar pie have flooded Washington with a cascade of requests

A few points on this stitched-together Frankenstein of a sentence:

1) Now, I'm no expert on bears. However, I'm certain that bears are incapable of flooding Washington with requests. First of all, they're bears; they can't speak. Secondly, even if they could speak, how would they dial a phone? The buttons are much too tiny for their massive paws. See? It's just ludicrous.

2) Please note the confusing swerve that takes place when the bears, which were established as the actors in the first clause of the sentence, suddenly begin flooding in the second. Representative Cantor, I cannot keep up with your literary pyrotechnics, sir! Bills, pies, bears, cascades ... I've forgotten what you were writing about, but for some reason I am hungry and want to go camping in the mountains.

Other than that, nice sentence.

The Maddening Enigma of Owen Wilson

2008-09-14T20:32:00.000-07:00

So I was in the mood for a movie that would cheer me up the other day, and I rented Drillbit Taylor, starring Owen Wilson.

To its credit, it had a few funny lines and a montage sequence set to Eminem's "Ass Like That", but in general it was pretty awful. I actually walked into another room halfway through so I could check my e-mail. (I didn't have any. Would it freakin' kill you to send me an e-mail?)

The whole incident left me sort of disgusted and wondering: How is it that I like Owen Wilson so much, yet hate virtually every film he's ever starred in?

I was so bored by Drillbit Taylor I walked out; I was so bored by The Big Bounce that I turned it off; I was so alarmed by Wedding Crashers' slide from cheerful misbehavior to sappy love that I walked out before one of the characters embarrassed himself by making a public, romantic speech.

Also, he starred in "You, Me & Dupree," which to be fair I have not actually seen but was so universally panned I feel comfortable disliking it by proxy.

All of this is puzzling. Wilson is both a gifted writer who should have an eye for good scripts, and a gifted performer who should breathe life into poor ones. He can take small moments and turn them into gems with barely perceptible half-twists. In Drillbit Taylor, his character goes on about his dream of moving to Canada, then reveals that his mental grasp on the country is less than firm when he says something like: "They have British Columbian women there. Can you imagine that combination?"

So why is is that a lot of the movies Wilson stars in are crummy?

It's because Wilson is a victim of the Leading Man Syndrome, when a gifted actor who in was born to play supporting roles is shoehorned into being a leading man.

Some actors are meant to be the steady fixtures at the center of films, around which everything else in the movie pivots. Some, however, are meant to stay at the margins of films, where the more colorful, funny or memorable roles can be found as the leading man holds everything down.

Take Alec Baldwin. There was a stretch where Hollywood was convinced he was a leading man, and cast him in a bunch of roles few people can remember now. (Rented Prelude to a Kiss Lately? Me neither.) Then he found his supporting player groove, which may have began with a brief but scathing appearance in Glengarry Glen Ross and continues through this day on 30 Rock. In between, he has played a depressed shoe executive, an actor with a taste for less-than-legal girls and a scheming casino executive, the last of which earned him Academy Award nomination. He recognized Leading Man Syndrome and deftly sidestepped it.

Another actor who has grappled, mostly successfully, with the Leading Man enigma is Brad Pitt. Pitt is a gifted actor in both starring and supporting roles, but despite his Angelina Jolie-snagging good looks, he is clearly a wildly expressive comic actor in a leading man's body. He was praised for his somber performance in The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, but in later years, he will likely be remembered for loopy turns in 12 Monkeys, Burn After Reading and Snatch. (He also crafted one of the great screen stoners of all time, despite only a few minutes of screen time, in True Romance.) He recognized Leading Man Syndrome and divides his time between well chosen starring and supporting roles.

So, Owen Wilson: It's your turn to choose between forgettable, poorly fitting leading-man roles and sharp, funny supporting turns people will remember for along time.

Please, for the sake of audiences, make the right choice.

Happy Birthday, Prez

2008-08-26T21:19:00.001-07:00

A scout once described a pair of up-and-coming basketball players by saying that one had a knack for making everything look hard, and the other had a knack for making everything look easy.

I was thinking of that quote today as I listened to Lester Young, one of the greatest saxophone players in the history of saxophone players, play a buttery clarinet solo on "They Can't Take That Away From Me." He made it listen so easy.

Today is Young's birthday, and even if you're not a jazz fan, I would recommend taking a few minutes to listen to something by Young, who hasn't grown as famous as John Coltrane or Charlie Parker, but whose ability was beautiful and striking.

One of the wonderful things about music is that an instrument's sound can change so dramatically in the hands of different musicians. A hard-edged, mournful guitar performance by Robert Johnson is utterly different than than the smooth, precise playing of B.B. King, even though they supposedly play the same style.

So it is with jazz. Ben Webster's whispery saxophone can summon a lazy, romantic evening; Charlie Parker's sound always makes me think of taxicabs whizzing past; John Coltrane's squeaking, squealing tone sounds like a man digging deeper and deeper into his own soul.

Lester Young's fingerprint is harder to detect. Although his influence was vast, as evidenced by Charles Mingus' beautiful elegy, "Goodbye Pork Pie Hat," his sound is hard to describe. It's warm as softened butter and seems to float effortlessly from solo to solo, allowing you to sink, entranced, into the song he's playing.

Check him out. And wish him a happy birthday.

Twists and Turns

2008-08-21T23:05:00.000-07:00

I just finished reading Shutter Island, a mystery by Dennis Lehane that will be the basis for an upcoming flick with Leonardo DiCaprio, directed by Martin Scorsese. It's a fun book. It's lean, tightly plotted and has a twist at the end that is probably tougher to pull off in words than it will be on the screen.

It sparked a conversation with a friend of mine over twist endings in movies. We started talking about the best twists we've seen.

I remember seeing a screening of The Usual Suspects before it was released. Nobody in the audience had heard of the cast members -- Benecio del Toro was unknown, Kevin Spacey was a vaguely recognizable character actor, and Stephen Baldwin was Stephen Baldwin -- and expectations were low, But the film dragged everyone into its net, and when final scene rolled by, the audience lost it. It was one of the most thrilling movie-watching experiences I've had and showed me what a good surpise at the end of a film can do.

So here, in no order, are my top twists of all time, plus an added bonus worst twist of all time. This is just a personal list and I'm sure I'm forgetting a bunch; I encourage you to add your own suggestions. (Oh, and ... you know. Spoilers.)

The Usual Suspects. I saw this again recently, and it's surprising how well it holds up even when you know what's coming. Logically, of course, Spacey is the only one of the thieves who is alive in the present-day portion of the film, so he's the only one who could be Keyser Soze. Halfway through the movie, you realize the director and writer are too smart to have Byrne pop out of a closet or del Toro turn up cackling as the real villain. But it's the timing and wit with which the filmmakers reveal the truth that makes it so fun.

Psycho. This film has seeped so far into popular culture that you don't have to see it to be surrounded by references to it. It's still a masterpiece, from the still-startling shower scene to the unnerving performance by Anthony Perkins. But I think people underrate the revelation at the end. And the swinging bare bulb adds the perfect, stark touch.

Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines. No, really. I'm serious. Here's a big-budget, Hollywood movie that ends, essentially, with the heroes losing and most of the world's population getting wiped out in a nuclear holocaust. Most action movies teach us that we can change events if we try hard enough; you can stop the terrorists, thwart the serial killer, and get the girl to boot. But in T3, very little has changed from the beginning to the end. It's a weirdly subversive and daring way to end a film.

The Empire Strikes Back. I'm still kind of freaked out about this one.

The Sixth Sense. The thing that makes this twist so great is the organic nature of it. It makes sense, it doesn't negate the power of anything that preceded it and it adds poignancy to the end. It's not necessarily the best movie on this list, but it's a perfect example of how a twist ending can enhance a movie without seeming like an overly clever afterthought.

Special Bonus! Worst Twist of All Time: Ocean's 12. For most of the film, Danny Ocean's gang plans an elaborate heist with seemingly everything at stake. Then, with 10 minutes left to go, you find out they had already pulled off the heist (which was ridiculously easy), making the stakes irrelevant. Ha ha! Up yours, audience!

A Letter to my Old Friend Hollywood

2008-08-14T23:29:00.000-07:00

Dear Hollywood,

We've had some good times, you and I.

You've given me years of entertainment. You've taught me how to survive attacks by zombies, murderous dolls and super-intelligent sharks. When I was young, you showed me ladies' boobs when no one else would.

In return, I have given you untold hours of my time and most of my money that I would have otherwise spent on feeding hungry children or clothing the homeless or buying the medicine my bastard of a psychiatrist said would help me with my anger problem.

It has been a mutually beneficial relationship.

Which is why it's so hard for me to tell you this: Hollywood, you've got to stop making fun of yourself.

The reason I'm writing this letter, Hollywood, is the upcoming release of Tropic Thunder, which is a movie about actors in a war movie who get set loose in a real war zone, resulting in two hours of hilarity. The movie stars Ben Stiller, Robert Downey Jr., Jack Black, Nick Nolte and Steve Coogan.

The movie looks very funny, and I'm looking forward to it. But I can't help getting a queasy feeling I read its reviews, which gushingly note how the film "skewers Hollywood" as if that's original or daring, when really it's neither.

First of all, Hollywood, you've been savaging yourself for a long time.

All About Eve was pretty much a venom-filled indictment of the entertainment industry, and that movie was so old it was in black and white because it had to be, not because the director wanted some easily won film-snob cred.

In the last decade or so, you've sprouted a cottage industry telling people how lame you are in order to show people how cool you are.

Actors do it all the time. Bob Saget played himself as a hooker-frequenting druggie in Entourage; Neil Patrick Harris did pretty much the same thing in the Harold and Kumar movies. And it seems like every week, somebody famous is making fun of themselves on The Simpsons. Jim Jarmusch, was on it a while ago. I like Jim Jarmusch, but I don't want him in cartoons. I want him where he belongs, which is making boring movies I don't understand.

There are also entire movies making fun of the movie industry, such as Swimming with Sharks, which had Kevin Spacey as a mean studio executive, or The Player, which had Tim Robbins as a mean studio executive, or State & Main, which had Alec Baldwin as a lecherous actor. All of them are made to convince us, the audience, how craven and shallow and greedy you all are, and how stupid audiences are for buying the pap you churn out on the studio assembly line. That way we both walk away from the film feeling superior to people who aren't in on the joke.

But here's the thing, Hollywood: I'm tired of the joke. And most of all, I don't care. I don't care how vain or egotistical or drug-addled you are. I just want good entertainment I can buy off you, and that's all.

So I'm going to offer you a deal.

I'm going to go to see Tropic Thunder. I'm going to laugh as Ben Stiller makes faces, as Jack Black makes fun of drug addiction and as Robert Downey Jr. mocks method acting.

Then you've got to clean up your act, or I'm going to start tuning out. So please start churning out the entertainment I love without assuming I care how it gets made or who makes it.

You wouldn't want me to turn to books, would you?

Brilliantly absurd action scenes: An ongoing series

2008-08-02T01:11:00.000-07:00

Ice-T busts a move in 3,000 Miles to Graceland

3,000 Miles to Graceland is about a group of thieves who, while disguised as Elvis impersonaters, knock over a casino, then turn on each other in a series of violent double crosses. The two antagonists, played by Kurt Russell as the good guy and Kevin Costner as the bad guy, both believe they are illegitamite sons of Elvis Presley, which is why Costner's character wears a pair of suitably ridiculous sideburns.

It's a promising idea for an entertainingly bad movie, and my hopes were raised even more by the strangeness of the cast. (David Arquette and Ice-T, together at last!) Unfortunately, while there are a few moments of inspiration, it's really just an illogical, bloody and charmless mess.

(There is one genuinely great moment: Courtney Cox's character is in her car, trying to escape Costner, who is pursuing her and her son close behind. For a moment it seems like they've lost Costner, but then he comes roaring up behind them in his car. Cox's son exclaims, "It's him!" followed immediately by a shot of Costner who, despite the impossibility of him hearing the boy, says something like, "It's me! Ha ha ha ha ha!" Seriously, it's really great.)

Despite its general lack of quality, 3,000 Miles to Graceland does have one of the more bizarre landmarks in action-scene history: Ice-T's technique for ambushing the good guys, which may be the least effective ambush technique ever.

First of all, here's the setup: Costner is preparing for the final showdown with Russell. One of his henchman, played by Howie Long (!) arrives, accompanied by Ice-T, who had not been seen up to this point. Costner chastises Long, saying, "I said to bring a lot of guys!" To which Long replies, "He is a lot of guys."

Meaning, of course, that Ice-T is this totally bad ass killing machine.

Now at this point, I started to get interested in the movie again. With an introduction like that, I figured Ice-T would be a master of the nunchuks, or have some sort of futuristic pulse rifle, or be well-schooled in gymkata. In an action movie, if other guys talk about a henchman like that, he'd better be pretty spectacular*.

Sadly, that's not the case in 3,000 Miles to Graceland.

As it turns out, Ice-T's sweet move: He lowers himself upside down by a rope above the warehouse floor, firing a machine gun with each hand. Oh, and he's suspended by his ankles.

This raises some questions:

1) When Ice-T loses momentum, won't he just dangle helplessly from the rope, vulnerable to gunfire and unable to pull himself back up?

2) No matter how trained Ice-T is in the deadly arts, is firing two machine guns while upside down and swinging on the end of the rope the most efficient way to kill someone? I know that action movies foster some exaggeration, but ... how do you even aim, man?

3) If this is the killing technique Ice-T chose, what are the techniques he rejected?

Henchman: I have an idea -- before the people we're going to ambush get here, let's invent a time machine using common household items we have on hand, travel back into 18th century, and murder their ancestors!

Ice-T: Don't be ridiculous. (Pause) Why don't we just swing across the warehouse floor while suspended upside-down by ropes, firing machine guns ?

Henchman (stroking his chin): I like the way you think, Ice-T.

I don't remember How Ice-T meets his end in this film, but I remember he doesn't last long. So as it turns out, 3,000 Miles to Graceland does offer a practical lesson: When it comes to ambushes, don't do as Ice-T does.

*There are occasional exceptions to this rule, which I like to call the Michael Madsen Corollary, after the actor's role in Species I and II. Madsen plays a shadowy government hit man, but you never actually see him doing anything cool or even marginally useful.

Brilliantly absurd action scenes: An ongoing series

2008-07-31T22:51:00.000-07:00

Bruce Willis improvises in Live Free or Die Hard

In most action movies, the hero seems as if he's born and bred to wreak havoc. He's highly trained. He's well-armed. In fact, you get the impression he's spent most of his life waiting for international arms dealers to kill his family already, so he could have an excuse to break out the machetes and the machine guns.

Not so with John McClane, the protagonist of the Die Hard films.

As played by Bruce Willis, McClane is a rugged-but-harried everyman, a New York City cop who just happens to cross paths repeatedly with highly-armed thieves, suave kidnappers and Internet-savvy terrorists. Sure, he can shoot off some kneecaps if he has to, but he's more worried about finding a parking spot at the airport or saving his frosty marriage. Where other action heroes revel in violence, McClane seems disgusted and panicked by it; you get the impression that no matter what he's doing, he'd rather be home watching the Jets game with a dog curled up at his feet.

One thing I enjoy about the character is that McClane's feats are usually realistic, at least in action-movie world. Sure, in the first film McClane escapes an explosion by dropping down the side of a skyscraper on a fire hose, but that's the exception that proves the rule, and McClane seems properly freaked out by the absurdity of it to buy some credibility from the audience. More telling is the confrontation with the main villain, in which McClane, who knows he will probably have to surrender the machine gun he has been toting, simply tapes a pistol between his shoulder blades. Remarkably for an action film, it's a trick that you could imagine a world-weary cop actually thinking of, and it doesn't involve him suddenly karate-chopping his way through dozens of henchman or jumping from a helicopter onto a moving train while riding a moped.

Which brings us to Live Free or Die Hard.

Live Free or Die Hard was charming and fun enough to win me over, but it was not a typical Die Hard movie.

First of all, the villain was basically a sinister hacker. I mean, yeah, he's played by relatively acne-free Timothy Olyphant, and he's not wearing thick glasses, but you can't fool me, Hollywood --he's a computer geek.

Second of all, the stunts are pretty ridiculous. They look fantastic and they're a lot of fun, but they're ridiculous. In the course of the movie, Bruce Willis survives being in an apartment that has 126,000 bullets shot into it; jumps a car into a helicopter; and jumps from an elevated road onto the tail of a fighter jet as it's in flight.

I half-expected the cockpit of the jet to open to reveal that it's being piloted by a super-intelligent great white shark, which McClane would then have to engage in hand-to-flipper combat.

However, the film redeemed the absurdity of its stunts in the final scene - spoiler alert, y'all -in which McClane finds his blue-collar mojo.

In it, Olyphant's poindexter-turned-terrorist is holding McClane at gunpoint. Olyphant has restrained McClane from behind, and has curled his gun hand around McClane's body, pressing the gun barrel into his shoulder.

So here's the simple, creative solution McClane comes up with: He gets ahold of the trigger and pulls it, shooting through his own shoulder and into Olyphant's chest.

Simple. Direct. McClane.

Brilliantly absurd action scenes: An ongoing series

2008-07-30T22:42:00.000-07:00

Jason Statham takes care of a little bomb problem in The Transporter 2

One of the most exciting developments in action movies has been the rise of the cheerfully ridiculous Transporter series, which stars Jason Statham as a tight-lipped loner who transports dangerous cargo. He's kind of like a bicycle messenger, only he doesn't blog or talk your ear off about how great Vampire Weekend is.

Statham's character is always improvising his weapons. He uses fire hoses to trip bad guys; he uses gourds as improvised brass knuckles. If you attack him with a paper clip, he will break it in half, then use the pointy ends to gouge out your eyes.

While The Transporter is a great improviser, he is an even better driver. In one scene early in The Transporter 2, he jumps a car from one high-rise to another. Oh ... what's that you say? That doesn't sound impressive? Maybe that's because I didn't mention that he jumps it to a floor in the middle of the building. That's right, he doesn't jump it from roof to roof, because that's what a total wuss would do. If you were running from the cops and jumped the car from one high-rise roof to another, The Transporter would flame you later on transporting-related message boards.

But I digress.

There's a scene early in the film -- but after the roof-to-floor scene -- where The Transporter discovers there is a bomb attached to the bottom of his car. (He sees its LED numbers reflected in a puddle under the car.)

So here's what The Transporter does: He sees a crane with a hook on it. He races the car toward it, jumps it, then somehow gets the car to rotate so its wheels are facing the sky, allowing the hook to snag off the bomb in mid-air.

Oh yeah: Then he lands the cars on its wheels and drives off as the bomb explodes behind him, still on the crane's hook.

(I will take a break here to allow you to crap your pants over how awesome that is.)

To be honest, it was difficult to chose the most absurd scene from The Transporter series. But flipping a car in a way that will allow a hook to snag a bomb off it -- not only is that spectacular, but it will give you a leg up in the highly competitive field of transporting. And that's gotta be worth something.

The Joker

2008-07-28T23:12:00.000-07:00

The Dark Knight is on track to become one of the highest-grossing films of all time.

Good.

It's a dark, thoughtful and gritty crime story with moments of tremendous power. It's directed by the no-longer-underrated Christopher Nolan. It's got a sparkling cast, from Christian Bale's chilly superhero to Gary Oldman's wise Jim Gordon to Maggie Gyllenhaal's saucy, smart Rachel Dawes.

But the white-hot center of the film is The Joker, played by Heath Ledger.

The Joker has taken on many forms through the years, from Jack Nicholson's more-funny-than-scary take in Tim Burton's Batman to the complex monster of The Killing Joke.

But Ledger's brilliantly imagined Joker doesn't just belong among the greatest versions of the character. He doesn't just belong among the greatest screen villains. He deserves a spot among the great villains from literature and legend, those who terrified us before film was even invented.

The Joker's appearance is frightening, with his smeared clown makeup, scarred mouth and tallow-yellow teeth. And Ledger amplifies that appearance with a gallery of off-putting tics and eccentricities. Listen to how he lovingly draws out the word "commissioner" in the chilling jailhouse scene, or watch how he smooths his green hair back with one thumb when approaching the beautiful Gyllenhaal.

Underneath the considerable showmanship, however, is something even more remarkable: the filmmakers realize that what makes The Joker truly frightening is not his appearance, but his skill at creating chaos, and using that chaos as a tool to measure men with. The Joker constantly putting others up against gruesome tests, and is gleeful when they fail.

In one scene, The Joker gives Batman a choice between saving two characters who mean much to him; in another, he gives two groups of people the opportunity to destroy the other in order to save themselves. The message is clear. With the right nudge, The Joker is saying, anyone is capable of becoming a murderer, or insane -- just like him.

As he says late in the film: "Insanity is like gravity. Sometimes all it takes is a little push."

In that sense, The Joker truly is an heir to some of the greatest villains. Judge Holden of Blood Meridian, who leads a group of men from massacre to massacre in the American West, believes that all men eventually must bow to the spirit of war: "War is god," he states plainly, a sentiment The Joker likely would agree with. Iago, in his glee to topple the great general Othello, does so horribly; The Joker, in his toppling of the seemingly incorruptible Harvey Dent, could have been his pupil.

It is telling, and brilliant, that director Christopher Nolan chose not to give The Joker an origin story. In fact, the film itself points out that The Joker drops fully formed into the story. "Nothing his pocket but knives and lint," a character points out after The Joker is captured. With that decision, The Joker seems less like a man corrupted by some past trauma and more like a malignancy set loose upon the world. A roving symptom causing fear and doubt wherever he goes.

A great villain for our time.

The Profound Nature of Buffy

2008-07-21T18:44:00.000-07:00

A friend of mine recently turned me onto "Buffy the Vampire Slayer," which I had been avoiding for several years because it sounded silly. A teenage girl who fights vampires? C'mon.

(On a related note, one of my favorite movies is Bride of Chucky.)

Anyway, a friend of mine who has a sterling track record with recommending TV shows finally got me to watch it. And it's pretty damn good. Sure, the production values in the first season are a little lackluster. (The high school Buffy goes to appears to have about 17 students.) And some of the actors take a while to grow into their roles. But the acting is good, the writing is sharp and the series is able to summon both genuine warmth and dread at the appropriate times.

The thing that struck me most about the series, however, was how perfect a vehicle it was for articulating the difficulty of being a teenager.

Like all teenagers, Buffy feels the alienation of being an outsider. But where Buffy, as a series, races ahead of the pack is how specific it is about the nature of that alienation.

Buffy isn't an outsider because she hails from another town, or because she wears the wrong clothes, or because she carries sharpened wooden stakes in her bag. (Although these things don't help.) She's an outsider because, like all teenagers, she is burdened by knowledge she feels she can't share with anyone else.

That's perfect.

The thing that's often frightening about being a teenager is how specific an experience each teenager believes it is. When they face problems -- a complex social life, a confusing love life, the pressure of performing in school for stakes they are told are high -- it's possible for a teenager to feel as if he or she is the only one who has ever faced them.

It makes those problems difficult to beat down; more importantly, it makes them almost impossible to talk about. How can you talk about something that nobody else can relate to?

Where Buffy as a series is brilliant is that it dramatizes these feelings. While most teenagers can talk about their problems -- they just don't realize it -- Buffy really is burdened by troublesome knowledge: the existence of vampires and other ghouls. Few adults would believe her; almost all of her peers would mock her mercilessly. Buffy dramatizes the way many teenagers feel about their own world.

Yet More Humor

2008-06-04T09:14:00.000-07:00

Here is a short humor piece I wrote about the release of the latest Grand Theft Auto game. I would like to point out that this was written before The Onion wrote a similar list. So there.

New features in the upcoming version of Grand Theft Auto

In game’s most difficult setting, cops will actually come to your house and shoot at you.

Character spends 10 percent of his time committing violent street crimes, 90 percent of his time blogging about committing violent street crimes.

In fun nod to video games past, you can team with up Q*Bert to take chainsaws to rivals in the drug trade.

Setting is a thinly-disguised version of New York so accurate your character spends much of his time bitching about gentrification.

After controversy about previous version’s hidden sex scene, play is limited to more benign pursuits such as shooting prostitutes in the face.

Jeff Bridges and the subtle art of acting

2008-02-23T00:08:00.000-08:00

There is a scene in "The Door in the Floor" when Jeff Bridges is called on to perform a monster of a monologue.

Bridges' character is a children's book author who lost both his sons to a horrific accident. In the monologue, the character gives a detailed, lengthy description of the accident and the moments that lead up to it.

What is astonishing about the scene is not what Bridges does, but what he chooses not to do. Another actor may have injected the monologue with emotion -- a wavering voice, a sudden change in tone, or any number of weapons in an actor's arsenal.

But Bridges, true to his closed-off character, delivers the scene with both clinical detachment and a writer's eye for detail. His voice remains even, and the lines sound polished and rehearsed, as if the character had been drafting this scene in his head until the moment came to deliver it.

The moment is not flashy. It's just exactly right.

That scene, that sense of rightness, is what makes Jeff Bridges the most underrated actor in American film.

There are plenty of good actors around, many of whom perform brilliantly in showy roles. But it's Bridges' finely tuned sense of calibration that makes him special -- and it's the same thing that may cause fans to overlook him.

Here are a few of the performances he has turned in that I find especially interesting:

The Big Lebowski. There's not enough room on the Internets for me to detail all the reasons why this movie is awesome. (Although, off-topic here for a moment, notice the way Julianne Moore's character acidly dismisses the plot of the porn film Logrollin' as "ludicrous," as if her character judges porn movies by their stories.) But Bridges' performance has to be mentioned as the central masterpiece inside the masterpiece. In the hands of another actor, the Dude could have been a ridiculous sketch of a character, but Bridges chooses to give him a shambling, laid-back dignity that anchors the film. It's one of the great comic performances of all time.

The Door in the Floor. As a children's-book author who has buried the grief over his sons' death deep inside himself, Bridges is astonishing in this overlooked film, during which his character expresses emotions in tiny, aching ways, from the odd slant with which he views the world to the way he drunkenly weaves down a street on his bicycle.

The Contender. Bridges puts in a nice supporting turn as the President, playing him both sly enough to actually become president but wise enough to be a good one.

Arlington Road. This unsettling thriller gives viewers a snapshot of American paranoia -- and features a sinister Joan Cusack to boot. Bridges gives a grounded, subtle performance as a professor who becomes convinced his neighbors are home-grown terrorists. It's such a well-crafted performance that you feel as if you're in Bridges skin when suspicion and fear starts to creep over him.

The Fisher King. Bridges is so good as a smug, smarmy radio talk-show host at the beginning of this film that I was disappointed when tragedy struck, knocking him off his privileged perch. Then he was so good as a self-loathing video-store clerk that I was disappointed when Robin Williams came bounding along as a figure to change his life. Then he was so good as a man who has found redemption that I was disappointed the movie was over.

Nine Reasons to Root Against the Patriots in the Super Bowl

2008-01-21T17:17:00.000-08:00

1) Tom Brady, the Patriots' quarterback, once appeared in a GQ photo spread holding a goat.

2) The Patriots hail from Boston, the spiritual home of every bandwagon-jumping sports fan in the country. The Boston teams get good, and suddenly everyone's wearing a recently purchased Red Sox jersey, cribbing an accent from Good Will Hunting and trying to convince you that the ball that rolled through Buckner's legs broke their heart.

3) If the Patriots win, we will have to endure more stories about how coach Bill Belichick is a genius. Shakespeare was a genius. Einstein was a genius. Bill Belichick is a man who can't grasp the fact that wearing a hoodie makes you look like you spend your evenings trying to bum smokes in the parking lot of a 7-11.

4) This one time, a girl I liked went on and on about how nice Tom Brady's ass was. That's a good enough reason for me to hate the guy.

5) Patriots owner Robert Kraft reportedly lent one of his Super Bowl rings to Vladamir Putin, only to discover that Putin thought it was a gift. Hey, Robert Kraft: I was under the impression we won the Cold War. Go get your ring back.

6) Early in the season, the Patriots were caught cheating against the perennially lousy Jets. What's next, rigging a game of Chutes and Ladders? Kneecapping your competition in the sack race at the Patriots' annual picnic?

7) Massachusetts claims to be part of The United States" yet it isn't even a state at all. What the hell?

8) Sportswriters are getting so desperate to find an original way to cover the Patriots, one recently wrote a story devoted to the person who came up with the team logo.

9) I never thought a cash-rich team from the New York area would be the gritty underdog, but ... a cash-rich team from the New York area is the gritty underdog.

Sideways vs. Sideways

2008-01-09T23:44:00.000-08:00

I've always admired the movie Sideways, not necessarily because it's a great movie -- although it features an uncanny performance by Paul Giamatti -- but because it gave me with a unique viewing experience. I saw it with a male friend in a theater full of women, and as the women laughed and hooted at the immature adventures of the male characters, my friend and I cringed. The two characters' flaws were outsized compared to our own experiences, but far too recognizable.

Because I give the film so much credit, I've always found the novel upon which the film was based to be somewhat odd. In many respects it's well-written, and writer Rex Pickett has done a good job crawling inside the mind of Miles, the character played by Giamatti in the film. Still, something has seemed off about it -- and I finally figured out what.

Rex Pickett is heedlessly, hopefully, hilariously addicted to adjectives and adverbs.

Consider, if you will, the following paragraph:

With wine-numbed brains and rubbery legs we trekked as if wading through hip-deep water to Ellen's Pancake House, a popular breakfast spot in the center of Buellton. We were both weighed down with man-sized hangovers and anorexics' appetites as we commandeered a red-checked table near the window. Around us, a grotesque diorama peopled by obese tourists and locals jackknifed over their eight-egg omeletes, pork-chop-and-friend-egg combos, and tall stacks drenched in imitation maple syrup assaulted our bleary, bloodshoot eyes.

For those of you who are interested, there are 11 nouns in the final two sentences and 11 - count 'em, 11 - adjectives to go along with 'em. The only word without an adjective slipped in front of it is 'window.' Our heroes' poor eyes get two: bleary and bloodshot.

Yikes!

After reading that paragraph, I thought maybe it was an exception, rather than the rule. So I looked around. It wasn't. Check out this baby:

The sun felt warm as we climbed out of the car and stretched our limbs and drank in the unspoiled view. We were at the foot of the Santa Ynez Mountains, imposing hills carpeted in native grasses and dotted with gnarled oaks. After L.A., with its incessant automotive noise, putrid air, and constant congestion, the vista was positively invigorating.

The adjectives become so invasive that some of them draw double-takes, such as the occasional when our two protagonists are greeted with friendly smiles. (It's true that there's such a thing as an unfriendly smile, but only from ex-girlfriends and presidential candidates, so the writer probably could have eased off the throttle a bit.)

But wait. There's more. Pickett's also a fan of adverbs. Characters glance excitingly, say restlessly, push roughly, scramble quickly (ever see someone scramble slowly?), follow wolfishly, say warmly and more.

The result of all this cluttered language? A fast-moving story that seems slow and difficult to read.

To be fair to Pickett, the narrator of the novel is an unsuccessful writer, and there are hints throughout that he's unsuccessful for a reason: the occasionally odd turn of phrase, language that goes over his friends' heads. So the writing style may be courtesy of Miles, not Rex.

Still, the differences between reading the book and watching the movie gives a lesson to writers, such as myself, who occasionally can clutter their own writing: Pare it down to let the story breathe.

Literature and America

2008-01-07T22:35:00.000-08:00

Let's say you're sitting in your backyard on a warm summer evening, drinking a beer and listening to the bug zapper. And let's say, as you sit there, a metallic flying saucer appears out of nowhere and lands on your lawn, and a space alien scurries out.

Now let's say the alien tells you it wants to learn about the country known as "America," but only through works of literature.

I know what you're on the verge of saying. Either, "Hey man, that's a ridiculously complicated setup for a short essay on literature," or perhaps, "I saw a movie just like that once, only instead of talking about literature, the aliens blew up the White House."

Well, screw you, this is my blog.

So anyway, what would you tell this alien? What works of literature would you point it to to best explain this bizarre, hilarious, tragic country we all live in?

Here's a short list by me:

1) Sometimes a Great Notion. This criminally underrated novel by Ken Kesey, about a logging family fighting the union, the elements and each other in Oregon, probes the American mind and spirit more sharply than hundreds of novels that came before its publication in 1964. While its themes are universal -- masculinity, family, sex -- its tenor is distinctly American, and the Stampers' fighting spirit, whether for good or for ill or for both, lives on in the country today.

2) Invisible Man. Seems a little obvious, doesn't it? But this exploration of race relations in the U.S. by Ralph Ellison, which seemingly is on every high-school and college reading list, is more complex, more surreal, more bizarre and more vibrant than you may remember. This one still blows your mind.

3) Joe DiMaggio: A Hero's Life. This masterful biography of the Yankee star by Richard Ben Cramer slices into the legend with the sharpest of tools to find the real man, and the real tragedy, behind that legend. The resulting story plunges you into World War II-era New York; the Hollywood of the Kennedys and Frank Sinatra; and the lacquered, moneyed corridors DiMaggio walked later in life. It also touches on this country's endless need to worship and destroy its heroes; explores the way sports holds us in its thrall; and, in the end, makes you question if a hero's life is indeed worth living. A fantastic book.

4) In the American Grain. This book of essays on history by poet William Carlos Williams still crackles, both because of its gorgeous, challenging language and because it looks into corners of history that schoolbooks, politicians and pundits somehow forget to examine. Subjects include the destruction of Tenochtitlan, Edgar Allan Poe and Eric the Red (who gets off the memorable line, "Who is this Christ, that he should come to bother me in my own country?"). The essay on Aaron Burr, especially, is a masterpiece.

5) The Mambo Kings Play Songs of Love. A tale of two Cuban immigrants in post World War II New York, this is an exciting, passionate look at the possibilities that drew so many people to this country. Writer Oscar Hijuelos' most powerful tool is his use of details to make you feel as if you're in that era yourself. The brothers, who are mambo musicians, write music, bicker, drink, eat and chase women with gusto. And you'll feel as if you're following them with every step.

Unintentionally Hilarious Dialogue

2007-12-26T00:51:00.001-08:00

"In the real world, when you kill people, they die ... for real!"

-Ryan Phillippe, in the climatic scene of Antitrust

Zen and the Art of Kramer

2007-12-12T23:20:00.000-08:00

"It's like a sauna in here."

-Cosmo Kramer, said while sitting in a sauna

I like watching Seinfeld, because it's both funny as hell and as precise a catalogue of human pettiness and self-absorption as has ever been created for television. Though we may laugh at the behavior of the characters, the terrain they travel is familiar, though exaggerated, from our own lives.

There's one character, though, who has always fascinated me more than the others, and that's the wacky neighbor to put all other wacky neighbors to shame, that "hipster doofus" Cosmo Kramer.

It's not his tower of hair, or way with the ladies, or his never-quite-revealed source of income that fascinates me. It's his near-perfect alignment with eastern philosophy. The more I watch Seinfeld, the more I realize that Kramer is perhaps the greatest embodiment of zen Buddhism in American television history.

No kidding.

As George, Elaine and Jerry are endlessly wrapped up in the meaningless trivia of their own lives, Kramer is merely living his, free in the moment, with barely any concern for what has happened in the past or what might occur in the future.

In "The Marine Biologist," the other three characters are, as usual, obsessing over their own lives. Jerry makes up a lie, telling a woman that George is a marine biologist; George, too insecure and locked inside his own life, extends the lie, leading to a disastrous and hilarious denouncement.

What's Kramer worried about in the episode? As usual, he isn't worried about anything. His primary enthusiasm is a momentary impulse to drive golf balls into the ocean. Buddhist monks probably wouldn't appreciate the casual insult to nature, but they might appreciate the zen nature of a game of golf that has no scorecard, no rules and no rewards other than the momentary pleasure of driving a small white ball into a huge, profound ocean.

That's the way it is with Kramer. He pours himself with true focus and joy into the task at hand, no matter how small. When asked to "play" a patient for medical students, he turns it into a full-blown performance, complete with a self-authored monologue. When he finds a screen door to put onto his doorway -- which leads to a narrow hall -- he turns it into a piece of Americana, adding a barbecue and, improbably, attracting neighborhood kids and errant baseballs.

Kramer may be present in the present, but, unlike the other characters, he doesn't obsess needlessly over the past or future. Unlike Jerry, George or Elaine, he seems to harbor few grudges; nor does he seemed concerned about the future. George, engaged to one woman, obsessed over what could be with another -- although, to be fair, the other woman in this case is Marisa Tomei. What might have been doesn't concern Kramer. When his schemes fail, and they almost always do, he just moves on, casually and almost seamlessly, to the next one.

Kramer's not free of the pettiness and jealousy that afflict the other characters in Seinfeld, but, unlike them, he approaches most of the moments of his life with joy instead of dread, enthusiasm instead of evasion.

We could learn a lot from that hipster doofus.

More Humor

2007-12-10T01:36:00.000-08:00

"Just like a wop to bring a knife to a gunfight."

-Sean Connery, The Untouchables

Other Things Proven Ineffective in Gunfights

1) A board with a nail in it.

2) A gun (unloaded)

3) A treasured, dog-earned copy of "The Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood."

4) That homemade bulletproof vest.

5) The French.

6) Bullet-dodging skills learned from "The Matrix" trilogy.

7) Sporks.

-t.

Curiosity and American politics

2007-12-08T11:10:00.000-08:00

I read a lot of books on American history. My theory is that someday I will meet a supermodel, and when I do, I will wow her with my knowledge of who the ambassador from Spain was during the first administration of Thomas Jefferson. (Don Carlos Martinez de Yrujo. That's right, baby. You like that, don't you?)

Additionally, I enjoy reading history because I like learning about the people who shaped the idea of America, what their ideas and quirks and passions were. The people who invented the idea of America were a bunch of weirdos: a general who proved unsuccessful at winning all that many battles, a stern, devout schoolteacher; a long-winded inventor who wrote perhaps the greatest document for freedom; a born out-of-wedlock-financial genius who was known as an unstoppable ladies' man.

And I haven't even mentioned Aaron Burr. Aaron Burr shot a dude.

Lately I've been working my way through Edmund Morris' two-volume biography of Theodore Roosevelt, which is fascinating, both because of Roosevelt is so compelling as a subject and because Morris is so successful in breathing life into him.

Roosevelt was a skilled and extensively published author, an insightful historian, a noted naturalist, an accomplished soldier and the police chief of New York. Roosevelt is also an illustration of something I think is missing in politics these days: intellectual curiosity.

Almost all of the early leaders of this country were intellectually curious, from Jefferson, whose writings are a catalogue of thoughts on science, nature, other cultures and books; to Roosevelt, who had a passionate interest in ornithology, which today would earn him sharpened barbs on cable-TV newscasts for being a sissy bird-boy.

I think one of the things wrong with national politics these days is that intellectual curiosity, which once seemed a requirement for our leaders, has been dulled by the demands of the office.

This curiosity, when followed, teaches you the importance of nuance, open-mindedness and context. Our modern political system, and the media that covers it, are hostile to those qualities.

If you address the issues that face our country with nuance, you're flattened by the slogans of your opponent, who would bomb, attack or ban whatever problem it is that faces us. If you listen to your opponents with open-mindedness, you are jeered for siding with the 'loony left' or 'wingnuts.' And if you attempt to place a problem in context, you seem weak compared to your opponents, who treat every issue as if it's a threat to the foundation of the country.

The media doesn't help matters. Although there are several reporters and outlets that examine issues closely, most of the attention is usually drawn to the loudest, the shrillest and the most flamboyant. A punchline gets more attention than a well-reasoned argument.

As the politicians are forced -- by the media, by the voters, by each other -- to make their arguments blunter, their ideas become blunter and more unwieldy. Eventually, they become too crude for the problems they were developed to treat.

I'm not trying to imply that politicians from the powdered-wig days were perfect or all-knowing. They were biased. They were short-sighted. They were flawed men and made flawed decisions. But many of them pursued knowledge for its own sake, from Lincoln reading borrowed books by candlelight to Roosevelt's careful recording of plants and animals he saw. Those effort speaks to a man or woman who will treat complex problems with the complex solutions they deserve.

We need more people like that. When we find them, we need to vote for them.

-t.

Overlooked Performances

2007-12-06T23:35:00.000-08:00

In a recent issue of Esquire, a reader wrote in to suggest that every year, the Academy Awards recognize one previously unrecognized performance. I think that's a fantastic idea. In fact, I'm not going to wait for the voters and make a few recommendations myself.

Derek Luke in Friday Night Lights. Luke was almost 30 when he signed on to play Boobie Miles, a high-school football star who suffers a devastating knee injury. With that in mind, I found Luke's performance more than uncanny; it's practically supernatural. From his lanky frame to his cocky demeanor, it seems as if Miles is a living, breathing teenager whom the filmmakers found hanging out at a nearby football field. From the way Luke talks to the way his simmering rage boils over in one late scene, it's an astonishing performance in a film that's filled with good ones.

Catherine Keener in The 40-Year-Old Virgin. This film made Steve Carell a star, sent the Judd Apatow rocket into orbit and prepared Seth Rogan for deserved comic stardom. But it's Keener's grounded presence that binds it together. While the other characters are allowed to be zany, she takes her relatively staid character and turns in a finely detailed portrait. You can sense her character's eagerness and nervousness, her worries about the future and, yes, eagerness for sex as she embarks on a relationship with Carell's Andy Stitzer. The scene where she argues with her daughter, detailing a mother's confusion and frustration and maybe a hint of bemusement, is as well-etched as you'll see in a mainstream drama.

Chiwetel Ejiofer in Four Brothers. I'm going to be straight-up with you, yo: This movie stinks. It's silly, difficult to believe and has scenes that will make your skin try to crawl off your body in pure embarrassment. But Ejiofer, who went on to piece together a run of good performances in films including "Serenity," turns in a fun, flamboyant turn that seems like something out of a better movie. He appears relatively late in the action and doesn't have many scenes, but registers enough bluster and charisma to pick the movie up, put it in his pocket and walk way with it.

Maggie Gyllenhaal in Secretary. Gyllenhaal turns in a well-tuned performance in this story of a troubled secretary who discovers that she enjoys being spanked and otherwise dominated by her boss (James Spader). The filmmakers chose to make the film a cheerful romance, rather than the creepy kinkfest its synopsis would imply, and Gyllenhaal's sunny, sharp performance adds to the vibe. Watching her character blossom with newfound confidence is a joyous experience.

George Clooney in Intolerable Cruelty. Clooney has been pulling a lot of Hollywood's moral freight lately with Good Night and Good Luck, Syriana and Michael Clayton. By contrast, Intolerable Cruelty is a screwball comedy, and he flourishes in it, playing a vain, bored divorce attorney without a hint of self-consciousness or vanity as a performer. He masters the screwball comedy's verbal gymnastics, and his facial expressions, which frequently display double takes worthy of a cartoon character, are great.

Comebacks That Weren't Worth It

2007-12-05T23:46:00.001-08:00

I occasionally write humor pieces. I've tried to get them published, with no takers so far. (The secretary at "Cat Fancy" just hangs up now when she hears my voice.)

Here's one.

Comebacks that probably weren't worth saying

1) "You call that a kick to the groin?"

2) "Well at least I have an R2D2 costume!"

3) "Go ahead and keep her. I think you’ll find her seemingly endless wealth and constant desire for sex wears thin in four to five years."

4) "You call that a second, even more painful kick to the groin?"

5) "Yeah? You and what army?" (Said to Kim-Jong-II)

6) "I love you, too."

Transformers and the Art of the Blockbuster

2007-12-05T23:21:00.000-08:00

So I saw Transformers the other day.

It was bad.

Really bad.

So bad that I felt it unfair to compare it to other movies, and instead began comparing it to medical conditions.

Don't get me wrong, it's clearly not as bad as, say, shingles or scurvy or anything like that. But would I rather watch Transformers again or bang my shin really hard against the corner of my desk? I'd have to think about that one. Or, would I rather watch Transformers again or get a painful but curable case of hemorrhoids? Again I'd have to consider it.

The list of reasons that Transformers is bad is long and varied, from its overly broad characters to its constant attempts at corny humor. (In one scene, a character gazes upon a vehicle that has just transformed itself into a robot, which you would think would be a soul-shaking, awe-inspiring event. Instead of responding as any actual human would, the character turns to someone next to him and says that the transformer "must be Japanese." Hey, Michael Bay: 1989 called. It wants its jokes back.)

Instead of making me depressed, though, the badness of Transformers kind of encouraged me. Lifted my spirit, even. Why? Because it reflected the new, elevated expectations of the American blockbuster.

Many movie geeks I know like to rip on blockbusters, and to be fair, a lot of the big-budget Hollywood film in recent years have been pretty lousy. But I would also argue that we're in the middle of a pretty good stretch of blockbusters. It may not be a golden age, but it's kinda a silver age, with big-budget movies showing wit, style and craft that goes beyond their eagerness to entertain.

Need proof? How about the first two X-Men movies, which marry excellent effects with interesting and well-crafted characters? How about The Incredibles, where a film zippy enough for the kids is also witty and smart enough for the adults?

Need more proof? That's pretty cheeky, since this is my freakin' blog, but I'll give you proof anyway: How about the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy, which is big-budget, swashbuckling entertainment that will make your heart bump around in your chest like a bird trying to get the hell out of a cage?

That kind of quality is what make films like Transformers seem more crummy than they actually are. Big budgets, flashy special effects and the presence of stars, which can be a crutch for some films are now avenues for canny filmmakers to bring craft to the masses. And I hope you appreciate the trend as I do.