The Center Seat

I've had quite a few interesting political discussions with friends since I posted my review of W. yesterday. So of course, when I found this piece on Slate, I just had to share it. Click here to read Oliver Stone's thoughts on the players, decisions, and fuckups in the Bush administration (and, of course, the dramatic license he had to take).

Tina Fey said something really insightful on some talk show or other last week. I'm paraphrasing: "The thing I've realized about Sarah Palin is that she's exactly as smart as me. And I'm certainly not qualified to be the vice-president." It's true, right? I don't know about you, but I want someone in office who's way smarter than me, and who can comprehend all these complicated issues a whole lot better than I can. Seriously. Y'all are not ready for President Nayana.

That seemed to be the overriding message in Oliver Stone's new biopic about President Bush II. I think a lot of people saw Stone's name and thought, "Oh. Liberal Bush-bashing. Cool." But really, that's not what it was about. Obviously "Bushie" (as Laura calls him) is not the best president ever. Probably not even in the top 80%. But the message of the movie was that here's a regular guy, with a good heart and good intentions, who got in way over his head. Now you all know where I stand on this little election we're having (it's emblazoned on my sidebar), but I wonder... Obama gets slammed a lot for being elitist and intellectual. Now exactly what is the objection to that? I want someone who knows his ass from his elbow to represent me on the world stage. I don't think that's too much to ask for.

Back to the movie... it was really well done. The casting was fantastic, with the possible exception of Thandie Newton as Condie Rice (a tad caricaturish). Elizabeth Banks disappeared into the role of Laura Bush, Jeffrey Wright couldn't have been more compelling as Colin Powell... and Richard Dreyfuss was INSANE as Dick Cheney. That guy knows how to portray eeeeevil.

I guess it comes down to this: no matter what side of the political fence you're on, I recommend this movie as a reminder of what we want to avoid in our government. Maybe catch it before November 4. Call it election prep. ...Click here for the rest of this tasty post.

There are the Wes Anderson lovers, and there are the Wes Anderson haters, and then there are those of us in the middle--the moderate majority--who can enjoy a Wes Anderson film if we just get ourselves into a very Wes Anderson place beforehand.

I think that was my mistake last year when I went to see The Darjeeling Limited... not enough W.A. prep. But I was ready last night... and so Rushmore knocked my socks off.

Rushmore is the story of Max Fischer, an eccentric fifteen-year-old who, though adventurous and charismatic to the point of absurdity, happens to suck at academics. Enter the sweet first-grade teacher with the British accent, and of course Max falls hard for her. But then so does an equally eccentric Bill Murray... and hilarity ensues.

I hate to say that I may be a product of a Lifetime Movie world, but I kept expecting a little Mary Kay Letourneau action to go down. Thankfully, it didn't, everything worked out, and the film left me with a smile on my face.

One thing struck me as exceptional, however. This is one of those movies in which there is a play within the film; Max happens to be a talented playwright, and we are treated to portions of many of his productions. Recently I've seen quite a few films that fall into this drama-within-the-drama category--Waiting for Guffman, Hamlet 2, and Forgetting Sarah Marshall immediately spring to mind--but the plays in Rushmore are actually really, really great. That seems to be an exception to the rule, as crappy-ass productions provide better comedy fodder.

Oh... you're right. The Dracula puppet musical was sublime, too, wasn't it? All right, never mind. ...Click here for the rest of this tasty post.

---Spoilers ahead, for anyone who hasn't seen this 32-year-old movie*---

About three months ago, I took a part time job in order to help maintain my lavish (ha!) lifestyle. One big advantage of the job is that I get all kinds of time to watch movies on my portable DVD player; a glaring disadvantage is that I get a lot less theater time, and a whole lot less blogging time. Oh, well. I gots to pay the bills somehow.

In the course of my moonlighting, I get to sit in my car for hours at a time, next to an alley in a really seedy part of town. So I get to see all kinds of exciting things. Like the drug addict who passed out in the alley and was revived by police this last Saturday night. Or the haggard homeless lady who took it upon herself to do a complete wardrobe change in broad daylight, sans underclothes, in the middle of a parking lot.

Travis Bickle saw a lot of interesting shit on his job, too. For those of you who don't know, he was a cabbie who worked some of the shadier parts of New York City in the seventies... Granted, he was also a RAVING LUNATIC... but here's hoping my vocational experiences don't ever lead me to practice whipping out my gun in front of a mirror.

One of the things about having decided only recently to dive headlong into my movie obsession is that I still have not seen many cinematic essentials. Actually, Saturday night was my first ever viewing of Taxi Driver. And so I've seen all kinds of movies which have obviously been influenced by Scorsese's masterpiece, before I saw the original work. For example, when DeNiro's cabbie shaved his head into that mohawk as he was preparing to go medieval on politicians and pimps, I saw blinding flashes of Ed Norton's hardened, murderous skinhead from American History X. I'm sure this happened in reverse for everyone who saw these movies in the order they were released, but for me it was like seeing a prequel and having the pieces finally fall into place.

Also, I bet a lot of people see Jodie Foster in grown-up roles and have flashes of the little twelve-year-old hooker in Taxi Driver... for me, again, it was the opposite. She was so precocious at that young age, I just saw the adult Foster in her little face. Young Harvey Keitel weirded me out... young Albert Brooks weirded me out, too... and of course young DeNiro was weird. But smokin' hot.**

I've been really remiss in my blogging lately, but I have done my best to keep up with the "Viewed But Not Reviewed" list on the sidebar. So if any of you have been following that, you can see that I've been doing my best lately to catch up on must-sees that I've missed till now. At home now I've got Rushmore, Sophie's Choice, and Dr. Strangelove. Any suggestions as to which one I should see on my shift tonight?



*Like me, as of three days ago.
**Rowr. Yes, I'm talking to you, Bobby. ...Click here for the rest of this tasty post.

Lately I've been whining to anyone who would listen that Hollywood seems to be incapable of portraying human relationships, specifically romantic relationships. I alluded to that a little bit on this blog last week.

But I'm good now. Late last Tuesday night, in a deserted parking lot, I lost myself in Before Sunrise. I had seen it ages ago when it was relatively new, but my reacquaintance with this masterpiece was long overdue.

If you're unfamiliar, Before Sunrise is an extremely unique movie: it follows two strangers (played by Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy) who meet on a train and impulsively decide to spend an evening together in Vienna. The whole movie is dialogue. Just talking. No chase scenes, no gratuitous sex, no washed-up comedians playing multiple obese characters. I know, it's revolutionary, right?

What Before Sunrise did so well for me was that it perfectly captured the dynamic of a brand-new relationship. You know, how it's all awkward when you know he's looking at you and you just can't meet his gaze or you'll turn tomato-red... or when you're not sure if it's ok to touch him... or that breathtaking moment when you know for sure he's about to kiss you. And at first you have this weird guardedness, but after a few hours you're suddenly telling him stuff you don't usually admit to family.


Another fantastic thing about this movie is that it was made in 1995... but it's not dated. It feels like it could be happening right now. Before Sunrise effectively ignores all the easy tricks that films use to convince us of their cleverness; it just portrays real humans, behaving in a realistic fashion, in a real city, in a situation that is absolutely believable. But for all this realism, the movie is still entirely magical.

Before Sunrise is one of those films that is entirely loved by those of us who love movies... and unappreciated by everyone else. It has a 100% Tomatometer rating... and it grossed only 5.5 million in the U.S. But this brings me to one of the things I love about independent filmmakers: they made the sequel, Before Sunset, anyway.

Granted, it did come nine years later, but it was so cool to see those two characters still alive and doing what they do. It did provide a bit of closure, although the ending of Sunset was nearly as maddening as the ending of the original movie...

But to find out what I mean by that, you've gotta watch 'em. ...Click here for the rest of this tasty post.

Is it just me, or have awards shows completely lost their magic? The Emmys last night were just depressing. It could have been the lame humor, the five(!) hosts, or the fact that The Office and Weeds got completely jacked. It could also be that I'm a movie girl, so the TV thing didn't really speak to me.

Whatever. It was a crappy show. Except for two things:

1. Josh Groban's TV-theme medley. It had the potential to be corny--OK, I guess it really was corny. But I lurved it.
2. Mr. Sexalicious Paul Giamatti won his first Emmy for his masterful portrayal of John Adams in the HBO miniseries of the same name. So well deserved. (Everyone else connected with John Adams seemed to rake 'em in as well, but I only had eyes for Paul.)

Even so, I'm skipping the Emmys next year. Unless Justin Kirk gets nominated. (I met him last week, by the way. More on that to come.) ...Click here for the rest of this tasty post.

I've had a growing impatience lately with movies that depict love unrealistically. Like, most of them.

You know what I'm talking about: the couple sees each other, has a few furtive conversations, and suddenly they're "in love" and are willing to move heaven and earth for each other. That is SO NOT how it works. In real life, love is immensely complicated, hard to come by, and requires effort, time, and sacrifice.

So why do I love City of Angels so much, given that it's the textbook example of this "instant love" phenomenon? Easy. I don't accept love as the turning point of the story.

If you don't know the movie, here's a big fat SPOILER ALERT... and now I'll fill you in. The premise of City of Angels is that an angel (Nicolas Cage) falls so deeply in love with a surgeon (Meg Ryan) that he chooses to forsake his immortal life and become a human, just so that he can be with her.

It's a sweet idea, if that was what really happened in the movie. Oh, they definitely feel lust for one another. Longing, too. But I think the real draw for our angel is not love, but life.

Let me explain. There's a lot of imagery in City of Angels of the simple, sensual pleasures of being human: the way a pear tastes; sunlight filtering through trees; the bracing ecstasy of a really hot shower. I get that stuff completely, because as anybody who knows me well can tell you, Nayana is all about the sensual pleasures*. I find it really easy to lose myself in things like dazzling sunsets, light reflecting on water, kickass thunderstorms, cherry cheesecake... So if I were in Seth the angel's position, would I give up immortality and the ability to sit on overhead freeway signs in order to experience all these things? Hells yeah.

I guess my point is that the real romance of this movie is not the Nic Cage/Meg Ryan slobberfest, but the romance between a human being and life itself. Get it?

*OK, perv, that's not what I mean. Sensual. We could talk about the other thing too, but that's not the topic of the day. ...Click here for the rest of this tasty post.

I read Nights in Rodanthe when it first came out, and loved it.

Does this mean that the movie, starring Richard Gere and Diane Lane, will also be good? Probably not.

But do I plan to be in the theater to see it the first chance I get? Absolutely I do.

Top 5 reasons to skip this one...

5. That title. Ugh. I can't even type it without a little bile coming up.

4. Have you seen Nic Cage's hair in this one? It's like Billy Mitchell's Jesus hair got together with Tom Hanks' Da Vinci Code mop and made sweet, sweet hair love. In a big puddle of jerry curl.

3. Apparently the Thai movie on which it's based wasn't that good either.

2. They won't screen it for critics. Always a bad sign.

1. This trailer.

...Click here for the rest of this tasty post.

Truthfully, if Hamlet 2 had come out two months ago, or two months from now, I (and many others) probably would have waited for the DVD. But fortunately for Steve Coogan's quirky little film, it's out in late August/early September, aka Where Bad Movies Go To Die. Seriously, my other choices this weekend included Disaster Movie, The House Bunny, and Babylon A.D. Yeah. I went for the goofy indie flick.

The basic premise of Hamlet 2 is that a God-awful out-of-work actor becomes a God-awful acting teacher who tries to save his school's drama program with a God-awful original play, a sequel to Shakespeare's classic work. Hey, remember how pretty much everyone dies at the end of Hamlet? Not a big deal. Hamlet 2 has a time machine. Which explains the cameos by Jesus Christ and Albert Einstein.

Sounds awful, right? The movie itself is ok; I did chuckle here and there. Supporting performances by Catherine Keener and David Arquette were delicious, although they were drowned out by Steve Coogan's scenery chewing. But to be honest, I wasn't really sold until we finally got to see some of that atrocious play (which, in my opinion, is actually pretty freaking awesome.)

Oh yeah, and Elizabeth Shue plays herself. Exquisitely. ...Click here for the rest of this tasty post.

Are they?

Of course they are. They're people, like any brand of geeks. Kind of like movie geeks, really.

Hackers Are People Too is actually a documentary produced by hackers; it premiered at this year's DefCon in Las Vegas.

As I'm not very familiar with that particular subculture, the movie appealed to the Discovery Channel in me. It was interesting... and educational... but perhaps a hazard of a movie produced by its subject is that it came off as a little self-serving. I'm thinking the goal of the film was to humanize hackers to the general public, but in all honesty, hackers would probably enjoy it more than any other group of people.

Still, it's fairly interesting, and less than an hour. If you swing that way, you can get it for $10 here. ...Click here for the rest of this tasty post.

I hadn't heard much about this action/adventure/sci-fi/ *yawn*/thriller until reading this post by Fox over at Lazy Eye Theatre... not good.

It's generally a really bad sign if both the director and the lead actor of a movie brutally trash it during promotion season. Bad, bad sign.