Definitely Bottom 5

I thought this before I read this article. South Dakota.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11510472/

This is nothing unexpected or shocking. I am firmly in the camp that does NOT consider abortion "settled law", because it's clearly not settled; and it won't be until it's taken up by elected officials (hahahahahahahahah!). I think the nation needs to drag it out of the courts, decide what fits our beliefs and the law, and brand that into the Constitution if needs be. For the record, I support abortion as a choice, but only as a last resort. Unfortunately, few care about the resorts before the "last one", so until those are robust, women are forced to make the decision with much less support than they deserve.

Anyways, this isn't about abortion or women's rights (to hell with those).

This is about the notion that someone actually thinks the best direction for this country is going to come from South Dakota. Hey, there are a lot of states. Ranking them would be tough, figuring out which ones are the best would be tough. But like most rankings, one thing is always easy. The BOTTOM. I won't name the five worst states now, but I assure you South Dakota is among them. I am a proud American, and I love all 50 states because I am a good citizen. But in what demented universe should South Dakota be determining the legal and moral direction of this country? Let's not pretend all states are equal. In short, allowing South Dakota to drive a national debate is like asking the family illiterate (or drunkard, whichever applies) to make all financial decisions for everyone. It's not gonna start well, it's going to end disastrously, and everyone is going to laugh at you.

I'm not going to take the easy shot of stating I'd rather live in some third world shithole than South Dakota. I wouldn't. Any place in America is better than the best places in the third world. But I am comparing South Dakota to the rest of America. And it dwells in the basement.

Long story short, if your state doesn't rank in the top 40 for education, your politicians and citizens votes should only count as 1/3. Give those bottom 10 something to think about.

Shame is a great motivator.

But I am off-topic. I should credit them that they are taking a stand, even if it is ill-guided, ignorant, backwards, and dangerous. I support a real debate on the issue, which we'll never get, because our elected politicians are spineless bastards, scared of real issues. But let's at least do something before South Dakota gets on the international stage.

Please.

Winner Issue for the Dems - Port Security

Control of United States ports. The security of the thousands of ships that come in and out.

It gets outsourced, as a matter of business. The administration is currently pushing to allow a company funded by the UAE (United Arab Emirates), home-located in Dubai, to control security in 6 or 7 major US ports. This is a terrible idea, and speaks direvtly to what motivates the current "war on terror". Often recently, thanks to this cartoon mess, I see that we are in a bit of a culture war. More than a bit. But the long-held myth that Saudi Arabia (not the people, but the rich rulers) is an ally is starting to lose steam with the public. I understand (well, recognize) our crack addiction to their oil, but they foment and cultivate the opinions of their people to ensure the citizens aren't quite clear that their rulers are living in obscene luxury. They seem to be playing both sides, and our government is held hostage by some financial realities.

But now this? How do you think the public, even the hard right fans of the neo-cons, are going to react? Not well, and neither are lawmakers on both sides. Now is an opportunity for the left to make a National Security issue their own, and illustrate that the neo-cons care about security as long as it does not affect their bottom line. It has to be done carefully, because we are not at war with the UAE (or Islam, or many Middle Eastern countries). But it should be made clear that national security should stay within the borders...hence the term NATIONAL security.

It's an interesting day when Barbara Boxer and Lindsey Graham agree, and even more interesting when I agree with them.

It doesn't even require much of a spine or brain to go after, so the Dems should be safe. It might even increase their backbone. You can't outsource or focus group cajones.

More importantly than merely a political opportunity...it *IS* national security. It's moronic to even consider outsourcing port security when terrorism is such a major international concern.

The New Experience

My #1 film of the year was a surprise to me. My internal monologue wasn't about placing the film in context in the solid year of 2005, but about it's place in the decade, my personal favorites, and even all-time. But it's not an easily recommended film, because it eschews so many standards that make people comfortable watching movies. It was hard to review, and it's hard to discuss, unless you are talking with other people that have seen it.

The New World
My initial reviews: 1/28/06
I loved the film, much more than I even thought I would. It was more intimate and focused than The Thin Red Line, and I was ready for it. I had no idea what to expect in 1998, and that distorted my viewing. This time, I knew what set the director apart. What made him, and his films, special. I was still struck again and again, and the simplicity with which Malick creates beauty. He makes simple shots into something much richer, much more layered. But as much as I want to talk about why Malick is so special, I'd rather talk about how incredible this film is.

None of the artifice or pretense that is a staple of filmmaking seems apparent in the film. The viewer is directly coupled to the story, and is never cheated or manipulated. As a film lover, it's almost liberating. The imagery is second to none. The film never relies on large vistas or impossible camera shots. In doing this, the viewer always feels he is there, not that he is watching, but that he is connected. What is remarkable is that the imagery still moves the audience, often in ways they never expected.

The acting is fantastic. Not every character has an arc, but each delivers a brilliant performance. I'll admit to being worried about Farrell. I think he is very talented, but his spins with the tabloids and poor script choices lately had me worried. No need. Bale has a smaller, but equally critical, role. Very little dialogue, he acts with his warmth and presence. The film itself belongs to Q'Orianka. And she delivers in spades. The heart of the story, the film, and the themes presented, she is always luminous. I was touched by her "transformation" in the second and third acts. More importantly, the cheap and easy theme of "caged bird" is never even hinted at. It's far more transcendant than that, and that surprise is what really hit home with me. Yes, watching her walk in shoes for the first time is hard. It's a great scene, done without a hint of judgement by the camera. Her final scenes in England are among the best I've ever seen.

The battle scene is among the best ever filmed. As before, the camera is never in a place that a person couldn't be. The viewer is in the battle, and emotionally invested on both sides. It's a fairly sober and sad fact that such battles are part and parcel of our national history.

I could just sit here and call out shots or scenes or beats all day long. I want to praise Malick over and over and over for what he has accomplished. I would be thrilled to get a longer cut of this or The Thin Red Line as a gift on HD, Blu-Ray, or standard this year...any way I could.

I know this sounds pretentious, but it's just my excitement talking. Film has quite a few directors who elevate the medium. Malick redefines it, makes the medium something new and pure.

Like The Thin Red Line, the film is an experience, and not something you can watch on the fly. It demands more of the viewer, and gives more back. I look forward to my next viewing, whenever it may be. One of the best of the year, one of the gems of the decade.



Now...the real feeling of awe this film inspires in me is based on the complete lack of "filmmaking" in the storytelling. There is no judgement, no pushing the audience this way and that. Zero manipulation. While that sounds simple, it's not. The New World operates on a level most filmmakers can't dream of. It's hard to explain, but not to exalt. The New World is the best film I have seen in years. It's one of the best films ever.

And so ends my list for the year 2005.

For my next trick, I'd like to denigrate NBC for their abysmal, self-serving, inundated with ads coverage of the Olympics. But I'll save that bile for a little later. Just know that it's coming :)

Top Five Continued...

Sorry for the week delay. Computer trouble, followed by laziness. My apologies.

My #2 is the worst film in the top 5. It's so high because it's strengths are unbelievable. It's a gorgeous film to look at, and it has a huge heart.

My morning after the midnight show review:
December 14, 2005

Three hour midnight movies always kill me. But lately, they have been worth the misery, and for that I am extremely grateful. KONG is a bit of a tough review (aren't they all), especially after one midnight showing and not much sleep. I might as well start with the nits, and I have a few. The films uses a huge chunk of time from the excellent opening credits to the thrilling arrival at Skull Island. Some of it is critical, much of it is interesting, but not all of it is necessary. I'm sure they could have found 10 minutes to squeeze out (and save for the EE, which WILL come, Universal bean counters be damned). In another scalpel move, I would have noticeably shortened the Brontosaurus sequence on the Island. It had the weakest effects and some of the most implausible, lucky events for the characters (physically). And there is plenty of action to come. One more minor concern when I speak of PJ.

And I'm done with nits. The film is a little too *full*. The good news is at the halfway point, all of the excess have been shown...no more bloat. A film can get away with some excess, but not near the finale. As a note, I would not cut one minute of Naomi Watts from the film. Speaking of Naomi Watts, she's as luminous an actress as I've ever seen. I was in love with her from her first appearance, and I stayed that way through the credits. In between long periods of running and screaming, there is a brilliant performance there...almost all with her eyes. No other actors are nearly her equal, but each shine here or there. Jack Black was top notch, as I expected. Colin Hanks and Jamie Bell were also much better than their limited screen time would lead you to expect. They exude likeability. A shame Jamie disappears after Skull Island. Adrien is a fine actor without a lot to do, but he makes the most of his screen time. It's a tough position to be in, playing second male lead to KONG but he does it.

Technically, the film is a marvel to behold. It is as big screen as big screen gets. This is the first theatrical MUST SEE since Titanic in 1997. And I am aware that the LOTR trilogy, the SW PT, the Matrix Trilogy, the superhero renaissance, and Pixar have all displayed brilliant reasons to hit the big screen. Those films are enhanced by the big screen. KONG is a step beyond that. If you love films, see this on the big screen. You may not like it (more on that later), but you won't regret it.

I usually do the direction/director last, but I'll do PJ next to last. I loved PJ's direction of the LOTR trilogy (and Heavenly Creatures and The Frighteners). I knew he was skilled, and LOTR showed him to be uniquely talented. But that was Tolkien. He had A+ material to work with, and one of the best casts ever assembled. But KK is a work of such extraordinary heart that PJ instantly joins the small fraternity of directors who have become legends. My last nit: PJ sometimes needs a little more restraint in the scenes he loves (not the dramatic ones, his eye there is flawless - but the action scenes). Once or twice, he upped the ante a bit TOO MUCH. As strongbad said (paraphrased):

Too much of a good thing is awesome, but too much of an awesome thing can be stupid.

PJ doesn't give too much. The cup doesn't overflow, but it leaks from the top sometimes. Some will think that it does overflow. I don't, but it skirts the line more than once. That is part of the charm...I know. From the intimate to the epic, his camera is sure, he wears his heart on his sleeve, and it's clear he loves movies and love his audience. KK is a love letter to film fans. Whether or not the film earns a BP nod is frankly secondary to PJ getting a BD nod. I can launch superlatives all day long, but the same zealousness that lead to any excess also led to sheer brilliance. I'll take the excess to keep the magic any day of the week.

I didn't do PJ last, because that is for KONG himself. Simply put, I've never been more emotionally attached to a character in a film before. I have loved and believed in a lot of film characters. That is the magic of cinema. Indiana Jones, Luke Skywalker, Gandalf the Grey, Andy Dufresne, Sully and Mike, and countless other small and large characters are a part of my consciousness. Thanks to Naomi Watts, Andy Serkis, the editing, the design, the small touches, and the flawless effects, I identified with and loved KONG almost immediately. It's easy to identify with his loneliness and his hard life. But the direction, acting, and decisions made it a primal connection for me. Beyond even that.

The love story between Ann and KONG is beautifully told, and it makes perfect sense. It defies any typical connection, free from everything that makes our own relationships hard: sex, ambition, regret, jealousy, anger, miscommunication. Ann loves him because she doesn't have to practice anything with him. She doesn't have to be guarded. And he loves her back for the same reason. The closest I can come to is the unconditional love of a parent for a child, but translated to equals. It's hard to explain, but easy to see. And because she truly sees KONG, the audience does as well. It's hard to not love someone once you've truly, TRULY seen them, flaws and all.

Spoiler for KK the story...not this particular film:
I sobbed when he was captured, and that was nothing compared to his last moments with Ann. I found myself thinking I would never have taken the role of a pilot in this film, because I simply couldn't do it. At three in the morning, a grown 31 year old watching an epic fantasy, and all I can do is pray that KONG lives, and wish death upon those that would harm them.Not wanting to be an ACTOR in the biplane...that's emotional investment.

That is based on my recollection this morning. This review grew far too long, but was a bit cathartic. I may seem foolish for such an attachment...so be it. I know some will identify with my feelings. I could care less about the Visual Effects Oscar. Kong himself should receive a special achievement award, for all of the artists involved, for Andy, for PJ, even for Naomi. Even over PJ getting a BD nom. The effects were merely the window to the character. A means, not an end. And what an end it was.

Detective Work

Some 2006 Oscar Stats for you stat whores:

There are six categories with no BP nominees: Actress, Costumes, Sound Mixing, VSX, SFX, Makeup. This is the highest since 1952.

The lack of a BP nominee in Sound Mixing has only previously happened in 1958.

Editing matched up 2/5. That last happened in 1983. Michael Kahn has tied the record for most Editing noms. Brokeback has no editing nom. Nine films have won BP without one: It Happened One Night, The Life of Emile Zola, Hamlet, Marty, Tom Jones, A Man for All Seasons, The Godfather Part II, Annie Hall, Ordinary People. So don't worry Brokebackers.

The overall nomination tally for BP nominees is 30. Since 1967, only 1989 was lower.

For only the second time in AMPAS history all Five BP nominees have Directing and Writing nominations. The only other time was 1964.

Song has three nominees (usually has five). This has also happened in 1934, 1935 and 1988.

Keira Knightley is the third youngest nominee ever in Best Actress.

This is the first time since '98 that four of the nominees were R, and the first time since '95 that there weren't any PG-13 movies nominated (Of course, that year 3 of them were PG and Babe was G).

It's also eighth time that none of the Best pictures got best actress nom.Previously: 2003, 1994, 1990, 1963, 1962, 1952, 1931.

The Best movies have only 30 nominations. This is sixth lowest number of nominations for Best Pictures in history (when we have only 5 best pictures nominations, I don't count the times where there was 10 best pictures nominations)for:
1946 (19 academy awards) - 28 nominationsfor
1947 (20 AA) - 27 nominations
1949 (22 AA) - 28 noms
1952 (25 AA) - 29 noms
1989 (62 AA) - 29

It's the first time that 5 BP have 30 noms.This is also the first time since 1981 that the best picture nominees and best director nominees matched 5 for 5.

This is the first time in Academy history that a nominee in the Directing category - George Clooney, for Good Night, and Good Luck. - is also nominated in one of the acting categories for a different film.

John Williams’ two nominations this year in the Original Score category are his 44th and 45th Academy Award nominations, putting him in first place in total nominations in the Music categories, breaking a previous tie with Alfred Newman. He also moves into second place in terms of nominations overall, his total individual nominations now second only to Walt Disney’s 59.

14 of the acting nominees are first-time nominees. Of the other six who previously received nominations, four are Oscar winners: William Hurt, Judi Dench, Charlize Theron and Frances McDormand.

Onto my 2005 rankings:

My next two films are personal faves. #3 is especially dear to me for numerous reasons.

#3 Batman Begins

Review: dated 15 June 2003

I've been following this project (though not the story thankfully) for quite some time. I remember actually feeling giddy when Christian Bale was cast. Not just to have his talent and dedication as a part of the film, but because it eschewed the Batman decisionmaking of old. No Hollywood stars (or make-a-star) needed. They clearly wanted a film to be taken more seriously. The remainder of the cast list was met with a huge smile. It's not off the mark to say Batman Begins boasts one of the finest ensembles ever put together.

I had high expectations for the film. But reasonable ones, I thought. I merely expected a very good film. But I got a great one. A GREAT film. With surprising (and not so surprising) performances. I won't get into the nitty gritty like I usually do. I'll just point out some things I liked, or that surprised me.

- Michael Caine played Alfred one half of the conscience of Bruce Wayne. It was a fantastic take on the confidante.

- Cillian Murphy was a real treat. Incredible blue eyes as well...my wife will be pleased.

- Katie Holmes played the other half of the conscience, and while the film needed her the least, she was a plus, not a minus. That surprised me.

- Gotham City was a character. Not because it was overdesigned, as in the other four (which are now resigned to the dustbin of film history), but because it was given a geography, a heart, and a past. Batman needs Gotham to work.

- The origin was smooth and intriguing, and most importantly, elements of it pay off in interesting ways.

- Linus Roache brought a tremendous presence to his few moments. And by tremendous, he brought an emotional weight that I did not expect when I was watching the film. The most tragic moment in Bruce's life hit home, because previous moments had shown what he truly lost. I was surprised, elated, and moved by this sequence.

- I appreciated the look at the themes of the character and his "family". The film never forgot the central character for the action.

- Christian Bale

The other outstanding actors were excellent as expected. I do have minor nits, but further excursions into Gotham should fix that. I'll discuss more in that thread. I can't wait. In short, I expected to find a film that I would like and respect. I ended up finding a movie that will ease into my Top 20 comfortably, thanks to a director, crew, and cast that respect the American Myth that is Batman.

Written now: To be perfectly fair, in hindsight, I would tie Batman with my #2 film. Part of that is emotional attachment, but part of that is being a film in love with the craftsmanship of the film. Not many action films get cinematography nods, but Batman did. It was very well-directed, very honest with the audience, and took the themes seriously without being overwrought or pretentious. For once, I am not crazy, as many film fans I know rate Batman among the best films of the year. So it's not the comic geek talking, but the film lover who loved Batman as a film as much as a character. If only every (or one in every 5) blockbuster was made with this much care and love.