Quantum of Solace

I'm not dead! Just been uninterested in blogging. Post election depression or something...

Anyway, the new Bond movie.

First, let me say that I thought Casino Royale was awesome. It was a great reboot for the series, and gave it a much-needed dose of gritty realism. On top of that, Daniel Craig is the best Bond since Connery.

So it was with great anticipation that I went to see Quantum of Solace. The trailers looked cool, and I was eager to see where the filmmakers would go from CR.

In a word, I was disappointed. The story, while thin, was interesting and well-written. Craig is as good as ever, and his murderous tendencies in this film are darkly humorous. Mathieu Amalric was good as the elusive villain (his eyes totally creep me out), and Olga Kurylenko was a great Bond girl; not only is she gorgeous, but also more than capable of taking care of herself.

But where the film really falls flat is in its action sequences. Yes, this is yet another movie afflicted with the "shaky cam" disease. The opening car chase is pretty much incomprehensible, with its split-second editing and shaky camera. As is much of what follows. And there's too much of it. The pace slows down a bit in the second half, but the first hour is nothing but chases, gunfights, and fistfights.

I honestly don't know why they didn't stick with Martin Campbell as the director. Marc Forster simply doesn't have a clue how to shoot or edit action. He seems to be trying to imitate Paul Greengrass and the Bourne movies, but he fails. Not only is that style inappropriate for Bond, but this is a poor imitation. The Bournes are frantic, but not a blur.

James Bond will definitely return, but here's hoping that it will be with a director who actually understands how to shoot action scenes (and a better title song!).

Pre-debate roundup

1. Wow, in the past couple days, the McCain campaign has really devolved into some kind of perverse Rovian self-parody.

Yesterday, McCain gave a simply odious speech, full of lies and hypocrisy, that included thinly veiled winks at Barack Obama's "foreign" background, part of which elicited an embarassing response from the audience.

Near the end of his vitriolic speech, after McCain asked "Who is the real Barack Obama?", some guy yelled out "Terrorist!". Here's the clip:



McCain may protest that this kind of outburst had nothing to do with his speech. That he was only asking legitimate questions about Obama's plan for America. But it would be an empty defense. Starting with Palin's claims of Obama "palling around with terrorists" (without naming Bill Ayers), and continuing with McCain's mention of illegal Palestinian donations to Obama's campaign, I believe there is a subtle but obvious strategy at work here to associate Obama not only with Bill Ayers but with more contemporary terrorists.

There is no need to be explicit. Just subtley plant the seeds of doubt in voters' minds that Obama cannot be trusted to lead the country. It's pretty disgusting, and we'll no doubt see a lot more of it in the coming days.

Glenn Greenwald has more:

In the last two months of this election -- as the Bush administration winds down as the most unpopular in modern American history and the Right is on the verge of a desperately-needed collective death -- we see a perfect microcosm of what our country has been over the last eight years. The financial crisis is spreading, accelerating, and morphing across the globe in unpredictable ways. The economic anxiety levels are as high as one can recall, teetering on panic, and even the Wall St. Journal Editorial Page is acknowledging that America's days of economic dominance are over. The national debt is over a staggering $10 trillion and has doubled in the last 8 years alone. And the symbols of our nation have become gulags, the waterboard, an endless stream of bombs and occupations, and people imprisoned forever with no charges of any kind.

And as these flames engulf America's foundations, what is the Right doing -- the movement that brought us all of this through their virtually absolute control of our Government for the last eight years? They're spending all their time chattering with each other about an aging 1960s radical and giddily cheering the increasingly repellent Sarah Palin as she skips around the country in front of rambunctiously booing right-wing crowds accusing Barack Obama of palling around with The Terrorists and pointing out that he doesn't see America the way all the Normal, Good Americans do. For the last eight years, the opponents of the Right have been America-hating Terrorists and they still are.

And just now, John McCain -- speaking in New Mexico -- delivered one of the ugliest, nastiest, most invective-filled personality attacks a major candidate has ever delivered, blatantly designed to stoke raw racial resentments and depict Obama as a Manchurian candidate funded by secret Arab Terrorist sources.

2. I voted yesterday, and I felt good doing it. I can't understand why so many young people fail to show up at the polls. It takes only five minutes, and you can walk away with the knowledge that you had some say in the future of your country. Men died so that you could have this privilege. Don't miss out on it.

3. Iron Man was pretty awesome, but when I stick the Blu-ray into my PS3 the other day, I'm greeted with this loading screen. After it's stuck on this for several minutes, I start pushing buttons, and after much trial and error and growing consternation, I am finally able to get the movie to play. Whose bright idea was this? What the hell good is this internet stuff anyway? I'm just trying to watch the fucking movie.

4. This is is a very good primer on CDS, or "credit default swaps". They are basically insurance contracts for firms that purchase risky mortgage securities, but since they called them swaps instead of insurance, they didn't have to be regulated. And since they weren't regulated, the insurers were not required to hold sufficient capital to cover the risk.


Watch CBS Videos Online

Nice, huh? What a bunch of geniuses.

(h/t Balloon Juice)

High school politics and revisiting Star Wars

So, as we all wait with baited breath to see what Hillary Clinton has to say, there's just a couple other things I'd like to mention this evening.

1. Looks like Stephane Dion is none too eager for a fall election (neither am I, to be frank; the one south of the border is quite enough). Andrew Coyne thinks it's funny:

A source close to the Prime Minister said Dion was, like, totally avoiding him
in the halls and stuff. “Ohmigod, it’s like sooo obvious. He can deny it, but
it’s all over school.”

A Liberal official, speaking on condition of
anonymity, was like “no way.” The Prime Minister, according to the source, was
like “yes way.”

At a hastily convened press conference, Dion suggested he had
math fifth period and could see the Prime Minister then, but that after that he
had a chem lab that he was “totally freaked out about.”

Harper countered that there was no way he was going to end it, that if Dion wanted to end it he should call him…

Hee.

2. With Star Wars: The Clone Wars out in theatres, and me not too excited to see it, I stumbled across something called Star Wars: Revisited. What is this, you ask? Only the COOLEST FUCKING THING EVER!

In all seriousness, this is what the Special Edition should have been. It is a fan-edit, with no official sanction from Lucasfilm, but it is so well done, it puts their official efforts to shame. The creator of this wonderful new version of Star Wars (he goes by Adywan) has taken the good parts of the original cut and the good parts of the special editions and spliced them together to make a definitive cut. Additionally, he has fixed numerous technical glitches and bloopers that were never fixed in any official release, added new music to various scenes (always appropriate, never intrusive), and even added entirely new special effects sequences that are on par with the studio efforts.

Obviously, with all the additions, it's not exactly purist (but Han does shoot first!), but in Revisited, Adywan has created what I feel to be the definitive version of the original Star Wars. And we were due for one, given all the technical glitches that infested the 2004 DVD release of the OT. Right now, he is hard at work on The Empire Strikes Back: Revisited, but you can find the first movie available for download on Bittorrent and Rapidshare here.

Scattershots

1. I think this guy has the right idea vis a vis Russia/Georgia:

Don't abandon Georgia to Moscow's 'sphere of influence'

I notice many on the Left have drawn an equivalence between this current crisis and the US invasion and occupation of Iraq, and thus have limited their criticism of Russia. But remember that old saying "two wrongs don't make a right"?

The truth is that the US was wrong to invade Iraq, and Russia was also wrong to invade Georgia. And Saakashvili is no Saddam Hussein either. This was no "humanitarian intervention"; Russia just wanted to slap Saakashvili down to teach him and any other shitty little country in Central Asia with delusions of grandeur not to snuggle up to the US and NATO. And judging by the results so far, and the general unwillingness of the international community to take any strong action in support of Georgia, it looks like mission accomplished.

2. Canada has finally won a few medals at the Olympics! Still less than half of Michael Phelps' total, though. That guy's a freak. Literally! His joints bend funny and his wingspan is more than his fucking height.

3. So much political ridiculousness going on south of the border, I can't even catalog all of it. But this video of MSNBC's David Shuster taking on the Hillary die-hards of PumaPac was a riot:




(h/t Balloon Juice)

And may I just suggest to all the morons in the US media that John McCain demonstrating his ignorance of recent history and eagerness to start a war with Russia is NOT "displaying his foreign policy credentials". Christ, what will it take for these idiots to wake up?


4. Courtesy of MovieWeb, the first photos of The Dark Knight DVD and Blu-ray releases:



Unfortunately, it doesn't look like there'll be a Blu-ray set that includes the Bat-pod or the mask, which is a real bummer. No release date yet, but they are probably aiming for a December release.

My Dark Knight review

Saw it. It was good. Good night.





....okay, just kidding!



I really am almost speechless! It's quite hard to put my thoughts into words, or at least organize them coherently.

To start out with, yes, Heath Ledger is amazing. The hype was justified; Ledger creates a terrifying, unique, and darkly funny character that you just cannot take your eyes off of, whether he's sticking knives in people's mouths, waxing philosophical about the dark side of human nature, or doing magic tricks with pencils. I'd be shocked if he didn't at least get nominated for an Oscar.

Bale, Freeman and Caine are all quite good, reprising their roles from the first film, though Alfred seems to have a lot less to do in this one, as does Bale, since the Bruce:Batman screen time ratio seems to have decreased considerably. And newcomers Gyllenhal and Eckart are both superb.

The action is staged with considerably more confidence than in Begins. The set pieces, from an excursion to Hong Kong to the Batmobile vs a tractor trailer, are all spectacular; even more so with the towering IMAX cinematography. Some of the camera angles from the tops of skyscrapers are just stunning.

I loved the new Batman suit. It does seem quite a bit more flexible, finally allowing Batman to turn his neck! There was surprisingly little of the Bat-pod; it's really only featured in one scene.

But what really makes this film special is not the action or the Bat-toys. No, what makes it special is that this is a disturbing and nihilistic piece of work that actually has something to say about the world we live in, which is a very pleasant surprise coming from a big-budget summer blockbuster.

The Joker is scary not just because of the terrible things he does, but also the terrible possibility that he may be right; that society is just a thin facade for our inner barbarism and immorality. This generates a lot of suspense towards the end, as the Joker puts his theory to the test, with hundreds of lives hanging in the balance.

But this movie is really about Harvey Dent, not the Joker or Batman. And his arc, absurd as it seems at first glance, really works. It's what brings the movie full circle, and generates the most tragedy (also some very gruesome CGI work). Dent represents hope and idealism in a nasty world, and the nasty world chews him up and spits him back out. Pretty bleak stuff for a comic book movie.

Frankly, after watching TDK, I am more mystified than ever about some critics' complaints about the length. It was the fastest two and a half hours of my life. I kept looking at my watch, not because I was bored, but because I was shocked at how little of the movie was left. After waiting three years for a movie, two and a half hours of payoff doesn't seem like much.

But it was worth the wait, in any case. The ending is intriguing, and although it could serve as a finale for the series, it also gives hints about where the next one could go. I really hope Bale and Nolan decide to do another one.

In any case, go see it. Now. It's the best superhero movie ever, the best film of the year so far, and one of the greatest cinematic experiences of the decade. Don't miss it.

UPDATE: Just on time, the next installment in Iron Man and Batman:



Made $66 million on its opening day, more than Begins made in its entire opening weekend. The best comment I've read so far is that it's like Titanic for the Y chromosome. Probably won't match its gross though, unfortunately.

Middle of the week mini-roundup

I know, it's a strange time to be doing one of my trademarked roundups, but the alternative would be to write four or five little posts, which I view as cheating.

1. It seems that the New Yorker article about Obama was actually pretty damned interesting. Nate from FiveThirtyEight recaps:

Ryan Lizza's 15,000-word epic by no means paints the most flattering picture of
Barack Obama. His Obama is remarkably intelligent and very level-headed, but
also understands every lever of power, and is ambitious to the point of being
ruthless.Well, no shit he's ambitious. For any American to go from a relatively
unprivileged childhood (or a privileged one for that matter) to be on the
doorstep of the Preisdency by the time he's age 46 requires a perfect storm of
luck, intelligence, and ambition. Obama has ample amounts of each.

But the article is more remarkable for revealing what Obama is not.

One, he's not some Pierre Trudeau type of academic. Obama became interested
in politics very early, and seemed to have some keen understanding of his upside
potential. The sometimes languid pace of academia was not really compatible with
that.

Two, Obama was not corrupt. He knew how to navigate the rules of the
system. But he didn't cheat the system. Obama succeeded, for instance, in
disqualifying Alice Palmer from the ballot in the Illinois State Senate because
she faked hundreds of signatures to get her name on it, and then Obama called
her out. That's maybe not the most mannerly, tea-and-crumpets way of doing
things. But Obama didn't cheat. Palmer had cheated. What Obama did was to
exploit some of the inefficiencies of the Chicago machine system. Tony Rezko
donates, though legal channels, a bunch of money because he expects you to
behave like a typical machine politician and do him illegal favors? What to do?
Well, you take his money. And then you don't do him the favors.

I'll have to give it a read, but 15,000 words is too many to handle right now.

2. I also missed this during my brief break from blogging and the internet:

'Heroic' fighting repels Afghan militants

Apparently there was a big huge battle in Afghanistan that resulted in 9 US dead and 15 wounded, as well as dozens and dozens of Taliban killed, as hundreds of militants attempted to capture a coalition outpost in eastern Afghanistan. This was the deadliest single day for US forces in that country in 3 years.

If the Taliban is able to carry out an operation involving hundreds of men and mount a credible attack against a US military base, I'd say that means the situation is not improving.

3. Ooh, the plot thickens. An expert hired by Stephen Harper says there isn't enough evidence to conclude that Tom Zytaruk's interview tape was doctored, contradicting the others that Harper got to examine it. I gotta say, Harper is really pushing this lawsuit. I guess it's possible that he simply doesn't remember what he said about the Cadman deal, but he's playing it hard the other way.

4. Big financial worries on Wall Street, amid impending bailouts of major mortgage financiers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and ominious comments from Ben Bernanke. And an idiotic run on IndyMac isn't helping things. What part of "deposit insurance" do these people not understand? And for those who do understand it, what kind of moron keeps their entire life savings in deposits at a US bank? In Canada, it's different. The chances of one of our chartered banks going poof is practically zero (the World Economic Forum rated our banks the second safest in the world, behind only Switzerland). But in the unregulated and free-wheeling US financial sector, don't you dare trust all your money to one bank.

Anyways, bad shit all around.

5. What is with all these snooty New York critics bashing The Dark Knight? The film currently has four negative reviews on Rotten Tomatoes, all of them courtesy of New York magazine critics. This one faults it for not being a masterpiece. This one faults it for being too serious. This one says it's "noisy and sadistic". This one thinks it's too violent and "isn't necessarily fun".

Jesus Christ, if you don't want a sadistic, noisy, violent, and serious near-masterpiece, go watch Space Chimps, you pretentious fucks. Another recurring theme with these negative reviews is that it isn't enough like Tim Burton's movies. The last reviewer even says this:

In brief, Warner Bros. has continued to drain the poetry, fantasy, and comedy
out of Tim Burton’s original conception for “Batman” (1989), completing the job
of coarsening the material into hyperviolent summer action spectacle.

Well I don't give a shit about "Tim Burton's original conception for Batman", because it was a very flawed conception. Fun and entertaining, but I don't even put it in the same league as Batman Begins. The critics sure liked the pretty set design, but beyond that, Jack Nicholson had too much screentime, the action was clumsy, and the Joker killing Bruce's parents was just stupid. And by Returns, it was clear that Burton had no respect for the source material, preferring to apply his own quirky style and sensibilities to Batman's world.

Check out Berardinelli for a real review of the movie written by someone who isn't a hack. More reviews should be flooding in pretty soon.

6. I think I'll wait for the paperback, but The Dark Side by Jane Mayer looks really interesting. It appears to be an in-depth examination of the US torture regime that developed after 9/11. Must be a disturbing and anger-inducing read.

The best comic book movie ever?

Peter Travers, Rolling Stone (3 1/2 stars out of 4):
Heads up: a thunderbolt is about to rip into the blanket of bland we call summer movies. The Dark Knight , director Christopher Nolan's absolute stunner of a follow-up to 2005's Batman Begins , is a potent provocation decked out as a comic-book movie. Feverish action? Check. Dazzling spectacle? Check. Devilish fun? Check. But Nolan is just warming up. There's something raw and elemental at work in this artfully imagined universe. Striking out from his Batman origin story, Nolan cuts through to a deeper dimension. Huh? Wha? How can a conflicted guy in a bat suit and a villain with a cracked, painted-on clown smile speak to the essentials of the human condition? Just hang on for a shock to the system. . . .I can only speak superlatives of Ledger, who is mad-crazy-blazing brilliant as the Joker. Miles from Jack Nicholson's broadly funny take on the role in Tim Burton's 1989 Batman, Ledger takes the role to the shadows, where even what's comic is hardly a relief. . . .No fair giving away the mysteries of The Dark Knight. It's enough to marvel at the way Nolan — a world-class filmmaker, be it Memento, Insomnia or The Prestige — brings pop escapism whisper-close to enduring art. It's enough to watch Bale chillingly render Batman as a lost warrior, evoking Al Pacino in The Godfather II in his delusion and desolation. It's enough to see Ledger conjure up the anarchy of the Sex Pistols and A Clockwork Orange as he creates a Joker for the ages.

Todd Gilchrist, IGN (5 out of 5 stars):
Superior to all three Spider-Man installments and even its amazing predecessor in terms of conceptualization, writing, acting, and direction, Nolan's follow-up to Batman Begins is a dark, complex and disturbing film , not the least of which because it grafts its heroics onto the blueprint of actual reality rather than that of spandex-clad supermen. And while such a distinction may make little difference to those already eagerly anticipating the return of the caped crusader, suffice it to say that The Dark Knight qualifies as the first official comic book adaptation that truly succeeds in being a great artistic achievement in its own right. . . .Meanwhile, the violence is quite possibly the most intense I have ever seen in a PG-13 film, leaving myself and others wondering how The Dark Knight avoided an R. . . .Finally, there's Ledger, whose performance I suspect will be the subject of many analyses of all sorts in the weeks and months to come. What he does with The Joker is, quite frankly, nothing short of transcendent. Early in the film he explains the origins of his trademark facial scars, and you worry for a moment that the filmmakers are giving this psychopath some kind of convenient explanation, which, talented though he was, Ledger won't be able to overcome. But by the third time he's explained where they come from – each time telling a different tale – you realize that Ledger was a master of his craft, only in his final years finding roles that truly offered him the chance to explore that mastery. His is the definitive movie Joker, and he owns the role and achieves a level of abject insanity that is terrifying as it is irresistible.

Emmanuel Levy (A):
Dark, grim, haunting and visionary, "The Dark Knight" is nothing short of brilliant, the best and scariest comic hero adaptation you are likely to see this summer season, and perhaps during the whole year . At least two notches above "Batman Begins," this follow-up represents Christopher Nolan's most accomplished and mature work, and mind you, he is one of the few Hollywood directors who have never made a bad picture.

The Movie Blog (8.5 out of 10):

The action in The Dark Knight was vastly superior to Batman Begins in every way, shape and form. And we’re not just talking about fight scenes either. There are a couple of scenes that are more like heist movies than comic book ones and they totally work. The camera work is also much better for the fight and action in this movie than they were in the original which was quite a relief since that was one of my few complains about Begins.

FilmFocus (from Holland) (5 out of 5 stars):

Nolan kicks in the narrative overdrive from the first minute and doesn't relent after that. A spectacular bank job with a gruesome aftermath introduces Heath Ledger's Joker, aka "The Scariest Supervillain Of All Time™". Ledger's performance is so incredibly strong that by all means come July 24th, it should become the pure definition of the term 'sociopath' in your friendly neighbourhood dictionary. Ledger, who sadly passed away in the beginning of this year, leaves a legacy unlike anything that has ever been seen in a comic book film adaptation as Batman's nemesis....The Dark Knight rises above the tropes of the super hero movie and establishes itself as a sprawling crime epic filled with intrigues and plot twists that can easily hold its own against classics from the Warner archives like L.A. Confidential and Heat.

Brad Brevet, from Ropeofsilicon.com :
What can I say? There are moments in film history when everything is pushed aside and performance exceeds genre. Batman Begins told audiences and film critics it was possible to root a comic book generated superhero in reality. Earlier this year Iron Man set out to do the same but lost its balance in the final act. The Dark Knight manages to exceed expectation with a villain so maniacal, his desire for destruction begins to make sense to the point you understand his desire for all out anarchy while you are cheering for the opposition in a war that basically boils down to one side against individual terrorism. . . .In terms of comic book film adaptations this is the pinnacle . The argument saying this is the Godfather Part II of comic book movies would insinuate that Batman Begins is on equal terms with the original Godfather , which is far from true. However, if we could call this The Godfather of comic book movies I wait anxiously for what may/will become the film that caps off the trilogy.

Erik Amaya, Comic Book Resources :

All the things you never thought you would see in a Batman film are present in "The Dark Knight." Christopher Nolan's dark, disturbing sequel to 2006's "Batman Begins" pulls off an impossible task: making an epic from a movie with a man in tights. The film also reveals to a mass audience what fans of the characters have known for years - the Joker is nothing to laugh at. . .. Christopher Nolan never meant to be a director of titanic tent-pole films, but he delivers them with grace, confidence, and power. The fights are true to Batman and the chase scenes are electric. If "The Dark Knight" were simply an action film, it would be one of the best. However, what makes the film truly amazing is how it grows beyond its basic remit as a summer action film. The story, guided by the Joker's antics, reveals a dark rumination on the Western World in the twenty-first century. It suggests the line between upstanding citizen and a homicidal clown is not very well defined. The film has a sense of relevance in a way no other superhero movie can claim to suggest. This is a truly amazing feat for any film, never mind one which features an actual building exploding. . . .Make no mistake; "The Dark Knight" is frightening. Tension ramps up. Blood is spilled. Every body that drops has weight. Every shout is as unsettling as an explosion. As soon as the Joker begins his stage show of terror, you will expect every window and every quiet moment to explode into anarchy. This is not the Superfriends. Scooby and Daphne are no where to be found. Even if they were, they would be strung up on the pillars of Gotham City Hall, broken and still bleeding with a note posted to Scoob's intestines saying, "Good one, Shaggy." The vision of humanity the Joker presents will haunt you.

Tom McLean, Newsarama :
The Dark Knight is an intense, thrilling, smart and amazing film that truly vies for the crown of the greatest movie ever made from a comic book. Yes, it’s that good. Weaving a plot of complexity and depth that pits well-drawn characters against each other in a battle of anarchy against order, sanity against insanity and life against death, The Dark Knight excels on nearly every level and delivers that most rare of movie gems — a spectacle that succeeds in challenging its genre and its audience, creating an experience that will completely satisfy and thrill filmgoers of all types. Even scratching the surface of the many ways in which this film pleases, surprises, shocks and thrills would take more time and be inferior to watching the film itself, which even at 2 & 1/2 hours only rarely compels criticism of overstaying its welcome or of venturing into territory that could be cut.

Mr. Disgusting, from Bloody Disgusting :
If 2008 proved anything thus far, it's that there is hope for cinema. With dozens upon dozens of mind-numbing films being dumped into theaters, we have already seen a few glimmers of hope, even though I still haven't seen a film that blew me away... that is until last night. Warner Bros. Pictures' THE DARK KNIGHT is not only the best film I have seen this year, but quite possibly the best superhero movie ever made. . . .If DARK KNIGHT gets anything less than an Oscar nomination it would be a great injustice to the world of cinema. Nolan has delivered an epic masterpiece that will literally take your breath away. If this film doesn't make you feel like a kid again, maybe there's no hope for you...

Staci Lane, Horror.com :
Martin Scorsese's The Departed . Michael Mann's Heat . Brian de Palma's The Untouchables . And now, Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight can join the ranks as one of the best crime dramas in modern movie history. It's only incidental it's set in the fictional gritty city of Gotham, and it just happens to feature a superhero wearing a bat-suit and an arch-villain in clown makeup.

..............................................................................................................................................................

Wow.

The mother of all roundups

I hope everyone had a nice Canada Day!

There's a whole bunch of things to mention today that don't quite warrant their own posts.

1. First, watch this, if you can stomach it.



I mean, I expect this from Fox, since they've long since descended into self-parody. But what excuse do CNN and MSNBC have? Disgusting.

2. Christopher Hitchens had himself waterboarded. His conclusion? Yup, it's torture. No shit, Sherlock. Click the link for the full article and video. I'm going to give him props for being a braver man than most of the right-wing blowhards who justify torture with their bizarre Jack Bauer fantasies. He makes all the right points about the utter senselessness and immorality of torturing terrorist suspects.

I like Hitch; some of his politics are just wacky and distasteful, but I can't help but admire his bluntness and utter lack of decorum. This is him discussing Jerry Falwell's death on Hannity and Colmes.

3. More whining from the crybabies in the McCain campaign:

Last night, Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) was on MSNBC, and was asked about the
right’s flap over Clark. Webb thought this was much ado about nothing, suggested
McCain “calm down,” and said it’s time to “get the politics out of the
military.”

And in response, the McCain campaign is, once again, outraged by this
“attack” on McCain’s military service. McCain spokesperson Brian
Rogers told Greg Sargent:

“If you didn’t think this was a coordinated attack on John McCain’s
credentials before, it’s clear now that it is. Barack Obama’s surrogates are
telling the McCain campaign to “calm down” about attacks on his military record?
Seriously? Now somehow Wes Clark’s attacks are John McCain’s fault? It’s absurd.
If Barack Obama can’t control his own surrogate operation, how can he be trusted to run the country?”

I find it hard to imagine that Rogers even believes this nonsense
himself, highlighting why it’s a mistake to keep going to the same well over and
again. Not only did Clark not coordinate with Obama — the most controversial
remark in Clark’s interview originated with Bob Schieffer, not the Obama
campaign — but Webb didn’t attack McCain.

Is this what we're in for? Months of the McCain campaign whining and hyperventilating over everything?

4. This is more like it:

Obama takes a stand against gay-marriage ban

Also, today's statement on Wes Clark:

“I guess my question is why, given all the vast numbers of things that we’ve got
to work on, that that would be a top priority of mine?” Obama said, responding
to a reporter who asked the candidate why he hadn’t called on Wesley Clark to
apologize for his remarks yesterday. “I’m happy to have all sorts of
conversations about how we deal with Iraq and what happens with Iran, but the
fact that somebody on a cable show or on a news show like Gen. Clark said
something that was inartful about Sen. McCain I don’t think is probably the
thing that is keeping Ohioans up at night."

Much better. I'm big enough to admit I may have been overly hasty in my judgement of Obama's "move to the center", but let's keep him honest.

5. For the second month in a row, US and coalition casualties were higher in Afghanistan than Iraq. Wow. I guess that means you should defeat one insurgency before you start fighting another one, huh?

6. I've seen Batman: Gotham Knight, the animated tie-in to the Nolan Bat-films (don't ask me how I've seen it). And as much as it pains me to say this, don't waste your time or money on it. Of the six episodes included on the disc, only two are really any good. The others are boring, poorly animated, and totally out of synch with the universe established in Batman Begins. I think it would have been a much better idea to make a single coherent animated movie, by one director, one writer, and one set of animators.

7. Finally, Brad Reed examines the 10 Most Awesomely Bad Moments of the Bush Presidency. It's one of those laugh or cry situations.

Narrowing down the Bush administration's various debacles to a mere 10 was no easy feat. In fact, I expect that many people will express dismay that their least favorite moment was left off the list. "How could commuting Scooter Libby's sentence not even make the top 10??!!" I can hear some of you shrieking already. Well, I'll tell you. Essentially, I tried to rate each Bush disaster by two main criteria: its body count and its damage to the country's reputation. So while Bush's awkward groping of German Chancellor Angela Merkel may be personally humiliating to everyone, it doesn't have the same heft as, say, the Iraq War.

But for those of you who insist on seeing your least favorite moment get its due, here is list of every honorable mention I could come up with: warrantless wiretapping; Valerie Plame; Scooter Libby's sentence commuted; Bush believes Rafael Palmeiro is innocent; soldiers face neglect at Walter Reed; signing statements; the Kyoto treaty ripped up; loyalty oaths; the fake turkey; a staged teleconference with troops, staged FEMA press conference, extraordinary rendition, support for junk science; endorsement of neo-creationist "intelligent design"; inaction against global warming; record oil prices; record budget deficits; record trade deficits; record number of Americans without health insurance; two recessions; no-bid contracts; bin Laden still at large; the Federal Marriage Amendment; stem cell research vetoed; waterboarding ban vetoed; "Last throes"; "Old Europe"; "It's hard work"; "Bring it on"; "Yo, Blair!"; "I'm the decider"; "I'm the commander guy"; "I'm a war president"; "This is the guy who tried to kill my dad"; "So?"; "Let the Eagle Soar"; John Bolton; Kenny Boy; Harriet Miers; John Roberts; Sam Alito; Blair talks Bush out of bombing al-Jazeera; Cheney shoots some guy in the face; the Military Commissions Act; Jose Padilla arrested and held without charge or access to counsel; endless tax cuts for the rich; let's waste a shitload of money by sending people to Mars and let's hire some Heritage Foundation staffers to rebuild Iraq.

The whole thing is worth a read, but I started to feel sick to my stomach by the end of it. Not to disparage Americans or anything, but how can this coming election not be a massive landslide? How much evidence of Republican misrule do you need?

I'm sure all my Canadian readers remember the sponsorship scandal. We all remember how that was the major contributing factor in Paul Martin's downfall. And he wasn't even PM at the time! That's what I call accountability; we bring down a government over the previous government's sins. And those sins were downright insignificant in comparison to this laundry list of Bush fuck-ups.

Darkest Knight

Is this movie going to be badass or what? Peter Travers from The Rolling Stone has seen it, and he's pretty impressed:

No fair giving away the mysteries of The Dark Knight. It's enough to marvel at the way Nolan — a world-class filmmaker, be it Memento, Insomnia or The Prestige — brings pop escapism whisper-close to enduring art. It's enough to watch Bale chillingly render Batman as a lost warrior, evoking Al Pacino in The Godfather II in his delusion and desolation. It's enough to see Ledger conjure up the anarchy of the Sex Pistols and A Clockwork Orange as he creates a Joker for the ages. Go ahead, bitch about the movie being too long, at two and a half hours, for short attention spans (it is), too somber for the Hulk crowd (it is), too smart for its own good (it isn't). The haunting and visionary Dark Knight soars on the wings of untamed imagination. It's full of surprises you don't see coming. And just try to get it out of your dreams.

Movie of the summer, bitches. You heard it here first.


....well, that's a lie, but fuck it. :P

Bill C-10 and Government patronage of the film industry

The tax Bill C-10 was recently introduced by the Tories, and the film financing section stirred up some major controversy. They want to ammend the way the film industry receives tax credits from the Government, allowing the Heritage minister to deny these subsidies on a case by case basis. For example, if the film in question amounts to little more than soft-core pornography, the minister can say "no tax credits for you".

When it was first unveiled, many in the industry cried "censorship!" (David Cronenberg, whom I otherwise admire, said "it sounds like something they do in Bejing") and spoke gravely of the death of the Canadian film industry (of course, something has to be alive before it can die), because without these tax credits, it would be very difficult for smaller filmmakers to attain funding for their projects. True enough.

Leaving aside the fact that I can't remember the last time I watched a Canadian movie, it's a bit bizarre that allowing the Government to decide which films receive subsidies paid for by our tax dollars should somehow amount to "censorship" (with one important caveat, which I will get into below). Like filmmakers in any other country, nothing is stopping Canadian directors and producers from making the movies they want to make, provided they can secure the necessary financing through the private sector. "Censorship", in my view, would be Government control over what movies are allowed to be made and which ones aren't. This is not what is being discussed.

In any case, the Liberal controlled Senate has made some ammendments to the bill in the hopes of reaching a compromise. They are as follows:

*Remove the right of the heritage minister to refuse tax credits based on "public policy" or to issue guidelines about film content.
*Give producers an efficient judicial appeal mechanism if the minister blocks or delays funding.
*Continue to prevent government funding of pornography, child pornography, and hate propaganda.

Assuming that the Heritage minister retains some right to discriminate on funding, all of these sound okay to me, to be perfectly honest. I don't think it's a big scandal for the minister to be able to choose which movies to fund or not, but it shouldn't be done on a political basis (that would be disturbingly close to the creation of a government propaganda office, only giving tax credits to films that promote their policies), nor should there be a set of specific guidelines and rules about content (since similar "content" can be presented in different ways and for different purposes). Numbers 2 and 3 also seem eminently reasonable.

Of course, passing the larger Bill C-10 is a confidence vote, so if this compromise is still deemed unacceptable, it has the potential to bring down the Government. I wouldn't have expected it over something like this, but never underestimate the political influence of those in danger of losing their handouts.

Religulous

Oh boy, lock the doors and shutter the windows. Bill Maher's making a movie about religion:



This movie is worth it just to see all the stupid red-faced outrage it will inevitably spark.

More Iron Man and Batman!

Hee hee, I love these clips.



And yeah, just for the record, I liked Iron Man. But TDK will kick ass. Only 43 more days!

Just a few things

1. First, I would like to direct you to this excellent post by Hilzoy, dissecting the Geraldine Ferraro editorial I wrote about earlier. A quote:

And what is it about Obama that makes it impossible for him to reassure Reagan Democrats, whatever he says, whatever he does, and whatever positions he holds? Ferraro says this: "They don't identify with someone who has gone to Columbia and Harvard Law School and is married to a Princeton-Harvard Law graduate." But that can't be right: surely Reagan Democrats don't have such a finely-grained view of the distinctions* between Ivy League law schools that while Obama qualifies as an elitist, someone who went to Wellesley and Yale Law School and is married to a Georgetown-Yale Law grad counts as the salt of the earth.

It's very hard to avoid the conclusion that Obama cannot reach the Reagan Democrats in Geraldine Ferraro's head, that they don't think he will treat them fairly or understand them or their problems, because he is black.

Ferraro's Reagan Democrats, whoever they are, are either easily manipulated simpletons who vote against their own interests or racist fucks. Either way, her seeming empathy with them is disturbing.

2. In other news, the Democratic bigwigs are meeting today to decide the fate of Florida and Michigan's delegations. Any "compromise" will be grossly unfair not only to Obama but also to the millions of Democrats who were told their votes would not count, and thus did not vote.

But it looks like they'll just cut the total delegates in half and give Obama most if not all of Michigan's "uncommitted". TPM reports that the Obama campaign is already supporting a deal for Florida that will net Hillary 19 delegates, but they want to just split Michigan 50-50. Works for me, if it finally ends this primary.

UPDATE: From Daily Kos:

I think for 2012, Californians should unilaterally decide that our state will be worth 5,000 delegates. Sure, it'd be against one piffling party rule, but I fail to see why the voters of California should be disenfranchised by not seating them all.

We're a democracy, so not seating them would be like enabling Hitler.

Also, our delegates will have the power of tagsies, which means that if they touch a delegate from another state while shouting "I AM THE HIGHLANDER", that other delegate has to give them their lunch money. Deal with that, Rules Committee.

Hee.

3. Finally, I did indeed see the new Indiana Jones last weekend, and I just realized that I have not yet posted a review. I enjoyed it, but it was not the same quality as the originals. It was marred by too much CG, too much implausible and silly action (even for this series), and weak use of Karen Allen's character. Harrison Ford is still good in the role, and Shia LeBeouf wasn't too irritating, but 19 years on, it's time to put Indy to bed.

Some McCain bashing to balance things out

And just for laughs, here's part two of the hilarious "Iron Man and Batman" series, which is itself a continuation of the Apple spoofing "I'm a Marvel and I'm a DC" series.



Here's part 1 for those who missed it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NlLeCu63HCA

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

Like most people my age, the Indiana Jones movies hold a special place in our movie-loving hearts. Raiders of the Lost Ark is rightfully viewed as one of the greatest movies of all time. It had just the right combination of action, comedy, spectacle, and mystery to make it a classic for the ages. It was cutting edge filmmaking and a nostalgic tribute to adventure films of the past all at once.

So it is with both feverish anticipation and also some trepidation that we approach the long-awaited release of Indy IV. It has just been shown at Cannes, and the early reviews are....lukewarm. They criticize it for an over-reliance on unbelievable CGI set-pieces, with one reviewer saying it suffers from Star Wars syndrome. Other reviews complain that the exploration of ancient tombs and temples has all been done before in previous Indy films and their imitators, and that there is little fresh or exciting in this one.

On the bright side, they applaud the trademark humor and banter between Indy and the other characters. Apparently, several action sequences stand out and recapture some of the old magic.

One part of me thinks that these reviews betray the reviewers' bias; they have such fond memories of the original three Indy films that they have impossible expectations for this new one. My chief concern, frankly, was the age of Harrison Ford. Is he still believable in the role? The reviewers say he is, and that his age is not ignored within the film.

In any case, I know I'll be seeing it, and if it feels like an Indiana Jones film, even if only for fleeting moments, it was worth doing.