Oh here's something. Iran is a nightmare. Israel is about to start something the probably shouldn't, and probably won't be able to finish without US help. And our government is just sitting here with its tongue tied, doing nothing. Election years are rough, eh?
Look I don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons any more than the next guy, but this is a delicate and awkward situation, one that could have far reaching implications. And so I might be shunned for saying this, but really who the hell are we to say whether or not Iran is allowed to develop nuclear weapons? Why is it that we're allowed to have them, that our pals over in India and Pakistan are allowed to have them, that our not-so-pals Russia are allowed to have them, that a nutjob in North Korea is allowed to have them, and Iran isn't?
There are lots of reasons, I get it. Iran is a pretty extreme government. They have plans of their own that would at least destabilize the region, and at most wipe Israel completely off the map. They probably wouldn't hesitate too much to attack America either, if they had the chance. And unlike the nutzo in North Korea, Iran does have means to cause some real damage.
But if Iran isn't allowed to have nuclear weapons, why is anyone? We shouldn't be saying "do as we say not as we do." We're Americans, and we're better than that. Leading the world by threatening them with nukes is not a very effective way to lead the world, if you ask me.
I also take issue with the idea of sanctioning Iran to try to get them to stop building nukes... er... researching nuclear power for powerplants. That's what they say they're doing with it, right? Whatever. I don't think sanctions are not the answer. Sanctions would work here in the US, in Europe, even in Russia. But in countries like China, and (obviously) Iran, the people are so battered down, so afraid to stand up against their government, that sanctions are pretty pointless. I mean that's what sanctions are designed to do, right? To make people so miserable that they rise up and demand change from their government? If the Arab Spring wasn't enough to get Iran up in arms, I doubt our sanctions are going to have any kind of effect.
The people we're trying to stop don't care about sanctions... they still get their food, they still live a lavish lifestyle. It's the people at the bottom, the people who are not in leadership roles, who are getting screwed. And while yes they may hate their government officials, and they may wish that there was some way to overthrow them, they won't rise up to do it. Instead, they will hate the West for putting the sanctions in place. They will rebel against us. They will burn our flag in the street and call us the great satan. And we will take it, and we will regret it down the road because these people will discover that America is a much easier and more effective outlet for their anger than their own government. This is not the way to do it.
Nope. If we want to stop Ahmnendnagjad or whatever his name is, the only solution is to send in the troops. I'm not talking about all-out war. I'm talking about Seals, or Rangers, or whoever is the most badass elite unit we've got. Send in Master Chief. Do some covert shit, and take that guy out. Take out him, his supporters in leadership, and take out that other guy who doesn't like him but is also a radical religious leader.
Of course, we're not going to do that. We're America, and "we don't do that kind of stuff." Right. It's dirty, but it's effective. It pisses off a lot less people, and it puts a lot less people in danger. It might send Iran into chaos, but in the end what's better? Wait. before you answer that, ask yourself another question: what's better for America? It really is two questions, and you really do have to answer both. Because I think you could make the argument that if Iran was a nuclear power, the rest of the world would take it much more seriously. That would probably be better for the people of Iran, even though it wouldn't be better for us. Taking out Iran's leadership would definitely be better for the USA, but think about what it could do to the people of Iran. You could wind up with another Syria.
This is all heavy, heavy shit. And it makes me wonder why anyone would want to be president. My uncle says that the reason you never like the president is because the only people who run for president are crazy people, because who in their right mind would want to take on all of this responsibility? Makes sense to me. But I do ask one thing of you, and of our President, and of the media, and of everyone. Let's be the world leaders that we like to call ourselves, and let's try to think about this situation from all the different perspectives. Let's realize that Iranians are every bit as human as we are, and they are allowed the same basic rights that we and the rest of the free world are allowed. Let's stop talking about them like how badly we're going to punish them for being naughty, and instead let's try to recognize and understand their side of the situation.
Right now you're probably sitting there nodding your head, saying "oh absolutely, I always do that." Really? How did you react when Ron Paul said this? Be honest.
Alright fair warning folks. I've been watching some movies lately. And by some I mean a lot. Sorry, I've just been DVRing like a mad man, and it's not like there's a lot of great TV on these days. So here we go...
But if Iran isn't allowed to have nuclear weapons, why is anyone? We shouldn't be saying "do as we say not as we do." We're Americans, and we're better than that. Leading the world by threatening them with nukes is not a very effective way to lead the world, if you ask me.
I also take issue with the idea of sanctioning Iran to try to get them to stop building nukes... er... researching nuclear power for powerplants. That's what they say they're doing with it, right? Whatever. I don't think sanctions are not the answer. Sanctions would work here in the US, in Europe, even in Russia. But in countries like China, and (obviously) Iran, the people are so battered down, so afraid to stand up against their government, that sanctions are pretty pointless. I mean that's what sanctions are designed to do, right? To make people so miserable that they rise up and demand change from their government? If the Arab Spring wasn't enough to get Iran up in arms, I doubt our sanctions are going to have any kind of effect.
The people we're trying to stop don't care about sanctions... they still get their food, they still live a lavish lifestyle. It's the people at the bottom, the people who are not in leadership roles, who are getting screwed. And while yes they may hate their government officials, and they may wish that there was some way to overthrow them, they won't rise up to do it. Instead, they will hate the West for putting the sanctions in place. They will rebel against us. They will burn our flag in the street and call us the great satan. And we will take it, and we will regret it down the road because these people will discover that America is a much easier and more effective outlet for their anger than their own government. This is not the way to do it.
Nope. If we want to stop Ahmnendnagjad or whatever his name is, the only solution is to send in the troops. I'm not talking about all-out war. I'm talking about Seals, or Rangers, or whoever is the most badass elite unit we've got. Send in Master Chief. Do some covert shit, and take that guy out. Take out him, his supporters in leadership, and take out that other guy who doesn't like him but is also a radical religious leader.
Of course, we're not going to do that. We're America, and "we don't do that kind of stuff." Right. It's dirty, but it's effective. It pisses off a lot less people, and it puts a lot less people in danger. It might send Iran into chaos, but in the end what's better? Wait. before you answer that, ask yourself another question: what's better for America? It really is two questions, and you really do have to answer both. Because I think you could make the argument that if Iran was a nuclear power, the rest of the world would take it much more seriously. That would probably be better for the people of Iran, even though it wouldn't be better for us. Taking out Iran's leadership would definitely be better for the USA, but think about what it could do to the people of Iran. You could wind up with another Syria.
This is all heavy, heavy shit. And it makes me wonder why anyone would want to be president. My uncle says that the reason you never like the president is because the only people who run for president are crazy people, because who in their right mind would want to take on all of this responsibility? Makes sense to me. But I do ask one thing of you, and of our President, and of the media, and of everyone. Let's be the world leaders that we like to call ourselves, and let's try to think about this situation from all the different perspectives. Let's realize that Iranians are every bit as human as we are, and they are allowed the same basic rights that we and the rest of the free world are allowed. Let's stop talking about them like how badly we're going to punish them for being naughty, and instead let's try to recognize and understand their side of the situation.
Right now you're probably sitting there nodding your head, saying "oh absolutely, I always do that." Really? How did you react when Ron Paul said this? Be honest.
Alright fair warning folks. I've been watching some movies lately. And by some I mean a lot. Sorry, I've just been DVRing like a mad man, and it's not like there's a lot of great TV on these days. So here we go...
Cyrus
From Netflix: Indie favorites Jay and Mark Duplass co-direct this wry look at modern love and family dysfunction. John C. Reilly plays a divorced man who thinks he's found just the right woman (Marisa Tomei) to help him recover and move on. Unfortunately, the woman's son, played by Jonah Hill, has no interest in allowing another man into their lives -- a stance he proceeds to demonstrate in a variety of obnoxious ways.
My Take: This movie annoyed the hell out of me. Not because it was a bad movie. It wasn't. It was very good, actually. The story was very real and believable. Everyone in it was human, and honestly the situation itself isn't that outlandish. It wasn't the actors that annoyed me. I thought John C Reilly was perfect. Marissa Tomei was beautiful and incredibly transparent. Even Jonah Hill was the perfect mix of crazy, funny, and utterly sad. What annoyed me about this movie was the soundtrack.
The soundtrack to "Cyrus" is beautiful. It is stirring, it is intelligent, it is amazing. Just listen to this. The whole movie is like that -- and that's not even the best variation on that theme. And it annoys the hell out of me because this soundtrack was never officially released.
How can you do that? How can you make something so brilliant and then just throw it away? Thomas Newman, my favorite composer, did that very same thing with arguably his best soundtrack ever (the soundtrack to "Phenomenon," which I eventually found and bought of some dude in Belgium who probably just copied a cassette tape to CD and charged me 40 bucks for it).
If anyone finds this soundtrack, I would really, really appreciate it if you would let me know. It just drives me nuts that I can't have that music in my library. Seriously. How can this happen? Oh, see this movie. It's raw, it's kind of embarrassing, but I think you'll like it.
J. Edgar
From Netflix: Leonardo DiCaprio stars in this riveting biopic as J. Edgar Hoover, the longtime FBI director as notorious for his overzealous methods of law enforcement as for the rumors regarding his cross-dressing and close relationship with protégé Clyde Tolson.
My take: I don't know if "riveting" is the word I would use to describe this movie. It's two-plus hours of difficult to understand dialogue, boring story, and a hidden tangent that I really don't know is very accurate. Why is it that Leonardo DiCaprio gets picked to do these types of movies. He's not particularly good at "becoming" another person. He sort of plays Leonardo DiCaprio. The worst part is he had to play a really old guy in this movie... it was funny to watch, but I don't think it was the intent. Pair him up with a guy who looks and sounds just like the dude from 2001, and I do mean PAIR him up, and it's just one awkward scene after another. It covers too much ground. Or maybe it focuses on the wrong things. I don't know, it just misses its mark.
Honestly I couldn't sit still through this entire movie. I found myself getting up to go do chores. I actually started washing dishes at one point. And then I would remind myself that I was watching a movie... there were no commercial breaks... and force myself to sit back down.
In other words, don't bother with this one. Clint Eastwood, I expected more.
The Green Hornet
From Netflix: Seth Rogen and writing partner Evan Goldberg (Superbad) apply their trademark humor to the superhero genre in this big-screen action-adventure about a newspaper-publishing playboy (Rogen) who dons a disguise to fight crime after hours. As the Green Hornet, Britt Reid's power is no longer limited to the printed page -- and thanks to a nimble martial-arts expert (Jay Chou), he has the skills to expose the city's roughest criminals.
My Take: I don't really know anything about The Green Hornet. Super Heroes like that were always kind of stupid to me... I preferred the ones who put on badass armor and shot repulsor rays out of their hands. But I like Seth Rogan, and this seemed like the kind of movie he would have fun with, so I figured what the hey, I'll give it a shot.
Meh. That's the best I can offer for this movie. Maybe it was the material, maybe it was the on screen chemistry... I'm sure it had something to do with Cameron Diaz. Seriously, how does she still find work? There are so many hotter, more capable actresses out there. As soon as I saw her show up, I had half this review written in my head.
There were some funny moments, but mostly it was just sort of "let's get this overwith." You could see the plot twists coming a mile away, the places where the two friends part ways only to save each other at the end. It was so formulaic it was depressing. It's like Seth and company just wanted to play with some expensive toys that blow up.
I dunno. If you like weird superheroes, maybe you'll enjoy this movie. I know I didn't.
Despicable Me
From Netflix: Villainous Gru lives up to his reputation as a despicable, deplorable and downright unlikable guy when he hatches a plan to steal the moon from the sky. But he has a tough time staying on task after three orphan girls land in his care.
My Take: I've talked a lot about how sad it is that the other animation houses can't touch Pixar. Sure they can hire some funny writers and actors who can deliver funny lines... but they just don't reach the depth and pull the heartstrings like a Pixar movie can. Well, "Despicable Me" is probably the closest I've seen anyone get. And I think it all has to do with Steve Carell.
Steve Carell, the guy who could make you feel really sorry for an idiot in a suit ("The Office, folks), has managed to do it in his animated form as well. The animation itself is really good too. Actually this whole movie is just really good. It would be funny for kids, and it has some great moments for adults too.
It feels weird to me saying you should watch a kids movie... so I'll say this. If you have kids, or if you're babysitting kids, this is a good one to put on. You won't be bored, and it will give you all something to talk about when the credits roll.
30 Minutes Or Less
From Netflix: Two small-town criminals (Danny McBride and Nick Swardson) planning a big-time bank heist wind up abducting pizza delivery driver Nick (Jesse Eisenberg) and forcing him to commit the robbery -- giving him a strict time limit to boot. To pull off the caper, Nick enlists the aid of a former buddy (Aziz Ansari). With the law, the crooks and the clock all breathing down their necks, the duo also try to patch up their troubled friendship in this frenetic action comedy.
My Take: Sigh. How can you get this many funny people together and end up with a piece of shit movie? I don't know the answer, but after seeing "30 Minutes Or Less," I know it's possible. First off, I'm really sort of sick of the dude who looks like and tries to be but definitely is not Michael Cera. His whole nervous, fast-talking demeanor just doesn't do it for me anymore. In fact, after watching "30 Minutes or Less," I actually mailed back an unwatched "The Social Network." There are a lot of reasons for that -- not the least of which is that I could care less how some douchebag made millions of dollars doing almost nothing. But one of the reasons was that I'm just sick of watching that guy in movies.
There's a lot of talent in this movie but it just doesn't click. The lines all miss their mark, with the exception of a couple like the one about the Third Eye Blind song. Those are few and far-between, and it's almost like they are accidentally included. There's very little chemistry between the characters, and what you basically wind up with is that mouthy guy from "Parks And Rec" shouting a bunch of one-liners that, while funny, were most likely added in post.
Swing and a miss on this one. Definitely not worth seeing.
Kill The Irishman
From Netflix: This true crime tale from director Jonathan Hensleigh charts the bloody rise and fall of Irish mobster Danny Greene, who faced down the Mafia to claim control of organized crime in Cleveland, Ohio, in the 1970s.
My Take: I had no idea what to expect going into this movie. At first I thought maybe it was going to be another "Snatch" type movie with a bunch of glitzy editing. Then I thought maybe it was going to be a weird period piece with a truly "70s" feel. But about 1 minute into the movie I saw Val Kilmer, and I knew that this was going to be one I had to sit through all the way. Ever since his performance in "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang," I have had a new respect for Kilmer, and he does not disappoint in this movie. Christopher Walken is in it too. So is Bullet-Tooth Tony (from "Snatch," oddly enough). But neither of them hold a candle to Val Kilmer. And Val Kilmer doesn't hold a candle to Ray Stevenson.
I know very little about Danny Green and the whole story behind this movie, but if ANY of it is true, then that guy was nuts. Trying to take on the mob? Getouttaheah. You know what I appreciate most about this movie though? The authenticity. They wove in actual news clips from the terrible murders and mafia hits, but whenever you saw Danny Greene, it was always Stevenson AS Greene. It kept the illusion while giving it an authentic feel. And you know what? They were pretty much spot-on with the look too. Very, very impressive.
This is not an easy movie to watch. It's violent, it's gritty, and unfortunately it seems very close to what actually happened. Probably. Like I said I don't know much about it. Still, great movie, not what I expected, and something that I think would be worth your time.
Whew! That is some serious movie watching. Have a great week everybody...
No comments:
Post a Comment