Solipsistic

UGA came back from a 21-3 deficit to defeat Virginia Tech 31-24. This win makes me feel better about Auburn losing to the Bulldogs who are likely to be a much better team next year. The SEC should be exciting in Fall 07.

Congratulations are in order for Troy as well for their first ever bowl win and to Kentucky for defeating Clemson.

Auburn plays tomorrow at 10:30 central on Fox.

Got a buddy who loves the audacious baseball play "the suicide squeeze"--batter bunts the ball to advance guy at third to home plate.

This news story's for you.

What do you think were the best films, albums, books, etc. of the year? Love making and reading these lists. Would love to share everyone's opinions with others and get some arguments started.

Expect my best of film list sometime in February.

See everyone in 2007.

The name Edward Zwick makes me a little uneasy. This is the director who brought us the Harlequin-ready Legends of the Fall and the overwrought The Last Samurai. He also gave us the outstanding Glory and the intriguing Courage Under Fire. His films are rarely subtle and often leave you feeling browbeaten in their attempts to move you.

But Blood Diamond works. Why? First, Djimon Hounsou gives a raw and mesmerizing performance as Solmoan Vandy, a fisherman swept up in the civil war and violent diamond trade of Siera Leone in 1990. The opening moments of the film are startlingly similar to those of Apocalypto as Solomon tries to rescue his family from a rapacious crew invading his small village. Solomon eventually finds himself on a mission to recover his family after they are separated in the escape. This mission brings him into contact crafty diamond smuggler Danny Archer (Leonardo DiCaprio) who learns that Solomon knows the location to a large pink diamond that will make its owner a very rich man.

The two form an uneasy alliance and enlist the help of danger-seeking and principled reporter Maddy Bowen (Jennifer Connelly) who is trying to write a damning expose of the African diamond trade. As the film progresses, we see the violent destruction wrought by roving militias, largely made up of children and teenagers, at the service of vicious mercenaries who provide diamonds to legitimate, established diamond wholesalers. The full extent of the destruction wrought by the scheme is horrifying, particularly in the toll it takes on the country's young men. This is a message movie, but it is not polarizing. This isn't a left or right-leaning film, rather it is one that asks us to consider the consequences of our purchases.

DiCaprio continues to mature as an actor and lends the standard role--mercenary who is forced to grapple with his conscience--vitality. He adds to the richness of this film that will surely move even the most jaded of moviegoers.

Speaking of college football tragedies, did you know that QB Brady Quinn from Notre Dame was given both the Johnny Unitas Golden Arm Award for best senior QB and the Maxwell Award for the year's best college player.

Huh?

Did the voters watch Notre Dame's games against Georgia Tech, Michigan, Michigan State, UCLA (trounced 44-27 by Florida State this week), and USC? I'm not the most knowledgeable college football fan, but his play this year appeared only so-so. We're supposed to be impressed because he led the team to a comeback over the Spartans who clearly curled up and died in the second half. Notre Dame is set to play LSU--in a BCS bowl game?!!--and once again the team's massive shortcomings will be laid bare.

Maybe someone else can tell me what I am clearly missing about the supposedly phenomenal talent of Quinn. Please let me know.

If you like your sports films extra maudlin, then you'll love We are Marshall. In 1970 almost the entirety of the Marshall football team, coaching staff, and many football parents and boosters were killed in a plane crash while returning from an away game. It was a horrible tragedy and the school nearly decided to kill the football program. But due to the urging of the remaining players and students, the program was given a reprieve.

Enter spunky, gonzo coach Jack Lengyel (Matthew McConnaughey) who wants to keep the program afloat. To do so, he enlists the help of assistant coach Red Dawson (Matthew Fox), the lone surviving coach who is resistant to return to coaching. Dawson has profound guilt--he gave up his seat on the doomed plane to another coach who wanted to return home to see his daughter--as well as the sadness at the loss of all his players, staff, and friends. Powerful men like college trustee Paul Griffen (Ian McShane), who lost his son in the crash, want to see the program die a quiet death. Griffen's son was to marry cheerleader Annie Cantrell (Kate Mara) and after her fiance's death, she becomes devoted to caring for and grieving with Griffen.

This is all well and good and the first half hour of the film gives you great hope for its potential. Once Lengyel arrives, the movie takes on a gonzo energy and we are treated to a fun montage of player recruitment and early practices--standard sports movie fare. But then this energy is sapped as the film engages in another hour and a half of grief. The characters and townspeople don't change, evolve, grow. They just wallow and we have to watch the whole thing.

Good films can be made about a failure to come to terms with tragedy (see the fantastic In America. If you haven't, rent it now. It'll floor you.) But We are Marshall with its steady stream of sports film cliches and thin characterization doesn't have the machinery to pull it off. I was fully ready to forgive the movie its cliches. I like sports films even many of the lesser ones. Rising above adversity and winning just makes for good cinema. But Marshall fails under the weight of a script that runs in circles.

If you stick around through the film's closing moments, though, you will be treated to a truly inspiring epilogue. By keeping the football team going, Lengyel paved the way for a program that would have great success in the future. Kate Mara, a very good performance in an underdeveloped part, recounts this success in a voice over and it's the most inspiring moment of the film. You want to admire the film because it's ultimately about the importance of perserverance, but the movie is too bathetic to win the hearts of viewers.

Last night's bowl performance by the Crimson Tide of the University of Alabama (a 34-31 loss to Oklahoma State) is yet further evidence that the football hierarchy is changing in the state of Alabama. Losing to a .500 team in a bowl prior to New Year's Day, the continual turnover in coaching, and five losses to Auburn in a row are all evidence of a program off course. Alabama, the home of the Bear, has long been a storied program, but the middling play over the last half decade show that the Tide are in danger of becoming the other Alabama team.

Give the program another few years, but we may be looking at a semi-permanent ascension of that school to the south.

This new novel by Cormac McCarthy (All the Pretty Horses) is a gripping survival tale that at times is far more terrifying than any horror novel. McCarthy understands depravity and does not shy away from presenting the evil of which man is capable. The Road tells the story of a father and son struggling to survive after an incendiary apocalyptic event that leads to a giant cloud of ash blocking much of the sun's light and ability to sustain life on earth. McCarthy gives little detail of the event or his lead characters past lives turning the novel into more of a timeless fable and allowing us to more easily place ourselves in the lead roles. The prose is stripped down and straightforward giving the story tremendous momentum.

As the father and son scavenge abandoned houses looking for food and supplies they must contend with savage bands many of whom have resorted to cannibalism. We are constantly forced to ask to ourselves if the stripping away of order and law would lead us to such desperate measures. Would we resort to previously unthinkable depravity to stay alive? In the son we have a very moral actor and we wait with anxiety to see if the harsh reality will strip him of his grace.

While many readers will be turned off by the overwhelming bleakness and flashes of horror, those who can steel themselves for the journey will be rewarded with a wonderful, haunting study of morality. The novel effectively asks "what would you do?" without being didactic or overbearing.

Art house favorite Pedro Almodovar's Volver is an odd mix of comedy, mystery, thrills, and melodrama. At times the director seems to be paying direct homage to Hitchcock, similar to the director's Bad Education, right down to the Herrmann-inspired score. The film's first half hour is electrifying as Almodovar establishes a mystery involving ghost sightings and introduces a lascivious father(Antonio de la Torre) and husband to Raimunda (Penelope Cruz) who we soon peg as the villain of the piece. With the ghost sighting, the violin heavy score, and the introduction of the ill-intentioned father, we belive we are about to watch a thriller.

But then Almodovar takes a ninety-degree turn and begins to tell the story of Raimunda's attempt to make a better life for herself and her daughter (Yohana Cobo). We also get a little bit of farce involving Raimunda's sister's (Lola Duenas) attempts to conceal a giant secret. The film's climax involves the unloading of this secret and others and it is here that the film takes on the mantle of melodrama. Note: I don't think melodrama is necessarily a pejorative term. Case in point--the films of Douglas Sirk.

These tonal shifts are both jarring and invigorating. It is clear that Almodovar is not playing by any rules and is going to tell this story as he chooses. This movie follows no established blueprint and this will prove to be fun for the seen-it-all moviegoer. Unfortunately, these tonal shifts also keep this movie from working as a cohesive whole. We are left with a very good film, but not a great one.

This film is definitely worth seeing for the masterful presentation. The colors are so clean and vibrant and the visual composition is flawless. The female leads, this film is populated almost entirely by women, look fantastic and Penelope Cruz shows the star quality that her American efforts have never utilized. The performances are also noteworthy--never forced and always believable.

An adventurous, eclectic film with flashes of greatness.

Pretty wild.

A graf from a Salon article on the year's best perfectly sums up the plight of the moviegoer:

In most cases, though, whatever opens big this week will be nearly forgotten by the next anyway, which is one of the saddest things about living in a time when several hundred movies, from tiny indies to monster blockbusters, are released each year. There's no time to savor anything, to compare notes with our friends, to catch wonderful things we might have missed -- smaller movies, in particular, often disappear from theaters before anyone can even register their presence. The loss of an artist like Robert Altman would be difficult to bear in any year. But his loss cuts even deeper because he came of age as a filmmaker in an era when people could still be galvanized by movies, when there was time to refine our likes and dislikes, to parse our passion for or ambivalence about a picture before the next weekend's wave would roll in. We don't need more movies in our lives. We need more time, a commodity that's in short supply for almost everyone I know, to be able to catch at least some of these movies on the fly and define for ourselves which ones really matter.

And also from LA Times critic Kenneth Turan:

The year's worst trend is the studios' continuing insistence on a famine-and-feast pattern for quality films, starving audiences for nine months and then force-feeding them like foie gras-producing geese during the final three. Excellent films die unnecessary deaths, but no one seems to care.

If the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences--the folks behind the Oscars--gave an MVP award, this year's would go to Jennifer Hudson in Dreamgirls. She is going to be largely responsible for the film's sizable box office--particularly for a musical--and the love come awards season. This film belongs to her and when she is onscreen she makes everyone look better--much like perennial NBA MVP Steve Nash. Will her follow-up projects be as outstanding? Who cares. With her performance of "And I'm Telling You I'm Not Going" she has earned her spot in Academy Awards montages for decades to come.

Dreamgirls looks amazing, sounds incredible, and has long been a dream project for producer David Geffen. And yet, the film's story often lacks punch. Its story will be immediately be familiar to anyone who has ever watched an episode of Behind the Music. The story follows girl group the Dreamettes as they crossover from R+B success to pop radio while Berry Gordy-like producer Curtis Taylor Jr. (Jaime Foxx) reaps the financial windfall. As the Dreamettes court suburban radio listeners, they have to sacrifice their R+B roots and become more bland in appearance and sound. This leads to a power struggle between diva Effie (Jennifer Hudson) and Taylor.

The film doesn't hold many surprises and therefore has trouble sustaining its running time. Beyonce Knowles, playing Dreamettes member Deena Jones, has to do a good bit of the dramatic heavy lifting and is only passable. We understand that the character's malleability and blandness makes her ideal for the pre-fab made for pop radio hits Taylor wants to produce, but this fact also makes her a less than mesmerizing lead. I suspect that this problem has more to do with the script than Knowles performance.

And yet, the movie is a must-see. Hudson is a revelation as is Eddie Murphy as the soul singer James Thunder Early. If both don't receive Oscar nominations, it will be a shock. I think critics may be tempted to overpraise the film because good musicals are so rare. And many film fans love the sheer escape and unabashed joy of the musical.

The movie definitely has third act problems, but when it succeeds, it soars. One of the year's best.

(Watch for a surprising cameo early in the film from a former TGIF staple making his big screen debut.)

The first Fantastic Four was a watchable, but lackluster, comic adaptation. The trailer for the sequel is online. Looks promising.

From Triscuits to books to daytime tv to mix cds, this woman's everywhere.

Anyone else had enough?

If you're returning gifts to Target this year make sure you have your gift receipt. That is the only way they're taking your gift back.

Like a rich novel, Alejandro Gonzalez Innaritu's (21 Grams) new film is a multi-story globe trotting tale about mortality, language, xenophobia, coincidence, and fate. The film does not succeed completely, but its ambition, performances, and scope make it an intimate epic worth seeing.

Innaritu's film tells four separate stories--two Moroccan shepherd boys are given a rifle to guard their flock, two American tourists (Cate Blanchett and Brad Pitt) have their lives abruptly shattered by a random act of violence, a Mexican nanny takes her young American charges across the border to her son's wedding, and a deaf-mute Japanese teenager struggles to define herself during an evening of club hopping. As the movie progresses, the stories begin to converge and become one larger tale. This works less well with the story of the Japanese teenager whose connection to the larger story feels more forced, but in and of itself this segment is one of the film's best.

Innaritu creates a palpable sense of dread in each of the tales. We realize that no character is going to emerge from these stories unscathed and we anxiously wait to see the outcome of their galvanizing moment. It is an exhausting, fascinating experience that may be too intense for many viewers. For the brave and adventurous, however, this movie will be a welcome and exciting alternative to the calm, safe Oscar-bait of the season.

Hope all friends, family, and readers are having a great Christmas.

Robert De Niro's directorial follow-up to 1993's A Bronx Tale is a fascinating, deliberately paced story about the CIA and the WASP's that birthed it. This spy tale is paced more like an episode of Masterpiece Theater than Bourne and this will likely alienate many of star Matt Damon's fans.

Damon plays the fictional Edward Wilson, a careful, focused Ivy grad recruited by the US government to practice counter-intelligence during WWII as part of the OSS (Office of Strategic Services). After the war, President Truman wanted to create a national intelligence agency--before 1945, the responsbility of gathering intelligence was split among several agencies--and the CIA was formed. Wilson and many of his OSS colleagues become the CIA's first agents and directors.

Wilson is a fascinating character who does not so much choose the CIA as he is born into it. He is American royalty--a child of privilege, Ivy educated, and a member of the elite Skull and Bones fraternity. Wilson never appears to make his own destiny as much as he follows a pre-ordained path, tight-lipped and dutifully. Damon's performance is restrained and careful. It is one of the year's best.

Viewers looking for a cinematic jolt will be disappointed with this contemplative spy story that is more about the quiet subterfuge than explosions. It is a challenging film that examines the value of truthfulness and the steady erosion of character in face of overwhelming international threat. As Wilson compromises his values so does the U.S. Some viewers may find this gimmicky, but it is entirely believable that an individual as dutiful and secretive as Wilson is running our CIA.

An engrossing history lesson that rewards the patience and attention of its audience, The Good Shepherd is well worth you time.

"Santa Baby"

Effingham, Illinois

From Rich Lowry:

First Lady Laura Bush spoke for many conservatives when she excoriated the media’s coverage of Iraq the other day. She complained that “the drumbeat in the country from the media ... is discouraging,” and said “there are a lot of good things happening that aren’t covered.”

What are those things, one wonders? One can only imagine how Mrs. Bush can figure that they outweigh the horrors in Iraq. The U.N.’s High Commissioner for Refugees estimates that more than 1.6 million Iraqis have fled the country, about 7 percent of the population. But that means that an overwhelming 93 percent haven’t left. Why doesn’t the liberal media ever report that? About 120 Iraqis are killed per day, nearly 4,000 a month. But most are still living. Couldn’t one of the morning shows do a soft feature on this heartwarming fact?

The conservative campaign against the mainstream media has scored notable successes. It exposed Dan Rather’s forged National Guard memo and jumped all over Newsweek’s absurd report of a Koran-flushing incident at Guantanamo Bay. The mainstream media is biased, arrogant, prone to stultifying group-think and much more fallible than its exalted self-image allows it to admit. It also, however, can be right, and this is most confounding to conservatives.

In Iraq, the media’s biases happen to fit the circumstances. Being primed to consider any military conflict a quagmire and another Vietnam is a drawback when covering a successful U.S. military intervention, but not necessarily in Iraq. Most of the pessimistic warnings from the mainstream media have turned out to be right — that the initial invasion would be the easy part, that seeming turning points (the capture of Saddam, the elections, the killing of Zarqawi) were illusory, that the country was dissolving into a civil war.

Partly because he felt it necessary to counteract the pessimism of the media, President Bush accentuated the positive for far too long. Bush allowed himself to be cornered by his media critics. They wanted him to admit mistakes, so for the longest time, he would admit none. They wanted him to fire Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, so for too long he kept him on. They wanted him to abandon “stay the course,” so he stuck to it. In so doing, he eroded his own credibility and delayed making the major strategic readjustment he needed to try to check the downward slide in Iraq.

The “good news” that conservatives have accused the media of not reporting has generally been pretty weak. The Iraqi elections were indeed major accomplishments. But the opening of schools and hospitals is not particularly newsworthy, at least not compared with American casualties and with sectarian attacks meant to bring Iraq down around everyone’s heads in a full-scale civil war. An old conservative chestnut has it that only four of Iraq’s 18 provinces are beset by violence. True, but those provinces include 40 percent of the population, as well as the capital city, where the battle over the country’s future is being waged.

In their distrust of the mainstream media, their defensiveness over President Bush and the war, and their understandable urge to buck up the nation’s will, many conservatives lost touch with reality on Iraq. They thought that they were contributing to our success, but they were only helping to forestall a cold look at conditions there and the change in strategy and tactics that would be dictated by it.

“Realism” has gotten a bad name lately from its association with James Baker’s daffy Iraq Study Group. But realism is essential in any war, and it is impossible without an ability to assimilate bad news, even bad news that comes from distasteful sources. Conservatives need to realize that something is not dubious just because it’s reported by the New York Times, and that the media ultimately will be wrong about Iraq only if — fully acknowledging how bad it is there — the Bush administration takes bold steps to reverse the tide.

But one of the reasons the president has given for questions like why our troops aren't getting the necessary equipment or why aren't we doing such and such in Iraq, is becuase the Commander-in-Chief is responding to the wishes and stated needs of the commanders on the ground. If this is the case, then how do you explain this story from the Washington Post:

The internal struggle over troop levels in Iraq has exposed a schism between civilian and military leadership 45 months into a war that, at the moment, has no end in sight. Testifying before a Senate committee Nov. 15, Abizaid bluntly rejected the surge option, saying: "I do not believe that more American troops right now is the solution to the problem. I believe that the troop levels need to stay where they are." Other generals have been equally resistant in public and private comments.

Bush has traditionally paid public deference to the generals, saying any decisions on moving U.S. forces in the region would depend on their views. At a Chicago news conference in July, for instance, Bush said he would yield to Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the Iraq commander.

"General Casey will make the decisions as to how many troops we have there," Bush said, adding: "He'll decide how best to achieve victory and the troop levels necessary to do so. I've spent a lot of time talking to him about troop levels. And I've told him this: I said, 'You decide, General.' "

By yesterday, however, Bush indicated that he will not necessarily let military leaders decide, ducking a question about whether he would overrule them. "The opinion of my commanders is very important," he said. "They are bright, capable, smart people whose opinion matters to me a lot." He added: "I agree with them that there's got to be a specific mission that can be accomplished with the addition of more troops before I agree on that strategy."

A senior aide said later that Bush would not let the military decide the matter. "He's never left the decision to commanders," said the aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity so Bush's comments would be the only ones on the record. "He is the commander in chief. But he has said he will listen to those commanders when making these decisions. That hasn't changed."

It should be abundantly clear that the "listening to the commanders" line was just a dodge. Meaning what? That our President is far more responsible for the situation on the ground than he has been willing to admit. They did the same thing with pre-war intelligence which apparently the CIA led Bush to believe was a "slam dunk."

And when you think about it, this should make you pretty angry. Bush has been esentially blaming many of the goofs and shortcomings of the war effort on the military. "Don't look at me. I'm just listening to the military."

Exacatly where does the buck stop these days?

Via Atrios.

While participating in a back pain study today at the university--I don't have back pain, but am part of the control group($$)--I overheard one of the graduate students remark that I have "asymmetrical buttocks."

Word.

Much has happened in the last few days. The power source that I purchased from HP broke and I had to reorder another, so I'm only able to get on the Internet for a few minutes. Only running on battery power at the moment.

Turned 28.

We are Marshall--bad

Pursuit of Happyness--very good

Anyway, hope everyone is having a good holiday and hopefully we'll be back up and operational in the next day or two.

This weekend's Saturday Night Live was very funny. Justin Timberlake did an excellent job and sold every skit he was in. I was recently reminded that he got his start on The Mickey Mouse Club, so I guess the guy was more than prepared.

The giant dancing Cup O' Soup made me laugh more than I would have thought possible. Best all around episode of the season.

Fans of Whit Stillman, Woody Allen, talkfests, and the 90s indy movement should check out this first effort from the director of last year's The Squid and the Whale. Finally on DVD, the Criterion disc is up to the company's usual high standards. The film tells the story of several recent college grads who's lives are stuck in neutral. College has ended but they are unwilling and unprepared to confront their futures. Snarky Max Belmont (Chris Eigeman) says it best: "What I used to be able to pass off as another bad summer could now potentially turn in to a bad life."

I've seen this film dozens of times, but found a richer film in the widescreen presentation with cleaned up sound and picture. I noticed little details such as the poster art in the freshman dorms and the muffled rock music heard through too thin walls of college housing. The film's closing scenes where Grover (Josh Hamilton) and Jane (Olivia d'Abo, The Wonder Years) are falling in and out of love are also given added emotional heft by the cleaned up presentation. The richer presentation allows us to better observe their facial expressions and chemistry between them.

The disc also contains some semi-informative documentaries, negligible deleted scenes, and an intermittently hilarious short starring Baumbach-regulars Carlos Jacott and John Lehr. Extras will be of most interest to Baumbach fans. This disc is a great way to discover, or re-discover, this very funny, poignant comedy.

Via Crooks and Liars:

A fence-building company in Southern California agrees to pay nearly $5 million in fines for hiring illegal immigrants. Two executives from the company may also serve jail time. The Golden State Fence Company's work includes some of the border fence between San Diego and Mexico.

After an immigration check in 1999 found undocumented workers on its payroll, Golden State promised to clean house. But when followup checks were made in 2004 and 2005, some of those same illegal workers were still on the job. In fact, U-S Attorney Carol Lam says as many as a third of the company's 750 workers may have been in the country illegally.

Pass it on.

Visit this link to keep up with the craziness that is the University of Alabama's search for a head football coach. Grab the popcorn.

With all the hatred from the fans, the instability of the job, and the recent tradition of middling play, who would want to coach there?

I'll let you decide. Watch this commentary and see what you think.

It's causing a stir not for the examination of the person's name--which is obvious and is the elephant in the room--but for the out-of-left-field comparison to a Middle Eastern head of state.

Response from CNN analyst Jeff Greenfield.

McCain taking punitive action against blogs. Yet another effort to homogenize the internet.

Via Josh Marshall:

President Bush, just now at the Pentagon (emphasis added): "I thank these men who wear our uniform for a very candid and fruitful discussion about how to secure this country and how to win a war that we now find ourselves in."

In an interview posted on the conservative site Townhall.com, Rumsfeld had this to say:

I don’t think I would have called it the war on terror. I don’t mean to be critical of those who have. Certainly, I have used the phrase frequently. Why do I say that? Because the word ‘war’ conjures up World War II more than it does the Cold War. It creates a level of expectation of victory and an ending within 30 or 60 minutes of a soap opera. It isn’t going to happen that way. Furthermore, it is not a ‘war on terror.’ Terror is a weapon of choice for extremists who are trying to destabilize regimes and (through) a small group of clerics, impose their dark vision on all the people they can control. So ‘war on terror’ is a problem for me.

Exactly. The phrase "war on terror" is unwieldy, false, and paves the way for war without end.

With Roger Ebert MIA many of you are missing your weekly Ebert fix. To help, the University of Chicago Press has realeased a collection of some of Ebert's work from the past thirty years or so. (This sounds like an ad, doesn't it? Well, I checked out the book from the library. Always a viable option. Support your local library.) Awake in the Dark is divided into several sections including documentaries, foreign films, year's best, overlooked films, interviews, and essays. Ebert's work is incisive, easy to read, and enjoyable. His enthusiasm is infectious. He got me so jazzed for catching up on all the cinema classics I had missed that I immediately got a Netflix subscription.

A great, informative read for film fans.

Glenn Greenwald takes DCCC Chair Emanuel to task for lies concernig the Mark Foley scandal. Good to see Glenn highlighting this black eye for the Dems.

Bush's approval rating according to Zogby. Key demographic groups are shifting toward a negative opinion:

Support for the President waned in key demographic groups, the Zogby poll shows. Among all Republicans, just 60% gave him a positive job rating, while 39% gave him negative marks. Just 9% of Democrats and 22% of political independents gave him good marks for his work. Among married respondents – typically a group who favors Republicans – just 35% said Bush was doing a positive job. Among men, another favorable GOP demographic, just 31% gave him positive marks, while 69% gave him a negative rating. Even among stalwart Born Again respondents, just 43% had positive ratings for the President on his overall job performance.

I can't imagine any sampling of public opinion on the president will dip much below 30%. Something catastrophic would have to happen like video emerging of the president kicking puppies. Or kittens. Which would bring more outcry? I think it would probably be the puppies.

Discuss.

Here's a horrible review of "Apocalypto" from notable film critic Rex Reed--lotsa spoilers:

In the first scene of Mel Gibson’s boring, affected, expensive, gruesomely violent and historically inaccurate curio Apocalypto, a humongous tapir (like a wild boar) charges from the jungle and attacks a peaceful tribe of hunters, who slaughter the animal and eat its testicles. For the next 130 minutes, they search for a better meal. Wouldn’t you? And while you’re at it, you might search for a better movie.

Boring? Love it or hate it, no way in hell was this movie boring. This guy clearly has an agenda beyond evaluation of the film.

I went to Apocalypto expecting and hoping for a historic chronicle of the decline of the Mayan civilization. But although the movie does end with terrified Mayan survivors watching the arrival of the Spanish, it’s probably worth mentioning that by the time the real Spanish reached Mexico, the Mayans were already decimated. At the screening I attended, security guards flanked the entrance doors, opening and inspecting the contents of every critic’s briefcase, purse and backpack in a search for recording equipment. What a waste of time. Who would want to tape more than two hours of a movie nobody wants to see, featuring hundreds of people nobody has ever heard of, speaking a language nobody can understand? You would learn more from an illustrated National Geographic essay.

Nobody wants to see? #1 at the box office this weekend. Featuring a cast no one has ever heard of and speaking a language no one can understand? These two are inane criticisms. Movie quality has nothing to do with either. Maybe Reed really only likes domestic product featuring Julia Roberts and Tom Cruise. A little closeminded for a film critic, no? And the movie features subtitles, so we were clearly all able to understand the language. Doofus.

This is an action epic, not a plot-driven film about big issues, but here is the thumbnail C.A.T. scan: A friendly and peaceful tribe with a cosmic sense of family loyalty is alarmed to see another tribe, homeless and scared, fleeing some nameless threat beyond the jungle. Suddenly the good guys are invaded by Holcanes, a vicious mob of slave traders who burn their crops and huts, attack the men, rape their wives, butcher their children and leave all but a handful behind to die. One brave warrior named Jaguar Paw manages to lower his pregnant wife and son into an underground cave for safety before he is captured with his friends, all of them painfully hog-tied to bamboo poles and dragged across the continent to a Mayan city to be painted blue, then sold on the auction block or sacrificed to the gods. Along the way, a diseased child acting as a mystic foretells the doom that awaits the savages for destroying their people and their country. The prophecies come true, but first the audience must endure a long, harrowing Mayan-sacrifice sequence in which human hearts are ripped out of chest cavities while still beating and heads are severed and rolled down the steps of the pagan temple, to tumultuous roars of applause and cheers for more blood. I kept trying to figure out where all of this was supposed to be taking place. I have visited the ruins of Tulum, Cozumel and the Yucatan, and none of the ancient temples had steps that climbed into the sky. All I could think of was that this is where a Club Med now stands.

"This is an action epic, not a plot-driven film about big issues." It is a plot driven film. Sure its not "Syriana," but it clearly has a plot driving the film. Thumb nail CAT scan? There's an egregious mixed metaphor that makes little sense. Back to journalism school for you.

Despite being sliced and diced with spears, knives and arrows, Jaguar Paw miraculously escapes, pursued by the sadistic savage Middle Eye, and the rest of the movie is nothing more than a Jungle Jim chase flick with some startling imagery of Mexico and much heartfelt compassion for the hero. But Mel Gibson has more in mind, like a cheeky parallel between the Mayan rulers who destroyed their civilization by ruling their people with power based on fear, and the Bush administration’s invasion of Iraq. This kind of naïveté is rather touching, but the political and social overtones in Apocalypto are an awkward stretch that inspired audience laughter. Although the ludicrous script by Mr. Gibson and Farhad Safinia borders on children’s comic-book blurbs, take a NoDoz and you do learn a few things: (1) In a pinch, killer ants can substitute for surgical stitches; (2) opening your veins vertically from wrist to elbow after a cobra bite will make death faster and easier; and (3) if you jump off the top of a raging waterfall, don’t try it head-first.

Again, the movie is not boring and Reed is engaging in some agenda-driven criticism. His tone is akin to a gossip columnist with an axe to grind and he is clearly avoiding a substantive, honest discussion of the film. And the part about the ants was actually pretty fascinating.

The huge cast of spear-carriers from the Oom-Gawah-Bwana School of Dramatic Art is composed of talented Mexicans and other Latinos, except for Jaguar Paw, who is played by Rudy Youngblood, a Comanche and Cree Indian who hails from Texas. The actors are effective, the torture sequences are harrowing, but you still leave wondering what the hell Apocalypto is about, and what kind of fool would pay for it in the first place. Blood pours from every orifice in what looks like a terrible waste of Smucker’s raspberry sauce.

Inane. Nice when a critic insults audiences. Whole thing smacks of clueless, bitchy elitism. The metropolitan, self-important equivalent of SNL's out-of-touch film reviewer My Aunt Linda.

Mel Gibson's cautionary tale cum action flick is an unrelentingly violent, mesmerizing achievement. Yes, Gibson's drunken hateful remarks and arrest for DUI were events deserving of scorn, but this movie should be viewed on its own merits. Gibson doesn't entirely succeed on selling the message of the movie--when a society begins to exploit others and the environment it is planting the seeds of its destruction--but as an adventure story, it is among cinema's best.

The film succeeds wildly in transporting us to a different world. It tells the story of Jaguar Paw (Rudy Youngblood) and his nightmarish journey back home after being captured by vicious Mayan raiders. Given how alien so much of the environment and customs seem, the use of the Yucatec language, and the magnificent, terrifying Mayan city, the film plays more like a sci-fi or fantasy film than period piece. There is nothing stiff about this dip into history. (There is some heated dispute among scholars and peoples of the Yucatan as to the film's accuracy.)

Some will balk at the film's violence and understandably so. This is the most brutal movie to play in shopping malls since "Saving Private Ryan." (This movie is yet another recent example of a violent movie that deserves an NC-17.) Is it too much? I will leave it to you decide, but I do think Gibson uses the violence well. It raises the stakes of Jaguar Paw's struggle. He is caught in a brutal conflict with high stakes. The steady display of viscera adds realism and terror. This makes us acutely aware of the horror and impending doom.

SPOILERS The first two thirds of the movie are fascinating and gripping. Gibson transports us completely to another world and then establishes a growing and oppressive sense of doom as Jaguar Paw's world is progressively shattered by the Mayan raiders. The second act of the movie is its most thrilling as Jaguar Paw becomes a participant in horrifying religious rituals and then seizes on an opportunity for escape. The third act is the film's most conventional as Jaguar Paw becomes the hunter. This film features a baptism scene much like "The Descent" and "Predator" when the prey emerges from a baptism of grime to become the hunter. This final third is good fun, but it finally shows us Gibson's hand. He's more interested in presenting a thrilling tale than making a profound statement. SPOILERS END

So be it. I haven't seen all this year's Oscar hopefuls, but its not likely that any other film this year will be such a confident display of a director at the top of his craft. This film is drawing some negative reviews, but most of these reviews are largely focused on Gibson the man and not Gibson the director. I think the two can be separated--I still go see Roman Polanski movies. Film lovers will not want to miss this mesmerizing, brutal adventure tale. If this film were created by a director with little to no name recognition, it would be heralded by critics around the world as a masterful achievement.

Wrapping up school for the semester. Check back in tomorrow for a review of "Apocalypto."

It's been one year for the old blog. Traffic's up slightly, but still waiting for someone to give me a job doing this for a living. Delusional I know. Maybe bloggers with an overinflated sense of importance would be a ripe target for the next Christopher Guest satire. Then again, watching people type is not very funny.

As a holiday treat, here's some rejected titles for the blog:

Malapropistic--A World of Wander
Aren't I Clever?
Bush is a Tool
Live from Crime Town, USA
Validate Me

And here's the first article I linked to. It still makes for a great read. Truly astounding.

This is the first Guest ensemble comedy that misses the mark. With "A Mighty Wind," Guest created a more poignant film than his previous efforts, particularly in the performances of Catherine O'Hara and Eugene Levy as former bandmates and lovers. O'Hara in "Consideration" also decides to forgo easy laughs and create a tragic portrayal in Marilyn Hack, an actress past her prime. Marilyn is starring in a goofy melodrama entitled "Home for Purim" with full knowledge that her chances at stardom have passed. Rumors of Oscar nominations for Hack find their way off the internet and onto the set and revive O'Hara's hopes for a career renaissance.

O'Hara, like most of the film's cast and crew, are unaware of the reliability of internet rumor. Strangely, these rumors seems to actually gain traction and somehow vault the film into serious awards consideration. There is a disconnect here. We can clearly see "Home for Purim" is wannabe awards bait, too hackneyed to move most audiences with a budget far too small to produce a picture of any quality. We think the cast is clearly delusional, like the folks of Blaine in "Waiting for Guffman," but somehow the movie becomes a contender. It even becomes the darling of an Entertainment Tonight type show. This show is also a problem. Hosted by an overbearing Fred Willard, it is too bizarre and bargain basement to make us believe it has the national reach it appears to have.

Alongside the tragic tale of Marilyn Hack, you have another goofy Guest farce with a full cast creating a host of goofballs. These two story threads don't mix well. In Guest's past films, he was looking at performing subcultures--community theater, dog show participants, and folk musicians. These communities were insulated and consisted of performers and a few devoted followers. The communities were small enough to allow the performers to sustain an overinflated sense of talent. In "Consideration," however, Guest casts his satirical gaze much wider and we have a hard time believing that this clearly poor film could ever win over a wide swath of critics and audiences--a necessary mix for Oscar consideration. Maybe we could forgive the movie these unrealities if it was a straight-up farce, but Guest is also trying to create a pointed satire and tragic tale. This is also the first Guest tale that actually seems to take joy in the demise of his characters. The final moments of the film are kind of bitter and are more reminiscent of Solondz than "Guffman."

I probably wouldn't have spent so much time deconstructing the film if it had been funnier. (I do think some of its failure to evoke laughter has to do with the story problems.) Many of the actors seem to be working in separate films. We have our tragic cast--O'Hara, Parker Posey, Harry Shearer--alongside the bizarre goofballs--John Michael Higgins, Jennifer Coolidge, Fred Willard. These performances don't gel into one cohesive, funny whole.

Guest fans will want to see this film because it will be like a visit with old friends. For everyone else, the movie is worth seeing for the performances by O'Hara and Parker Posey who really own this film. There are also a few laugh out loud moments. Overall, though, the film is a misfire.

Rick Santorum (R-PA) was one of two "no" votes against Robert Gates. Bizarre times we're living in.

Here's a misguided, muddled film. George Miller, director of the inspired "Babe 2: Pig in the City" and the Mad Max series, returns to kiddie fare with this tale of a unique penguin who can't fit in with his singing brethren. Little Mumble can't sing, only squawk, so he can't perfect the necessary mating call--a heart song--needed to help advance the species. He can, however, do a mean tap routine. The heart songs, in a bizarre and off-putting twist, consist of contemporary pop hits. I love the Prince song "Kiss" but this steamy, definitely adult song is off-putting when coming out of the mouths of somewhat realistic looking penguins in a kids film.

These penguins aren't just concerned with wooing each other, but also with the decreasing fish population. There aren't enough fish to feed the penguins--a problem which eventually provides Mumble with his final triumphant quest. I don't object to the movie having a pro-environment message. (What? It's insidious to instill children with a desire for stewardship of their environment?) I don't object to the time honored message of respect others differences--see The Island of Lost Toys. I don't object to penguins singing. I don't object to the conventions of kiddie animated film--the voice of Robin Williams, goofy sidekicks, sly asides to keep the adults entertained. I don't object, even, to realistically rendered wildlife.

But all these elements together makes for a giant mess. Mumble has not one, but two quests neither clearly defined sucking all dramatic momentum out of the movies nearly two hour running time. He's surrounded by goofy penguins, lifelike penguins, and a Robin Williams penguin. There are chases, dance numbers, and messages galore. The movie is both fiercely original in its climax and tired in its reliance on genre staples. You won't know where this movie is headed, but you're also going to be looking at your watch.

There are individual elements to admire in the film. The animation is fantastic and looks teriffic in IMAX. The final musical number is fun and there is a great chase sequence involving a sea lion, but the movie feels like a rough draft. The movie needs more focus and less characters. An admirable, sometimes entertaining mess.

Authors/performers of the now extremely ironic "Bush Was Right" released a bizarre Blink-182 knock-off called "I'm in Love with Ann Coulter." Here it hear. Just wait. It should start up in a few seconds. Make sure you don't eat before listening.

Over my recent holiday/recovery period--no, I wasn't recovering from the holiday, but from a nasty virus--I read these two zombie-themed works. "Cell," last year's Stephen King thriller and new in paperback, has a fantastic opening. A young comic book creator has just had his first big break and is returning home from Boston to Maine to tell the good news to his son and estranged wife. Before he leaves the city, though, a nasty electronic pulse is broadcast across the nation's cell networks turning every cell phone user into a bloodthirsty maniac. King makes the most of this frightening opening as all hell breaks loose in downtown Boston.

Soon, though, the cell phone zombies settle down and we settle in for yet another meandering King quest story that lacks momentum and focus. The zombies become not mindless killers, but automatons with a motive. As a zombie work, it lacks the necessary punch and as a sci-fi story its nothing novel. As a genre tale, its just too long. Brevity is the soul of pulp. There are some great moments and the opening is outstanding, but the book has no momentum and squanders its zombies by domesticating them. Wait for the movie. Here's a diferent opinion from a die hard King fan.

"The Zombie Survival Guide," on the other hand, is about traditional zombie nasties. Max Brooks, son of Mel and author of this year's outstanding "World War Z," gives you all the information you need to withstand a zombie invasion. Brooks speaks with absolute confidence that zombies exist, they have attacked, and will attack again. The author tells you how to recognize a zombie, how to protect yourself against them, and how to permanently dispose of them--shots to the brain followed by cremation.

The survival guide was marketed as humor--see "The Worst Case Scenario Survival Handbook"--but the work is irony free. It's downright earnest. Zombie fans are gonna get a kick out of this work and will likely find themselves storing away a few tips in case of attack. Given its earnestness, though, its likely too odd a work to have appeal to the general public. Horror fans definitely give this one a look.

So everything seems to be back on track and we're gonna try to put some new posts up today. Keep your fingers crossed.

Did anyone see the start time for Auburn's game against Nebraska?

It's 10:40 am.

Auburn's two losses this year came in starts prior to noon. I'm not a superstitious guy, but the Tigers really looked sluggish in both starts. Both these starts were at home, however. Maybe being away from home and the bowl excitement will give them a shot of adrenaline. (Hopefully, Tubbs has the Tigers more ready than he did against the Badgers last year.)

On the plus side, I'm very happy to see the match-up. It will be exciting to see the Tigers take on a team from my neck of the woods.

My power cord for my laptop bit the dust and I had to order one directly from the manufacturer. As a result, my online output will once again be hindered for about the next two days.

Don't lose heart. We'll be up and running again soon.

Well about USC...

So maybe they aren't second best in the nation. (Earlier in the year, I picked USC to finish with two losses, but their recent play led me to believe otherwise. USC with two losses also shows--once again--that Notre Dame was overrated.) Hope we see Florida play the Buckeyes--tougher schedule and Michigan already got their chance. At this point, I figure give Boise State a shot, but I know that won't happen.

Congratulations to the Troy Trojans (7-5) for winning the Sun Belt and getting a bowl bid.

Got hit pretty hard this week with a nasty sore throat, cold, fever thingy that's mostly gone now. Lotsa rest, fluids, vitamins, and movies helped get me back in fighting shape.

Look for more posts in the week ahead.