More than just about any other modern actress, Angelina Jolie is truly authentic in action roles. Not since Jodie Foster decided to make a movie about as often as Warren Beatty and Sigourney Weaver gave up killing Aliens has there been a female protagonist as easily accepted as Jolie carrying a big gun.
In pictures such as Tomb Raider, Mr. And Mrs. Smith, and Wanted, Jolie was immediately as credible as any male star on the planet would be in a similar part. The trouble is, none of those movies were particularly good. Mr. And Mrs. Smith was completely disposable, the two Tomb Raider flicks were based on a video game ('nuff said), and Wanted was a soulless movie going experience that made me feel like I needed a hose down after departing the theater. In all four of those movies, Jolie was easily the best thing in them. Unfortunately, that wasn't saying much.
That all changes with Salt. Which is the best pure action film I've seen in a long time.
As the title character, Jolie plays a woman who may or may not (no spoilers here) be a covert Russian spy charged with murdering the President of Russia during a visit to the United States. While this may sound like a very 80's and cold war era type of plot line, the movie caught a break when the recent real life apprehensions of actual covert Russian spies hit the front pages of newspapers just prior to Salt's opening.
Not that the movie is really all that interested in being topical. Sure, Salt positions itself as a paranoid political thriller with several twists and turns, but what it's truly interested in is taking a dynamic protagonist and putting her through 90 minutes (how efficient!) of adrenaline stoking action scenes. While the film is certainly not brain dead, it knows what the people came to see and delivers just that.
Veteran director Philip Noyce has moved back and forth between big budget action movies (Patriot Games, Clear And Present Danger) and artier fare (The Quiet American, Rabbit Proof Fence). Here, he's clearly dealing in the former. However, his direction of the numerous outlandish action sequences (the one in an elevator shaft is a doozy of incredulity), is so strong and assured that you don't spend much time considering how impossible each individual set piece is. It's further proof that sometimes it matters less what you do than how you do it.
That's not to sat that there are no actual themes in the movie. Anyone familiar with the great Bourne movies starring Matt Damon will recognize the identity issues (who is Salt?) and conspiracy aspects in the film. And they're pretty well done here. I was pleasantly surprised at how well the movie kept me guessing about Salt's true motivations up until the last 15 minutes or so. I realize that I should have known better. I mean how bad can you make Jolie out to be in a big budget movie intended to pump out sequels? Still, the character is far more morally ambiguous than you might expect in a big budget action film, and Jolie knows just how to play it.
That's not to say that Salt is a perfect summer action movie. After exiting the theater you may look back on the action scenes as being a bit too much. You will probably find the guy who plays the President of the Untied States to be about as compelling as a piece of bark. There is a plot twist involving Liev Schreiber (Salt's FBI partner) that is credulity straining, and there is also a decision that the FBI agent (played by the great Chiwetel Ejiofor) in charge of arresting Salt makes in the final moments of the movie that I just didn't buy at all. But these are mostly things that you think about after the movie is over. While you are sitting in you seat, these logic stretching moments barely have time to register before you are onto the next high wire exploit of Jolie's Evelyn Salt.
Earlier, I referenced Matt Damon's superior Bourne Trilogy. And while it's true that Salt isn't quite up to that level, it's worth remembering that the first Bourne movie was not nearly as strong as the next two. Once the first film got all of the explaining out of the way, the next two movies were able to focus on Bourne's mission. Salt has every opportunity to do the same.
Like Bourne, Salt has a terrific protagonist, muscular action scenes, and just enough story to make you feel good about yourself while watching a tent-pole, summer action flick.
During a summer of almost relentlessly bad movies, that's more than enough.
Sumo-Pop
July 30, 2010
Friday, July 30, 2010
Saturday, July 17, 2010
Beyond Here Lies Nothin'
"Now what?"--Robert Redford, from "The Candidate."
On July 15th, GOP house member from New York, Peter King, told a radio station that the GOP strategy should be a "combination of being against what Obama's for, and also giving certain specifics of what we are for." He followed by saying "Having said that, I don't think we need to lay out a complete agenda from top to bottom, because then we would have the national main stream media jumping on every point trying to make that a campaign issue."
In other words, offer next to nothing.
I mean really, what agenda are they talking about? One need only look at every major focus of the Obama administration to see what the Republicans are offering as a counter point is no more than well, "No."
Let's start with the vilified stimulus bill. Nearly everyone in congress agreed that we needed a stimulus bill to goose the porous economy left behind by the Bush Administration. While it's certainly fair to argue over what "type" of stimulus was needed, that isn't what happened. Democrats pushed for a large stimulus that was focused on infrastructure, a middle class tax cut, and state aid. To get three measly Republican votes, the Dem's cut the bill's expense by nearly 25% and loaded it up with additional tax cuts. Then, these Republicans who voted against this bill, showed up at ground breaking ceremonies to cut the tape on projects they didn't support. Now, most economists think the bill was too small and too loaded with tax cuts. What did the Republicans offer instead? I don't remember. Do you?
Next came the battle over health care. Most Democrats wanted a public option, if not single-payer. Instead, Democrats turned the bill into a big wet kiss to the health insurance companies, and still had to pass the bill without a single Republican vote. While nearly everyone agrees that our national health care system is a mess, not one Republican could be found to vote for a bill that is modeled after the law Massachusetts passed during the Mitt Romney Governorship, and looked an awful lot like the alternative that Bob Dole offered the Clinton Administration way back in 1992. Both Republicans, if you're scoring at home. Think about it, they couldn't even get behind something that was their idea in the first place.
When this whole sorry process started, there were three Senate Republicans (Grassley, Snowe, and Hatch) who were negotiating with a group of Democrats led by Max Baucus to broker a deal. But as the summer got hot with Tea Partiers and town hall criers, Hatch then Grassley backed out. Hell, Grassley even embraced the "death panels" and "government takeover" nonsense of the right wing talk show hosts. Clearly, the Democrats did not have an honest partner. Even though the bill was loaded up with over 100 Republican amendments, there wasn't a single vote to be scratched from the right side of the aisle.
After that came the battle over the Financial Reform Bill that the President signed into law just last week. Despite the near collapse of our financial system, the tax payer funded bailout of said system, and the continued rancid behavior on the part of the banks, the bill had to be watered down to gain three Republicans (Collins and Snowe of Maine and Brown of Massachusetts) and find passage. Is there anyone who can recall the Republican alternative. I am searching my mind and only hear crickets.
Last but certainly not least has been the fuss over extending unemployment benefits. In the past, when the unemployment rate has been particularly high, this was a bipartisan issue. Of course you extend unemployment benefits in an economic crisis. Now, even this is a political issue for the Republicans to say "no" to. Their reason? The deficit has to come first. They would only support the extension if it was paid for.
Funny then, when the discussion of letting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire--as they are scheduled to later this year--they are far less concerned about the national debt. They claim that the tax cuts will pay for themselves by creating more jobs. Really? How many jobs have those tax cuts created lately?
And here's the thing, the cost of extending unemployment benefits was $34 billion. A lot of money, no doubt. But the cost of extending the Bush tax cuts? $700 billion. Yet the out of work middle class has to justify their desperately needed benefits with an offset, whereas the rich need to do nothing.
Let's think about how we got in this mess in the first place. Not only by doing nothing, but actually by doing less. Over the Bush years, regulations and taxes were cut. Wars and a variety bills were put on the card. Oh, and that bank bailout that everyone hates? That came from Bush too. But here's why I hate it: Not because I don't think it was necessary (I do), but because it was passed without setting any expectations with those banks. It was just a grand giveaway that required almost nothing from the banks except to say "Yes sir, I will take that money, sir." So in the end, we got out of control bonuses and the continued tightening of credit that is still strangling small businesses and therefore, the economy itself.
It seems the only time Republicans want to do anything for anyone is if the person asking has INC. at the end of their name.
But here's the scary thing for me and my progressive friends: They are winning. Chuck D once said that "If you want people to say no to drugs, you have to give them something to say yes to." I hate to say it, but it looks like Chuck was wrong. A large number of people are saying "no" to the current administration's efforts to fix this broken land even though the Republicans are offering nothing other than more of the same crap that got us in this mess. Why? Because they are real good at messaging. That step out of the shadows in near lock step and repeat the same misinformation over and over until people accept it as gospel.
Even though people hate corporations, the deficit, unfunded wars, and this wretched economy, they are poised to turn over more seats in the mid term elections to the Republicans who caused this disaster. It's amazing really, they have managed to both make the weather and complain that's it raining. But here's the slightest of silver linings: If the Republicans do win enough seats to take back the House, Senate, or even both, it could well be the worst thing that could happen to them.
Because if they do, they will then have to lead. Which will be trouble for them, because when they reach into that fat sack of ideas they claim to have (but don't want to show), I got a real good feeling that the bag will come open and reveal...nothing. No ideas other than more of the same. Shame on us if we let that happen.
In 1972, Robert Redford starred in a movie called "The Candidate" about an empty suited politician who claimed to be "for the people" running against the corrupt establishment. At the end of the film Redford's character is swept into the Senate behind a message of misinformation and clever use of the media. After the election is over, Redford's jubilant staff burst into the winning politician's room to find a shell shocked candidate. Surprised by Redford's demeanor, they asked what's wrong? Redford replies, "Now what." Now what, indeed.
Sumo-Pop
July 17, 2010
On July 15th, GOP house member from New York, Peter King, told a radio station that the GOP strategy should be a "combination of being against what Obama's for, and also giving certain specifics of what we are for." He followed by saying "Having said that, I don't think we need to lay out a complete agenda from top to bottom, because then we would have the national main stream media jumping on every point trying to make that a campaign issue."
In other words, offer next to nothing.
I mean really, what agenda are they talking about? One need only look at every major focus of the Obama administration to see what the Republicans are offering as a counter point is no more than well, "No."
Let's start with the vilified stimulus bill. Nearly everyone in congress agreed that we needed a stimulus bill to goose the porous economy left behind by the Bush Administration. While it's certainly fair to argue over what "type" of stimulus was needed, that isn't what happened. Democrats pushed for a large stimulus that was focused on infrastructure, a middle class tax cut, and state aid. To get three measly Republican votes, the Dem's cut the bill's expense by nearly 25% and loaded it up with additional tax cuts. Then, these Republicans who voted against this bill, showed up at ground breaking ceremonies to cut the tape on projects they didn't support. Now, most economists think the bill was too small and too loaded with tax cuts. What did the Republicans offer instead? I don't remember. Do you?
Next came the battle over health care. Most Democrats wanted a public option, if not single-payer. Instead, Democrats turned the bill into a big wet kiss to the health insurance companies, and still had to pass the bill without a single Republican vote. While nearly everyone agrees that our national health care system is a mess, not one Republican could be found to vote for a bill that is modeled after the law Massachusetts passed during the Mitt Romney Governorship, and looked an awful lot like the alternative that Bob Dole offered the Clinton Administration way back in 1992. Both Republicans, if you're scoring at home. Think about it, they couldn't even get behind something that was their idea in the first place.
When this whole sorry process started, there were three Senate Republicans (Grassley, Snowe, and Hatch) who were negotiating with a group of Democrats led by Max Baucus to broker a deal. But as the summer got hot with Tea Partiers and town hall criers, Hatch then Grassley backed out. Hell, Grassley even embraced the "death panels" and "government takeover" nonsense of the right wing talk show hosts. Clearly, the Democrats did not have an honest partner. Even though the bill was loaded up with over 100 Republican amendments, there wasn't a single vote to be scratched from the right side of the aisle.
After that came the battle over the Financial Reform Bill that the President signed into law just last week. Despite the near collapse of our financial system, the tax payer funded bailout of said system, and the continued rancid behavior on the part of the banks, the bill had to be watered down to gain three Republicans (Collins and Snowe of Maine and Brown of Massachusetts) and find passage. Is there anyone who can recall the Republican alternative. I am searching my mind and only hear crickets.
Last but certainly not least has been the fuss over extending unemployment benefits. In the past, when the unemployment rate has been particularly high, this was a bipartisan issue. Of course you extend unemployment benefits in an economic crisis. Now, even this is a political issue for the Republicans to say "no" to. Their reason? The deficit has to come first. They would only support the extension if it was paid for.
Funny then, when the discussion of letting the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy expire--as they are scheduled to later this year--they are far less concerned about the national debt. They claim that the tax cuts will pay for themselves by creating more jobs. Really? How many jobs have those tax cuts created lately?
And here's the thing, the cost of extending unemployment benefits was $34 billion. A lot of money, no doubt. But the cost of extending the Bush tax cuts? $700 billion. Yet the out of work middle class has to justify their desperately needed benefits with an offset, whereas the rich need to do nothing.
Let's think about how we got in this mess in the first place. Not only by doing nothing, but actually by doing less. Over the Bush years, regulations and taxes were cut. Wars and a variety bills were put on the card. Oh, and that bank bailout that everyone hates? That came from Bush too. But here's why I hate it: Not because I don't think it was necessary (I do), but because it was passed without setting any expectations with those banks. It was just a grand giveaway that required almost nothing from the banks except to say "Yes sir, I will take that money, sir." So in the end, we got out of control bonuses and the continued tightening of credit that is still strangling small businesses and therefore, the economy itself.
It seems the only time Republicans want to do anything for anyone is if the person asking has INC. at the end of their name.
But here's the scary thing for me and my progressive friends: They are winning. Chuck D once said that "If you want people to say no to drugs, you have to give them something to say yes to." I hate to say it, but it looks like Chuck was wrong. A large number of people are saying "no" to the current administration's efforts to fix this broken land even though the Republicans are offering nothing other than more of the same crap that got us in this mess. Why? Because they are real good at messaging. That step out of the shadows in near lock step and repeat the same misinformation over and over until people accept it as gospel.
Even though people hate corporations, the deficit, unfunded wars, and this wretched economy, they are poised to turn over more seats in the mid term elections to the Republicans who caused this disaster. It's amazing really, they have managed to both make the weather and complain that's it raining. But here's the slightest of silver linings: If the Republicans do win enough seats to take back the House, Senate, or even both, it could well be the worst thing that could happen to them.
Because if they do, they will then have to lead. Which will be trouble for them, because when they reach into that fat sack of ideas they claim to have (but don't want to show), I got a real good feeling that the bag will come open and reveal...nothing. No ideas other than more of the same. Shame on us if we let that happen.
In 1972, Robert Redford starred in a movie called "The Candidate" about an empty suited politician who claimed to be "for the people" running against the corrupt establishment. At the end of the film Redford's character is swept into the Senate behind a message of misinformation and clever use of the media. After the election is over, Redford's jubilant staff burst into the winning politician's room to find a shell shocked candidate. Surprised by Redford's demeanor, they asked what's wrong? Redford replies, "Now what." Now what, indeed.
Sumo-Pop
July 17, 2010
Thursday, July 15, 2010
Work For Food
"Sheriffs came with pistols and their starry sleeves/Gimme thirty days to leave"--Dramarama, "Work For Food"
This Tuesday, July 20th, the United States Senate is expected to once again vote on a measure that would extend unemployment benefits to more than 2 million out of work citizens. The last vote was taken just prior to the July 4th recess and fell one vote short of breaking a Republican lead filibuster. So, while the Senate went on vacation, these 2 million unlucky souls lost their unemployment insurance. They have been left to fend for themselves while both houses of congress returned to their homes or to the places where they "summer."
The reasons given by the 40 Republican Senators and Nebraska Democrat, Ben Nelson, typically fall into two categories.
The first is that we can't continue to add to the national debt. I don't think that anyone would argue that the national debt is a major issue. With current figures pointing to an I.O.U. of more than $13 trillion, the number is staggering. However, the cost of extending these benefits is $34 billion. A sum that amounts to a fly on the hind quarters of an elephant.
The argument by Republicans is that we must find an offset for this $34 billion before we can pass this extension. This is really fascinating coming from this group of jesters. These are the people that voted against "Paygo," which is defined as "the practice of financing expenditures with funds that are currently available rather than borrowed." When Democrats tried to pass "Paygo" in February of this year, it was a complete non-starter with the other side of the aisle. Under "Paygo" Government expenses would have to be "paid as you go," instead of simply putting it on the card as we did during the last administration.
Which brings me to another point. During the Bush years, we had the "tax cuts for the rich." Was that paid for or offset in any way? Nope. We had the "prescription drug benefit" for seniors. Again, not paid for or offset. And, we had a war of choice (Iraq), that wasn't even included in any of Bush's budgets. Most of the Republicans in both houses of congress were present during those eight years, and fiscal responsibility obviously wasn't a grave concern. They managed to turn the surplus left behind by Clinton into a complete boondoggle of debt that they dropped on the porch of this President like a flaming bag of crap.
So, if you're following the Republican logic here, we have money to give back to the top 1% of income earners in this country, we have cash to pass unfunded bills, and we can start a war with a country that did NOT attack us and not even account for the expense. But if you're an unemployed citizen in this country, we've got nothin' for ya. Got it? Good.
The second argument against passing the legislation has come from folks like the Republican Senator from Arizona, John Kyl, who argues that these ongoing extensions are a "disincentive" for people to look for work. His belief is that if you continue to send these people a government check, they will just sit on their fat asses and do nothing.
Now, in a typical, semi-normal economy, Senator Kyl might have a point. But is there anything typical about this economy? The unemployment rate is just under 10% right now, and that number doesn't include people who have dropped off the rolls because they have given up looking for work. Even worse, the underemployment rate (which is the unemployment rate + the number of people who are in part-time positions but are looking for full-time work) is 18.3%. Nearly 1 in 5 people in this country are either without work or in a position that is less than what they are wanting.
Current estimates find that there are 6 job searchers for every open position. So, this "disincentive" argument is simply nonsense. There just aren't enough jobs out there.
Let me give you a more specific example: I know a guy that lost his job when the construction company he worked for went out of business during the fall of 2008 when the fit started to hit the shan. In the nearly two years since, he has scoured the internet and the local newspapers on a daily basis. He had his resume professionally updated and has sent it out to scores of businesses. Despite all of his efforts, he has only found two temporary jobs that paid well below what he was making before. But he took them anyway, because he would rather work than not. Hell, he's not even looking for full-time. Because he is at an age where he can draw Social Security, he would be more than happy with a part-time job. Unfortunately, even those types of positions are scarce.
Most of the 2 million people who lost their unemployment insurance are not lay-a-bouts. They are individuals who are willing to take a job even if it's for less than what they feel they are worth. Now, we have politicians in congress who seem to be saying that they are worth even less than that.
Something that gets lost in all of this, is that these benefits are actually insurance. Insurance that these 2 million people have paid into for just this type of "rainy day." Now these people are being told that they don't have any right to the fund that they have been paying into for years. It's a lot like the poor people of Hurricane Katrina who had purchased hurricane insurance only to be told by their agent that they weren't covered because they didn't have flood insurance. When everyone knows the damn hurricane and busted levees were what caused the flood in the first place.
Make no mistake, this joblessness has been caused by a hurricane of fiscal irresponsibility on the part of banks, investors, mortgage companies, etc. The people who are being most harmed are not the ones that caused this mess. Yet, they seem to get far less consideration than the corporations who nearly sank our economy.
And here's another point: Denying an extension of these benefits will only further hurt the economy. Every dollar that is paid to an out of work citizen creates 1.6 dollars worth of revenue back into the economy. It is truly one of the most stimulative measures that can be applied in a recession. Without these emergency funds--and make no mistake, this is an emergency--many of these people will not be able to buy groceries, make their house payment, or fill their tank with gas. How is this going to help anyone?
As I mentioned at the beginning, the Senate will be taking up this bill again on Tuesday. What will make this week any different than last week, you might ask? Well, the Governor of West Virginia will be selecting a replacement for their recently deceased Senator, Robert Byrd, as early as today. Governor Manchin is certain to appoint a fellow Democrat to the seat, and therefore give the Democrats the 60th vote needed to pass the bill, restoring both order and compassion.
For some, it can't come quickly enough. I am blessed to have a decent, secure job myself. But everyday on my short travels to and from work, I am almost guaranteed to see some poor gentleman holding up a sign that says "Will work for food." Since July 1st, the number of people holding this sad sign has gone up exponentially. I know we don't want to see them. For the more compassionate among us, it's truly painful. For the less considerate it might be annoying. But these desperate people are out there. They are not invisible. No matter how much the Republicans in congress might wish them to be.
Sumo-Pop
July 16, 2010
This Tuesday, July 20th, the United States Senate is expected to once again vote on a measure that would extend unemployment benefits to more than 2 million out of work citizens. The last vote was taken just prior to the July 4th recess and fell one vote short of breaking a Republican lead filibuster. So, while the Senate went on vacation, these 2 million unlucky souls lost their unemployment insurance. They have been left to fend for themselves while both houses of congress returned to their homes or to the places where they "summer."
The reasons given by the 40 Republican Senators and Nebraska Democrat, Ben Nelson, typically fall into two categories.
The first is that we can't continue to add to the national debt. I don't think that anyone would argue that the national debt is a major issue. With current figures pointing to an I.O.U. of more than $13 trillion, the number is staggering. However, the cost of extending these benefits is $34 billion. A sum that amounts to a fly on the hind quarters of an elephant.
The argument by Republicans is that we must find an offset for this $34 billion before we can pass this extension. This is really fascinating coming from this group of jesters. These are the people that voted against "Paygo," which is defined as "the practice of financing expenditures with funds that are currently available rather than borrowed." When Democrats tried to pass "Paygo" in February of this year, it was a complete non-starter with the other side of the aisle. Under "Paygo" Government expenses would have to be "paid as you go," instead of simply putting it on the card as we did during the last administration.
Which brings me to another point. During the Bush years, we had the "tax cuts for the rich." Was that paid for or offset in any way? Nope. We had the "prescription drug benefit" for seniors. Again, not paid for or offset. And, we had a war of choice (Iraq), that wasn't even included in any of Bush's budgets. Most of the Republicans in both houses of congress were present during those eight years, and fiscal responsibility obviously wasn't a grave concern. They managed to turn the surplus left behind by Clinton into a complete boondoggle of debt that they dropped on the porch of this President like a flaming bag of crap.
So, if you're following the Republican logic here, we have money to give back to the top 1% of income earners in this country, we have cash to pass unfunded bills, and we can start a war with a country that did NOT attack us and not even account for the expense. But if you're an unemployed citizen in this country, we've got nothin' for ya. Got it? Good.
The second argument against passing the legislation has come from folks like the Republican Senator from Arizona, John Kyl, who argues that these ongoing extensions are a "disincentive" for people to look for work. His belief is that if you continue to send these people a government check, they will just sit on their fat asses and do nothing.
Now, in a typical, semi-normal economy, Senator Kyl might have a point. But is there anything typical about this economy? The unemployment rate is just under 10% right now, and that number doesn't include people who have dropped off the rolls because they have given up looking for work. Even worse, the underemployment rate (which is the unemployment rate + the number of people who are in part-time positions but are looking for full-time work) is 18.3%. Nearly 1 in 5 people in this country are either without work or in a position that is less than what they are wanting.
Current estimates find that there are 6 job searchers for every open position. So, this "disincentive" argument is simply nonsense. There just aren't enough jobs out there.
Let me give you a more specific example: I know a guy that lost his job when the construction company he worked for went out of business during the fall of 2008 when the fit started to hit the shan. In the nearly two years since, he has scoured the internet and the local newspapers on a daily basis. He had his resume professionally updated and has sent it out to scores of businesses. Despite all of his efforts, he has only found two temporary jobs that paid well below what he was making before. But he took them anyway, because he would rather work than not. Hell, he's not even looking for full-time. Because he is at an age where he can draw Social Security, he would be more than happy with a part-time job. Unfortunately, even those types of positions are scarce.
Most of the 2 million people who lost their unemployment insurance are not lay-a-bouts. They are individuals who are willing to take a job even if it's for less than what they feel they are worth. Now, we have politicians in congress who seem to be saying that they are worth even less than that.
Something that gets lost in all of this, is that these benefits are actually insurance. Insurance that these 2 million people have paid into for just this type of "rainy day." Now these people are being told that they don't have any right to the fund that they have been paying into for years. It's a lot like the poor people of Hurricane Katrina who had purchased hurricane insurance only to be told by their agent that they weren't covered because they didn't have flood insurance. When everyone knows the damn hurricane and busted levees were what caused the flood in the first place.
Make no mistake, this joblessness has been caused by a hurricane of fiscal irresponsibility on the part of banks, investors, mortgage companies, etc. The people who are being most harmed are not the ones that caused this mess. Yet, they seem to get far less consideration than the corporations who nearly sank our economy.
And here's another point: Denying an extension of these benefits will only further hurt the economy. Every dollar that is paid to an out of work citizen creates 1.6 dollars worth of revenue back into the economy. It is truly one of the most stimulative measures that can be applied in a recession. Without these emergency funds--and make no mistake, this is an emergency--many of these people will not be able to buy groceries, make their house payment, or fill their tank with gas. How is this going to help anyone?
As I mentioned at the beginning, the Senate will be taking up this bill again on Tuesday. What will make this week any different than last week, you might ask? Well, the Governor of West Virginia will be selecting a replacement for their recently deceased Senator, Robert Byrd, as early as today. Governor Manchin is certain to appoint a fellow Democrat to the seat, and therefore give the Democrats the 60th vote needed to pass the bill, restoring both order and compassion.
For some, it can't come quickly enough. I am blessed to have a decent, secure job myself. But everyday on my short travels to and from work, I am almost guaranteed to see some poor gentleman holding up a sign that says "Will work for food." Since July 1st, the number of people holding this sad sign has gone up exponentially. I know we don't want to see them. For the more compassionate among us, it's truly painful. For the less considerate it might be annoying. But these desperate people are out there. They are not invisible. No matter how much the Republicans in congress might wish them to be.
Sumo-Pop
July 16, 2010
Friday, July 9, 2010
A (Gasp) Decent Twilight Movie?
If you're not a Twi-Hard zombie, then you have to find compensations where you can. My wife is a fan of the Twilight series, and therefore we attend the film versions upon their release. The first two movies (Twilight and New Moon) were an eye-rolling howler of an experience. That isn't to say that I didn't enjoy them on a certain Patrick Swayze-Road House sort of level. In fact, New Moon in particular is so ridiculous that pointing and laughing would have been beside the point.
The first two films (boy, am I using that term loosely) were marked by wooden acting (Taylor Lautner), horrendous dialogue ("Have you ever tried not being a werewolf."), bad special effects (Werewolf, again), and truly bizarre behavior by the characters. Take the scene in New Moon when Jacob Spider-Man's up the house siding into Bella's second floor bedroom before she knows he's a werewolf. Does she ask "How did you do that?" Nope. Not in Twilight world. Here, no one acts like a normal human being. But the whole damn experience is so loopy and over the top, that I can't help but wear a bemused grin whenever I think of the first two movies. Like I said, compensations.
Now, Twilight:Eclipse has unleashed itself upon the masses. The reviews were slightly better than New Moon, and the new director, David Slade, has a good track record. In 2005, Slade made the shocking thriller, Hard Candy. A movie that found a pre-Juno Ellen Page taking vengeance against a possible child molester. Hard Candy is like the wildest version of a To Catch A Predator episode that you've ever seen. And for my money, it's easily the best performance by Page.
His next movie was the Graphic Novel based, 30 Days Of Night. A horror movie about a group of vampires that descend upon an Alaska town during the time of year when the northern most parts of the state see no sunlight for over a month. It's a pretty simple concept, and no one would accuse the film of being overly deep, but it is fierce as hell. The vampires are more like wild dogs than anything Bram Stoker ever dreamed up. The film also includes a genuinely passable performance by Josh Hartnett. An occurrence that should be marked by mad partying in the Hartnett household.
When I first heard that Slade would be taking over Eclipse, I thought it was a good move for the series and potentially a bad one for him. I was sure the movie would be better than it's predecessors, but I wasn't sure that anyone had the turd polishing skills necessary to make a genuinely decent Twilight movie. How would he manage the ham fisted dialogue and acting? How in the world would he get anything other than a brood out of Robert Pattinson? What about all the sighing by Bella? How would he stay true to what came before and still manage to correct the sins of the past? The usual rule of thumb in sequels is that after the first, the rest are marked by a series of diminished returns. I mean, whoever heard of the third film in a series being the best? Even with the bar set so low, I had my doubts.
Well, Slade may just be a miracle worker. Most of the improvements in Eclipse revolve around subtle choices. Not audibilizing Bella's every sigh, simplifying the dialogue, no hammering you over the head with the score, and fewer scenes in meadows are just four examples. The special effects are also better (if only a little). And the vampires and the werewolves feel more dangerous than in the previous films.
That's not to say the picture is perfect. Lautner--while improved--still seems to bite down on every word of the screenplay as if to say "OOH, look how intense and lupine I am." The film--while thankfully, more patient--can be a bit pokey at times. And I still have trouble with all the guys in the werewolf pack running around scantily clad as if they fell out of an Abercrombie & Fitch catalogue. But maybe that's a "straight" guy thing.
Still, there is much here to recommend. Kristin Stewart herself, recently said that this was the first Twilight movie that she could watch without pulling her hair out. And I would say there is no greater beneficiary of Slade's direction than her. Stewart--who has been very good in every non-Twilight movie she has appeared in--was in serious danger of, well, not being taken seriously. Her terrific work in relatively little seen pictures like Adventureland, Into The Wild, and The Cake Eaters, was being completely overshadowed by the sullen, sighing, hair twirling performances she gave in the first two Twilight movies. Now I have been a Stewart defender all along. I think she does her best to ground the films in some sense of reality. But clearly, she has been fighting a losing battle against a screenplay that hands her some awful lines to speak and directors that didn't know how to tamp down on her ticks. It's a bit like watching poor Natalie Portman in the newer Star Wars pics. If you had seen her in nothing else, you might think she couldn't act at all. As Harrison Ford had once said to George Lucas (when discussing the Star Wars screenplay), "You can write this shit, but you sure can't say it."
I don't know, maybe David Slade is a super hero. He has managed to make a better than decent Twilight movie. Maybe we should have him take over other spectacularly crap film franchises like the Sex And The City series, or the wretched Brendan Fraser Mummy movies. Perhaps--if we want to give him an even greater challenge--we could have him take over for the execrable Michael Bay and make the next Transformers movie. Nah, I wouldn't wish that on anyone.
Sumo-Pop
July 9, 2010
The first two films (boy, am I using that term loosely) were marked by wooden acting (Taylor Lautner), horrendous dialogue ("Have you ever tried not being a werewolf."), bad special effects (Werewolf, again), and truly bizarre behavior by the characters. Take the scene in New Moon when Jacob Spider-Man's up the house siding into Bella's second floor bedroom before she knows he's a werewolf. Does she ask "How did you do that?" Nope. Not in Twilight world. Here, no one acts like a normal human being. But the whole damn experience is so loopy and over the top, that I can't help but wear a bemused grin whenever I think of the first two movies. Like I said, compensations.
Now, Twilight:Eclipse has unleashed itself upon the masses. The reviews were slightly better than New Moon, and the new director, David Slade, has a good track record. In 2005, Slade made the shocking thriller, Hard Candy. A movie that found a pre-Juno Ellen Page taking vengeance against a possible child molester. Hard Candy is like the wildest version of a To Catch A Predator episode that you've ever seen. And for my money, it's easily the best performance by Page.
His next movie was the Graphic Novel based, 30 Days Of Night. A horror movie about a group of vampires that descend upon an Alaska town during the time of year when the northern most parts of the state see no sunlight for over a month. It's a pretty simple concept, and no one would accuse the film of being overly deep, but it is fierce as hell. The vampires are more like wild dogs than anything Bram Stoker ever dreamed up. The film also includes a genuinely passable performance by Josh Hartnett. An occurrence that should be marked by mad partying in the Hartnett household.
When I first heard that Slade would be taking over Eclipse, I thought it was a good move for the series and potentially a bad one for him. I was sure the movie would be better than it's predecessors, but I wasn't sure that anyone had the turd polishing skills necessary to make a genuinely decent Twilight movie. How would he manage the ham fisted dialogue and acting? How in the world would he get anything other than a brood out of Robert Pattinson? What about all the sighing by Bella? How would he stay true to what came before and still manage to correct the sins of the past? The usual rule of thumb in sequels is that after the first, the rest are marked by a series of diminished returns. I mean, whoever heard of the third film in a series being the best? Even with the bar set so low, I had my doubts.
Well, Slade may just be a miracle worker. Most of the improvements in Eclipse revolve around subtle choices. Not audibilizing Bella's every sigh, simplifying the dialogue, no hammering you over the head with the score, and fewer scenes in meadows are just four examples. The special effects are also better (if only a little). And the vampires and the werewolves feel more dangerous than in the previous films.
That's not to say the picture is perfect. Lautner--while improved--still seems to bite down on every word of the screenplay as if to say "OOH, look how intense and lupine I am." The film--while thankfully, more patient--can be a bit pokey at times. And I still have trouble with all the guys in the werewolf pack running around scantily clad as if they fell out of an Abercrombie & Fitch catalogue. But maybe that's a "straight" guy thing.
Still, there is much here to recommend. Kristin Stewart herself, recently said that this was the first Twilight movie that she could watch without pulling her hair out. And I would say there is no greater beneficiary of Slade's direction than her. Stewart--who has been very good in every non-Twilight movie she has appeared in--was in serious danger of, well, not being taken seriously. Her terrific work in relatively little seen pictures like Adventureland, Into The Wild, and The Cake Eaters, was being completely overshadowed by the sullen, sighing, hair twirling performances she gave in the first two Twilight movies. Now I have been a Stewart defender all along. I think she does her best to ground the films in some sense of reality. But clearly, she has been fighting a losing battle against a screenplay that hands her some awful lines to speak and directors that didn't know how to tamp down on her ticks. It's a bit like watching poor Natalie Portman in the newer Star Wars pics. If you had seen her in nothing else, you might think she couldn't act at all. As Harrison Ford had once said to George Lucas (when discussing the Star Wars screenplay), "You can write this shit, but you sure can't say it."
I don't know, maybe David Slade is a super hero. He has managed to make a better than decent Twilight movie. Maybe we should have him take over other spectacularly crap film franchises like the Sex And The City series, or the wretched Brendan Fraser Mummy movies. Perhaps--if we want to give him an even greater challenge--we could have him take over for the execrable Michael Bay and make the next Transformers movie. Nah, I wouldn't wish that on anyone.
Sumo-Pop
July 9, 2010
Friday, July 2, 2010
John Boehner As Stopped Clock
House Republican Minority Leader, John Boehner has not had the best week. The oddly hewed Representative from Ohio has managed to step in a series of cow patties as his mind and his mouth have spent the last several days in revolt against whatever political common sense a below average politician (like Boehner) might wish to have.
To wit:
--When asked about whether the deep sea drilling moratorium is a bad thing in light of the BP created disaster in the gulf, Boehner replied that it was. And in the exact same breath said that we might need to "pause" until we "find out exactly what happened" in the gulf. Say what? That's right, he dissed the moratorium while favorably defining it. What does he think moratorium means? Is the moratorium not indeed a "pause" while the leak is being investigated? This guy isn't just talking in circles, his mouth is acting as his own private circular firing squad.
--On a separate occasion, when asked about the financial reform bill floating through both houses of congress, Boehner described the bill as "Killing an ant with a nuclear weapon." The idea behind the bill is to address the issues that led up to the financial crisis that is still strangling our economy. Now, it's fair to argue whether you think the bill will be effective or not, but do you really want to imply that the financial crisis is an ant? What a tone deaf metaphor! Maybe the analogy would have been effective in 1954 the week after Them!, a sci-fi movie about giant ants that attacked the populous was released. But I don't think that was the type of ant that Boehner was referring to.
--Lastly, Boehner also went ahead and touched one of the true "third rails" in politics when he suggested that the retirement age should be lifted to 70 as a solution to the impending solvency doom on the horizon of Social Security. Democrats were quick to pounce on this remark. Anytime a politician suggests in changing Social Security in any way you can damn sure bet the other side of the aisle will make hay with it. Even the Tea Party clan doesn't want the government messing with their government supplied (oh, the irony) retirement benefits.
But here's where I break with the Democrats and defend (if only mildly) Boehner's hoof-n-mouth remark on Social Security. Because, well, he has a point.
When Social Security was signed into law in 1935 by President Franklin D. Roosevelt as part of the New Deal, the average life expectancy in the U.S. was only 61.7 years. In 2010, that number grew to a whopping 78. If you simply do the math, you find that you have a program that was designed to assist people 65 or older that was created at a time when on average, people didn't make it to 65. Now, most folks sail past that age and collect benefits for 13 more years. The financial strain of enhanced life expectancy and the "baby boomers" reaching retirement age threatens to bankrupt the system within the next 25-30 years if something isn't done to address the shortfall.
Of course, raising the retirement age isn't necessarily the only answer. Unfortunately, the other possible solutions bandied about are about as popular as Mel Gibson at a bar mitzvah--raising taxes or reducing benefits. Sounds great, right? Well, just try selling that to the American people.
These are hard, painful choices. But they must be made, and right soon.
Some would argue that the best solution is a combination of raising the retirement age, increased taxes, and reduced benefits. Of course, the folks positing these options are seldom politicians, but instead are economists and professors. Those guys aren't running for election and scrapping for votes. But isn't that why we send people to congress and the White House? To meet the challenges of the day? To do the difficult even in the face of waning popular opinion? I'd like to think so.
Sure, it's not going to be any fun for politicians to tell people under 50 that you will have to wait an extra 5 years to collect on Social Security. Or to inform people that make more than $106,000 that your Social Security withholding taxes will no longer be capped at that amount. And just wait until you share with folks that when you do reach retirement age, you're probably going to have to accept less money.
But this is where we are. The question is no longer "if," but "when." Because the real choice before us is to either adapt the law to modern times or go without. And I for one would rather have 90% of something as opposed to 100% of nothing.
Having said all of this, I don't mean to imply that Boehner was being courageous or even all that smart. As far as being right about anything goes, he still has work to do to catch up to your average stopped clock. But on this subject, at this moment in our history, he's on to something. Something called the truth. Even if he only caught up to it by accident, it should be recognized as such. Because if we, as a nation, can't admit when those that we typically disagree with are making a salient point, then we can just plan on going in circles...down the drain.
Sumo-Pop
July 2, 2010
To wit:
--When asked about whether the deep sea drilling moratorium is a bad thing in light of the BP created disaster in the gulf, Boehner replied that it was. And in the exact same breath said that we might need to "pause" until we "find out exactly what happened" in the gulf. Say what? That's right, he dissed the moratorium while favorably defining it. What does he think moratorium means? Is the moratorium not indeed a "pause" while the leak is being investigated? This guy isn't just talking in circles, his mouth is acting as his own private circular firing squad.
--On a separate occasion, when asked about the financial reform bill floating through both houses of congress, Boehner described the bill as "Killing an ant with a nuclear weapon." The idea behind the bill is to address the issues that led up to the financial crisis that is still strangling our economy. Now, it's fair to argue whether you think the bill will be effective or not, but do you really want to imply that the financial crisis is an ant? What a tone deaf metaphor! Maybe the analogy would have been effective in 1954 the week after Them!, a sci-fi movie about giant ants that attacked the populous was released. But I don't think that was the type of ant that Boehner was referring to.
--Lastly, Boehner also went ahead and touched one of the true "third rails" in politics when he suggested that the retirement age should be lifted to 70 as a solution to the impending solvency doom on the horizon of Social Security. Democrats were quick to pounce on this remark. Anytime a politician suggests in changing Social Security in any way you can damn sure bet the other side of the aisle will make hay with it. Even the Tea Party clan doesn't want the government messing with their government supplied (oh, the irony) retirement benefits.
But here's where I break with the Democrats and defend (if only mildly) Boehner's hoof-n-mouth remark on Social Security. Because, well, he has a point.
When Social Security was signed into law in 1935 by President Franklin D. Roosevelt as part of the New Deal, the average life expectancy in the U.S. was only 61.7 years. In 2010, that number grew to a whopping 78. If you simply do the math, you find that you have a program that was designed to assist people 65 or older that was created at a time when on average, people didn't make it to 65. Now, most folks sail past that age and collect benefits for 13 more years. The financial strain of enhanced life expectancy and the "baby boomers" reaching retirement age threatens to bankrupt the system within the next 25-30 years if something isn't done to address the shortfall.
Of course, raising the retirement age isn't necessarily the only answer. Unfortunately, the other possible solutions bandied about are about as popular as Mel Gibson at a bar mitzvah--raising taxes or reducing benefits. Sounds great, right? Well, just try selling that to the American people.
These are hard, painful choices. But they must be made, and right soon.
Some would argue that the best solution is a combination of raising the retirement age, increased taxes, and reduced benefits. Of course, the folks positing these options are seldom politicians, but instead are economists and professors. Those guys aren't running for election and scrapping for votes. But isn't that why we send people to congress and the White House? To meet the challenges of the day? To do the difficult even in the face of waning popular opinion? I'd like to think so.
Sure, it's not going to be any fun for politicians to tell people under 50 that you will have to wait an extra 5 years to collect on Social Security. Or to inform people that make more than $106,000 that your Social Security withholding taxes will no longer be capped at that amount. And just wait until you share with folks that when you do reach retirement age, you're probably going to have to accept less money.
But this is where we are. The question is no longer "if," but "when." Because the real choice before us is to either adapt the law to modern times or go without. And I for one would rather have 90% of something as opposed to 100% of nothing.
Having said all of this, I don't mean to imply that Boehner was being courageous or even all that smart. As far as being right about anything goes, he still has work to do to catch up to your average stopped clock. But on this subject, at this moment in our history, he's on to something. Something called the truth. Even if he only caught up to it by accident, it should be recognized as such. Because if we, as a nation, can't admit when those that we typically disagree with are making a salient point, then we can just plan on going in circles...down the drain.
Sumo-Pop
July 2, 2010
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)