There Will Be Blood (2007)

It’s an over 2 ½ hour of movie that makes the simple point that “people suck!” Sure, you have Daniel Day-Lewis, or as my friend Bryan calls him, Day-Lewis. Day-Lewis is great. He should get another Oscar for his performance. It was rare treat. He is totally engrossed in the character, and it is like nothing you have seen before. Another Oscar should go for cinematography. It was beautiful. The look of the film was authentic too. My grandfather grew up in rural California during the same time of the film, and the buildings and scenery looked like pictures of Fontana, California from those days, which was cool for me because, I was like “Cool! Now I’ve seen it” – at least in a movie, albeit a long one.

The movie takes you through rise of evil Oilman Daniel Plainview, from the time he is prospector in solitude till he is sociopathic old man living a mansion in Beverly Hills, California. The crux of the story takes place in rural California when Plainview buys up the land. Evangelical fundamentalist preacher and false prophet Eli Sunday, played by Paul Dano, becomes a thorn in Plainview’s side, because both try to have control of the town. The rest of the movie unfolds, in a very long way, it goes through the life of Plainview’s relationships to his son, Eli, and the oil expansion. There really isn’t a plot here. It is more like an exploration into the dark side of human nature, although in Plainview’s case he is a highly functional psychopath, drunk on greed, and power. It is really ugly, and the same time realistic.

The movie is always engrossing but soooooooooooooooo long! The music by Johnny Greenfield from Radiohead is boring. He uses a motif of hard dissonance, which might sound like Radiohead from the Kid A days, but it mostly sounds like the THX movie when they introduce the product.

There Will Be Blood, and there is plenty of it, is loosely based on a Upton Sinclair novel Oil. You might remember him from The Jungle.

It is an interesting movie to see in this era of the Oil Wars and the petrol-economy, because there has been so much blood; just look at Iraq. The obvious comparison in film The Treasure of the Sierra Madre; just as gold made men crazy, homicidal, and evil, so does Oil.

I can’t say this is a date movie. For film aficionados, this is a must see. It is certainly one of the best movies this year. That being said, it is like an emotional journey that leaves you feelings sick at the end.

Charlie Wilson’s War (2007)

OK, here is another attempt to make an entertaining movie about relevant geo-political players in the post 9/11 world. Does it work? No.

Even if you throw Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts and Phillip Seymour Hoffman in Afghanistan or Pakistan, you still don’t have good movie.

The problem with the movie is that it tries to do too many things. It tries explaining to the audience who the players are and how the Unites States Government works, how the CIA works, a romance between Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts, a bromance between Tom Hanks and Phillip Seymour Hoffman, and a Hanks charm movie. The real problem with these movies is that nobody really understands what is going on in the world. Eventually, I am sure Hollywood will get it right, but not here.

The movie very poorly tries to explain how Afghanistan went from a Cold-War success for the United States to a place which shelters America’s greatest enemies. If you blink, you can miss that.

Charlie Wilson’s war tells the story how one little known congressman personally got a cold war against the Russians in Afghanistan in the 1980’s going with the help of Neo-Conservative woman from Texas and a CIA agent. Tom Hanks who plays Charlie Wilson tries to carry this movie as he does his Tom Hanks charm. He works well with Hoffman, and both are excellent in his role. Hoffman plays Gust Avrakotos, a CIA agent. Who must be some sort of play on former CIA director George Tenet, who is also a son Greek immigrants.

Hanks and Roberts don’t work. Roberts who seems to play her role as just a bitch, seems to be trying to out stage Hanks in every seen. The semi-romance just doesn’t seem believable. They seem like people who just use each other for whatever they need. not They care for each other out of gain.

It does do some things right. They capture the Islamic rage and suffering. The military scenes seem to have a fair amount of realism to them. The director, Mike Nichols, lets the actors do their thing. Hanks and Amy Adams were as charming as ever.

Overall, the movie seem is boring at times, uneven, and mildly entertaining. It needed more drama, more story, and maybe a little more style. The whole Texas thing just didn’t cut it.

The Savages (2007)

This is the most depressing movie I have seen all year. I say this not a criticism, but as a fact. The reason why it is so depressing is because it gets so many things right. Written and directed by Tamara Jenkins, it seems like she must have had time with these characters in therapy grab their essence so well. Of course, Laura Linney, who is best being crazy but fragile, and Phillip Seymour Hoffman, who is brilliantly flawed, are perfect for their roles.

Linney plays Wendy a 39 year old over-educated woman working as a temp in New York City. Not sure how she pays the rent. She is in a small apartment with a foldout bed. She is in an unhealthy almost totally sexual relationship with a married man 13 years older than her. She is functionally sad.

Her brother, the Hoffman character, is an obese professor living Buffalo, who receives a hysterical phone call from his sister that their estranged father is in trouble. He seems to be used adding a rational counter-balance to his sister’s emotions. Later in film we learn that he is emotionally withdrawn, and cries at inopportune moments, such as when eating eggs. He is 42 years and claims to not be ready for marriage as his Polish girlfriend of three years goes back to Poland after her visa expires. Ever the rationalist his decisions lack an emotional compass.

Both characters seem so typical in real life.

When we meet the father we get a sense of the children’s backgrounds growing up with an emotionally and physically abusive father. There mother was completely out of the picture.

The father is living in Arizona with his girlfriend who just past away, and now he has no place to live. He is no longer able to care for himself.

The process of the health-care industry, the emotional drama of picking up the pieces of a life and ship it to place where they will die, was done is extreme accuracy. The moments of packing up their father’s pocessions, finding a nursing home, dealing with the staff, taking the loved one out to a restaurant to get out for a moment, it is all too real. So much so that it could be training for adults with older parents. I couldn’t help thinking will I have to do that.

At the very end, there is a little hope, maybe.

When I saw them film, in the audience were senior citizens in crowd who seemed offended that people were laughing at the plight of life at the nursing home. I guess for them it wasn’t funny. Actually, I didn’t think much was funny in the film, unless it was tragically funny. There was a seen where they were playing a scene from the Jazz Singer (1928), where Al Jolson was putting on back-face. The movie was a film the father picked out, and pained expressions on his children faces was funny if you can relate in someway.

Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story (2007)

Absolutely the worst movie I have seen this year. It was a waste of an hour and half of my life and I want them back! The only good part of this film was the very very small cameos from Jack White as Elvis, Paul Rudd as John Lennon, Jack Black as Paul McCartney, Jason Schwartzman as Ringo Starr, Jonah Hill, Eddie Vedder, and Tim Meadows. Frankie Muniz as Buddy Holly just didn’t make sense. The lead John C. Reilly was horrible. I am told that Walk Hard is a spoof of Ray and Walk the Line, but that doesn’t mean it works. I have seen The Simpsons do the same jokes over and over again that they try in this movie, except they are far superior and work.

The story of a Johnny Cash-like rock legend, Cox is born in the South to a broken family, finds fame and self destructive behavior, and finally redemption. It tries to mock every genre of music from the 50’s – 70’s. It is just so banal, trite, and hackneyed that just gives one a headache. I can't think of one thing original in this movie. Most of the jokes are sex jokes, which try to be so wrong to be funny, but are still flat. It was certainly the most forced movie I can remember seeing since the last Punisher film. Skip this one hard.

The Price of Loyalty, George Bush, the White House and the Education of Paul O’Neill by Ron Suskind

The Price of Loyalty is an account of former Secretary of the Treasury, Paul O'Neill, under our President George W. Bush. Full of well researched material backing up the person account of O’Neill, it goes by very quickly as it is a personal story. It is not quite a biography. It goes in the Paul O’Neill’s past a little, but not much. If it is biographical, it is only in respect to Paul O’Neill’s life as Treasury Secretary.

Being in a cabinet post, O’Neill had very close access to President George W. Bush, and he was the first to write about it. I find the tone of this book kind of bitter, but not unjustified.

O’Neill was a very successful CEO of Alcoa, a self made man, and he had worked in the Ford administration with such people as Dick Cheney and Alan Greenspan. He grew up dirt poor and work his way up to be retired with $60 million in the bank.

He reluctantly took post of a cabinet member. He thought he might be too controversial for the Bush administration. It turns out that he was, but not for the reasons he thought he would be.

O’Neill did fit in with other member of the cabinet who would also not survive, such as Colin Powell and Christie Todd Whitman. Alan Greenspan and O’Neill were old friends.

O’Neill saw himself as a problem solver. His take was that you take away the excuses and look at something realistically; you will then find your solution. He was looking forward to doing that kind of work for the country under George W. Bush’s White House. Instead, he found something different.

One of the first things, he found was that ten days into the Bush Administration, there talk and high priority given to finding out a way to invade Iraq. Another decision was to abandon the peace process in Israel. The cabanet meetings were scripted. Everyone has their role to play with the president and no real discussion ever took place. The meetings became an echo chamber of ideologues by such people as Carl Rove, who would say such as things to the president as “Stick to Principle.” Old friend Dick Cheney had changed from the person O’Neil had known in the Ford Administration. He had become an ideologue too. Alan Greenspan, in his book, also iterated his shock and dismay over the change in Cheney. Both men acknowledged that it had been a long time since they worked with him and hence thought they knew him. Once Cheney he said he in a meeting “the one Ronald Reagan taught us was that deficits don’t matter.” O’Neil couldn’t believe what he was hearing. The one thing Ronald Reagan taught us that deficits DO matter! The deficits of the Reagan era did damage to the country. At one point, a 3rd of the United States government’s revenue went to paying the interest payments of the debt (Greenspan). It was the finical conservative discipline of the first Bush Administration and the Clinton administration that brought the United States back to financial prosperity.

During the early days of the Bush Administration, there was a ginormous (the word is in the new version dictionary - look it up) surplus forecast in tax revenue, which was coming off the Dot-com bubble. O’Neil wanted to use this money to continue to pay off the debt and solve the Social Security problem. The Bush administration was dead set on making huge tax cuts, because he had made that promise in the campaign. Now tax cuts were the idea of the day. Al Gore had also promised tax cuts during the campaign, but on a smaller level and with a commitment to continue to pay off the debt. Alan Greenspan was also in agreement of tax cuts because he feared a U.S. government with too much cash in its hands. However, Bush proposal, which the administration referred to as a stimulus package, was broad and largely irresponsible. Paul O’Neil proposed a series of triggers that would roll back the cuts in case government revenue ever reduced at a significant level. Greenspan agreed and tried to sell it. The Bush administration ignored such an idea and fought against it. In the end, the tax cuts were passed by congress with no triggers. Shortly afterwards the Dot-com bubble burst, and the country would be going back to deficits soon afterwards. Bush would get more tax cuts passed. O’Neill would argue that there isn’t much a benefit to the economy of cuts taxes to the wealthiest section of the country, because they are most likely going to be the ones to put the money away in savings. The Bush administration always took the view that the economy was worse when it was well to justify more tax cuts, which lead the country in further fiscal insolvencies.

O’Neil was probably most in the news with the tour of Africa he took with U2 front man Bono. They went on a highly publicized tour of Africa giving O’Neil a firsthand view of the situation there. He got up close and personal with the problems and saw solution that were very achievable there. He took his family with him. He came back to Washington with ideas of building wells in Africa. That plan never really went anywhere while he was in Washington. He never lost sight of the plan.

O’Neil always spoke his mind and dealt with facts and not ideologies. It eventually got him fired. Like all the other moderates in the administration, he was one of the first major posts to be replaced. O’Neil never played the political game, and it was obvious that he was mistreated. After his departure he has been called back by almost all areas of government to help on projects.

O’Neil describes Bush half a bully and half a sheep being lead my ideologues totally devoid of facts.

The Suskind book a sobering account of the Bush Administration. O'Neill was let go in 2006, so it stops there. I found it surprising rational and lucid. At this point some the ideas are known already. However, like in most cases, it good to get the source of the themes that came out of the book in order to separate from the commentary and talking points.

Mr. Magoruim’s Wonder Emporium (2007)

This is a hard one. This is a probably a good for very little kids, and the few kids that were in the audience were laughing every now and then. The adults laughed a little less.

The name Mr. Magoruim’s Wonder Emporium has a feel of a 1970’s kids movie. It had a Charlie and the Chocolate factory (the original) feel to it, in that it seemed to try to amaze in a really low concept and low tech way. Like a giant bouncing ball is a grand idea in concept, but hey it’s large CGI ball that could be done in a first year animation major. It’s a little boring.

The movie centers around huge magical toy store in Chicago. They don’t make a big deal that it is Chicago, but if you have ever been there you will recognize it. There are a lot of crazy things going on in that toy store. Some of it has it’s moments, like Kermit the frog shopping there (some how doesn’t work without Jim Henson’s real voice), and wooden Dinosaurs alive and playful were cool.

Dustin Hoffman plays Mr. Magoruim, avid shoe-wearer, he is exactly how you might picture such a person: crazy hair, clothes, and absent minded. Natalie Portman, who must have been growing her hair out from V is for vendetta, is about to inherit the store, but she doesn’t want it. Magoruim hires an accountant, played by Jason Bateman, who he called “the mutant,” to gauge the worth of the store. There is some kid in there, who wears a different hat everyday but has no friends. All together they work things out.

It is a cute, simple story, but really not much to write home about. I think after first grade your kid might be too sophisticated for it.

West 70th Street

Atonement (2007)

Atonement is like two stories, hence two movies. One is very good and one isn’t. Based on a novel that I now want to read, Atonement tells story of an event; what leads up to the event, and the effects of that event.

The first part is set up a like thriller. It has an effect a little like the movie Momento(2000) in that is told in not quite a chronological order. I really like this because it seems true a memory. It feels like you are inside someone’s head as think about something and rethink it.

You have a bizarre preteen in a love triangle of sorts with her older sister, and the maid’s son Robbie, whom both girls have known since childhood. Both sisters have a burgeoning interest in him. The older sister Cecilia and Robbie are at the beginning of starting a romantic relationship. The younger sister Briony, who has an active imagination, watches them through a window and thinks she catches them in a sexual act. Later she really does. That same night two of cousin, two little boys run away. Everyone in the house party that night, including Robbie, go looking for them. During the search, another cousin, who is also a preteen girl, is raped. She doesn’t see who does her, but Briony who walks in on the act says it was Robbie. The viewer knows it was someone else.

When Robbie comes back with the two boys found, he is arrested based on Briony’s story and his stature in society. Cecilia is heartbroken and distrusts Briony’s story, but it does little good.

This part is excellent. It is a taut thriller. It is shoot beautifully, actually the whole movie is. Everything is beautiful. I have never seen Keira Kinghtly look more beautiful. I actually couldn’t stand her before. Everyone looks glamorous here.

I kept thinking that my grandfather was the same age as the characters at the same time this story is suppose to take place, which gave it an interesting perspective.

The second part isn’t so good. Although early World War II England is interesting to see, and there is some historical interesting aspects to it, once Robbie goes off to war it just becomes really boring. There are some interesting bits about nursing in World War II London. I suspect that book goes into that a little more. Robbie and Cecilia to stay together through everything, but they meet a tragic ends. It ends with a present day interview with Briony and offers some plots twists, but the end is unsatisfying. They should have done something with the second part to make it better like edit it down.

While leaving the theatre, I heard people talking, as the post movie analysis usually happens in New York theatres, some people said that couldn’t have watch it on T.V,and others said that it made them appreciate the book more. I can see how this must have been great book.

I think this is a movie to see on the big screen, if you are going to see it, because it is the only way to appreciate fully it’s beauty, which is really it’s strongest feature. Well that and the actors are amazing.

Jacques Torres Hot Chocolate

Ok, there has been a lot of talk about hot chocolate these days. About a year ago all the cool people were going to the cool places to get hot chocolate, the next big thing. This year there was a New York Times articles about. So, I was going to try, when I found a Jacques Torres on Amsterdam. I had to try it!

They let me try the "wickid." Redundant I thought. It tastes just like Mexican hot chocolate. Then I bought the "classic". It was like the best hot chocolate I ever had. So, I went back and tried it again. Now it wasn't the best hot chocolate I have ever had. It was just a heavy chocolate explosion. Nevertheless it is good.

So now we manhattan people know about it. Next year it will be everyone else, and something else will be the next big thing

Times Square rain

Juno (2007)

Coming to the Lifetime network for women soon, is the new movie Juno. Juno had all making of a woman’s movie, except for the man screwing the woman over part. There are women helping women. Every woman is a heroine. Every man is nebbish. So, it is a like a heterosexual feminist movie.

The movie tries very hard to be a cool indie film a la Napoleon Dynamite (2004) and Rushmore (1998), which are the archetypes. It might have faired better taking a bit from Ghost World (2001), which is a similar and superior movie with the same themes as this one. I see this as the fault of the director, Jason Reitman. Actually, movie tries so hard at the beginning to be artsy film of the year that it is a bit boring at the start. There is the very pretentious animated introduction, which was like so cool, like seven years ago. The symbolism of cross country male runner being sexuality gets old real fast. Luckily, the story kicks in and the film becomes very enjoyable. I think the biggest reason that the film is lacking at the beginning is that you don’t really understand the true nature of the relationship between Juno, Ellen Page and Bleeker, Michael Cera.

In the film, Juno is pregnant, and Bleeker is the father. ( I think that the name Bleeker is a side referring to the Muppets Bleeker in a gen-X way, because the character comes across as a teen Bleeker from the Muppet show. ) It is towards the end of the movie that you realize that Juno and Bleeker are two friends that hang out all the time and decided to have sex one day, as oppose to typical boyfriend-girlfriend dynamic. It would have been good if that was clearer in the beginning.

When the story does kick in, you fall in with the dramas and character of Juno, who is an angelically delightful. Juno is pregnant, and is supported by friends and family, plans, to give her baby up for adoption. She finds the perfect yuppie couple to take the baby. After that she has to deal with the pregnancy and a love triangle of sorts between the baby’s father, Bleeker, and the husband of the yuppie couple; who is played by Jason Bateman, and a he looks a lot like a slightly younger Bono. It sounds cheesy but it works.

Juno, herself, was a joy. Ms. Page brought a lot of good energy and youthfulness to the role. It sort of makes the film. I am always impressed by the generation 9/11. I always get the impression that 90’s were so weird and the era 9/11 has been for horrible that this generation is somehow looking for normalcy. I see this in the way they speak and dress. Somehow it seems both youthful and straight forward. In some ways it is hopeful where previous generations have tried to be so extreme or iconoclastic. It is refreshing to get away from that.

I think what I like the most about Juno, the character, is that she just goes on. This is a coming of age film, probably the millionth one this year. In the end things work themselves out but not without some working at it. I liked that too.

One of the more interesting aspects of the film is the attention to detail in the film. Take a look at the walls in the film, like an old Simpson’s episode, it is filled with interesting stuff. Bleeker has Hebrew letters on the back of his door, Juno’s friend has a picture that has Bill Clinton’s face and really built guy’s body, which I am not sure if really funny or disturbing. On the wall by the staircase, there is really cheesy couple of pictures of the couple who wants to adopt the baby.

I think I will see this movie again. It is not the greatest film ever made, and it has plenty of flaws but I would say that it is one of the ten best films of the year. If Rocket Science (2007) was the male equivalent of this story this year, Juno is the female version. The dialogue is charming and fun. In the end, it is a cute movie.

Love in the time of Cholera (2007)

Love in the time of Cholera is, of course, the classic novel from Colombian author Gabriel Garcia Marquez, which is now a new movie starring Spanish actor Javier Bardem and Italian actress Giovanna Mezzogriorno. For most of us this was required reading in college. However, I never got around to it.

Love in the time of Cholera is one of those movies which you could be a little bored in the beginning, but towards the end you realize that everything comes together. All of that seemingly superfluous stuff at the start makes sense in the end and you can see that it is all necessary to the story. It’s worth it because as a whole it is a beautiful story.

It is a love story set the behind a backdrop of war and disease (Cholera), and peace. It is also the character of love as war and disease, and peace. I thought it was clever.

It also has the pained elements of a story of people the areas around and including Mexico and South America. People are overly proud, emotional, and tragic. There is a strong sense of colonial values and situations. The story takes place in the white upper class of Victorian Colombia.

Set in Colombia, almost no one here sounds like it too much. Bardem speaks perfect Spanish. He is from Spain. Mezzogiorno is Italy and really sounds Italian when she has to show emotion. Giovanna may be more beautiful than she is a great actress. Many of her scenes are uneven and when she plays an old woman she mostly moves like a young woman. It is noticeable and distracting. Another, noticeable and distracting element in the film is the transition between the Florentino character as a young man, Unax Ugalde, and Florentino for the rest of film Bardem. It is really to tell that are the same person outside of the fact they wear the same clothing. A bit of a surprise is John Leguizamo who is actually Colombian, and is perfect in his of Fermina’s (Mezzogroino) father. Liv Schreiber, Catalina Sandino Moreno (also Colombian), and one my favorite actors, Hector Elizondo around out a great supporting cast,

There is great cinematography, sets, rainfalls, and natural beauty. You do feel like you are in some Spanish colonial world. Mostly the movie is a character driven movie. Like a long book, which it is, you watch the characters develop. Hopefully you like them, because you are spending a while with them. All character’s relationships seem to explore the love between in its different forms. Love between man and woman (Romantic Love), love between Mother and Son, Father and Daughter, Uncle and Nephew, between cousins, between co-workers, and that is the nature of the film and the story. It is important to know that going into it. There is a lot in Love in the time of cholera.
It felt like there was something there, and I found myself thinking about its themes for sometime afterwards.

I Am America (And So Can You!) – by Steven Colbert (2007)

Finally a book by Steven Colbert, I can’t believe it. Well, that’s not true, I can. After reading I Am America (And So Can You!), I ask is this too much Steven Colbert, and I think it is. The book is funny, and I imagine the audio book is funnier. You have to get Colbert's voice in your head to truly get it, or, at least, it helps. What I found most note-worthy is that you get a taste of reading right-wing propaganda books like those of Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, and Bill O’Reilly. It gets into your head until you are completely brain-washed.

Colbert does a very good job at satirizing most of the right-wing agenda’s talking points. He speaks of immigration, Hollywood, gays, religion, the media and all other themes which are have been so apart of the political landscape of the United States in the past few years. I suppose what Colbert does best is to take the themes and hidden messages within the News Corporations’ media outlets, for example, and shout them in plain English. This is really all Colbert does. So, why is he so successful? In many ways it has little to with him, but rather on how ridiculous these talking points really are.

The best and worst thing about such an effort is the complete lack of context and explanation given. After reading so much extreme takes on American life, the reader wants an explanation on how those opinions came to be. By the reader, of course, I mean me. Especially in this faith-based American culture, rarely do I hear anyone asking someone how they got to that conclusion, especially of someone on television or radio.

I think if Colbert gave a reason for things he says, he would be out of a job. I am not sure that America can handle an explanation of the events of the world around them. I don’t think they want one. I am sure they feel something is wrong, but they are listening to the loudest voice instead of thinking. It is hard to say how you got lost when you don’t know where you are.

If you take Steve Colbert greatest moment, which is the White House correspondence dinner speech where Colbert lampooned the administration, he doesn’t say you’re bad to the President for this or that rather he comically states that there is something wrong here; really wrong. Just when all opinion opposite to the Administration was being suppressed, Colbert speach was a message that needed a voice. The response to it especially by people 16- 35 years old showed that there was a silent opposition by the American people to the course of direction that the country is going in. The entire speech is at the back of the book.

In many ways, reading the Colbert book is like watching the Colbert show. There are little margin comments like the segment of “The Word,” and there can be some refreshing randomness that accompanies any good comedy show.

In Summary, it hard to know how to feel about it, because, if you are reading this book, you can appreciate and laugh at the absurdity of these talk radio points defined, but you still are uncomfortable with them. Colbert is sometimes best in small doses. If you are dumb enough not get the joke, and many people are, then you might feel that he go far enough. On the other, hand the book is almost like an educational tool, and maybe defense against the millions of listeners and viewers to these opinionists who, like Colbert, speak in absolute truths. Luckily the book is just under 300 pages and there are plenty of pictures, cut outs and stickers. Die hard fans will be overjoyed. Anyone with a mind to question will be intrigued, and fair weather fans will be overwhelmed. Finally I suspect foes will be confused. I liked this book, but it certainly not for everyone. Hell, it’s funny!

Superbad (2007)

Ok, this movie is about to be released on DVD soon. It was a big hit this summer. I have to admit that I missed it on the big screen and saw it on an airplane.

My first impression is that this is a very well made movie. It is an excellent Hollywood formulaic teen movie. It used every cliché extremely well.

I think these movies have to be remade every couple of years, because they become outdated extremely quickly. You see that when the actors of these films grow up or dies from an overdose it is hard to take the movie seriously because you see the character as the older version of the actor. Also, teen styles change so often that it effects the shelf life of the film too.

There isn’t really anything special about this film. You have an oversexed fat kid and a skinny kid. The oversexed fat kid is practically an homage to John Belushi, and the duo goes back to the comedy team of Laurel and Hardy.

Although this time, I have to admit there was more overtly gay subtext than I expected. But Hey, everyone is open to their own interpretation of this story.

The story is always the same. Outcast teenagers need booze to get to a party in a hope of getting laid, and there is a coming of age story there; something the kids can connect to.

My favorite part of the movies was the B story, which was about this kid who got a fake ID where he calls himself “McLovin” goes from complete geek to total badass, with the help of the funniest cops since the Keystone cops. Bill Hader and Seth Rogen , the cops, were the best part of the film.

Overall, SuperBad was an enjoyable fluffy film in the same category of “10 things I hate about you.”

NYPD races down 9th Avenue

No Country for Old Men (2007)

The long await return for Ethan and Joel Coen ( the Coen Brothers). No Country for Old Men is not their best work but it is, just by the fact that it is them, ten times better than most of the films out this year. It is sometimes hard to be critical on a movie that does so many things right. It pulls you in right at the beginning. It has excellent characterization. It is tense and it has many parallel themes going on at one time. But at the same till, it is has some very loose ends.

In many instances this film is like Fargo. It takes place in an interesting subset of the United States; this time the U.S.-Mexican Boarder. The Coen brothers show many instances of quirky people from South Texas but they seem to lack the overwhelming racism and anger of the real people from Texas. In some ways Texas seems like a normal place, which anyone from Texas knows is just not true.

The film stars Javier Bardem, Josh Brolin, Tommy Lee Jones, and Kelly Macdonald. Bardem is brilliant as a psychopath. Not for one second do you believe that he isn’t a complete sociopath. The cat and mouse game with the Josh Brolin character, Llewelyn, is nail biting and the heart of the film. The good cop and old time Texas Lawman of the Tommy Lee Jones character is underdeveloped and barely necessary to the story.

It starts out seeming to be an old west story brought to a modern setting, but then it loses that, and tries to picked it up again, ultimately failing. Jones is great as he ever is, but he doesn’t have much to work with, and this whole storyline could have taken out of the film which would have improved it greatly.

Kelly Macdonald plays Carla Jean Moss wife of Llewelyn, and you would never know that she was the English preteen from Trainspotting.

There is not much to the story. There is a robbing of drug money. Llewelyn finds it, takes it, and he is hunted. It’s a hell of a ride. It has a bit of a money is the root of all evil moral to it, but you really hope that the film maker are doing more. You think that they must be, but maybe there are not.

The Age of Turbulence by Alan Greenspan (2007)

Not exactly light reading. This is a serious book with some intense insights. It is clear, profound, serious, and esoteric. I think a background in economics would help with reading this endeavor from the former Federal Reserve Chairman.

Alan Greenspan is essentially writing three books within one.
One book is a personal history of his life. Another is the political history of his time working with every president since Nixon to George W. Bush, and the last, by the far the lengthiest, is a financial history of the World economy of the past thirty years with projections into the future. Each side has its own personality.

Alan, when speaking of himself, writes an endearing portrait of himself as a man who is both very emotional and very rational. He highlights mistakes in his life where being too rational or emotional had lead to the wrong decision. At best he is the embodiment of both simultaneously.

Alan Greenspan, born in New York City to a lower middle class Jewish family, grew up in the Washington Heights section of Manhattan. He really didn’t suffer through the depression, which I believe has a lot to do with his negative views of the social safety nets established by the Roosevelt administration. Although his parents divorced, his mother maintained a job as a secretary in the Bronx. His father worked on Wall Street. Alan received a 25 cent allowances growing up during the depression, which according to my grandfather was “pretty good.”

During this early period, he was more interested in music than in finance. He loved Jazz and played professionally in a band. At one point Alan got to jam with Stan Getz. While in the Jazz scene he read finance books during his downtime. He eventually left the music world got his degree at NYU, and then took a job in finance. He earned $48 a week in 1948, which again my grandfather said, “what I could have done with $48 a week in 1948.” So there you go.

Now, Greenspan took the job for $48 a week over another job for around $60 a week, because he felt he would learn more at the lower paying job than the higher. This is the kind of reasoning that he would display throughout his life.

In the 50’s, he would get married and divorced, and become part of a social group headed by Ayn Rand. Rand and her circle would up Greenspan’s game intellectually and socially. They would meet in Rand home on the East 30’s.

In the late 60’s he would meet and help out Richard Nixon in his presidential campaign. Although, he would admire Nixon for his intelligence, he grew to dislike Nixon for being a paranoid and vindictive person who would lose control.

Later Greenspan was brought on to the Ford administration. Ford was a man that Greenspan liked very much. He said was one of the most secure men he had ever met. He was not brilliantly intellectual like Nixon and Clinton, but he never had that sense of weirdness to him like so many people. There he would meet many people such as Dick Chaney, who would become part of the George W. Bush administration.
Never part of the Carter administration, he joined Washington again after a person phone from President Reagan at his dentist office. Reagan asked him to work for him and Greenspan couldn’t refuse.

Before Reagan made him Chairman of the Federal Reserve, Greenspan chaired the bipartisan committee that saved Social Security for the next thirty years. Although, Alan was impressed by Reagan convictions and personality, he didn’t think he was too smart. Like our current president, Reagan didn’t read much.

When Reagan did make Greenspan Fed Chairman, the 1988 stock market crash, the worst ever, happened. Not too long after there was the Savings and Loan sell off, and the death of the manufacturing industry in America.

Although Greenspan spoke the warmest about President Ford, the lengthiest and most enjoyable time was with President Clinton.

Although Greenspan was worried about Clinton, being that Alan was a life long Republican and campaiged for the other guy; he immediately was impressed with Clinton’s intelligence. For all the bad things that were said about Clinton Greenspan states firmly that he never saw them. Clinton was a financial conservative; more of a throw back to the Kennedy administration. It was the first president Bush’s and Bill Clinton’s economic policy of fiscal responsible that lead the economic boom in the nineties. President Reagan left the country leading to financial ruins. The deficit was the major killer. A third biggest expense to the United States government was the interest payments to its debt.

Clinton was never true of what he was called. He was not a tax and spend democrat. He cut from almost everyone, but used the money responsible and the country was on the path peace and property that the United States hasn’t known since the days Dwight D. Eisenhower.

At this period of time Alan Greenspan achieved rock star status. He would lead world into a new era; one of a technological revolution and another of pervasive globalization. The direction that he took the world will be debated for a long time. Greenspan maybe the most influential and respected American in finance since J.P. Morgan. Together with Rubin (now trying to sort of Citigroup’s finance troubles) and another colleague, Alan watched over the economy in judicious and pragmatic fashion.

The problem was that as much as Greenspan can analyze the past and near future, he had major failures in predicting the not too distant future.

Like many Republicans, Alan was very enthusiastic with the arrival of President George W. Bush. Many of Alan’s old friends from the Ford administration were coming along in the new President’s administration.

In the 2000 election, Al Gore also pledged a tax cut but a smaller one than George W. Bush. However, Gore pledged to continue to pay down the debt. Greenspan also agreed that debt should be paid down.

During the early years of the Bush Whitehouse, the surplus projections were large and spanning many years. Greenspan saw a danger of the Federal Government having too much money on their hands, so he supported a tax cut albeit smaller than the administration had outlined, and with check and balances in case the surplus didn’t hold. The administration threw out that idea.

The surplus was over almost as soon as Bush got into office. The Dot-com bust had effected tax revenue and hence no more surplus.

As time went on, Alan was dismayed by the lack of planning, reason or thought in which the current government ran. And he makes it perfectly clear over and over again that the real reason invading Iraq was oil and NOT weapons of mass destruction.

Greenspan spends the rest of his time speaking about the economy. He speaks highly of economist Adam Smith, who he admires the most. Then describes free market economies and gives economic projects for the rest of the World.

For the United States, he predicts an economy being exactly as it is right now going into 2030. Although, he admits that events unforeseen might occur, his projections mainly take world where nothing changes.
One thing we have learned over time is that things change.

Alan Greenspan takes a bird-eye view of economy. Somehow I don't get a sense that he understands the true nature of globalization in terms of the effects on the United States economy. Nobody I have heard really does. I think it is only those who are in the middle of it, in the trenches if you will, that can see what is really going on. Of course, those who negatively affected by it the most, feel it but may not know it. Those who have the most to gain, mainly foreign middlemen and those under them, give a rosy picture as do corporate executives who are profiteering from it. I would like to talk to Alan Greenspan about this and get his views. Maybe he will write another book where he will address these issues.

One my biggest criticisms of his work on free market economies is the foolish idea that social safety nets have never worked. It seems like an idea similiar to someone who doesn't take health insurance because they have never been sick before, which is taking a pretty big risk. Although, Greenspan can see the impact on the economy when huge hedge fund goes under that the Government has to bail it out in order sustain the overall health of the greater economy. He does not seem to keep in mind that if large amount of Americans go bankrupt, that too will have a far reaching negative impact on the greater economy too.

I certainly did love this book. I can’t say that it is for everyone. I think it is an important book given the times we live in. I am sure that Alan Greenspan will go down as one of the most influential economist in history.

Sia in Concert live at the Hiro Ballroom, New York City -11/5/07

At a little past 10pm on the night of November 5th, 2007, Australian singer Sia, (Her full name is Sia Furler. Sia pronounced like “C-ya”) who is best known for her work with Zero 7, took the stage in New York City. If you have never heard Sia, I would say she can be best categorized as white soul music, although she can raise her voice and tempo to sound like a pop singer, but I will get into that later.

Sia and band took their entrance in neon stripped out-fits, which made them look like a child’s drawings of stick figures with glow-in-the-dark Magic Markers. After that first song, which was “Buttons” off her new album, Sia and the band took off their special outfits, and then just looked bad. For some reason, Sia looked more attractive when I saw her with Zero 7 in 2004.

With Zero 7, she was just one of three singers who would come on stage only when it was time for a song that she sang, and she would leave when it was someone else’s tune. This time Sia has to the show to herself where she is the star.

I was never clear if she was high, drunk or just was naturally so crazy funny. She bounced around talk to the audience throughout the show. Sometimes she would speak to specific people in the audience. She was like your batty British aunt. At one point, because someone requested a song that they had not been rehearsed, Sia gave that girl a stuffed animal in a manner reminiscent of giving a child a consolation prize.

After “Buttons,” she played a couple of boring songs from “Colour the Small One,” then went into “Sunday,” “Breathe me,” and “Destiny,” a Zero 7 number. The rest of the show was music from her upcoming album, which she encouraged people to download. She told the audience to Google “some people have REAL problems” and that when it comes out to buy it if they like it or keep coming to gigs because either way, it didn’t really effect her. Maybe she was taking the Radiohead approach.

Her new stuff was much more up tempo than her previous. I was amazed on how she could lower her voice in an impressive white soul music woman and raise it to a pop star like nasally high pitched sound. Generally, the stuff off her new album was somewhere in the middle. I liked it.

She played for just over an hour. When the show really got going it was strangely engaging. She ended with another Zero 7 song, “Distractions.” She did really have something, during a few of the songs, I really felt like I was watching something special. Overall, it took a bit for her to get into the show, she suffered from technical issues and a lack of concentration, but when she got into it was really good.

Fall Foliage - Westchester County, New York

Stamford: morning

Dan in Real Life (2007)

Not a good movie. It was a series of embarrassing scenes of a wasp family, despite their Irish last name, getting along and having fun together in Rhode Island. Now, most movies have a happy family, but this was over the top with family talent shows, songs, workouts, football games, and bowling.

The basic premise of the film is Steve Carell, single family of three daughters, visits his family for what seems like a month. He meets Juliette Binoche, who pulls off her best American ascent. It would have better she was supposed to be French. Anyway, these two meet at bookstore, but they find out that she is dating his younger brother played by Dane Cook. You can probably figure out the rest.

Dan in Real Life has a really dark look to it. Everything seemed in the shadows. Carell is a funny guy, and he alone provided a few needed laughs, but he seemed so depressed; you feel depressed too.

The soundtrack was really annoying too. I do think I has seen every piece of clothing in the film at Urban Outfitters.

I can’t recommend this film. It seems like it would be good on the Saturday afternoon when you just want to see something barely watchable on T.V.