cinevegas - day 3

3:00 PM: Godspeed (Saitzyk, 2009) - 25 / con (-)

Alert; some pretty Alaskan scenery (all that saves this from being squarely in CON territory) isn't enough to carry a thriller. This laughable religious allegory has extraordinarily stilted dialogue, over-the-top performances, and some of the more awkward dramatic momnts I've seen in some time. The ideas behind Godspeed - that religion breeds major hypocrisy (smoking, drinking, infidelity) - aren't bad at all, but the execution is mostly exceedingly painful to watch.

cinevegas - day 2

After a day off from films to play the WSOP Limit Event (eliminated early on Day 2), I only caught one movie the following day. Much more to be seen today and tomorrow.

Yellow Submarine (Dunning, 1968) - 48 / mixed

Some great visuals here that at times conjure up the wild imagery of Fantastic Planet, but there's no cohesion whatsoever when it comes to storyline, and it's not entrancing enough to overcome it. Great music, of course, but I can pop on my iPod for that.

cinevegas - day 1

Okay, so I haven't been particularly responsible about updating this! Between my company, filmandfelt, and, well, life, keeping separate blog has been nearly impossible. But, for now, I'm going to use this to jot down reviews / capsules on the films I see at the Las Vegas Film Festival before uploading them to my web site. And who knows, maybe I'll get the urge to begin updating this bad boy more...

For now, short thoughts until I get to my laptop tonight or tomorrow.

June 11th:

11:30 - In The Loop (Armando Ianucci, 2009) - 67 / pro (+)

Very witty anti-war political satire with sharp dialogue and cussing aplenty. A few aspects are occasionally overdone, but it's mostly really entertaining and savvy, with fun performances and banter.

2:00 - Moon (Duncan Jones, 2009) 75 / PRO

Definitely need a second viewing of this one, but it's a pretty awesome sci-fi with a great twist that doesn't feel at all gimmicky; rather, it just smoothly changes the trajectory of the emotions and storyline. That it's helmed by David Bowie's son is just a cool perk. Sam Rockwell puts in a performance that's destined to make my 2009 top five, carrying the entire picture on his slender shoulders. Think part 2001, part Lost, and part Sunshine, with plenty of originality to put it over the top. I could even see my rating being conservative as this sits and I check it out again.

4:00 - Beetle Queen Conquers Tokyo (Jessica Oreck, 2009) 30 / con

No, this isn't a monster movie about a 90-foot beetle trampling screaming pedestrians...unfortunately. Rather, it's a documentary about the Japanese obsession with insects, and it's a bore and a half; you can garner much deeper insight from Miyazaki's Nausicaa. This one has its moments (who knew Japanese children craved bugs like Americans do dogs?), but it's completely emotionally detached, with a monotonic narrator quoting passages (some beautiful, some not) from Japanese lore to illustrate the history. Even as a lecture, it's hardly useful; the film is frequently repetitive (seeing a child's eyes light up when playing an insect quest video game is cute the first time, but quickly loses its luster), and ultimately doesn't leave the audience feeling this immense connection that I know exists. And in theory, I'm the ideal audience for this, being an enormous fan of Japanese culture. Not at all recommended.

7:30 - All In - The Poker Movie (Douglas Tirola, 2009) 58 / pro (-)

A solid pro until the unnecessary fourth act that dwells on Chris Moneymaker's impact far more than required (the online section already covered what his WSOP win did for the game). I'll have much more to say about this one in a full review when I get back -- suffice to say, I enjoyed it more than most might due to my love for poker, but I'm also going to be harsher on its flaws in regards to what it didn't cover and what it overdid. It definitely should have been 15-20 minutes shorter. Eductational for those curious about poker's explosion this decade, though, and the Rounders section is perfect.

Five thoughts on the 2008 elections

First of all, congratulations, Barack Obama! Words can't describe what an incredible experience Tuesday evening was for me. After devoting so much emotional energy (not to mention $$$) since the Iowa caucuses to Obama's campaign, seeing it culminate in victory on November 4th was marvelous. Every swing state went his way, as his message and extraordinary organization won over the American people. Indiana, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Florida, and the entire Mountain West (Colorado, Nevada, & New Mexico) switched from red states to Barack blue. A beautiful night all-around. Hell, Obama only lost Montana by 3 points!

So, now the "fun" begins. President Bush has created quite a shitstorm, and it's not going to be easy to clean it up. I'll post some specific policy suggestions later, but for now, I want to lay out some thoughts that would help Obama's promise to govern in a bi-partisan manner ring true. So far, I think he's done an excellent job with his hiring decisions; Joe Biden as Vice-President and Rahm Emmanuel as Chief-of-Staff. The rest of his cabinet will be critical.

1. Hire some Republicans for cabinet positions. It's very important that the country doesn't think that a President Obama will drag the country further leftwards than we're ready for. A good way for Obama to show that he's serious about being a Centrist leader is to appoint a bi-partisan cabinet. Some possibilities are Chuck Hagel for Secretary of State or Defense, or Colin Powell for Education Secretary. There's no need to appoint right-wingers; moderate Republicans will do just fine.

2. The hot-button issue of abortion divides the country like few others. This election, Obama was one the first Democrat to put reducing abortions into the Democratic platform at the convention, and talked openly about his desire to do so while maintaining a pro-choice administration. His victory all-but-guarantees that Roe v. Wade should be safe for at least 30-40 years, by which time it's likely that the pro-choice crowd will drastically outnumber the pro-lifers, given the number of youths that identify as Democrats. Additionally, the younger Evangelical generation considers other humanitarian issues as equally important to their faith, such as poverty and climate change. Indeed, Obama doubled Kerry's margin among Evangelicals 18-29 (32%, up from Kerry's 16%), and has a chance to make further inroads among this group by showing he cares about their needs. Obama should reach out to Conservative leaders; for instance, the mindlessly beligerrent James Dobson is out of reach, but Tony Perkins has praised Obama for his attempts to discuss his faith (something that most Democrats are woefully uncomfortable doing). He should tell them that they'll have to agree to disagree on the issue of choice, but that he's serious about attempting to really cut down the number of abortions in this country, and he would love their help. It's impossible to know how they'd respond, but most of the country would look favorably upon a President being so inclusive.

3. Retain Robert Gates as Defense Secretary for at least a year. Gates has pushed a moderate foreign policy during Bush's second term, which has helped make it vastly superior to the first when it comes to strategies abroad. While Obama would doubtlessly like to hire his own man, he's going to have his hands full dealing with the economic crisis and a large transition in that department. Keeping Gates as a stopgap (at least) allows for some continuity in that area, albeit with a new Commander-in-Chief calling the shots and dictating strategies, and should appease Republicans who worry that Obama will be soft on National Security (alert: he won't).

4. Keep the grassroots involved. Because many of his policy decisions will be more moderate than some of his fiercest supporters and fundraisers on the left would like, it's imperative that he makes sure they know how important they are to him. Obama should send out regular emails to his supporters, stressing that they can help the Democratic party grow in stature & power by donating and contributing to local and state races. He can emphasize his hope that the American people give back to their country in the ways that you or John McCain did; join the military, peace corps, or local community service. Welcome suggestions from admirers. Part of the magic of the Obama campaign was how many people, like myself, felt part of it. Keep it up, and the country will be a better place.

5. Get a poodle for Sasha and Malia. We'd be so happy in Park Slope, and they're the best dogs ever!

Sarah Palin 2012? Not so fast.

I don't want to get ahead of myself, but things are looking mighty grim for GOP ticket in the waning days of the campaign. The electoral math is exceptionally daunting for McCain & co. Something dramatic will have to happen to give him the presidency, and by that, I mean voter repression like we've never seen before or some sort of horrible scandal - not likely. A Bin Laden video tape won't cut it this time around. Both national and statewide polls show Obama ahead of McCain by wide margins, and the Obama campaign boasts a far superior ground game to the flailing Big Mac campaign. Additionally, early voting numbers in states like North Carolina, Nevada, and Georgia all indicate the Dems are coming out with far more enthusiasm than weary Republicans. Factor all this together, and you could see a landslide Obama victory paired with massive Democratic pickups in the House and Senate.

Naturally, the finger pointing has already begun, with Republican operatives hurling expletives all over the place. One of the big new talking points on the right (and elsewhere, really) is that Sarah Palin is increasingly "going rogue" to avoid being the fall girl for the defeat, and to position herself to become the GOP nominee in '12. That's a lovely story, and I don't doubt that she's trying to distance herself from this disasterous situation. But, I think the odds of Palin being the next GOP nominee is 0.1%. Why? Well:

1) Her appeal is really restricted to the base.

And that base just isn't what it was. If you recall, way back in the Republican primaries, Mike Huckabee essentially swept the Bible Belt, winning Tennessee, Georgia, Arkansas (granted, he was the Governor there), Louisiana, Alabama, and Kansas. He received the vast majority of Evangelical support throughout. And it wasn't close to enough. To win in a changing country, the next GOP nominee will have to reach out beyond the party's core.

Palin's appeal is slightly different than Huckabee's, but both have the same flaws; very little appeal to Centrists or disaffected Democrats once their positions become fleshed out. And Palin has other problems. Her initial roll-out was botched, allowing her lack of international experience and substantive knowledge to be on full display without allowing her strengths other than "being likable" to shine. If I'd been running that campaign, Palin would have been out there giving policy addresses on energy, special needs children, and government reform from Week 1 instead of shielding her from the media. The country tends to be forgiving of gaffes (see: Biden, Joe) when they feel the gaffer is better than that. So a few mistakes on details would have likely been dismissed as semantics. But when the gaffes become defining characteristics...

It's possible (possible, not probable) that if Palin hadn't been chosen and had spent the next few years boning up on policy positions that affect the other 49 states, she might have been a fine candidate. She's certainly an able politician, and she would have had more control over crafting her image. But since she was thrust upon the American people, we've been force-fed more Palin than most of us care to stomach. As such, I think opinions of her as a potential leader of the free world are already too damaged to allow for a succesful run. It seems unlikely to me that many of the conservatives who have jumped ship would consider her the optimal choice in four years.

2) She's just not that strong of a candidate

While I don't think Palin is as stupid as her performance on the campaign trail suggests, there's also little indication that she's got the intellect or thirst for knowledge that could make an inspiring candidate. After George W. Bush, I believe the country is taking the President's brainpower much more seriously than before, and Palin's incomprehensible interview with Katie Couric indicated someone without any depth. "Being like me" may be appealing to a small sliver of the population, but most folks want their leader to be BETTER than them.

I've also yet to see her spout anything but GOP talking points on the economy or Iraq (in fact, before she was tapped as McCain's running mate, she had said she hoped we had an exit strategy in place; now it's all white flag, white flag). Does she have real convictions about this stuff? I don't believe so, and that's fine for the Governor of Alaska. It's not OK for a serious Presidential candidate.

3) Her views are out of touch with most of the country

There was one moment in her cartoony VP debate with Joe Biden that I thought Sarah Palin spoke with passion and candor; that was on the topic of Gay Marriage. Unlike everything else (the aforementioned talking points), it was clearly something that she has a strong view on and had put some thought into before August 29th. I'm sure the same is true of abortion, creationism, and, to a lesser extent, Global Warming.

Unfortunately for Palin, most of her views on these subjects are way off the mainstream. Not only does Palin oppose abortion rights, she opposes them in the case of rape and incest. She's been largely able to avoid talking about this as the VP nominee, but she won't have that luxury if she's at the top of the ticket. She'll have to explain to national audiences why the anti-Government party should be able to require someone's daughter by LAW to have their rapist's baby. That's a tough sell. Similarly, she'll have to tell the country what she would do about teaching sex education in schools (she opposes it). These views are likely to make the 24% of the population that approves of Bush' job performance giddy, and the other 76% nauseous (give or take a few percent, of course).

4) The country is changing before our eyes

John McCain has never been particularly liked by his own party. So, why did he win the GOP nomination by March 4th? Simple; the past eight years have been run by a "true conservative," and they've been an unmitigated disaster. The country chose the candidate who was perceive as far more moderate than the other choices (whether McCain actually qualifies as anything close to a moderate is a discussion for another time). Assuming Obama wins and governs as a Centrist, which I expect and hope, will the country opt for an extremist in '12? I just can't see it. Voters under the age of 30 identify as Democrats by a 20 point margin. That's an enormous problem for the Republicans, as they're in danger of getting swept into irrelevancy if they don't reform their image. McCain had the chance to do this by picking someone he really wanted like Joe Lieberman or Tom Ridge, saying "F you, base; this is what I think is best for America. Country First!", and crafting the GOP how he wants it. Sure, he'd have met resistance from blowhards like Limbaugh and Hannity, but he would have gotten their votes over Obama anyway, and he would have been far more appealing to the large portion of America that sits in the middle. Moreover, he would have said - by his actions, not words - that he's not George Bush, and he won't govern like him. He chose not to do so, and we're seeing the results in the polls (and, I hope, on November 4th).

Will America really swing all the way back to the right in 3-4 years? I just don't see it. And if they did, a candidate like Bobby Jindal (who I disagree with on 90% of issues, but actually somewhat like) may be a better choice than Palin anyway. Alaska's Governor has a lot of image reshaping to do if she wants to be more than a major player in the GOP's beloved internal circle, and become an appealing figure to the country at large.

the museums of Paris

Loved the Musée d'Orsay, which had a fascinating pastel series among other goodies. Unfortunately, the line to get into the Picasso/Manet exhibit was repressively long, so we missed that.

The Musée du Cinéma was next, and while it was heavily centered on technicality (there were endless cameras from the late 19th/early 20th century; cool stuff, but not what really excites me about cinema), there was still lots for me to love. Particularly awesome was a vast exhibit about Georges Méliès, a heavily influential director from the early 1900's who was one of the first filmmakers to blend reality and imagination on screen. I knew next to nothing about him before my visit here, and there are few things I love more than discovering a great new director, so I left the museum with a DVD of most of his shorts. Can't wait to watch them this week. Other highlights included the original gears from Chaplin's Modern Times (1936) and some dazzling prints from Fritz Lang's Metropolis (1927) and M (1931), and much of Murnau's work - I'm now eager to revisit Faust (1926), which I didn't much care for five years ago.

That Salvador Dali was one wacky fellow. The Dali musem was great; after spending an hour there, it's pretty evident why he and Buñuel were close! Their minds work in ways that I can't even comprehend, and I consider myself a pretty creative guy. His multiple images of the melted watch on various forms is just brilliant, as is the montage of photographs of his mustache at work (yes, really). I loved everything about his art - talk about up my alley.

We also visited the prison where Marie Antoinette was held, which was really cool, and visited the Arc de Triomphe, which was magnificent to look at from the outside and packed some sort of view from the top. Talk about panoramic! Also, Notre Dame is pretty stunning.

Today, we're heading to another museum or two, and to possibly tour the catacombs. This damn sleeping 'til 12 thing isn't helping, though!

trip recap thusfar...

...to come, perhaps even later tonight if I get up the energy. I'm pretty tired, and tomorrow's a big day; I'll be recreating the Before Sunset walk (joy! I just can't wait to do that...I've wanted to ever since I first saw it), and going to several museums. But I've got thoughts on multiple exhibits just itching to hit the screen. I also saw Appaloosa today, which I'll write up when I get home. Meh. Deadwood it is not; in fact, it's not even close to The Proposition.

And I still need to get out some political commentary. Before the weekend concludes, I promise.