Friday, February 28, 2003
Since I have been remiss in writing my Chicago review (this year's Best Picture winner), here's my review of last year's Best Picture winner...
Best of Francis: A Beautiful Mind review - December, 2001
It is time for somebody to break Ron Howard out of his funk. It has now been 8 years since his only great movie, Apollo 13, and his track record since isn't pretty (Ransom, EdTV, The Grinch). Unfortunately, A Beautiful Mind is not the film to do it, though it has its merits and at times is pretty interesting - if never all that good.
While the performances are generally good, each one seems to veer within itself. Crowe starts off with a rather nuanced eccentric, but it eventually devolves into a standard tic-laden "malady movie" hero. (See Awakenings.) Granted, there is a plot-related reason for this, and you could argue that it is character development, but I just found it uneven. Connelly is impressive, but has moments that are really bad. The other actors do their best, but only Christopher Plummer and Ed Harris have the gravitas this film should require. (When Judd Hirsch is one of the biggest names in the cast, you had better hope you have some unknowns who are capable of heavy lifting, and this film does not.) Still, it was good to see Paul Bettany (A Knight's Tale's Chaucer) working again so quickly and in a somewhat interesting role.
The big problem is the drama. The movie is not manipulative, it aspires to manipulate and can't quite get there. At times it feels like what we movie buffs refer to as Lifetime: Television for Women Movie. It is great to be a hack, but please do us all a favor and at least make the film live up to the genre/manipulation/etc. that you are "hack"ing.
That having been said, the movie raises some interesting questions, about sanity for example. There are enough moments to make the film watchable, and it looks pretty darn good too (and not just Jennifer Connelly), but the exercise was ultimately cold when it needed to be involving.
But hey, maybe it's just me; Ebert gave it ****. I give it a **1/2 out of ****. If I think about it over the next few days, I may push it to ***. [I didn't. --MCK] Based on my lukewarm response, I fully expect the film to win Best Picture in March. [Good call, eh? And two months before the nominations came out. --MCK]
Final note: the weird, unsure way that time progresses in this film. GoodFellas and Cast Away this ain't.
. . .
Wednesday, February 26, 2003
The Outlook
(The following is excerpted from an e-mail I sent earlier today in response to the suggestion that Bush is well-positioned for 2004. I am not making any definitive call here, just surveying the lay of the land. Enjoy.)
As anyone who has talked politics with me for more than five seconds knows, I am a big believer of the "Thirteen Keys" theory. (The most recent edition of the book is here.)
Based on that system, which (according to the author, anyway) correctly predicts every election since 1860, Bush is indeed in a great position. But it is more because of what he has accomplished than any particular way the Democrats are acting (though I suppose their disarray is an indicator of Bush's successes).
Here is what Bush has going for him as of now (i.e. predictors of reelection):
- The big win in the 2002 midterms- not only did he gain seats over 2000, but the GOP is cumulatively up since 1998 (even with the loss of seats in 2000). [The GOP had 223 seats after the 1998 election, 221 after the 2000 election, and holds 229 today.]
- He will be an incumbent president running for re-election.
- He will likely be unchallenged for the Republican nomination.
- He has effected a major change in the direction of national policy (massive tax cuts, massive reorganization of government through the Homeland Security Department, the "Bush Doctrine"), the first president to do so since Reagan's first term.
- There's no civil disorder (a la 1968).
- There's no scandal.
- We will likely have a major military victory (the biggest since the first Gulf War, and arguably the biggest since WWII).
- There is no charismatic Democratic challenger on the horizon.
Against Bush:- Long-term economy: 2001-2004 will be worse than 1993-2000.
Major military failure: The U.S. suffered its worst attack since Pearl Harbor on his watch.Bush is not particularly charismatic.
Indeterminate:- Short-term economy: Will the economy be in recession in November 2004?
- Third-party candidate: Will there be a significant 3rd party candidate (who does not represent a split in the Democrats)?
Anyway, according to the system, you need 8 keys to predict a win (in the popular vote). If things continue as they are, he should win regardless of what happens with the economy or a 3rd party.
But if he backs down on Iraq (or we somehow fail to topple the regime), you can bet he will be challenged for the nomination (by McCain or Hagel) and face one of them as a third party candidate. Even more creepy, if we have another 9/11 (or multiple attacks), we could see civil disorder.
But to my eyes, the election is shaping up like 1984... the only prominent differences being the failure of 9/11, Bush's lack of charisma, and Bush's midterm gains where Reagan lost. Otherwise it is an almost identical match. As of now, I would say it looks like Bush stands to get about 51% to 53% of the popular vote, an easy win (if not really a landslide).
. . .
Tuesday, February 25, 2003
Sorry, Francis fans... I've been busy these past few days. Gotta tide you over with a rerun, but in this case it's particularly apropos.
Background: in July of last year, a young Neo-Nazi tried to kill Jacques Chirac. This ironically happened as France was seeing an explosion of anti-Semitic violence, and little or nothing was being done by the French government - to stop it, I mean.
Now, let me be clear: despite my most recent postings, I am no Francophobe (nor am I a Francophile, per se); on Saturday I patronized a French café/chocolatier, while many are suggesting a boycott of such establishments. I do think the French, or at least their leadership, are deeply misguided right now; but as I am patient with my friends who are so often wrong, so should we be with France.
But comedy is comedy, so here you go...
Best of Francis: Top Ten List - July 18, 2002
Top 10 (plus 3 bonus) Reasons a Young Neo-Nazi Recently Tried to Kill Jacques Chirac (co-authored with Jake)
13) Chirac in arrears in dues payments
12) Chirac gave long, boring speech at Neo-Nazi's "Man of the Year" dinner; wiener schnitzel got cold
11) Was really aiming at parade Grand Marshal Jerry Lewis
10) Distraught that Oprah is going off the air
9) Chirac continues to achieve all the neo-Nazis' goals on his own; leaving young neo-Nazis with nothing to strive for
8) Prices for the "Have Your Picture Taken with Hitler" Concession at EuroDisney "Hall of Presidents" being hiked by 3 francs
7) Parisian Neo-Nazis Local 1135 only getting 15% pay raise this year
6) Frustrated in getting tickets to the Paris production of "The Producers".
5) Objected to chosen picture of "Fat" Himmler on the new 5-franc coin.
4) Driven insane by that horrible Bruce Willis "Jackal" movie a few years back.
3) Wanted to impress Jodie Foster.
2) Was protesting that gay Neo-Nazis still prohibited from marching in Paris's annual St. Adolf's Day Parade.
And the Number One Reason a Young Neo-Nazi Recently Tried to Kill Jacques Chirac...
1) "Chirac was there? I was just trying to kill some Jews like everyone else in France!"
. . .
|
. . .
|
