Well it isn't final yet. And I haven't written any analysis. But I am leaving this here on Tuesday, January 26 as a place holder while I debate these choices with myself. The lists are in order of likelihood, so I think Avatar is the most likely Best Picture nominee.
And I am officially giving up on the Documentary and Foreign Language categories. Until I can figure what in the world is going on with them, I give up even trying to guess.
BEST PICTURE
Avatar
Up in the Air
The Hurt Locker
Inglorious Basterds
Precious
Up
Julie & Julia
Crazy Heart
An Education
The Blind Side
BEST DIRECTOR
James Cameron (Avatar)
Kathryn Bigelow (The Hurt Locker)
Jason Reitman (Up in the Air)
Quentin Tarentino (Inglorious Basterds)
Lee Daniels (Precious)
BEST ACTOR
Jeff Bridges (Crazy Heart)
George Clooney (Up in the Air)
Colin Firth (A Single Man)
Morgan Freeman (Invictus)
Jeremy Renner ( The Hurt Locker)
BEST ACTRESS
Meryl Streep (Julie & Julia)
Sandra Bullock (The Blind Side)
Carey Mulligan (An Education)
Gabourney Sidibe (Precious)
Helen Mirren (The Last Station)
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Christoph Waltz (Inglorious Basterds)
Woody Harrelson (The Messenger)
Stanley Tucci (The Lovely Bones)
Matt Damon (Invictus)
Christian McKay (Me and Orson Welles)
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Mo'Nique (Precious)
Vera Farmiga (Up in the Air)
Anna Kendrick (Up in the Air)
Julianne Moore (A Single Man)
Maggie Gyllenhaal (Crazy Heart)
BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
Inglorious Basterds
Up
The Hurt Locker
A Serious Man
(500) Days of Summer
BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Up in the Air
An Education
Precious
Crazy Heart
District 9
BEST ANIMATED FEATURE
Up
Coraline
The Princess and the Frog
The Fantastic Mr. Fox
Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs
BEST ART DIRECTION
Inglorious Basterds
Public Enemies
Sherlock Holmes
Avatar
The Young Victoria
BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY
Inglorious Basterds
The Hurt Locker
Avatar
The White Ribbon
HArry Potter and the Half Blood Prince
BEST COSTUMES
Coco Before Chanel
Nine
The Young Victoria
Sherlock Holmes
Julie & Julia
BEST EDITING
The Hurt Locker
Avatar
Star Trek
Inglorious Basterds
District 9
BEST MAKEUP
District 9
Star Trek
The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus
BEST ORIGINAL SCORE
The Informant!
Up
Sherlock Holmes
Avatar
The Fantastic Mr. Fox
BEST ORIGINAL SONG
"The Weary Kind" (Crazy Heart)
"Down in New Orleans" (The Princess and the Frog)
"I See You" (Avatar)
"You've Got Me Wrapped Around Your Little Finger" (An Education)
"(I Want To) Come Home" (Everybody's Fine)
BEST SOUND EDITING
Avatar
The Hurt Locker
Star Trek
Transformers 2
2012
BEST SOUND MIXING
Avatar
The Hurt Locker
Star Trek
District 9
Up
BEST VISUAL EFFECTS
Avatar
District 9
Where The Wild Things Are
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Sunday 1/24/10
WHY I DON'T WATCH IDOL
I watched American Idol regularly for a few seasons. And the basic formula, in which only one singer is cut per week, is brillant because it invites rooting interests. That part of the formula still works.
But they lost me after the season Jordin Sparks. She was not the most talented singer that seaon. But she was the most marketable, and the not so subtle hands of the producers trying to get the winner they wanted, one year after having been stuck with a winner they hated in Taylor Hicks.
Honestly, that wasn't the main reason they lost me. I actually tried to watch the next season, and threw in the towel after half an hour. And I haven't been back. And the reason is on display right now.
In the Jordin season, there just wasn't as much fun throughout the season. And the reason was simple: the groundwork hadn't been laid. The opening episodes, in the tryouts, should be the establishment of the future stars. At that point, showing the tryouts of most of the contestants who make it, as well as a few who don't but just miss, would make for interesting television.
Then in the Hollywood sessions, the raw talent can start to shine, and the audience can develop its rooting interest. By the time the show is down to fan voting, the fans will know who they are voting for.
But we all know that is not what happens. Why do that when we can make fun of the pour untalented souls who dare to try out? There is a screening process to get to a televised tryout, so that make it even more ridiculous. They are sending through the weakest singers so America can point and laugh, and the judges can literally laugh.
This is high school behavior. The popular rich kids can sit on their butts and laugh at the others daring to gain their acceptance. So American Idol turns its first few episodes into insultfests, the real contestants get no airtime, and by the time the fan voting rolls around no one knows the majority of the contestants.
Well whatever, but I got tired of the bad taste in my mouth. And a funny thing happened when I stopped watching: I didn't miss it. I still don't. I'll probably never watch again.
USING OTHER AWARD SHOWS TO PREDICT OSCAR
Some analyses of the Oscar nominations have Golden Globe winners having an influence. Not really. They are not a true indicator. No one who votes for the Golden Globes is an Oscar voter. So why watch? Because most of the audience members at the event are Oscar voters. How the audience responds is the indicator.
So when Mo'Nique gets louder applause than her fellow nominees, that is an indicator the stories she isn't handling her campaign correctly are hogwash. She is still the heavy favorite to win supporting actress Oscar. The clear indicator from the evening was the standing ovation Jeff Bridges received. He is going to win the Oscar for best actor. That proved he is an absolute lock, and is also an indicator Crazy Heart could be a picture nominee.
However, there is crossover between the SAG awards and the Oscars. Like all guilds, they are an indication of strong candidates. The big news from last night was Sandra Bullock's win. I had her as barely in the actress race. Clearly, I was wrong. She will be nominated. I still don't think she will beat Streep, but for now, the nomination is the thing, and Bullock will get her first nomination this year. And this is also an indication The Blind Side is beloved, and has a shot at a picture nomination.
I watched American Idol regularly for a few seasons. And the basic formula, in which only one singer is cut per week, is brillant because it invites rooting interests. That part of the formula still works.
But they lost me after the season Jordin Sparks. She was not the most talented singer that seaon. But she was the most marketable, and the not so subtle hands of the producers trying to get the winner they wanted, one year after having been stuck with a winner they hated in Taylor Hicks.
Honestly, that wasn't the main reason they lost me. I actually tried to watch the next season, and threw in the towel after half an hour. And I haven't been back. And the reason is on display right now.
In the Jordin season, there just wasn't as much fun throughout the season. And the reason was simple: the groundwork hadn't been laid. The opening episodes, in the tryouts, should be the establishment of the future stars. At that point, showing the tryouts of most of the contestants who make it, as well as a few who don't but just miss, would make for interesting television.
Then in the Hollywood sessions, the raw talent can start to shine, and the audience can develop its rooting interest. By the time the show is down to fan voting, the fans will know who they are voting for.
But we all know that is not what happens. Why do that when we can make fun of the pour untalented souls who dare to try out? There is a screening process to get to a televised tryout, so that make it even more ridiculous. They are sending through the weakest singers so America can point and laugh, and the judges can literally laugh.
This is high school behavior. The popular rich kids can sit on their butts and laugh at the others daring to gain their acceptance. So American Idol turns its first few episodes into insultfests, the real contestants get no airtime, and by the time the fan voting rolls around no one knows the majority of the contestants.
Well whatever, but I got tired of the bad taste in my mouth. And a funny thing happened when I stopped watching: I didn't miss it. I still don't. I'll probably never watch again.
USING OTHER AWARD SHOWS TO PREDICT OSCAR
Some analyses of the Oscar nominations have Golden Globe winners having an influence. Not really. They are not a true indicator. No one who votes for the Golden Globes is an Oscar voter. So why watch? Because most of the audience members at the event are Oscar voters. How the audience responds is the indicator.
So when Mo'Nique gets louder applause than her fellow nominees, that is an indicator the stories she isn't handling her campaign correctly are hogwash. She is still the heavy favorite to win supporting actress Oscar. The clear indicator from the evening was the standing ovation Jeff Bridges received. He is going to win the Oscar for best actor. That proved he is an absolute lock, and is also an indicator Crazy Heart could be a picture nominee.
However, there is crossover between the SAG awards and the Oscars. Like all guilds, they are an indication of strong candidates. The big news from last night was Sandra Bullock's win. I had her as barely in the actress race. Clearly, I was wrong. She will be nominated. I still don't think she will beat Streep, but for now, the nomination is the thing, and Bullock will get her first nomination this year. And this is also an indication The Blind Side is beloved, and has a shot at a picture nomination.
WHOOPS
I thought I had published this Sunday evening. I came back to my Dashboard to start preparing my Oscar prediction piece and saw it had not published yet. Sorry.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Nine (2009)
Towards the end of the credits of Nine, there is actually a credit announcing Fiat, Alfa Romeo, and some other fancy car I'll never drive as the official cars of Nine. That was immediately after a credit declaring the official watch of Nine.
Sadly, that's what at the heart and soul of Nine. It was coldly calculated to win awards, and does not have any apparent reason for being. It would be easy to blame director Rob Marshall (Chicago), but the problems lie deeper than that. It's not directed particularly well, but even if it was, I don't think the film would have worked anyway.
Your musical is in trouble when its score is forgettable. I've not seen Nine on the stage, but I imagine some of spectacle comes across better live, and overcomes the music, which just doesn't connect in the head.
Another big problem is the way the numbers are put together. The camera hurls around constantly and there are quick cuts galore, making it far too much work to follow. It wasn't quite Michael Bay: the musical, but it was way too close to that.
Making matters worse is the structure of the film. Basically, the film consists of the main character, a great film director, unable to decide what he wants to make. The film cuts from his life problems making his movie, to the fantasy musical world, and often cuts back to the real world in the middle of the numbers. If the frantic editing wasn't making the numbers weak enough, the crosscutting is maddening.
The cast is uniformly good. They are giving their all, and all are in good voice. But with the maddening technique, the mediocre music, and poor editing, I found myself being pushed away from the film. Even when there were moments to admire, I just didn't care what happened by the end of the film.
And I felt the gears moving. Too many times it really felt like this was supposed to be Chicago, part 2. Problem is, since that overrated film, we have seen many musicals better than Chicago, let alone Nine. Let me put it this way: Nine is just good enough to make me curious to see it on the stage, because with all its success, it had to be better than this. Grade: D+
Sadly, that's what at the heart and soul of Nine. It was coldly calculated to win awards, and does not have any apparent reason for being. It would be easy to blame director Rob Marshall (Chicago), but the problems lie deeper than that. It's not directed particularly well, but even if it was, I don't think the film would have worked anyway.
Your musical is in trouble when its score is forgettable. I've not seen Nine on the stage, but I imagine some of spectacle comes across better live, and overcomes the music, which just doesn't connect in the head.
Another big problem is the way the numbers are put together. The camera hurls around constantly and there are quick cuts galore, making it far too much work to follow. It wasn't quite Michael Bay: the musical, but it was way too close to that.
Making matters worse is the structure of the film. Basically, the film consists of the main character, a great film director, unable to decide what he wants to make. The film cuts from his life problems making his movie, to the fantasy musical world, and often cuts back to the real world in the middle of the numbers. If the frantic editing wasn't making the numbers weak enough, the crosscutting is maddening.
The cast is uniformly good. They are giving their all, and all are in good voice. But with the maddening technique, the mediocre music, and poor editing, I found myself being pushed away from the film. Even when there were moments to admire, I just didn't care what happened by the end of the film.
And I felt the gears moving. Too many times it really felt like this was supposed to be Chicago, part 2. Problem is, since that overrated film, we have seen many musicals better than Chicago, let alone Nine. Let me put it this way: Nine is just good enough to make me curious to see it on the stage, because with all its success, it had to be better than this. Grade: D+
Monday, January 18, 2010
Boycott (2001)
Somehow, I've never seen this HBO film. (and oddly, not on my list of films to see) So when I saw it on the TV listings this afternoon, I thought it an excellent way to honor Martin Luther King Day.
It's a portrayal of the Montgomery Bus Boycott, as well as the birth of the Civil Rights Movement. The focus is closest on King and Ralph Abernathy, and how King became seen as the leader of a movement he really didn't start.
I appreciated how the film did not portray them as always confident or sure what would happen, but finding themselves as leaders as the movement continues. And I definitely appreciated the casting especially Jeffrey Wright as King and Terrence Howard as Abernathy.
This is quality filmmaking, and I'm glad I finally caught up with it. Grade: A-
It's a portrayal of the Montgomery Bus Boycott, as well as the birth of the Civil Rights Movement. The focus is closest on King and Ralph Abernathy, and how King became seen as the leader of a movement he really didn't start.
I appreciated how the film did not portray them as always confident or sure what would happen, but finding themselves as leaders as the movement continues. And I definitely appreciated the casting especially Jeffrey Wright as King and Terrence Howard as Abernathy.
This is quality filmmaking, and I'm glad I finally caught up with it. Grade: A-
The Lovely Bones (2009)
"It's stuffed full of Peter Jackson's typically dazzling imagery, but The Lovely Bones suffers from abrupt shifts between horrific violence and cloying sentimentality," -- Rotten Tomatoes
Huh?
"The Lovely Bones is a deporable film with thie message: if you're a 14-year-old girl who has been brutally raped and murdered by a serial killer, you have a lot to look forward to." -- Roger Ebert
What???
A day after seeing the film, I'm still trying to sort through my thoughts about the film, so I did something a reviewer is not supposed to do, which is read through several reviews. Yet no one seems to have seen the movie I did. Or at least none of the reviews I did.
Most of the reviews do not like the protrayal of the afterlife. Too many effects, so many visuals that are distracting. I disagree. Yes, its visual. But for me, the visuals were not distracting, they work. That's because always front and center is Saoirse Ronan. Screen acting is often in the eyes, and Ronan's eyes at such a young ages are amazingly expressive.
The other part of the afterlife that is different from what I saw is the tone. I've read reviews, like Ebert's, which take apart the view of afterlife that is too happy. Yet I did not see this vision as happy. Ronan's character is not jumping for joy. She is so wrapped up in grief she is unable to move on. This is not seen as a celebration.
Yeah, there are shifts, but horrific violence? Where? The main character is murdered, but it isn't shown. And cloying sentimentality? Don't see that either. There are problems in the film, but cloying is not what I was seeing.
These are not the biggest problems with the film. There is some odd shifts in tone, but in different ways than described by Rotten Tomatoes. Most of the film is about learning to cope with loss, and moving on. Ronan's character is struggling with it in the afterlife, and her family is too. With one basic exception.
That would be Susan Sarandon's character. She blows in from some bad sitcom somewhere, and its jarring. Nothing about her character felt real to me. She's slapstick and completely at odds with the mournful tone of the rest of the film. A real bad distraction.
The other problem took me a little more time to realize. There are several scenes that are too quick, too abrupt. I suspect the problems of trying to adapt a book that did not read in two hours are at fault here. In trying to get all the moments from a book, the filmmakers just tried to cram too much in, blunting the effect of some of the scenes.
That said, this film will stay with me longer than better made, less daring films will. There is much to recommend and celebrate about this film. The scenes of a family trying to cope and move on from an unimaginable tragedy are effective. The scenes of an afterlife that are tryuly stunning. And I haven't mentioned the work of Stanley Tucci, in a subtle performance as a tortured soul. Miles apart from his work in Julie & Julia. He has had a great year.
Flawed? Yes. Worthy? Yes. But I'm still trying to figure out what movie the other reviewers saw. Grade: B
Huh?
"The Lovely Bones is a deporable film with thie message: if you're a 14-year-old girl who has been brutally raped and murdered by a serial killer, you have a lot to look forward to." -- Roger Ebert
What???
A day after seeing the film, I'm still trying to sort through my thoughts about the film, so I did something a reviewer is not supposed to do, which is read through several reviews. Yet no one seems to have seen the movie I did. Or at least none of the reviews I did.
Most of the reviews do not like the protrayal of the afterlife. Too many effects, so many visuals that are distracting. I disagree. Yes, its visual. But for me, the visuals were not distracting, they work. That's because always front and center is Saoirse Ronan. Screen acting is often in the eyes, and Ronan's eyes at such a young ages are amazingly expressive.
The other part of the afterlife that is different from what I saw is the tone. I've read reviews, like Ebert's, which take apart the view of afterlife that is too happy. Yet I did not see this vision as happy. Ronan's character is not jumping for joy. She is so wrapped up in grief she is unable to move on. This is not seen as a celebration.
Yeah, there are shifts, but horrific violence? Where? The main character is murdered, but it isn't shown. And cloying sentimentality? Don't see that either. There are problems in the film, but cloying is not what I was seeing.
These are not the biggest problems with the film. There is some odd shifts in tone, but in different ways than described by Rotten Tomatoes. Most of the film is about learning to cope with loss, and moving on. Ronan's character is struggling with it in the afterlife, and her family is too. With one basic exception.
That would be Susan Sarandon's character. She blows in from some bad sitcom somewhere, and its jarring. Nothing about her character felt real to me. She's slapstick and completely at odds with the mournful tone of the rest of the film. A real bad distraction.
The other problem took me a little more time to realize. There are several scenes that are too quick, too abrupt. I suspect the problems of trying to adapt a book that did not read in two hours are at fault here. In trying to get all the moments from a book, the filmmakers just tried to cram too much in, blunting the effect of some of the scenes.
That said, this film will stay with me longer than better made, less daring films will. There is much to recommend and celebrate about this film. The scenes of a family trying to cope and move on from an unimaginable tragedy are effective. The scenes of an afterlife that are tryuly stunning. And I haven't mentioned the work of Stanley Tucci, in a subtle performance as a tortured soul. Miles apart from his work in Julie & Julia. He has had a great year.
Flawed? Yes. Worthy? Yes. But I'm still trying to figure out what movie the other reviewers saw. Grade: B
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Sunday 1/17/10
GOLDEN GLOBES
The goofiest, most corrupt award show is upon us tonight. And I wouldn't miss it. The story about the Hollywood Foreign Press and its general worthlessness is one I believe -- these are not real journalists, they are hangers-on to Hollywood -- but they throw a good party, and are usually one of the most fun of the award shows to watch. When trying to predict, there are two things to remember: the HFPA likes to think they are hip and are genuinely starstruck.
Picture (Drama): This is where all the heavy hitters of this season lie. Nothing other than Precious would surprise me here. Nothing other than Inglourious Basterds would disappoint me. I can't quite bring myself to call an upset here, so I'll predict the big hit: Avatar.
Picture (Comedy): No big hitters here. I'm really surprised The Proposal is not nominated. I'll predict the one film I see in the Oscar race, Julie & Julia.
Actor (Drama): Jeff Bridges in a walk.
Actress (Drama): I think that Sandra Bullock's going to win somewhere tonight. And with no other major stars in ths category, this is where it will be.
Actor (Comedy): Not only is Matt Damon a big star, but he was great in The Informant! So he wins here.
Actress (Comedy): As with Damon, Streep wins both because of starpower and ability. I think it is for Julie & Julia.
Supporting Actor: Christoph Waltz. Inglourious Basterds has to win womething.
Supporting Actress: While I don't think campaigning is as critical for Oscars, it is for the Globes, and I think it will cost Mo'Nique this award. Vera Farmiga will benefit.
Animated Feature: Up. Because it's Pixar.
Foreign Language Film: The White Ribbon has the most accolades out of this list.
Director: Here's where the want to be hip factor comes in, because a woman can actually win. In fact, I think Kathryn Bigelow will. Deserves got nothing to do with it (as one of her fellow nominees once said).
Screenplay: The big name here is Quentin Tarantino, and I think he wins.
Score: I think the retro score of Marvin Hamlisch for The Informant! has a lot of fans, and will win here.
Song: The Crazy Heart love works here, for "The Weary Kind".
I'm not going to go category by category in the TV awards, partially because I have never seen most of the shows, but I do think Glee is in for a big night.
THE OBVIOUS
I'm a big St. Louis Cardinals fan, so I have had several people ask my reaction to Mark McGwire's confession this week he used steroids. I made my peace with this fact five years ago, after he refused to discuss the past while testifying to Congress. It was clear to me then what McGwire said this week: he wanted to confess then, but his lawyers told him not to do it.
I also was expecting this story. When McGwire was hired last fall to be the Cardinals' new hitting instructor, I knew this announcement would come before spring training. I knew he decided it was time to face the music so he could come back to the game he loves. Now here it is.
To be angry at McGwire is to be angry at him because he was better than everyone else who was using (except perhaps, Barry Bonds). It is now widely believed steroids were all over the place in the '90s in baseball. How many people have confessed? Five, maybe? And everyone's angry at McGwire when he actually apologized? There are better places for my anger.
FOR EXAMPLE...
Roger Ebert just about nailed my reaction to Rush Limbaugh's deplorable comments this week involving Obama and Haiti. Go to his site and read it. I'll just add, ditto.
WHILE WE'RE TALKING POLITICS
What exactly is Fox News accomplishing hiring Sarah Palin? If you want analysis, this is not the person you hire. You hire someone behind the scenes at the campaigns who actually does analysis. Not her. I'm looking forward to her explanation of the best way to get rid of global warming is to cut corporate taxes.
I do have a question for Sarah Palin, since your answer for everything seems to be to cut taxes. Why did you go into government in the first place, if all you seem to be interested in is getting rid of it?
PERSONAL HEALTH UPDATE
No weight change. Blood suger at the doctor's this week was 163. Normal is 100. Though my daily readings are dropping after this latest medication change. Maybe there's hope for me yet.
The goofiest, most corrupt award show is upon us tonight. And I wouldn't miss it. The story about the Hollywood Foreign Press and its general worthlessness is one I believe -- these are not real journalists, they are hangers-on to Hollywood -- but they throw a good party, and are usually one of the most fun of the award shows to watch. When trying to predict, there are two things to remember: the HFPA likes to think they are hip and are genuinely starstruck.
Picture (Drama): This is where all the heavy hitters of this season lie. Nothing other than Precious would surprise me here. Nothing other than Inglourious Basterds would disappoint me. I can't quite bring myself to call an upset here, so I'll predict the big hit: Avatar.
Picture (Comedy): No big hitters here. I'm really surprised The Proposal is not nominated. I'll predict the one film I see in the Oscar race, Julie & Julia.
Actor (Drama): Jeff Bridges in a walk.
Actress (Drama): I think that Sandra Bullock's going to win somewhere tonight. And with no other major stars in ths category, this is where it will be.
Actor (Comedy): Not only is Matt Damon a big star, but he was great in The Informant! So he wins here.
Actress (Comedy): As with Damon, Streep wins both because of starpower and ability. I think it is for Julie & Julia.
Supporting Actor: Christoph Waltz. Inglourious Basterds has to win womething.
Supporting Actress: While I don't think campaigning is as critical for Oscars, it is for the Globes, and I think it will cost Mo'Nique this award. Vera Farmiga will benefit.
Animated Feature: Up. Because it's Pixar.
Foreign Language Film: The White Ribbon has the most accolades out of this list.
Director: Here's where the want to be hip factor comes in, because a woman can actually win. In fact, I think Kathryn Bigelow will. Deserves got nothing to do with it (as one of her fellow nominees once said).
Screenplay: The big name here is Quentin Tarantino, and I think he wins.
Score: I think the retro score of Marvin Hamlisch for The Informant! has a lot of fans, and will win here.
Song: The Crazy Heart love works here, for "The Weary Kind".
I'm not going to go category by category in the TV awards, partially because I have never seen most of the shows, but I do think Glee is in for a big night.
THE OBVIOUS
I'm a big St. Louis Cardinals fan, so I have had several people ask my reaction to Mark McGwire's confession this week he used steroids. I made my peace with this fact five years ago, after he refused to discuss the past while testifying to Congress. It was clear to me then what McGwire said this week: he wanted to confess then, but his lawyers told him not to do it.
I also was expecting this story. When McGwire was hired last fall to be the Cardinals' new hitting instructor, I knew this announcement would come before spring training. I knew he decided it was time to face the music so he could come back to the game he loves. Now here it is.
To be angry at McGwire is to be angry at him because he was better than everyone else who was using (except perhaps, Barry Bonds). It is now widely believed steroids were all over the place in the '90s in baseball. How many people have confessed? Five, maybe? And everyone's angry at McGwire when he actually apologized? There are better places for my anger.
FOR EXAMPLE...
Roger Ebert just about nailed my reaction to Rush Limbaugh's deplorable comments this week involving Obama and Haiti. Go to his site and read it. I'll just add, ditto.
WHILE WE'RE TALKING POLITICS
What exactly is Fox News accomplishing hiring Sarah Palin? If you want analysis, this is not the person you hire. You hire someone behind the scenes at the campaigns who actually does analysis. Not her. I'm looking forward to her explanation of the best way to get rid of global warming is to cut corporate taxes.
I do have a question for Sarah Palin, since your answer for everything seems to be to cut taxes. Why did you go into government in the first place, if all you seem to be interested in is getting rid of it?
PERSONAL HEALTH UPDATE
No weight change. Blood suger at the doctor's this week was 163. Normal is 100. Though my daily readings are dropping after this latest medication change. Maybe there's hope for me yet.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
The Iron Giant (1999)
My son was supposed to go to my parents for an overnight last night. I stuck this in the machine to watch because someone has just given me the DVD as a gift and I was checking it out.
He got caught up in the film and never made it to my parents'.
This was Brad Bird's first feature, who then went and made The Incredibles and Ratatouille for Pixar. If you enjoyed those two and never saw The Iron Giant, you owe it to yourself to see the proof that the other two films' excellence is more than just Pixar.
Brad Bird just knows how to make a film. Grade: A
He got caught up in the film and never made it to my parents'.
This was Brad Bird's first feature, who then went and made The Incredibles and Ratatouille for Pixar. If you enjoyed those two and never saw The Iron Giant, you owe it to yourself to see the proof that the other two films' excellence is more than just Pixar.
Brad Bird just knows how to make a film. Grade: A
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
