My, how time does get away from me!
Lately I have been buried in the wonderful world of taxation. This year I am charged with not only doing the taxes for my family's pizza operation in 2009, but also the sale of the business as well. Then thrown into the mix I'm getting my first taste of corporate taxes by doing those for my friend Dan's title company. Throw in a couple personal taxes into the mix (including my own) and . . . let's just say that I've become intimately familiar with the IRS website over the last couple of weeks. It's times like these that I wonder why I became a CPA. It's not that I particularly enjoy taxes. I think it's just that I hate and fear them just a little less than most people, so it makes me a prime candidate. Come to think of it, that probably explains why I'm an auditor too.
Quick update on my book quest. So far I have combed through all 3 of the Presidential debates from 1992 and just finished reading a book about the entire campaign (Mad as Hell: Revolt at the Ballot Box). Even though it was much more about the political spin involved in a campaign than it was about the actual platform of the candidates, it was very interesting and should serve as good background and at least give me a timeline for events. And I now know more about Paul Tsongas than I ever thought I would. Next up for me will be to start sorting through some primary sources from the campaign: I'd like to get a copy of Clinton's economic plan that he revealed in the summer of '92 and I also need to go through his nomination acceptance speech at the '92 convention. Then I think I need to start spending some quality time at the library going through old Time, Newsweek, and Economist magazines from '92. But of course, all that will be saved until after taxes.
Tangentally related, in reading the title "Mad as Hell" it reminded me that I still had not seen the movie Network and decided to rectify that. I've still been watching quite a bit of movies lately but that's the only one that I can label as a "must see". It fluctuates between being pretty dated and almost eerily prescient and at times it's a little unfocused, but it is always entertaining and there are some scenes, dialogues, and monologues in it that stand up to some of the best ones ever written for the screen. Definitely add it to your Netflix queue if you haven't seen it (since it seems like you aren't able to get any new releases from them anymore anyway).
Just a quick hit on some of the other movies I've seen lately. For those who charge that Al Pacino can't act, you should definitely check out Dog Day Afternoon. After the first two Godfather's, it's probably the last time where he really truly did some acting before he just started playing Al Pacino for the next 30 years. Unless, of course, you count his waaaaayyyy over the top and cartoony (but awesome) portrayal in Scarface a couple years later. Oh and I finally saw Hitchcock's Rebecca. I hesitate to give it such a mediocre review because I absolutely adore Hitchcock, but the movie just didn't do it for me. I think it's just too dated and the premise has been ripped off too many times. What was a "shocking twist" in 1940 is now an overplayed cliche. I realize I shouldn't hold that against Hitchcock (and I don't) but still it's what caused me to have a pretty ho-hum reaction to the movie and thus I can't really recommend it except to Hitchcock die-hards (who have probably already seen it).
Finally, I agree with Ebert that this year's Oscars are pretty easy to predict. The Hurt Locker for Best Picture, Bullock and Bridges in the leading categories, Waltz and Mo'Nique in the supporting categories, and Bigelow for Director. James Cameron will just have to console himself with a Scrooge McDuck-style swim in his vault.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
It seems yet again I'm going to mark the 'best movie of the year' as an ok, great looking, non-innovative, recycled plot movie.
And no, I'm not just anti anything thats popular, just why would that be the best one?
Is it the first to follow some soldiers around on a journey? Is it the best war movie of all time? Hardly...
Why is this an important movie? Why is it good? 'War is a drug.' ok... and? It worked. It did what it did well, but I don't think that was very much.
Inglorious would never be considered seriously but come on.... best movie we got to see last year.
what's the point of deleting a comment if it still shows up that i commented. bleh
First of all it doesn't say that "you" commented, it just says that someone commented and deleted it.
In any case, obviously I'm not going to be able to convince you it's a great movie but I'll just tell you what I loved about it.
*As a note to others who may read this, the following contains some mild spoilers, so if you haven't seen it you may want to stop reading.*
After reading a number of books on the Iraq War (My Year in Iraq, Fiasco, The Gamble, My Year in Iraq, The Prince of the Marshes) there was always this huge disconnect between everyone saying that they needed to protect the civilian population to turn the tide and the fact that everyday civilians were dying. I didn't really understand it, and I largely chalked it up to undisciplined or uneducated soldiers not knowing (or not following) the mission. But seeing The Hurt Locker made me completely understand it.
I had this sense that when GIs went into an Iraqi area to disarm a bomb, or to stop some fighting, that the civilian population was largely cleared out. You don't expect there to be lots of people just hanging out on the street corner, or balconies, talking on cell phones. A cabbie comes barreling through the intersection. Is he a suicide bomber or just a guy trying to get across town in a hurry? You don't know, and you have to make a split second decision on whether or not to use lethal force. That's a pretty awesome responsibility on a decision that you have to make with almost no information. And everytime you're wrong, it means that someone is going to die.
So I guess I "knew" all that before I watched the movie, but I thought it was demonstrated in a totally convincing and highly suspenseful way. But maybe you had a better sense of that before watching it or maybe you just didn't think it did it effectively.
As far as the personal stories go, "war is a drug" is not what I took away from it. Really, I viewed Jeremy Renner's character as pretty much the same as Mickey Rourke's in The Wrestler. It's not just his job, it's who he is. The fact that his job is going to kill him becomes irrelevant, because he has no identity without it.
Contrasting that you have Anthony Mackie's character; he's the guy you can identify with and respect because he's scared shitless but is still able to courageously do his job. It's all set up brilliantly by the fact that in the opening scene he doesn't pull the trigger and his CO dies. Then a half hour later (in probably the best scene of the movie) he's in the same situation when his new CO is trying to disarm the car bombs. In the first scene I was thinking "you can't shoot; you don't know if those guys are a threat or not" but then in the second I'm thinking "OMG you have to shoot that guy on the cell phone on the balcony." To me it's just a great set-up and payoff because you realize that's the situation these guys are in every day and they're just never going to know. By the end of the film I totally bought that there was no way in hell Mackie's character would go back for another tour, and that Reed's absolutely would.
I also love that you never knew which characters were going to get killed off. Not a main piece, but it did serve to up the suspense for me.
If there is a flaw in the film, I think it's the subplot of him leaving the base to investigate the DVD kid. You certainly could have done without that.
I loved Inglorious, and would love to see it pull the shocking upset, but in the end I think Hurt Locker is a better movie. Having seen Inglorious a couple times now, I think the whole subplot with the German hero and French chick is just waaaay too long and brings the movie to a halt. The movie is about the Basterds and should have just stayed centered on that.
Oops, I realize that I listed "My Year in Iraq" twice. I assure you I didn't read it twice. That'll learn me to proofread. . .
Did you actually see "The Comeback?"
Because I've seen Sandra Bullock in a bunch of other things, and I was under the impression she is a brutally bad actress. Just terrible. I literally laughed out loud the first time I saw a trailer quoting a critic that suggested her for the Oscar.
But, I haven't seen it, so maybe miracles can happen.
No, I didn't see The Comeback; I did however see The Comebacks, but the movie I think you meant to ask about was The Blindside, and no I haven't seen it.
And just to clarify (in case it wasn't clear) I wasn't saying that those were who I thought *should* win, just who I think will.
I've only seen 6 of the 10 Best Picture nominees, and I actually haven't seen any of the films from the Leading Actress category.
I've actually always liked Sandra Bullock. Not that I ever thought she was a great actress, but I never thought she was comically bad either. I don't ever remember seeing her in something and thinking "that was a good role that she just butchered"; more like "that's a shitty role in a shitty movie and thus she's pretty shitty in it." So maybe now she finally got a decent role and did something with it. I definitely agree that it's surprising though.
Post a Comment