100th Post

Well, this is the first one of hopefully a great many celebratory posts. Didn’t take us too long to reach this goal. In doing so we got about 1000 visits – not too bad either but obviously plenty of potential to increase that number!

Major problem: We still haven’t quite found what this is gonna be about.

Movie reviews? Did that, a couple of times.

YouTube Videos? Did that, too. Quite often, in fact.

Dan Mitchell? Just kidding, obviously, but looking at how often I’ve written about this guy one might become a little suspicious. 😉

Ron Paul got his fair share of mentions, too. Still, his time in the limelight is more or less over. Sure, we’ll still post about what his up to – not because the mainstream media cares but because we care.

Biggest success, obviously, was the whole homeschooling thing we had going for a while back in the beginning of April.

Personal favourite? Probably this one because I feel like it’s the one post where I added the most value.

So yeah, where do we go from here? We’re under no pressure to please anyone apart from ourselves. No need to regularly post either (though I try to do that whenever possible). This isn’t a commercial project and won’t be anytime in the foreseeable future (personally I consider the odds of this just dying slowly far higher).

Let us know what you liked best, of what you’d like more and of what you’d like less. 😉

Emily Blunt is hot.

Or: Oh no, they didn’t!

Or: How the hell is this released on DVD before even get to see it in the cinema?

Or: Dan in Real Life.

The Good

Did I mention Emily Blunt is hot? So is Juliette Binoche. Kinda. Also, if you look really hard (well, not that hard) there’s a pretty clever subtext beneath it all. And it doesn’t really make the movie any less enjoyable. The acting is fine, the story’s all right, the soundtrack’s nice. Also, interesting use of light when Marie is declared to be like an angel. Really does make her look somewhat like an angel.

The Bad

Yeah, the story without the subtext – I said it’s all right but that doesn’t mean it’s good. It’s more bad than good. Rather silly, above all. Wife dies of cancer, big happy family, playboy brother. Yep, big deal. I really don’t care all that much for the repeated cancer storylines. Sure, I understand that it’s common and that it’s painful and hard an terribly tough for those involved and that films that deal with the issue in a convincing way might help. That’s just not the case here – the dead wife is simply used as a plot point to establish the various characters and to have that scene with the youngest daughter’s painting. I repeat: not convincing and rather cheap.

The Ugly

Let me refer you to the “Oh No They Didn’t” alternative for the title of this post. In the scene where Emily Blunt (who, by the way, is really hot!) goes on a date with Dan – Dan’s brother (and then Marie’s boyfriend) is obviously attracted to her and all I’m capable of thinking is “Don’t you DARE go there! Don’t you fucking there go there!”. Yeah, turns out they do dare go there. Marie dumps brother, Dan gets Marie, brother gets Emily Blunt. Oh what a cop-out. This truly ranks right there in the “ugly” category. As does the fact that he apparently gets his nation-wide column in the end.

Oh, and did I mention the whole fucked up Emily Blunt storyline? I think I did. If you want the brother’s character to look like a playboy – and you do, if you have him run off with Blunt’s character a day or two after breaking up – then they can’t still be together at the marriage of his brother. That’s just a 7th-Heaven-ish cop-out. Or at least that’s what I’d imagine a 7th-Heaven cop-out to look like.

6 out of 10. And I’m being incredibly generous here.

Michael Clayton

Just saw this at the local artsy cinema – I have no idea how long it’s been out round here (certainly not since October – I just love how they manage to delay their release dates all the time…).

So, I’ll just throw out a couple of thoughts.

The Good

The acting – certainly liked Clooney a lot. Tilda Swinton wasn’t bad either but if either of them deserved to win the Oscar, my choice would’ve been Clooney. Soundtrack – top notch. But then that’s to be expected from James Newton Howard. Loved what he did with Batman Begins as well as Blood Diamond. Story-wise – easier to understand than Syriana (which I definitely liked better than this one). Sure, they had to use the old “we’ll tell the ending first and then use that shitty “4 days earlier” trick” but I found it nowhere near as annoying as I usually do. Which says something for the movie. That’s about what I can come up with from the top of my head.

The Bad

Seriously – what did Tilda Swinton do? I know, she won “supporting role” so you can’t expect her to do all that much. Apart from questioning herself and her morality and what not while dramatically staring into a mirror – not really all that much she did. I understand that the left would love some successful executive questioning herself (and, by extension, the entire system of “capitalism” and everything that comes with it) and it is, after all, the left that makes the rules. As I was saying – not really bad but considering that Cate Blanchett was nominated…

The story – not all that bad but after Syriana and Good Night and Good Luck I expected better from Clooney. It’s on quite a high level but he’s shown that he can do even better. I guess it kind of came as a disappointment, having had high expectations and all.

The Ugly

The underlying – surprise – philosophy. It probably shines through most in that scene where Marty Bach (if I recall correctly) basically tells Clayton that they make all their money by screwing over people and being the bad guys. Sure, everyone hates lawyers but how shallow is that? Evil, evil corporation trying to fuck over the little guy. Even more evil lawyers with no moraliy whatsoever helping them. Fortunately, Clooney’s character finds something to believe in in the end and they all live happily ever after. I know, I’m exaggerating – but this is supposed to be the ugly.

Same thing can, of course, be said about Syriana – I’ve heard lefties argue “see how evil the U.S. is?” to which in the case of Syriana I simply answer: well, what did you expect? Syriana was much more even handed in my opinion. It gave better perspective on the issue at hand and rational people – or at least what I consider to be rational people – can see why the evil U.S. is acting the way it is. Cold, hard self-interest. It just presents the facts as they are and leaves it up to the audience to come to its own conclusions (at least that’s what I got from it). Michael Clayton on the other hand – it tries much harder to drive home its message. Compared to other films – no big deal. But alas, a disappointment.

A disappointment on a very high level though. If I had to rank it – probably about 7.5/10. Then again – I don’t really want to rank it.