Another great movie review

For those who thought about seeing "The Happening." By the by, I think Christopher Orr is the best film reviewer out there. He's not as brainy as A.O. Scott or as artsy as Stanley Kauffman, also of The New Republic, who only reviews movies you've never heard of. But he writes clearly and without the pretense of a lot of film reviewers. He's more or less a regular guy who reviews movies for regular people.

Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull

I finally saw the latest Indiana Jones installment and because there was a call for more movie reviews, I thought I'd post my thoughts on it.

First, the good. George Lucas and Steven Spielberg really know what they're doing. These guys can really shoot great scenes (there was a great scene in a Peruvian cemetery that really blew me away). They do great high-speed/fight scenes (see, e.g., Phantom Menace pod-race, speeder scene in Return of the Jedi, mine car scene in Temple of Doom).

Now, the bad. Lucas increasingly relies on special effects to the detriment of his movies. The end of this latest movie is truly a spectacular sight, but ultimately, I feel it takes away from the movie and from the Indiana Jones franchise. The graveyard scene may be incredible, but it is without explanation; as are the generic Amazonian warriors Indy and his party must confront.

Moreover, Lucas is increasingly intent on adding small touches that subtly destroy the characters we've grown to love (see, e.g., re-arranging the cantina scene in A New Hope so that Gredo shoots first). Here we find similar small points that ultimately undermine the Jones character, such as Indiana's large house and his scream of "I like Ike" in the opening scene).

Finally, the ugly. Since 1989 (Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade's Henry Jones, Sr) Lucas has been unable to create a truly three-dimensional character. Jar-jar Binks, Padmé Amidala, and Anakina Skywalker have all been prominent characters in Lucas movies, but have proven little more than cardboard cutouts. Now "Mutt" Williams (Shia LeBeouf's character) takes his place among the pantheon of artificial, two-dimensional figures in modern Lucas movies. LeBeouf is the ultimate rogue, complete with a motorcycle, constantly used comb, and a switch-blade (he's good with blades, you see). But while Indy may be one of the great roguish anti-heroes, he is ultimately more than a moving image on the screen: despite his exterior, he is smart, intelligent, well-read; he has complicated relationships with his over-bearing father (including his name) and the women in his life. The Mutt Williams character lacks any of that. When Indy and Mutt somehow arrange to fly Mutt's motorcycle to Peru, we don't see images of Indy going out of his way to keep his favorite hat and whip, we see artificial contrivance and unnatural plot device. Compare Mutt's skill with a rapier with Indy's gun vs. swordsman scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark and you get a feel for what his character lacks. While this movie is far from a character-study, some depth would be nice.

I won't go into the blatant ham-fisted politicizing that modern Lucas movies invariably contain, suffice to say its unnecessary and unwanted.

Ultimately, the movie is an average summer movie, but a below-average Indiana Jones movie. Fans of the franchise will be glad to see Indiana back in action and some parts of the movie really are fantastic, but George Lucas' modern take on making movies mean this will never top the original.

RIP, Tim Russert

Tim Russert suffered a fatal heart attack and died earlier today.

Our thoughts and prayers are with this great reporter's family and friends.

In 20 years, we'll all say Howard Dean was a genius

By long way of introduction: It may be difficult to fathom given recent history, but Republicans nearly went the way of the Whigs in the 20th century. FDR, Truman, Kennedy and Johnson -- the Democrats had a near-lock on the presidency. The Eisenhower years were hardly "conservative" in the way we know the term now; indeed, there was plenty of conservative discontent with his administration and mainline Republicanism of the day (from old-time Taft Republicans, the lunatic John Birch Society, even at times National Review). When Barry Goldwater finally wrested control of the party from the Ike-Rockefeller faction, only to suffer a humiliating defeat in 1964, everyone thought conservatism had breathed its last breath. Except that it didn't.

Goldwater laid the foundation for what became the great conservative awakening that began with Nixon and reached maturity with Reagan. Republicans began building a truly grassroots movement that produced local candidates to rise through the ranks; a communication system to disseminate the party's message; think tanks to develop policies to promote their ideology. In other words, they quit relying on big names and a label to win elections. They built a party.

In a few (limited) ways, Bill Clinton was our Eisenhower -- personally popular, middle of the road, brief break from the same-old, same-old. The Democratic party has been in the wilderness really, since Nixon. Howard Dean, though not his party's nominee, will be seen as our Goldwater and Obama, potentially, as our Reagan. Dean reignited a flame within the party to bring liberalism back and to do so with a fury. His 50-state strategy emulated the same grassroots techniques the Republicans used to win: build state parties, develop local candidates, let them move up the ladder. Dean's argument went like this: Democrats can't just find a millionaire or a celebrity or someone from a prominent family, put their name on the ballot, and hope to win in traditionally non-Democratic areas. They have to find people with local ties and goodwill within the community to be city councilmen, then state legislators, then members of Congress. You can't rebrand the Democratic party from D.C. and hope people in Alaska will buy in."

Obama's decision to have paid staff in every state and, even more shockingly, his plan to dispatch 3,600 (!!!) volunteers (that is, UNPAID workers) for six weeks to organize are such dramatic steps toward rebuilding the party infrastructure, it's maddening. Democrats can't rely on finding a presidential candidate that fits some formula (Southern? Military experience? Good speaker? Whatever other crap people think makes someone "electable") and hope it will reinvigorate the party the way serious, concerted, bottom-up organizing can.

If Obama wins this election handily, as I believe he will, it has the potential to revolutionize the party. The opportunity is completely ripe for the picking: The Age of Reagan (just as the Age of FDR before it) is over, the GOP has grown complacent in power and aimless in direction (just as the Democrats before them) and, frankly, it's just time for yet another sea-change in American politics. My hope is that Obama is not another McGovernite liberal retread, just as Goldwater and Reagan were not Hoover retreads. He may be campaigning as one now, and the power of his personality and the spirit of the times may be enough to get him elected as one. If he governs as one, the movement will be for naught. But if, as I and others suspect, Obama is more the reformer than the doctrinaire, we may be living in the Age of Obama for twenty years. And we'll have Howard Dean to thank (or curse) for it.

Boumediene v. Bush

The Supreme Court's momentous opinion today in Boumediene v. Bush is quite long, interesting, and ultimately wrong. I just finished reading Chief Justice Roberts' dissenting opinion, and here is how is he summarizes the Court's decision:

So who has won? Not the detainees. The Court’s analysis leaves them with only the prospect of further litigation to determine the content of their new habeas right, followed by further litigation to resolve their particular cases, followed by further litigation before the D. C. Circuit—where they could have started had they invoked the DTA procedure. Not Congress, whose attempt to “determine—through democratic means—how best” to balance the security of the American people with the detainees’ liberty interests, see Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U. S. 557, 636 (2006) (BREYER, J., concurring), has been unceremoniously brushed aside. Not the Great Writ, whose majesty is hardly enhanced by its extension to a jurisdictionally quirky outpost, with no tangible benefit to anyone. Not the rule of law, unless by that is meant the rule of lawyers, who will now arguably have a greater role than military and intelligence officials in shaping policy for alien enemy combatants. And certainly not the American people, who today lose a bit more control over the conduct of this Nation’s foreign policy to unelected, politically unaccountable judges.

I respectfully dissent.

Back to the Future

Check this out. Make sure to read the bottom about the noble bonobos.

I'm feeling a do-over of some old themes that have helped conservative bat liberals around for years. Now they have the biggest liberal in the Senate to try it all against...the question is, how effective will it be.

I predict, at very least, that it will be effective in mobilizing an 'anti-obama' [i.e. 'anti-liberal] vote. I think this will compensate for what disadvantage McCain has w/ the conservative base. While they may be holding their nose a little, I think they will still be very a reliable block for him and thereby ensure that this election, as I predicted earlier, could be exceptionally close.

I realize that all of this could be dead wrong and Obama could just steamroll over McCain w/ his youthful energy, insane ability to raise money, and legions of rabid college students. Furthermore, McCain actually requires you to sit down and think about things coming out of the mouth of a non-flashy speaker. People don't like doing that. I'm not saying Obama doesn't have ideas, although I've yet to hear too many of them. But whatever ideas Obama has will be so much more palatable to the listener because they come from him -- the dynamic speaker who makes history with every speech [if you ask Chris Matthews].

McCain is like your grandmother's old recipe that you found scrawled on a piece of paper in her house after she died -- it may make the best lasagna in the world...but you still need to call Auntie Alma to help read grandma's handwriting. It doesn't just jump out at you. Obama is like watching Martha Stuart tell you how to make oven roasted chestnuts with chick peas and swiss char. Umm, I need a latte with that.

Anyway, so ...although I see the Obama-naut scenario as plausible, I think it is hard to deny that my scenario is also plausible. And for the sake of keeping it interesting, I'm still predicting the close call.

Obama and the Criminals

As if it weren't bad enough (and it's obviously not given the absolute zero coverage by OBSG, what with Rezco's conviction last week and the revelation that one of Obama's "bundler" may have rather serious connections to organized crime (a man Obama was videotaped personally praising), now we learn that another "bundler," the man he put in charge of VP-vetting, received millions in below-market loans under a program set up to help now-disgraced countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo's personal friends.

New politics are really something, huh?

A house divided?

That's what the Powers family of Staten Island is facing in a father v. son matchup to succeed Vito Fossella. How hilarious is this guy? My favorite line: "[The younger] Powers said that if he's not on the Libertarian line, he might seek to form his own Anarchist Party ballot line." Only on Staten Island.