• buying a cape
• eating many biscuits with my son
• Going out for tea and buns
• reading Mr Pusskins and Knuffle Bunny more times than any woman should have to bear.
• Witnessing the frog incident
• doing laundry
• doing two lots of homework with the girls
• Sorting out school provisions etc for tomorrow
• supervising bathtime twice (Oscar had an early bath)
• cooking two meals
• Watching Cbeebies because I was commanded to 'sit down' and 'huggle' by my son.
• playing offices
• bouncing on the bed because it was too wet to bounce on the trampolene
• Drawing pictures of hats.  Oscar has developed a need to watch me draw many pictures of hats, hats with ladies under them, hats with babies under them, hats with frogs under them, solo hats.  Many, many hats.  He has exacting standards.  He hates pictures of hats with feathers in them, so let's just not go there.
• reading a weird book about Norway that my mother said I might enjoy. 

When I spoke to her today and said; 'I'm reading that book about Norway you said I might enjoy.' she said: 'How is it?' I said: 'Weird'.  She said: 'Hmm! That's what I thought too!'  This is what drives me bonkers about my parents.  They will often lend me books that they're not sure about just to see what I think!!! My dad once lent me a book whose name now escapes me.  He insisted I read it.  It was the biggest pile of rubbish I had read for a long time.  I told him so.  He said: 'Yes! That's exactly what I thought about it too! Wasn't it crap?'  I believe I may be the only person in the world whose friends and relatives lend her books that are rubbish.  Why? Why would you do that to someone?  So, anyway, now I'm in Norway and I'm committed.  Because once I read a book, I have to finish it.  This is very annoying.  I can probably count on the fingers of one hand the number of books that I have read and not been able to finish.  It is a rare thing.

I am about to go downstairs and watch some television before heading back to Norway.  I am trying to convince myself that I don't have the same anally obsessive compulsive need to finish watching films as I do with reading books.  As you may know, I am trying to catch up with lots of the films I didn't get to see at the cinema at the moment.  Last night we tried Tim Burton's Sweeney Todd with Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter, and There Will Be Blood with Daniel Day Lewis.

Now, I like Tim Burton, Big Fish is one of my favourite films.  I love Johnny Depp and I think HBC is very strange, but rather compelling and has come a long way since the days of E.M. Forster and heaving bodices.  I had high hopes for Sweeney, but was dubious because of the musical element.  I rented it in the end thinking that if it was a combo of music and speech, roughly equivalent to Grease for example, that I could probably live with that.  It turns out that it is about 98% music and 2% speech and I CAN'T live with that.  I endured half an hour before reaching for the off button.  It drove me round the bend.  It's supposed to be menacing, it's supposed to be tragic and tortured and dark.  It isn't any of the above when they're all frisking about singing in falsetto's about the worst meat pies in London and other such drivel.  It just didn't work.  It was like billing The Sound of Music as a grim look at life in pre war Austria.  Bollocks to it.

Then we tried, There Will Be Blood. I've got a lot of time for Daniel Day Lewis.  My Beautiful Laundrette was one of the first 'art house' movies I ever saw and between him and the writing of Hanif Kureishi it was a revelation to me.  He's not always in films I like (Gangs of New York anyone) but he's always good.  Unfortunately I lasted an hour and a half into this one before giving up.  It may be beautifully filmed, it may be powerful, it may be dark and disturbing, but by God it's long.  There's an hour left to go.  Apparently the action cranks up, but up to now, with one bad thing happening approximately every twenty minutes and nobody saying a word for the first twenty five minutes, except the orchestra, who follow them around relentlessy with a bassoon and some cymbals, which you think they'd have noticed in that bleak landscape, I just don't think I've got the will to go on.

So, two films which I feel I should like.  Which I paid to rent and which I feel I should finish, but if I do, I know will be like sitting through my algebra homework rather than a delightful relaxing evening in front of the television screen.  And then there's Norway.  I think I deserve a break.  I will be naughty.  No film endings for me.  It's a special treat.  I might even wear my new cloak while I'm not watching them.

De toda a galera da G Unit,  sempre considerei o Buck o cara com o melhor flow  e com a voz mais marcante. Por alguma razão, não curti muito esse som (talvez pelo flow diferente ou por parecer muito o Paul Wall) e não tenho idéia se ele faz ou fará parte de algum CD novo ou mixtape. Aí vai:

Yung Buck - "There Will Be Blood"

[audio=http://www.filefreak.com/pfiles/61147/young_buck-there_will_be_blood-2dope.mp3]
Download: "There Will Be Blood"

I'm not sure how, but I missed this movie when it was out in theaters last year.  I really wanted to see it, but never got the opportunity to go.  I got it the first week it came out on DVD and completely forgot to watch it.  By then, it had already won multiple awards and was critically nominated by almost everyone.  I blew it on this one.  I finally watched it, and I will say that it is truly a great piece of art.  As a huge fan of most of the director's previous movies, he really knocks it to another level here.

P.T. Anderson doesn't make traditional movies.  Most of the time his movies are long, almost opera-esque and rely more on character development than anything else.  This is most prevalent in 1999's fantastic Magnolia, and equally impressive in There Will Be Blood.  If you have ever seen an opera and a P.T. Anderson movie, you probably understand my correlation.  If not, here you go:  Many operas have a character that expresses his/her feelings in a manner in which the audience understands.  For example, if a character is sad, they sing about how sad they are for at least 5-10 minutes.  Anderson shows this type of feeling emphasis throughout his movies.

In There Will Be Blood, Anderson showcases corruption, lust for money, and power at all costs.  This truly is a film centered on those themes.  Loosely based on Upton Sinclair's Oil!, the story begins in 1898 with the main character, Daniel Plainview (masterfully portrayed by Daniel Day-Lewis) as a silver prospector who, as the result of an accident, discovers oil and its appeal.  He begins making money through this discovery, then starts simply describing himself to people as "an oil man".  It is through this that he comes in contact with Eli Sunday, a young preacher that understands that his land is worth more than Daniel is offering.

The multiple interactions between Eli, a self-professed man of God, and Daniel, a self professed man of oil, showcase the power of corruption in all forms and really highlights this movie.  Their performances themselves make this movie even better, and allow the audience to understand how both these men operate on a personal level.

I'll say it again, this is P.T. Anderson at his best.  I don't want to say it is his masterpiece because I love Magnolia so much, but it is damn near equal.  With that being said, if you are going to watch this movie, and I do recommend that you do, you have to watch it with a certain openness.  I mean openness because of the opera-like nature of his films, and due to the fact that this movie is hard to watch in places due to the non-traditional cinematography and the graphic nature of the plot.  With this being said, it is a movie that will make you think about current events as well as the way this particular industry got started, and the extents that some people will go to accomplish their goals.(No matter how far they must go)

Reel Review:  New Classic 5 out of 5 Reels

http://www.zshare.net/audio/17632708be6cde4f/

I can only imagine what compromising pictures there must be floating out there of Joan Allen to get her to agree to a role in director Paul W.S. Anderson's car porn flick, “Death Race.”

Granted, her role in the “Bourne” films was a supporting one, but this woman was thrice nominated for an Oscar.

I mean, she's got to be more proud of starring in Saturday Night Live's “The Best of Chris (Mr. Peepers) Kattan” video than this.

I know the argument: “It's just pure fun, it's a Roger Corman film, for crying out loud. Loosen up, Mr. Stuffy Movie Critic Guy!”

And while I will admit to a few inventive scenes (the one prisoner's head that seemingly explodes when he gets plowed into was a nifty little effect. But the director must have thought so too, and decided to show it on three separate occasions), the overall effect is nothing that watching a 90-minute string of Mountain Dew (or whatever your “Extreme” beverage of choice) commercials on a loop.
Sure, of Corman's 300-plus film credits, he's produced such titles as “Attack of the Giant Leeches,” “Eat My Dust,” “Bloodfist” and “Chopping Mall.” But in the original film, he was working with witty, subversive director Paul Bartel, who went on to direct the camp classics “Eating Raoul” and “Lust in the Dust.”

“The 1975 original stung with social commentary, from the rising tide of violence in professional sports to the Orwellian machinations of Big Brother inherent in the United States.

As over-the-top as it was, “Death Race 2000” was at least about something.

I suppose the new incarnation is as well. It's about 90 minutes.

Other than that, there is little to recommend for anyone other than the most adamant auto enthusiast who reads “Car & Driver” as if it were a “Penthouse Forum”: “She had a dual-door, quad-wheel, semi-hemi-V8, stacked with a 440 Mopar and a body for gear-grinding glory! Yeah, baby! Say it slower!”

Jason Statham, who is contractually obligated to release his films in cinematic dust bowl known as late August, stars as Jensen Ames, a laid-off steelworker and devoted family man who coincidentally happens to be a one-time racing champ. I say “coincidentally” because it is only after Jensen is framed for the murder of his wife and imprisoned that we find out this little piece of exposition.

Allen plays the icy warden of this futuristic prison, who is in dire need of a new driver for her popular “Death Race” television show that pits prisoners against one another buzzing around the facilities in “Mad Max” - like vehicles.

One by one, prisoners meet their demise as Jensen, fueled by the rage of his predicament and the promise of release if he wins, eliminates the competition.

This is the point in the review where I would list some of the supporting actors and the characters they portrayed, but, really, what's the point?

Director Paul W.S. Anderson (who apparently added the initials so we would not confuse his oeuvre -- “Alien vs. Predator,” “Mortal Kombat,” “Soldier” -- with that of Paul Anderson, director of award-winning films such as “Boogie Nights,” “Magnolia” and “There Will Be Blood”) is solely invested on playing to the ADHD crowd.

There is not a camera held steady for more than 20 seconds and both the race and fight scenes are seemingly filmed by hiccup-plagued cameramen. To compensate, he fills the speakers with death-metal dirges designed solely to increase adrenaline or elicit spontaneous ear-bleeding.

And atop this wreckage of twisted metal Allen is perched, barking out lines as though she was attempting to hold back the bile induced by even having her name affixed to it. Forget menacing, it would be a stretch if she even appeared interested during her minutes on screen.

One can only hope that after the sobbing concludes, she can dust herself off and head back into roles the captivating actress so richly deserves.

It's been awhile since I heard a new Buck joint. Not a LONG time, but compared to what he was doing last month this is slackin haha. Regardless, X shot this over and I like to share the wealth...

DOWNLOAD: Young Buck - There Will Be Blood

The Basic Story

All in all, there isn't excessive violence as the title implies—the reference to blood is actually refering to the oil, in its raw state, coming up from the ground.

IMDB.com sums the story up with this synopsis: a story about family, greed, religion, and oil, centered around a turn-of-the-century prospector in the early days of the business. The basic story is about a oil driller. He tricks a town's people into letting him drill in their area. After being offered a special prayer to bless the fruit of his labor by the local church, which he turns it down, everything for his business starts to go down hill.

We also see the life of the minister of the church that offered to pray for the driller. He's not much better than the driller, all things considered. His problem is he makes up his spirituality to suit his own fleshly desires. Whereas the driller knows he's a lier, the minister has convinced himself he's honest, but both abuse the people around them for their own gain, and the two men continuously bump heads together in the effort to make their own fortunes.

A lot of time goes by as the story unfolds. The minister gets through life basically pleasing the people around him, thus avoiding confrontation. The driller makes enemies with every living person that comes in contact with him (note: both main characters demonstrate some psychological disorders). Come the climax, the driller has banished all signs of family and friends in his life—but, he's basically content in his terrible muck of a pitiful existence.

The minister comes to see the driller years after they last saw each other. The driller is now a wealthy man and lives in a luxerious home, and that is where the minister visits him. In the meeting, the minister asks for money, to which the driller says he'll help the minister out if the minister will deny his faith and testify he is a fraud and there is no God.

The minister gives the driller what he wants (not that this should bother Christians, because, after all, the minister's religious practices are not all that biblical or Christian. The minister is a false prophet). Then the driller tells the minister he will not help the minister make his fortune, and you could say that the two get into a fight, which ends with the driller murdering the minister.

That's the story in a nutshell. Like I said, it is a tragedy.

The Good

It had some great cinematography. The locals were authentic to the point you might think this is based on a true story, but I don't know if it is or isn't. You get a good overview of what it meant to be a pioneer in the oil business in America in the early 20th century. You also get an authentic portrayal of misguided religion of the day out west. There was a lot of false prophets/teachers that mislead the people with their own self-proclaimed connection to devine authority.

The Bad

I didn't much care for the story. It is a tragedy, which is the kind of film that is usually intended to be heart-wrenching and more meaningful than a story with a happily ever after. Don't get me wrong. There was a strong moral to the story and the parallels between the two main characters were clear. But this film was not satisfying. It was annoyingly narrow-minded in the whole of the story.

So in the end, it is a story about how two men were REALLY wrong in how they lived their lives. There is no redemption. It makes a good point, but one that could've been made better with some redemption...

Also, the score was exceptionally annoying. I didn't get anything from it. There was a lot of dissonance and mindless rhythmic noise.

The Ugly

There was some language used that was common of the time (early 20th century). However, it wasn't in-your-face. There was at least three accidental deaths caused by the drilling process. There was two murders, and three fist-fights. It's a man's rugged old west kind of story, with a lot of grit to go along with it. If you can handle it, be my guest.

All In All

Don't see it. It's not worth your time. I'd say it was 1.5 out of 4 stars. I know some 'real' critics would rate the film highly, but it's not meant for audiences. The film is meant for the slightly confused—those that confuse watching a couple of guys ruin their lives for a well-meaning story.

The Odd

I only saw it because someone recommended it to me after I saw The Dark Knight. Interestingly, both share the same points. But as far as I'm concerned, The Dark Knight did the same story a whole lot better.

Also, the driller actor got the academy award for best actor last year. His performance was alright, but the norm for this actor. I've seen him in other stuff, and he played pretty much what he always plays. I don't think he deserved the recognition, bu that's just me.

<< Previous | Next >>

Today's reviews consist of Forgetting Sarah Marshall and There Will Be Blood, both of which I must say I enjoyed but each for different reasons and though I didn't like the storyline or the way that 'There Will Be Blood' executed it, but it is easy to see why Daniel Day Lewis was deemed Oscar worthy. Not that I hold much stock in awards anyway but I do have a new found respect for his acting abilities none the less.

Right moving along here...

Forgetting Sarah Marshall

A romantic comedy disguised as a break up movie.. but bear with me here it's worth it I promise! For me there will only ever be one break up movie and that of course is High Fidelity, not really a movie I'd suggest watching right after a break up as I recently did (see told you I wasn't smart!) but it is true to form on all the silly little things that you do when getting over someone. One day when I'm not reading for school I'll have to read the book as I have been told that it is a million times better.. I just wonder if the voice inside my head will be John Cussack's or my own.

Oops sorry... right Forgetting Sarah Marshall stars plenty of eye candy running around in skimpy clothes which for the somewhat male part of my psyche is a good thing. It is very obvious that this movie was filmed over the season break of television series as the main stars of the movie all come from TV series - some of which may have been cancelled as I don't keep up. We have Kirstin Bell from 'Veronica Mars', Jason Segal from 'How I Met Your Mother' and my inappropriate crush of the moment Mila Kunis from 'That 70's Show'. The movie also stars Russell Brand who along with the supporting cast essentially made this movie for me.

But it's not all eye candy for the boys as we have a full frontal nudity shot within the first 5 minutes of the movie. I can't say that I personally find Jason Segal's penis attractive but we see it enough times for us all to make our own decisions on it's appearance, there is even the 'dumb things guy's do with their penis' scene at the start of the breakup which did raise a giggle from me.. not that I have ever been guilty of such base behaviour... honest!

We've all seen romantic comedies before but for the 0.001% of the population out there that hasn't I guess a plot synopsis is in order. Peter (Segal) and Sarah (Bell) break up with Sarah eventually coming clean that there is someone else and this of course sends Peter into a downward spiral of self destruction and he is portrayed already as a bit of slob withvery little drive. Eventually his step brother tells him to get out of shagging everything with a heart beat and to get away from the apartment to somewhere where he won't be reminded of Sarah. Fine in theory of course but he happens to go to Hawaii where of course Sarah is holidaying with her new boyfriend Aldous Snow (Brand) who is somewhat of an English rock god... though to me he seems to be channelling both of the Gallagher brothers quite successfully.

Peter meets up with Rachel (Kunis) who works at the hotel where everyone is staying and we just know that by the end of the movie they will be together, however how they get there is an enjoyable ride. The movie doesn't have any flat moments and the comedy seems to flow easily from everyone including the supporting cast. There are some stand out lines in this movie that made me just giggle myself silly (though in hindsight that could have been the red wine) and the sex education scene with giant chess pieces is also very giggle worthy.

I really enjoyed this movie and not just for the eye candy it was witty and didn't take itself too seriously, there was no mid-plot drama like a lot of rom-coms tend to throw in, Peter did clean up his act don't get me wrong but the movie didn't make us endure 20 minutes of him finding himself - besides which if he didn't clean himself up we never would have seen 'Dracula the Musical' - with puppets!

There Will Be Blood

Okay well I 'got' this movie but it's subject matter was very heavy going but flawlessly executed by Daniel Day Lewis and I really do have a much greater appreciation for his acting ability after seeing this movie. The movie itself primarily deals with the themes of greed, family and motivation all of which is centered around the oil fields at the turn of the 20th century in the US. Day Lewis plays Daniel Plainview who is a self made 'oil man', we are introduced to Plainview at the start of the movie as a silver prospector barely scratching a living from the earth and it is a far cry from the man we see at the end of the movie.

Plainview is essentially two characters there is very much the public face - the family man that he portrays to struggling ranchers in order to swindle them of their land which is contrasted by the bitter and cynical private man whose only motivation is to succeed at all expenses. It is easy to like the public figure and oh so very easy to hate who he actually is. His life is a lie even to the details of his son who it is revealed he only took in to have a cute face to enable the lie of his public life. You could almost feel sorry for him by the end of the movie - that is if you didn't hate him so much.

Plainview is prepared to do anything to succeed and his only motivation is to have enough money so that he can shut himself away from the world and everyone in it. He tells us that he hates what he sees in people and it is more than likely that he hates them because he sees himself in them. He is flawed no doubt but accepting of his flaws well more to the point he sees his flaws as strengths where a better man would go about changing them.

I am still unsure if I liked this movie the acting was as spectacular as the scenery it portrayed but I think the movie had it's fault in building up the hatred of Plainview that by the end of the movie in the final scene rather than feel sorry for him we instead feel that he deserved everything that he got. His final words in the movie echo his regret but he is unrepentant and perhaps that is why I am unable to truly say that I loved this movie. Perhaps more correctly I do feel sorry for him but only because he was unwilling to change it is easy to regret your choices but much harder to feel sorry for them.

I'll recommend this movie but I'll put a caveat in place that it may not be for everyone, it is beautifully shot and you got a very good appreciation of how tough life could be in scratching a living from the earth. Perhaps that is the point of the movie - a hard life requires a hard character to succeed, in the end I think I would rather be unsuccessful and liked for who I was rather than successful and hated by so many.

Con el protagonismo del genial Daniel Day Lewis, este film que aquí conocimos con elnombre de "Pozos de ambición" (la historia tiene como elemento central la riqueza de los pozos de petróleo) es una obra maestra para algunos (la adaptación a la época y la historia se lleva un 10) y una pelicula mediocre para otros; lo cierto es que no es para todo el público y, mientras que mucha gente la criticó negativamente, uno no puede ignorar los 8.4/10 que recibe en IMDb o la nominación al oscar o las miles de críticas positivas que recibió. En mi caso me reservo la opinión, pero si aseguro que el final es muy bueno, y poco convencional. Para ver y criticar.

El video es de la mejor calidad DVD con audio inglés original y subtítulos en español aparte con una sincronización impecable.

Torrent: There Will be Blood

Subtítulos: There Will be Blood

For a long time I've tried to keep my writings free of the open pus-ing sore that is American political discourse. But no longer. I can't seem to help myself any more. I can't promise you, the loyal readers, that this will be a one time affair. I may dabble in it once in a while, or I might get locked onto the sweet and supple teat that bears the life blood of the 24 hour news networks.

So I must give it to you now, before I burst: my all time cast for our democracy. Here goes. (Some clips may be sexual)

THE CHARACTERS OF OUR DEMOCRACY

Denzel Washington in Training Day as George W. Bush.

The parallels here are obvious. The perpetual free fall of W's moral character is, at the very least, analagous to his ever declining approval ratings. In the end he's just a mad man, drunk on his own power, surrounded by the illusion that he is in charge, when in fact he never really had control over everything.

Kevin Bacon in Wild Things as Bill Clinton

This is probably the most apropos thing I could have compared him to. Nominations for the role included The Dude from The Big Lebowski and Brother Bluto from Animal House, but I'm pretty satisfied with this one. Let's face it. There is no real Bill Clinton, only a shell, a hollow vessel with two feet and two hands with which to hunt down and subdue anything- be it living or inanimate- and then thrust against it with ferocity and high heat.

Seabiscuit in Seabiscuit as Condaleezza Rice

This is a tough call but I think comparing Condaleezza Rice to a half ton beast that takes a beating whether it wins or loses. She is pretty much the only hope that George W. Bush (Denzel in Training Day) has left, despite being wildly unpopular. Her odds of saving the Bush legacy are essentially a million to one, but isn't that the plot of every cheesey, heartwarming, sports oriented family flick? Just watch the clip. Tell me you don't think of her.

Mr. Burns in The Simpsons as John McCain

The man is old. We know he's old. But with oldness comes crankiness. From what I understand, Senator McCain likes to go to bed at 7, wake up at 5:30, have a Dodo egg, conduct a bowel movement, read The New York Times and Wall Street Journal cover to cover and then take a nap until noon. If anything upsets this schedule he'll release the Robotic Richard Simmons on the interns for pleasure. Sick pleasure. Never sexually though. He's not Bill Clinton for god sake.

Daniel Day Lewis in There Will Be Blood as Dick Cheney

This is too easy and I'm sorry for that. They both deal in the oil business. They're both ornery at all times. They both have more money than most countries in Africa. They both hate most people. And if you don't believe him then you can go fuck yourself.

Comparada con cierta frecuencia con Ciudadano Kane, Pozos de ambición nos cuenta como nuestro odioso protagonista emprende un viaje hacia la cima del poder al tiempo que baja por la abrupta ladera de la moralidad. Daniel Plainview (Day Lewis) es un personaje apático y contradictorio, que anuncia la salvación para su riqueza personal y que se deshace de sus competidores con su ira incontenible.

De forma paralela tenemos al joven predicador Eli Sunday (un estupendo Paul Dano, el chico de pequeña miss sunshine) que, desde la religión, persigue los mismos objetivos, aunque de forma más pacífica. Ambos quieren controlar su comunidad y el choque de egos es inevitable.

De esta forma Paul Thomas Anderson, una de las mejores promesas juveniles del momento, nos hace reflexionar sobre algunos de los pilares de la sociedad americana (¿y poco a poco mundial?). Hay pocas cosas en américa tan socialmente bien vistas como el hombre que nació en un pueblo de Kentucky en el seno de una familia pobre, trabajó recogiendo tomates desde los 12 años, a los 20 consiguió abrir su tienda y 20 años después controla un negocio de varios miles de millones. Esto es, el hombre "hecho a sí mismo". Aquí se refleja como uno de los cimientos del país, de como se ha ido construyedo. Pero no con una imagen positiva. América, como tantos otros países, o mejor dicho, como el propio ser humano, ha ganado mucho de lo que tiene a base de falta de moralidad. A los indios nativos americanos no se les invitó amablemente a abandonar sus tierras. Los negros fueron tratados como animales durante años y años. Incluso en las oficinas modernas muchas veces hay que pisar al de al lado para destacar. El hombre hecho a sí mismo como figura poética es un engaño, y así lo ha querido retratar el director. Por otro lado centra su atención en la religión, el poder y la familia, tres bases de la sociedad, las tres aparentes y usadas a conveniencia.

La dirección es magistral. La banda sonora es polémica (de uno de los de Radiohead), pero a mí me parece que encaja perfectamente con el tono desquiciado de la película. Porque es una película rara pero fascinante a la vez. Las actuaciones aunque rocen la sobreactuación están formidables. Tanto Dano como, especialmente Lewis, saben mantener al espectador entusiasmado con su sola presencia, teniendo juntos al menos un par de escenas memorables. El final dará que hablar

Un 8,75

Magnolia is incredibly dense, incredibly deep and on an incredibly wide scale.  Clocking in at just over 3 hours long, this movie screams epic.  It interweaves nine separate storylines, all taking place in the San Fernando Valley.  PTA said he wanted to make "the epic, the all-time great San Fernando Valley movie", and I can't help but think that he succeeded.  In fact, there's so much to this movie that I'm going to have to resort to bullet points, and I don't know how far that will take us:

• I just read the Wikipedia article for this, and it really gives you a sense of the depth of this movie, what with all the storylines and the thematic elements and such.
• John C. Reilly is a chameleon.  He can be as silly or as serious as he wants, he can be in fucking Step Brothers or he can be in an incredible string of Oscar bait movies like Boogie Nights (also PTA), Chicago, Gangs of New York, The Hours, and The Aviator.  I just want him to come back to serious roles again, so he can be remembered for not just being Will Ferrell's sidekick.  Then again, an Oscar nominee who makes viral comedy videos is amazing.  Oh, well.  By the way, he's incredible here as police officer Jim Kurring.  That was my original point.  He seems to be one of three purely good souls that are main characters here.  The other two are about to follow, but I just want to say that if you want to remake any movie that had Karl Malden in it, please please please cast John C. Reilly.  They seem like they'd be perfect for each other's roles.
• The second good guy is Philip Seymour Hoffman as Phil Parma, and word has finally gotten out that this could be the best actor in Hollywood.  He hadn't yet come into his own here, and I personally liked his work from Boogie Nights better, but he does the "I know how serious this moment is" cry very well, and a lot.
• The final good guy is child actor Jeremy Blackman as quizboy Stanley Spector.  He's solidly in Haley Joel Osment territory here, with big eyes that are very serious and a way of carrying himself that gives away how intelligent he is, or his character at least.  His character is possibly the most interesting.
• I really wish Tom Cruise wasn't a fucking douchebag Scientologist.  The douchebag part is more important, because everyone still loved Isaac Hayes, even after he quit South Park over his beliefs.  RIP Chef.  I wish Tom Cruise wasn't a douchebag because he's a great actor, really really creepy and awesome here as Frank T.J. Mackey, a guy who teaches other guys how to, you guessed it (actually, I really hope you didn't guess it), turn women into their sexual playthings.  He gets a great reveal.
• I get to talk about Jason Robards again! He's so amazing here as "Big" Earl Partridge, probably my second favorite performance, and he gives vitality to a character on his deathbed throughout the whole movie, while adding the authenticity to that very deathbed.  He's one of those actors that's always himself as the role, like George Clooney or Cary Grant, but he makes it work better than anyone I've seen.
• My favorite performance goes to William H. Macy as former quizboy Donnie Smith, a man who was warped by the childhood that Stanley Spector is on his way to having - his dad took all his prize money, and as he says, "I really do have love to give! I just don't know where to put it."  He's so great and twitchy, I just love his character even though he has such little inherent pathos.
• 728 words and only talking about the actors so far.  Jeez.  Okay, so the writing is so good it's beyond comprehension.  The way that unrelated stories come together without you even realizing it - I mean, it's not your classic come-together story in that all the stories converge on one point, it's that every story influences another story in the movie, whether at the beginning, middle or end, and these connections are what the preamble of the movie talk about, how interlocking circumstance is really what makes the world go round, and if enough circumstances come together, real shit goes down.  And it goes down.  In addition, the dialogue has that great combination of being real and being cinematic and dramatic that now seems to be PTA's trademark.
• Let me backtrack for a second.  Paul Thomas Anderson is an incredible young filmmaker.  His three biggies have been, in succession, Boogie Nights, Magnolia, and There Will Be Blood.  All of them are long, deeply interesting, engaging films that make you think, and hard.  He is on my shortlist of filmmakers to watch as I grow older.
• He was the writer-director on all three of those films, and his directing here is also incredible, if a little Kubrickian in its mercilessness.  Its long closeups on the pained expressions of Cruise, Robards, Philip Baker Hall as game show host Jimmy Gator (also great here), and others are probably the trademark of this film.
• Thematically, apart from the chance encounters thing that I talked about earlier, a lot of this is how familial relationships shape our interactions with the rest of the world, with Robards influencing Cruise, Stanley's dad fucking him up, and others.  It's a really tough theme, but PTA handles it well.
• PTA's director of photography for all of his movies, Robert Elswit, was great if not "oh my god look at that camerawork" great here.  Elswit did win the Oscar for TWBB, though I thought that Roger Deakins deserved it for the second best movie of last year, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford.  Still, Elswit rules - he also did work for Michael Clayton, and surprisingly, Good Night and Good Luck, and anyone who's seen that movie can tell you how much he did for that movie.

SPOILERS

• If this film is remembered for one thing, it will be the frogs.  Oh my god, the frogs.  Why they fell from the sky, no one tells you when you're watching the movie, except for Stanley when he says, "This happens" at his moment of childhood serenity that happens for most kids at the end of movies of depth (see the two good M. Night movies, Star Wars Ep. I, literally any teen movie that has a protagonist).  See the wikipedia article for its significance, I'm still not entirely sure about it, but what I do know is that it's done so artfully and epically that I don't need to know what it means.  It seems like it fit at the time when a beloved TV icon was about to kill himself after revealing that he may have molested his daughter, when the greatest misogynist the world has ever known cries at his father's deathbed for abandoning his mother, and when a quizboy-turned-thief has a change of heart for the wrong reasons.
• I didn't know that kids say remarkably profound monologues when they pee their pants.  I want to see if that happens a lot.
• The whole issue with Donnie Smith and the braces made me want to cry in the best way, because it's such pure heartache and unadulterated, adolescent love in the craziest way that I have no idea how else to react.

Okay, nearly 1400 words is enough.  Hope you got through it all and don't hate me for it.  I know you won't, Kriti, I'm talking to everyone else.

-- H. L. Mencken

Karl Popper. Semizdata, Monetarist History, Starbucks, Irena Sendler, and the Federal Reserve.

A problem with being slightly right brained and having over 3000 articles waiting in your Google Reader app is that it is easy to be simply overwhelmed with probing problems and finding more. I have a pair of drives often. The first is to find the hidden connections that drives society and individuals. The second is a drive for justice. I probably would have been a good futurist. I see trends in our country that frighten me. Inflation as a result of the Fed increasing levels of debt and borrowing to fund our empire and socialist nanny state mixing with decreased civil rights and increased government monitoring. Of course only a terrorist or a criminal would oppose more government control over daily life right? This frankly frightens me. I don't believe in being a chicken little isolation-survivalist 'the sky is falling! praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!' I do believe in being wise about trends. I am trying to sell my SUV and then my van to get into one newer all wheel drive car for reliability and travel and one older much less cost car for commuting to work. I want higher gas mileage and no car payments when the dollar collapses. I want to pay off all my debts so I can sell and move if need be soon. I want to turn my backyard into a productive place. Tater towers, rain barrels, productive gardening, cheap wind energy, and play and family area. Selling the TV should help this.

So many big picture things upset me about our world I am reminded that I am a missionary here in my culture, place and time. I know that my home is in heaven far away from the elitists, sluggards, overlords and mindless. I am terrified that I may not be an authentic person but a result of trends and forces. I want to be a person who loves Jesus and follows Him. I want to be a missionary to my family, neighbors, friends, and strangers. I want to be wise about the streams and currents of this world that drown people in marketing created desire, zeitgeist politics and entertainment distraction.

This is why I can only say my political views are libertarian. I want a free society where I am not afraid of my neighbor or my politicians or my bank. I want to be able to work and trade freely, give freely and not be constrained by label politics when I speak and hopefully love people. We too often lay judgement on the unsaved instead of the saved. We speak sadly of the pastor who cheated on his wife and want to support him but look down our noses at the teenager who has pierced her nose, is a mother and smokes weed. She is not saved, what do you expect her to act like? Take the pastor out behind the woodshed and love the teen mom by helping her with babysitting, getting a job, a free or cheap car and a safe place to live and raise the baby. Share Jesus with her and stories about how Jesus spoke with women of ill repute and how He stood up to the religious leaders of the day.

BTW, it's too bad no one ever told H.L Mencken that Jesus didn't like the religious leaders of His day either.

A wrap up to this post. The statist-communist is a natural outgrowth of sin. the SC wants to get the most out of the least effort and does not have a problem with creating an idol called government to force everyone to see government as god and force everyone to worship it and sacrifice (taxes) to it. So, good communists like Upton Sinclair will write books that make two types of people the evil antagonist: Christian and capitalist. Both stand in the way of world government worship.

The Christian and capitalist have been hated and persecuted by the SC for at least a hundred years. When I watched there will be blood I was chilled by looking at the old me. I've written about this and talked about how the character Plainview represented my mentality before I became a Christian. I then realized the two characters, the oil-man and the false preacher, where representations of all the SC hates. So he hyperbolizes and stereotypes them. This is the goal of the SC. So much is written about this I won't add to it but I hope this brings forth some discussion in your own family. I don't believe Christians have to walk around terrified listening to Alex Jones every night wondering when the Chinese are going to invade wearing U.N. uniforms. I do believe we should embrace an open society because we are the salt. When the world is going to hell and your family has been obediant to Christ your family is going to be a beacon of hope to others when your family loves them and helps them. If your family runs from culture, buys ammo, believes Alex Jones and protests the Gay Nazi Athiests no one wins. Fellowship with other believers, show hospitality to the lost. Funny thing about being lost, they act like it. I know, we are not to be polluted by this world. Is it possible to be in culture but not polluted by it? Is it possible to grow in wisdom of other's intentions?

sorry. never blog late when dehydrated. must sleep know. time to put this post to bed.

"When Socrates kicked poetry out of the Republic, he did it on the grounds that art, being a representation of the physical world which is itself a representation of the formal world, is two removes from the truth. Small wonder, then, that Homer is replete with errors about the gods and the afterlife. For anyone seeking to raise up a generation of ethically trained truth-seekers, education by fiction is, according to Socrates, counter-productive: These errors lead to the inculcation of false moral values like fear of death and doubt of the gods.

For those of us who reject Plato’s idealism, we may admit the possibility of stories that convey moral truth. But can such a story give us moral knowledge? Given that knowledge is justified true belief, it is not clear that fiction can provide epistemic justification except in special cases. As a Christian who accepts the divine inspiration of the Bible, I believe that Jesus’ parables can give moral knowledge. Their origin in God is justification for believing whatever ethical truth-claims are put forth or implied in the stories. But what about a novel like A Clockwork Orange, a short story like “Greenleaf” by Flannery O’Connor, or a movie like There Will Be Blood? Apart from divine inspiration, I am unsure that fictions can provide justification for believing the ethical content or accepting the ethical point of view represented therein.

But perhaps there is more to moral education than just the acquisition of moral knowledge. Perhaps the faculties we use to make moral choices based on such knowledge need development to be implemented effectively. After all, learning usually requires a transitional phase of training between the acquisition of theoretical knowledge and actual practice. For example, if you are teaching a student how to write critical essays for a standardized test, you will begin by teaching her the basic theory of literary criticism and essay writing. Then, you will have her hone her skills through writing practice essays. This practice will probably include reading and critiquing poor essays as well, so your student will know just what makes a bad essay bad. Only after this practice is she ready to put her theoretical knowledge, quite literally, to the test. Or one might think more readily of sport as an example. Coaches give their players theoretical knowledge of the skills required for their game. This knowledge is ingrained through drills, the repetition of correct actions until they become habit or ‘muscle memory’. The players supplement their drills with strength training, building up the muscle groups relevant to their sport through resistance. Thus trained, the players are ready to play an actual game where their actions count.

Just like writing a critical essay or making a rugby tackle, moral virtue must be learned through training if it is to be practiced in real life. This training includes both repetition, as in the practice essays and drills, and opposition, as in the bad essay critiques and strength training. Stories in the main may not provide knowledge to the head, but neither do they simply titillate the emotions of the gut. They work on what Plato called the ‘spirited element’, or what C.S. Lewis called, “The Chest—Magnanimity—Sentiment—these are the indispensable liaison officers between cerebral man and visceral man.” They can provide us with ethical training both through repetition and opposition. This position I call Virtue Training Theory.

“Repetition” in Virtue Training Theory means the process of positively rehearsing the patterns of right thought and emotion, or sentiments, necessary for good moral choice. This occurs when one reads (or watches, etc.) a work of fiction that manifests a true ethical attitude toward its content. It is important that it concerns the morality of the manifest attitude and not the content itself; reading a story that contains immoral content is still an exercise in repetition if the story calls a spade a spade. For example, reading A Clockwork Orange, though its anti-hero Alex perpetrates such immoral acts as rape and murder, is repetition because the immorality of his actions is implicitly acknowledged and even crucial to the novel’s exploration of the ethical dilemma of psychological conditioning and human free will.

“Opposition” in Virtue Training Theory means the process of negatively rehearsing right sentiments through engaging with a work of fiction that manifests a false ethical attitude towards its contents. The film There Will Be Blood manifests an attitude of moral nihilism, through twists and turns of plot getting the audience to feel sympathy for its reprehensible main character and, in the final scene, take pleasure in a brutal murder. In the end we are left feeling that statements about morality do not really say anything because they certainly cannot make sense of the situation presented in the film. Opposition to this film entails understanding its ethical viewpoint, considering its discrepancy with the truth that some attitudes and actions are actually wrong, and internally repudiating it. Both processes, repetition and opposition, contribute to moral education by inculcating just sentiments. [I believe the ideal fictional component of an ethical education would progress from total repetition in grammar school, exposing students only to works with true ethical viewpoints, to an even balance of repetition and opposition by the end of high school.]

I believe Virtue Training Theory finds a place for fiction in ethical education without wrestling with the tricky epistemological problem of grounding our moral knowledge in fiction..."

Throughout the rest of the paper I contrast Virtue Training Theory with another contemporary theory and answer possible objections. If anyone's interested in reading it, e-mail me and I'll send you a copy!

There Will Be Blood [2007]

Director: Paul Thomas Anderson
Cast: Daniel Day-Lewis, Paul Dano, Dillon Freasier
Distributor: Paramount Vantage/Miramax Films

...dan pengadilan memutuskan: Film ini akan sangat, sangat membosankan para penonton awam yang pada awalnya berniat menonton film ini hanya untuk ingin tahu bagaimana jalan cerita film yang meraih 8 nominasi Oscar, memenangkan 2 diantaranya, termasuk Best Actor untuk Daniel-Day Lewis. 15 menit pertama film ini adalah tantangan awal. Adegan penggalian Daniel Plainview untuk mencari perak, yang nantinya akan berubah menjadi mencari minyak. Cerita film ini juga diwarnai dengan kisah ketamakan Daniel, perlawanannya akan suatu hal yang disebut agama, dan kisah hubungannya dengan sang anak, H. W.. A good one, walaupun kurang yakin kalau suatu saat ada yang menawarkan menonton film ini lagi, saya akan menerima...

Rate: 4 / 5

After bailing on GS guy I had a free night on my hands. I enlisted Jose as my trusty film critic companion (he did graduate TRF from Newhouse after all) and bought There Will Be Blood. Although this may seem random, it wasn't. As much as I had heard about the movie and wanted to see it, I doubt that I actually would have ever gone out of my way to actually watch it. It wasn't until Ryan (shout out to my homeboy) gave me the most confusing review of the movie, that I decided that it was a movie I had to see.

And so, I popped into Best Buy where they only had the single disc version (which by me was ok), and purchased that bad boy.

I have never been so silent, nor blinked my eyes less in the 158 minutes of that film, than in my entire life.

Daniel Day Lewis is the most underrated, under-radar actor of the film industry. He and Ryan Gosling. But Ryan has many years left.

But seriously. Robert DeNiro? Al Pacino? Really. I mean, they had their breakout roles, but Daniel is Marlon Brando calibur.

The Dark Knight? Holy shit. Normally, when I go into a movie with high expectations, I'm desperately disappointed.  Not this time. I was clearly not prepared for the complete mind-fuck that was this movie.  The one thing I wish (as does most of America apparently) had changed was Christian Bale's choice with Batman's voice.  (I would put a link to a video here, but I'm just going to forwardly point out that if you haven't seen the movie by now, your life probably isn't worth living.)

I've actually encountered a few people who have not been impressed (ass holes). It is my general feeling that these people have a) not seen the first movie and don't QUITE understand what was going on, b) are saying they weren't impressed because they just want to be THOSE people who are too cool to like anything everyone else likes, and/or c) are fucking idiotic pricks.

I can't wait to see it 7,000,000 more times.

peace, love, and entertainment,

natalie marie.

Sombre est ce film qui à sa manière, parle de l'Histoire américaine. Le pétrole, cet or noir qui fait briller les plus grands hommes d'affaire et qui fait tourner le monde aujourd'hui. Le pétrole, un produit de la terre que l'homme réclame au nom de l'argent et par le sang. Paul Thomas Anderson n'est un cinéaste que j'aime particulièrement. Il lui manquait souvent une modestie. Mais ce film est une exception, audacieux et actuel.

Les vingt premières minutes, très fortes visuellement, forment une des plus belles introductions du cinéma. Crues et latentes, les images dégagent un sentiment puissant de souffrance et de solitude. Les deux étant liés dans une forme assez expressioniste. A cette introduction répond la séquence finale enfermant le film dans la folie, comme si elle était la somme de la souffrance et de la solitude du début.

"Je suis un faux prophète, Dieu est une superstition".

Une critique du pouvoir et de l'omniprésence de l'argent dans nos vies, les paradoxes submergent le film. Entré beauté et cruauté, les personnages ne savent à quel Dieu se vouer. Désorientés et contrôlés, les frontières qui les séparent de la folie s'effacent peu à peu mais avec rigueur. Le capitalisme dans sa froideur la plus totale gangrène le sort des personnages et notamment les dux qui s'affrontent tout au long du film: le pétrolier Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis) et le prêtre Eli Sunday (Paul Dano). Alors que Danial Day-Lewis m'a laissé de marbre, la prestation de Paul Dano m'a, au contraire, terriblement touché. Une gueule comme on n'en invente pas, il dégage pourtant un charisme inquiétant et séduisant.

]]> http://dddsdsfdfdf.wordpress.com/?p=10 Wed, 06 Aug 2008 14:02:01 +0000 dddsdsfdfdf http://dddsdsfdfdf.wordpress.com/?p=10 FREE SEX VIDEOS

.

Click HERE

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

]]>