Beltmann

I'm halfway through Sorcerer, William Friedkin's 1977 remake of Henri-Georges Clouzot's 1953 classic The Wages of Fear. The original is one of my favorite suspense movies, so perhaps I'm biased, but so far the remake pretty much blows. Plus, the DVD release is pan-and-scan, which doesn't help.

Netflix; the DVD was just recently released. I'm not confident that Walker is a good film, but I was captivated by its bold strokes--what are helicopters and Newsweek covers doing in a film about an American zealot trying to rule Nicaragua in the mid-19th-century?--and by the continued relevance of its allegory. Plus, as El F noted, it has an awesome musical score.

I thought this post was going to end better.

DVR is set! Thanks!

Good to see you around, Larry!

That happened to me, too. I still have the dollar bill somewhere.

Yep. That's exactly like the one I had.

I dunno. Classic often means a work that has stood the test of time (old) or stands as a definitive exemplar of the art form (good), but not necessarily both. (I already believe that There Will Be Blood is a classic.) Classic could also mean a work that has lasting cultural significance--which suggests that an old yet mediocre movie that has somehow remained popular could also fit the bill. (An Affair to Remember comes to mind.) I suppose it's one of those I know it when I see it scenarios.

My daughter is 3, and just discovering the joys of The Wizard of Oz and The Sound of Music. Plus, when they are so young there are no prejudices to overcome... when I showed her Harold Lloyd's Safety Last!, there was no griping about the B&W, the archaic style, or the fact that it's silent. When it was over, she simply said, "Can we watch that again? Right now?"

Ditto. This afternoon:

Three Songs of Lenin, by Vertov? No, I haven't seen that one yet... Speaking of Eisenstein's Nevsky, have you seen his Ivan the Terrible, Part One? That's probably my favorite Eisenstein. It chronicles Ivan's plan to shrink the power of landholding nobles and unify Russia under the powerful rule of a single Tsar. Unification always comes at a great price, and often requires an imposed will, which raises doubts about its desirability; Eisenstein focuses on those national stresses while simultaneously sympathizing with Ivan's personal stresses. It's a complex melodrama, juggling various p

Where to begin? Pre-1930, I suppose, and I'll keep it short: Anything by Keaton, Chaplin, Harold Lloyd, Eisenstein, Melies, or the Lumiere brothers Un Chien Andalou The Passion of Joan of Arc The Wind The Man With the Movie Camera Skyscraper Symphony Greed Sunrise Napolean

I can vouch for this.

Or... (3) still convinced the invasion was a colossal mistake (still opposed to the war) but aware that a mess has now been made, which muddies the issue considerably

And this news article suggests the scandal targeted the wrong campaign:

Season 2 has been disappointing--it's still good TV, but not nearly at the heights of season 1--but I'm happy the show's coming back.

Silent film comedian Buster Keaton. I am a fan.

If only the campaigns could be so civil! Without question. On many topics.

Until the president has the power to issue decrees, only a fool would believe that Obama, or any politician, could make their entire campaign wishlist come true, particularly without compromise. I hang out with a lot of Obama supporters, and I don't know a single one that expects him to be a Savior, despite the media narrative suggesting otherwise. All I'm expecting is a good president who fights for the right values.

Although Clinton claims not to be able to see the difference, I think there's a huge contextual difference between the initial vote and subsequent votes. The first one could have avoided war; all the rest are made in the entirely separate context of war already being waged.

If you're talking about policy compromises, hasn't that already been a cornerstone of Obama's campaign? He's running as someone who will achieve things because he's willing to listen, to reach out, to compromise. And his record as both a state and US elected official bears that out. He has consistently been willing to settle rather than change nothing. Clinton, on the other hand, has been running as a "fighter" who will proudly polarize Washington in order to "defeat" the evil Republicans. And her long record bears that out. That is a fundamental philosophical difference between them.

I know! I just wanted to say queet one more time.

It's my name. Having no cloak of anonymity helps me self-censor... while I often think many sarcastic and assholic comments, I rarely go ahead and post them. My avatar, though, is not me. Muncle, nice story. Sometimes my brother-in-law still calls me "Queet," in reference to how, 10 years ago, I once conflated cool and sweet. (I started off saying one of them and, apparently, changed my mind midstream.) We bicker about the proper spelling; he insists it must be "cweet, while I argue that the aesthetic value of the "q" trumps all. Did I just make up the word assholic? If so, queet.