So I watched half an hour of the Michael Jackson documentary. I saw the part where he's dancing. Man, the boy can move. Then they showed the 3,000 acre estate he lives on. After that, I switched channels. Michael Jackson looked so strange to me. His face, his nose, and even his hair. And what is up with his voice.
God, I really used to like him too. I thought he such an innovative music artist, and before the Pepsi fire, not a bad looking guy. I guess I didn't want to watch the documentary because I didn't want to spoil my images of him and respect for him. I mean, the guy comes off as such a freak. And what's worse, the guy is breeding and makes his children walk around in masks. Can you imagine what the psychotherapy bills for the children will be like now and in the future? It's sad, so sad.
Friday, February 07, 2003
Thursday, February 06, 2003
I wasn't sure what to write about today, but then I remembered I was going to write about seeing "Gangs of New York".
What a great movie. It was violent as heck, but I really admire the scope and breadth of Scorcese's vision. He directs the kind of story that is so perfect for the big screen. It made me wonder about my screenplay, and how my story is personal and small compared to Gangs.
Daniel Day-Lewis was superb, but then he always is. I don't think that I've ever seen a bad performance from him. I think I would have to agree with some reviewers that Leonard Dicaprio was a bit miscast, but he can't help it if he's Hollywood thin and pretty. Cameron Diaz was also an interesting choice as the only female in the movie. Her irish accent was flawed, and although her acting was adequate, I think that playing next to someone like Day-Lewis made her acting weaknesses stand out. I think Dicaprio suffered from the Day-Lewis eclipse as well.
Day-Lewis is so riveting as an actor, that all attention goes to him when he's in the scene. Liam Neeson has the same power as Day-Lewis, but he was only in the movie for such a short time. Day-Lewis' hair was so darn greasy, that I really got the sense that he was dirty inside and out.
I was surprised by the orgy scenes. It's kind of stuff you see in french movies, and almost never in american movies. I loved the fight scenes movies, which were way better than the fight scenes in Braveheart. I love all that blood and gore stuff when it's realistic. I know that this sounds strange, but seeing realistic violent scenes is the only way for me to visualize a violent fight. I've been lucky in that I've never been seen violence up close, but in some way I think it's unfortunate that I've never really been exposed to the more seamy side of life. My life has been quite sheltered, and to me this explains my love of violent movies. Perhaps if I had a taste of violence in my real life, I might not be so fond of it on the big screen.
The movie really made me want to read the book, and it also start me wondering about what my immigrant grandparents went through when they came to this country. I know they hated it, and vowed for their children and grandchildren to have a better life. I think they succeeded it, but it makes me wonder what hardships they had to go through. They never talk about it, even when you ask them. They just say it was a hard life. I think they want to forget that part of theif life, block it out, perhaps because it was too painful; I wish I knew.
I saw a special on Bravo about the authenticity of Gangs of New York. The show interviewed a historian who said that irish have come a long way in America, and how excited they must have all felt when just 100 years later, an irish catholic by the name of JFK was elected to be president of the country.
What a great movie. It was violent as heck, but I really admire the scope and breadth of Scorcese's vision. He directs the kind of story that is so perfect for the big screen. It made me wonder about my screenplay, and how my story is personal and small compared to Gangs.
Daniel Day-Lewis was superb, but then he always is. I don't think that I've ever seen a bad performance from him. I think I would have to agree with some reviewers that Leonard Dicaprio was a bit miscast, but he can't help it if he's Hollywood thin and pretty. Cameron Diaz was also an interesting choice as the only female in the movie. Her irish accent was flawed, and although her acting was adequate, I think that playing next to someone like Day-Lewis made her acting weaknesses stand out. I think Dicaprio suffered from the Day-Lewis eclipse as well.
Day-Lewis is so riveting as an actor, that all attention goes to him when he's in the scene. Liam Neeson has the same power as Day-Lewis, but he was only in the movie for such a short time. Day-Lewis' hair was so darn greasy, that I really got the sense that he was dirty inside and out.
I was surprised by the orgy scenes. It's kind of stuff you see in french movies, and almost never in american movies. I loved the fight scenes movies, which were way better than the fight scenes in Braveheart. I love all that blood and gore stuff when it's realistic. I know that this sounds strange, but seeing realistic violent scenes is the only way for me to visualize a violent fight. I've been lucky in that I've never been seen violence up close, but in some way I think it's unfortunate that I've never really been exposed to the more seamy side of life. My life has been quite sheltered, and to me this explains my love of violent movies. Perhaps if I had a taste of violence in my real life, I might not be so fond of it on the big screen.
The movie really made me want to read the book, and it also start me wondering about what my immigrant grandparents went through when they came to this country. I know they hated it, and vowed for their children and grandchildren to have a better life. I think they succeeded it, but it makes me wonder what hardships they had to go through. They never talk about it, even when you ask them. They just say it was a hard life. I think they want to forget that part of theif life, block it out, perhaps because it was too painful; I wish I knew.
I saw a special on Bravo about the authenticity of Gangs of New York. The show interviewed a historian who said that irish have come a long way in America, and how excited they must have all felt when just 100 years later, an irish catholic by the name of JFK was elected to be president of the country.
Wednesday, February 05, 2003
Wow. I just read Thomas Friedman of the NY Times latest column entitled "Will My Neighbors Approve?".
Here is what Friedman says about the war on Iraq, "Now, truth be told, I think I get this war, and, on balance, I think it is a risk worth taking — provided we have a country willing to see it through."
Friedman is endorsing the war on Iraq. I would put a link to it here, but you have to register with the NY Times to probably see the column. Friedman also writes that much of the country does not support the war, and I think he may be right about that although I'm surprised. Friedman attributes people's lack of enthusiasm for the war to the bad economy, and he has a point there; economics rule.
Still, I thought for sure that there would be more support for the war in the states that voted for Bush. Perhaps Friedman is wrong. What's interesting about the anti-war movement to me, is that there are no publicized anti-war rallies in NYC. Why is that? Is NYC still hurting from 9/11 and in a serious post 9/11 security hangover? Or has 9/11 turned NYC into war hawks or into shell shocked barely surviving peace doves? No one talks about the lack of anti-war demonstrations in NYC, which I find odd, but perhaps the media understands NYC's mood better than I can.
Here is what Friedman says about the war on Iraq, "Now, truth be told, I think I get this war, and, on balance, I think it is a risk worth taking — provided we have a country willing to see it through."
Friedman is endorsing the war on Iraq. I would put a link to it here, but you have to register with the NY Times to probably see the column. Friedman also writes that much of the country does not support the war, and I think he may be right about that although I'm surprised. Friedman attributes people's lack of enthusiasm for the war to the bad economy, and he has a point there; economics rule.
Still, I thought for sure that there would be more support for the war in the states that voted for Bush. Perhaps Friedman is wrong. What's interesting about the anti-war movement to me, is that there are no publicized anti-war rallies in NYC. Why is that? Is NYC still hurting from 9/11 and in a serious post 9/11 security hangover? Or has 9/11 turned NYC into war hawks or into shell shocked barely surviving peace doves? No one talks about the lack of anti-war demonstrations in NYC, which I find odd, but perhaps the media understands NYC's mood better than I can.
I heard on the news today that if you were predisposed to a war with Iraq, Colin Powell's 90 minute presentation at the United Nations answered all your questions. However, if you were against a war with Iraq, there was nothing that Colin Powell could have said that would have convinced you to change your postion.
I thought Powell gave very convincing evidence, but I was a cautious supporter of the war before his speech.
Two things that stood out for me in Powell's presentation.
1) who is tipping off the Iraqis on the UN inspectors itinerary? Is it someone on the team, or is it a result of Iraqi intelligence.
2) Iraq has never accounted for all the chemical and biological weaponry found by the UN inspectors in the 90's. This issue is frightening for me. I'm like people, what is the silliness about having Saddam Hussein contained? I don't think so. Not if Iraq may still have the chemical and biological weaponry from that period. This is where I don't get why people don't think he's a danger, or that Hussein is a person who can reasoned with like a normal person. Whatever.
Whether the anti-war protestors like it or not, we are on a road to war. There are over 100,000 troops in the middle east preparing for the event. The cost of sending them and keeping them there is enormous, and they wouldn't be there unless we were going to war.
I don't enjoy war. I am not a war monger or a war hawk, but I also don't think the US should make the Neville Chamberlain mistake and think that Saddam Hussein like Adolf Hitler is not threat to the world.
What scares me too, is there are news reports floating around that say that our intelligence sources are showing the same amount of communication among Al-Queda operatives that they saw in the day preceding 9/11. What are those terrorists planning, and why is it so hard for the US to find them and lock them up?
I thought Powell gave very convincing evidence, but I was a cautious supporter of the war before his speech.
Two things that stood out for me in Powell's presentation.
1) who is tipping off the Iraqis on the UN inspectors itinerary? Is it someone on the team, or is it a result of Iraqi intelligence.
2) Iraq has never accounted for all the chemical and biological weaponry found by the UN inspectors in the 90's. This issue is frightening for me. I'm like people, what is the silliness about having Saddam Hussein contained? I don't think so. Not if Iraq may still have the chemical and biological weaponry from that period. This is where I don't get why people don't think he's a danger, or that Hussein is a person who can reasoned with like a normal person. Whatever.
Whether the anti-war protestors like it or not, we are on a road to war. There are over 100,000 troops in the middle east preparing for the event. The cost of sending them and keeping them there is enormous, and they wouldn't be there unless we were going to war.
I don't enjoy war. I am not a war monger or a war hawk, but I also don't think the US should make the Neville Chamberlain mistake and think that Saddam Hussein like Adolf Hitler is not threat to the world.
What scares me too, is there are news reports floating around that say that our intelligence sources are showing the same amount of communication among Al-Queda operatives that they saw in the day preceding 9/11. What are those terrorists planning, and why is it so hard for the US to find them and lock them up?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)