Review: In Bruges

I love gangster films. I especially love British/Irish/Scottish gangster films. While these films generally vary in quality, I usually end up liking the great majority of them, In Bruges is not exception. The story begins when two hitman, Ken (Brendan Gleeson) and Ray (Colin Farrell) are sent on some much needed R&R in Bruges, Belgium by their boss Harry (Ralph Fiennes). Bruges, for those of you who don't know (and you can count me as one of those who didn't know), is the best preserved medevil city in Europe. Ken immediately takes a liking to the historical city, while Ray, preferring the fast paced lifestyle of London, is quite bored. The two are on R&R as a result of a hit gone terribly wrong. A phone call from England to the two hitmen begins a chain of events that results in tempers a flaring and bullets a flying.

Wow. I really enjoyed this film. Gleeson, Farrell, and Fiennes all give alternately hilarious and meaningful performances. Colin Farrell has restored my faith in him as an actor after the disastrous Alexander and Miami Vice. I never new that Ralph Fiennes could be so hilarious and while he plays the villain in the movie, so inherently likable. Brendan Gleeson is perhaps one of the most underused actors in film. He's in plenty of movies, but he usually has a smallish supporting role. Gleeson really shines in this part, and I hope it leads to him garnering more leading roles. The plot in this movie is relatively original and the surprise ending definately caught me off guard. I haven't laughed this hard during a movie in a long time, er, well at least since Juno, and the movie is worth seeing for the accented swearing and filthy language alone. Over all, I highly recommend this movie.

Rating: ***

*= Uwe Boll/Michael Bay bad **= Keanu Reevesish ***= Great ****= Fantastic

It's Bill Kristol Monday at the NYT!

Bill Kristol's latest joke of a column has once again left me literally speechless. Bascially, Wild Bill is ripshit that Barack and Michelle Obama aren't bursting-at-the-seams patriotic. He references an old Obama quote where he stated that the American flag pin had become a substitute for true patriotism. This came in response to a query as to why Obama no longer sported the pin on his lapel. Kristol takes issue with the fact that Obama had to respond to the question in "grandiose" and "moral" terms. He's also upset over the Michelle Obama statement that she is proud of America for the first time in her "adult life" because Americans seem to be ready for change. Both Barack and Michelle Obama have repeatedly explained this remark and it was clearly taken out of context. She was speaking about the condition of American politics, not the condition of America itself. Well, that's not good enough for Bill Kristol, he argues that since Michelle Obama's adult life goes back into the mid-80's it's inconceivable to him that she would not find something to be proud of. After all, according to Kristol, the last 25 years of the 20th century improved the lives of most Americans. Of course, Kristol provides no figures to back this up.

What's even more incoherrant about this column is its relationship to previous columns that Kristol has penned about Obama. Most of those were fairly positive, though one has to believe this was a result of Kristol's vitriol against Hillary Clinton. This, frankly speaks to how poor of a writer Kristol is. He doesn't seem to be aware that when read week to week his columns don't fit together at all. He seems to contradict himself on a weekly basis. Oh, and of course, Kristol has to throw in a plug for St. McCain at the end. Kristol states, in so many words, that John McCain makes no claims that he can save the souls of Americans and he is a true patriot. Clearly, any candidate that loves perpetual war and destruction is a real American hero in Bill Kristol's book.