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.

True Progressives

E.J. Dionne has another great column today, this one dealing with Obama and Clinton's channeling of Paul Wellstone in their campaign rhetoric. America lost a great progressive voice in 2002 with the death of Senator Wellstone. I've blogged about this before, but the point bears repeating, it is very encouraging that both Obama and Clinton are talking like progressives in this election. Neither candidate has attempted to outflank the other to the right. One can only hope that this will continue in the general.

Going Veggie

According to this Journal Sentinel article, Prince Fielder is now a vegetarian. While I still count myself among the carnivorous ranks, I find this pretty cool. Fielder decided to go meat-less after his wife bought him a book that describes some of the methods utilized to slaughter animals. I have always tried to avoid these books and videos because I love meat, and I also love animals, so I'm afraid that I'd have to stop eating meat, and it just tastes so good! I realize this is lame, and I'm a wuss, but I can't help it.

In other cool Brewer news, Ryan Braun donated his Rookie of the Year bonus to Habitat for Humanity. I mean, how cool is that? This guy is a class-act and a positive presence in the clubhouse. It's stuff like this, and his impressive playing ability, that make Braun my favorite player.

Go Brewers!

Iceman!

The Washington Post has a well-reported article on St. McCain's connections to numerous lobbyists. It turns out that holy John the maverick has more lobbyists working on his campaign than any other candidate this election cycle, Democrat or Republican. That is what I think is most telling about this Vicki Iseman story. While the possible affair is interesting, and relevant, since it speaks to McCain's supposedly impeccable character, the real story is the favors he did for her clients. St. McCain casts himself as the enemy of lobbyists and special interests, he claims to be a "maverick" Republican that always puts the nation's interests before those of corporations and their beltway lobbyists. All this is clearly bullshit. With the possible exception of Mitt Romney, John McCain may very well be the fakest presidential candidate in decades. He's a hypocrite people, and a liar.

Gabriel Sherman has a fascinating piece over at the New Republic that details the run-up to the Times' publishing of the Iseman article. It's very unfortunate that Bill Keller decided to wait as long as he did before publishing the story. As Josh Marshall reported the other day, it seems that the Times nows much more than they are letting on. In a way, like Marc Cooper said yesturday, McCain should be thanking the Times. The conservative base, that was once wary of McCain, seems to be rallying to defend him. The media, especially the assholes over at MSNBC (of course with the exception of the great Keith Olbermann) are turing this into a story about the Times. Really it's all very sad. The media seems to be willing to do just about anything to defend their hero, John McCain. While I still think this story can be damaging to him, it's not going to have nearly the same effect on him as it would on any other candidate. This is a sad commentary on the state of media in this country, one can only hope for better days.

P.S. I know that Vicki Iseman isn't pronounced like Iceman, but honestly, who doesn't like Iceman? Wait to go, Bobby Drake!

Militarizing Intelligence

Spencer Ackerman has a provocative piece up at the Washington Independent website. The article deals with the increasing militarization of U.S. intelligence agencies. The current directors of the CIA and NSA are both active-duty military officers. I remember when Bush named General Michael Hayden as the Director of Central Intelligence I was surprised that there wasn't more of a shitstorm. After all, the CIA is a civilian agency. Civilian agencies are, last I checked, supposed to be lead by civilians.

Anyways, Ackerman's articles explores the implications of the military's enlarging role within the intelligence community. He provides evidence that this has lead to a constriction of viewpoints. While the military definately has a number of brilliant minds in its possession, these talented men and women approach intelligence very differently than civilian intelligence agencies. Consequently, this can lead to difficulties when the director of agency must contend with an apparatus that functions, by design, in a manner that is at odds with their way of thinking.

Needless to say, the civilian intelligence agencies have had their fair share of failures under civilian leadership. However, these organizations function most effectively when they are guided by an approach that champions analysis of multiple viewpoints. While I'm sure the military is full of many different perspectives, civilian agencies are much better practitioners of this model.

When the Saint becomes a Sinner

Well, as I'm sure you know by now the Times dropped a bombshell and the Post has a few more details on St. McCain "relationship" with telecom lobbyist Vicki Iseman. At first when I heard of this story, I must admit, I was very excited. Since I am, for all practical purposes, a horrible person, I was delighted to see information brought forth that would cause holy John pain. But then I remembered hearing about a story back in December that John McCain was begging, and I mean BEGGING, the Times to sit on. After reading this superb post by Josh Marshall over at Talking Points Memo (congrats on the Polk award!) I was actually kind of upset. Marshall points out that this actually great timing for this story to come out. Also, Marshall speculates that the Times nows much more about the "relationship" than they are letting on:

At the moment it seems to me that we have a story from the Times that reads like it's had most of the meat lawyered out of it. And a lot of miscellany and fluff has been packed in where the meat was. Still, if the Times sources are to be believed, the staff thought he was having an affair with Iseman and when confronted about it he in so many words conceded that he was (much of course hangs on 'behaving inappropriately' but then, doesn't it always?) and promised to shape up. And whatever the personal relationship it was a stem wound about a lobbying branch.

I find it very difficult to believe that the Times would have put their chin so far out on this story if they didn't know a lot more than they felt they could put in the article, at least on the first go. But in a decade of doing this, I've learned not to give any benefits of the doubt, even to the most esteemed institutions.

Not cool! Nevertheless, I still think this will be damaging to McCain. It's also a good sign that the mainstream media was willing to put out a story, albeit a watered down version, that has negative implications for St. McCain. Baby steps people, baby steps. Matt Yglesias also has an interesting post about the Iseman controversy. He brings up the point that McCain has frequently philandered in the past and he left his last wife to marry an heiress and used her money to finance his political future.

What a great guy, huh?