Body Of Lies, adapted by the same screenwriter as The Departed, William Monahan, proves to be just as far fetched and implausible, only without Alec Baldwin and Mark Wahlberg farting out Shakespeare resulting in a typical stylisitic rehashing of Syriana, the then current Middle East bomb infested terrorist action flick.

Amidst the war torn country of Jordan with all it's civil unrest and harboring terrorist safe houses you can always count on some incognito American Counter Intelligence Operative, Roger Ferris (Leonardo DiCaprio), who manages to dodge bullets and missiles but is still unable to avoid getting bit by a dog - making time for your cliche romance with native nurse, Aisha (Golshifteh Farahani), who administers rabie shots to heal his wounds and then later of course, does double duty playing the damsel in distress. I surmarize this plot to serve for all those lost girlfriends in the audience.

(Poontang pie may taste as good as cherry but til Tastyvision who needs this mush?)

Meanwhile back in the good ole' USA at CIA headquarters Ferris' handler and superior, Ed Hoffman (Russell Crowe) gaining 63lbs I guess to authenticate the gluttonous nature of American excess or simply the result and justification of him sitting on his fat ass while he monitors Ferris' every bowel movement via the high tech unmanned aerial vehicle that is capable of zooming in on every fucking grain of sand in them desert regions yet is unfortunately unable to locate known terrorist leader, Al Saleem, whom recently masterminded bombings throughout Europe and whom both Ferris and Hoffman's mission is to capture and kill.

Not only do they have this eye in the sky at their disposal to be in constant communique but also Ferris has uncanny cell reception in this barren wasteland when I can't even get reception in my fucking house. At least this is more plausible then how Ferris is able to befriend the head of Jordanian Intelligence Dept., Hani Salaam (Mark Strong), but then later deceive him by setting up a bogus terroist cell and staging an attack on a US military base in Turkey using unclaimed bodies dressed as soldiers (hence the title) to lure Al Saleem into thinking maybe he's not be the baddest terrorist on the block anymore and to crawl out of his cave to be exposed to open fire. Not surprisingly this convoluted covert operation backfires resulting in Leo losing a couple of fingers and his patriotism. At least his and Crowe's performance aren't as annoying as Aisha licking Leo's wounds.

(foolios)

Ridley Scott vuelve en gloria y majestad a la ciencia ficción, en específico a filmar The Forever War del escritor Joe Haldeman, la cual cuenta la historia de una guerra espacial en que enfrenta a las Fuerzas de la Tierra contra una misteriosa raza alienígena. La gracia de esta historia es que no se centra en el conflicto bélico en sí, ni en la tecnología, ni siquiera en la raza enemiga, sino que en  el drama de un soldado que viaja a combatir, pero por la relatividad de los viajes espaciales regresa a la Tierra 20 o 30 años después de su partida. De acuerdo a lo que dice Scott, esta historia sería una mezcla entre La Odisea y Blade Runner, era que no. The Forever War podría estrenarse en algun momento de 2010.

Plot Synopsis (via IMDb): Roger Ferris (Leonardo DiCaprio) is a covert CIA operative working in Jordan searching for terrorists who have been bombing civilian targets. Ferris uncovers information on the Islamist mastermind Al-Saleem (Alon Aboutboul). He devises a plan to infiltrate Al-Saleem's terrorist network with the help of his boss back in Langley, Ed Hoffman (Russell Crowe). Ferris enlists the help of the Chief of Jordanian Intelligence, Hani Salaam (Mark Strong) on this operation, but he doesn't know how far he can trust him without putting his life in danger. The uneasy alliance leads to a cultural and moral clash between the men.  Directed by Ridley Scott.

Trailer:

Bottom Line: Body of Lies bombed at the box office but I still think it's worth a watch or at least a rental.  The action scenes were very well done and felt quite real.  Both DiCaprio and Crowe give solid performances but I guess that doesn't come as a surprise to anyone.  Leo is still a Top 5 actor for me.  I was wondering if the movie would be a little too slow but I found the story to be pretty interesting and it kept me interested throughout the film.  One problem with the story might be that it gets a little too complicated at times.  I thought that the mini-love story involving Leo's character is decent but I can understand the criticism it has received that it only serves to assist how the plot unfolds.  Overall, I had a similar reaction to this film as I did to another Ridley Scott film, American Gangster.  It seemed to have the potential to be something special but it turned out to just be pretty good.  I still enjoyed it for the most part but it has its problem and is definitely not a great film.

"Forever War" follows an extremely intelligent university student in a futuristic earth as he is recruited to battle a far-off alien species. He returns a few months later to find out the time dilation due to the extreme speeds at which their spacecraft travels has caused a quarter century to pass on earth. The soldiers struggle to assimilate back into a society which has since instated homosexuality to deal with overpopulation. Unable to deal with the gay-centric society the (homophobic?) protagonist continues to go on countless more outerspace tours, only to become more and more disconnected from the world around him.

We wonder if they'll drop or play up the homosexual/homophobia angle? It's definitely an interesting twist to sci-fi. Scott is on a sci-fi kick of late, he's also developing, Aldous Huxley's "Brave New World," with Leonardo DiCaprio. Maybe he's finally realizing the sci-fi genre is what his audience really love him for? It hasn't been his bread and butter in a long time, but we'll see how it pans out.

Courtesy of The Playlist.

If such news is not bad enough. guess which movie came in 3rd Place....drumroll please ......Ridley Scott's "Body of Lies".  In these harsh economic times, are moviegoers seeking some type of escape (a la Chihuahua)? Are moviegoers turned off by serious moviefare because our realities have become less carefree lately?

Any film that presents itself as an overwrought social commentary of our times may fall flat at the box office even with major star power backing it up. With "Body of Lies", I noticed that the movie's plot was not touched upon in the advertising.  Advertising primarily harped on  the fact that Leonardo Dicaprio and Russell Crowe were starring while Ridley Scott was in the director's helm.  But, I did gather that the plot revolved around espionage, covert missions, the middle east, and the American government in that region of the world. 

Maybe we no longer wish to see the deluge of films revolving around the turmoil in the middle east.   I expected such films to come to the forefront post- 9/11.  Since 9/11, films such as Jarhead, World Trade Center, Stop Loss, Lions and Lambs, The Kingdom, and the like have come out.

Matt Damon's Bourne Series and  Daniel Craig's reimagined Bond deal with covert missions, espionage, and deception within the government, yet those films succeeded because they are steeped in another 'reality' separate to our own (great acting, script, scene location, and a good director can't hurt either).  This reality is an escape with the equal measures of danger and fun.   In films focused on the turmoil in the middle east, it is hard to separate fact from fiction. We experiece a full measure of danger but no fun is included in this package.  We do not escape these films.  We see connections between this film and our reality. We see if this 'reality' is merely a mirror to our own.  No escape in sight.

 Maybe this is the end of the bankable film star.  Sometimes all it took for someone to see a movie was to catch a glimpse of your favorite actor or actress.  His or her name alone would rake in movie sales.  I think many believed that the triumvirate of Dicaprio, Crow, and Scott (world renowned director's have clout) would garner praise and box office success. Well, it did not happen.  Maybe actors are choosing to star in horrible films just for the paycheck (Nicholas Cage in every film after he got his oscar), so being a big star may not be enough. Maybe the subject matter alone was enough to turn moviegoers off to the film.  I don't know.

The failure of this as well as other big budget films does not bode well for up-and-coming as well as established film directors seeking funding for their visions.  In these conservative economic times, even directors that never hear the word 'No' get rejected by major studios these days (read: Steven Spielberg and Peter Jackson).

Are moviegoes tiring of seeing social commentary on the movie screen? Are moviegoers tired of seeing grim prospects in the middle east, tired of hearing about the causes and effects of wars overseas?

 Maybe films like Chihuahua are successful because we do not wish to be prodded to think - we simply wish to laugh.

I no longer read the front page of the New York Times anymore. The front page also seems to be the bearer of bad news. In my channel watching, I quickly scurry past BBC World News or CNN.  If any, I quickly peruse through the news in the morning, but I do not leave the news channels on 24/7. I think that it is overkill and unhealthy to do so. 

Lately, I only take in the news through some comedic filter. The Colbert Report as well as the Daily Show have been a mainstay.  I know that times may be tough for myself and even tougher for many others this time, but I want to be able to laugh and smile on occasion - and move forward.  I tire of hearing the word recession.  In my opinion, simply uttering the word gives it power by allowing the thought of it linger in our minds.  It can linger to the point of paralyzing you.

I want to move forward, so my mind is on expansion rather than recession, but don't expect me to 'move forward' and watch 'Beverly Hills Chihuahua' of my own volition.

Ridley Scott to adapt Haldeman's Forever War

Wow.

Just. Wow.

If you're not familiar with this 1970s classic of science fiction, do yourself a favor and get a copy of the book and read it. The story is excellent, the message better, and the writing superb.

The Forever War - as envisioned by my favorite director?  Wow.

From the Variety news item:

"I first pursued Forever War 25 years ago, and the book has only grown more timely and relevant since," Scott told Daily Variety. "It's a science-fiction epic, a bit of The Odyssey by way of Blade Runner, built upon a brilliant, disorienting premise."

Book revolves around a soldier who battles an enemy in deep space for only a few months, only to return home to a planet he doesn't recognize some 20 years later, Scott said.

The Forever War rights were acquired right after publication by f/x titan Richard Edlund, who spent $400,000 of his own money and intended to make the book his directorial debut. The book became an iconic sci-fi title but Edlund, who won two Oscars - including one for visual effects on "Raiders of the Lost Ark" - never got The Forever War off the ground. After a Sci Fi Channel miniseries stalled, Scott became interested again and Edlund was ready to make a deal. It took six months to secure all the rights.

A small bit of personal history -I had made the acquaintance of a president emeritus of my college after I had graduated in 1980, through a mutual friend.  As we got to know one another, he started reading some of my early efforts at writing and was very encouraging.  At one point he suggested that what I needed to do was to go to the Iowa Writer's Workshop.  "I'll set it up with the Director," he said.  "He's an old graduate school friend of mine.  I'll send him some of your stuff, then you go talk with him."

I did.  After pleasantries the Director looked at me and asked "why are you here?"

A bit of panic.  "Well, I'd like to learn how to be a better writer."

He picked up the file with the samples President Leggett had sent him.  "But this is . . . science fiction."

There was an unmistakeable taint to those last two words in his voice, though it was clear that he was attempting to mask his feelings, probably because of his relationship with his old friend.

"Well, yes."

"I'm sorry.  We don't do science fiction."

"But what about Kurt Vonnegut? Joe Haldeman?"

"Ah.  Well, things didn't work out that well with Joe."

And like that, the interview was over.  Oh, we chatted a bit more, and he made some additional pleasant noises, but the meeting was through.  It would be a couple of years before I again thought about grad school and writing, and when I did so I did it coming from a slightly different direction - while working on a MA in English Literature, taking classes in the Workshop as I could.  That was when I got some of the background: seems that Haldeman's success with The Forever War had ruffled some feathers of those who considered science fiction to be sub-literary.  Haldeman himself has had things to say about that.  I had walked into a mine field, without knowing that it was there.

Ah well.  And with that, I have to leave.

Jim Downey

The crux of the movie lies in the realistic and accurate potrayal of the situation in the middle-east - without going into jingoism or long partriotic speeches. The point of the matter is that everyone down there is a bastard. No matter which side they are on. Also it shows that the Americans with all their political and technological muscle are not as much in control as they like to show...and that in field the rules of engagement are different. They are dirty, grimy and very human. To introduce a bit of light-heartedness in an otherwise heavy subject - Scott deftly touches upon a budding romance between Ferris and a local Jordanian nurse... which provides a smile here and there. The "Meet-the-sister" scene is brilliant (with probably the only righteous speech in the movie) and it is clear that DiCaprio still rocks when it comes to wooing women... though it can be said that he even rocks while shooting at evil Arabs. Overall - definitely worth a see, the movie will stay with you for a long time after it is over.  Watch it when it hits Indian theaters next weekend. 4 out of 5 stars.

Body of Lies menceritakan kerja intelejen yang dilakukan agen CIA bernama Robert Ferris (Leonardo DiCaprio) di beberapa negara Timur Tengah. Intensitas kerja Ferris semakin bertambah ketika kelompok 'teroris' pimpinan Al Salim mulai melakukan sekelompok teror bom di Eropa. Al Salim pun menjadi target utama dari misi intelejen Ferris di Timur Tengah, mulai dari Irak, Jordania, hingga Uni Emirat Arab.

Dalam melakukan misinya, Ferris membutuhkan bantuan Kepala Intel Jordania bernama Hani (Mark Strong). Namun Hani hanya bersedia membantu Ferris dengan syarat tidak ada kebohongan dan hal yang ditutup-tutupi. Tentu saja hal yang sulit dilakukan intel manapun, karena Ferris juga menyadari ada hal yang ditutup-tutupi oleh Ed Hoffman (Russel Crowe), atasannya di CIA.

Setiap konspirasi adalah seni penuh kebohongan, dan kelak kebohongan itulah yang menjadi klimaks permasalahan dalam film ini. Hubungan segitiga antara Ferris, Hoffman, dan Hani untuk menerka siapa yang bisa dipercaya dan siapa yang tidak, menjadi benang merah permasalahan yang menarik untuk disimak. Selain itu ancaman bom Al Salim di penjuru Eropa menambah rumit hubungan di antara ketiganya.

Ridley Scott memang berpengalaman dalam membuat film pertempuran dengan setting di dalam kota. Sehingga adegan aksi seperti yang digambarkan Ridley Scott di Black Hawk Down, masih terlihat dan menarik untuk dilihat. Namun tidak ada yang istimewa dalam hal cerita mengenai kerja intelejen ala CIA di film ini. Secara umum, plot yang dibuat tetap menggambarkan patriotisme ala Amerika, namun tetap mengkritik kebijakan perang pemerintahnya.

Namun usaha Scott untuk membuat film ini terlihat sangat realistis patut diacungi jempol. Ridley Scott berusaha memahami budaya Timur Tengah, itu terlihat dari bahasa Arab yang digunakan dalam dialog, hingga adegan perempuan yang tidak berjabat tangan. Cara kerja organisasi teroris dan metode yang digunakan juga terlihat nyata, walau sangat Amerika! Sama seperti pemerintah Amerika yang menganggap teror bagian dari Islam.

Ridley Scott torna a la ciència ficció. Un gènere que amb tan sols dos títols, 'Alien' i 'Blade Runner', el va enlairar al més alt de l'olimp hollywoodià a començament dels vuitanta i al qual torna ara després de tocar gairebé tots els estils cinematogràfics. Ho farà amb 'The Forever War', adaptació a la gran pantalla de la novel·la escrita el 1974 per l'estatunidenc Joe Haldeman.

Una pel·lícula darrere de la qual Scott porta molts anys, i que finalment aconsegueix dirigir i produir, a través de la seva companyia Scott Free, al costat de la Fox. "He perseguit aquesta obra durant 25 anys. Serà una pel·lícula èpica, una barreja de 'L'Odissea' i 'Blade Runner' que parteix d'una premissa brillant i desorientadora", ha afirmat el director en declaracions a 'Variety'.

'The Forever War' relata el conflicte interestel·lar entre la humanitat i una civilització remota, els taurins. Una guerra que dura segles i en què les tropes que hi participen es veuen obligades a viatjar d'un món a un altre a velocitats superiors a la de la llum, pel qual envelleixen només uns pocs dies mentre en la Terra passen els anys. Cada vegada que tornen a casa, els soldats de la guerra interminable es troben amb una Terra més irreconeixible i estranya.

Aquesta cinta podria ser el començament de tota una saga cinematogràfica ja que la novel·la ja té dues seqüeles literàries anomenades 'Forever Free' i 'Forever Peace' i una mena de 'spin-off' titulat 'A Separate War'. Material que, si la taquilla respon mínimament, la Fox assegura que no deixarà escapar. En tot cas, Scott no es posarà amb l'adaptació de 'The Forever War' fins que finalitzi el rodatge de 'Nottingham', l'adaptació de la història clàssica de Robin Hood que protagonitzarà el seu actor favorit, Russell Crowe.

Sloppy, overweight, and sporting a gray flat-top, Russell Crowe effortlessly spews his lines as Ed Hoffman in Ridley Scott's adaptation of the David Ignatius novel "Body of Lies."

Leonardo DiCaprio plays CIA operative, Roger Ferris.  It's as though William Costigan Jr. of "The Departed" was recruited by the U.S. Government, forced to change his name and hunt terrorists in Iraq.

The plot surrounds the pursuit of a terrorist cell led by Al Saleem (Alon Aboutboul).  As Hoffman watches and barks orders from the States his agent Ferris is on the ground in Iraq, dodging bullets, bombs and rabid dogs.

It's a pleasure to watch such professionals go tit-for-tat.  DiCaprio and Crowe don't share much screen time, but cell phone conversations between Hoffman and Ferris are frequent and always entertaining.

 A good flick, quality acting (Crowe and DiCpario bump heads for the entire 128 minutes, quality action(a lot of blood, some explosions and Leo takes a good beating), quality directing (Shots of the dessert are mesmerizing)

It's been a long time since film maker Ridley Scott made a new science fiction flick hasn't it? Ridley Scott who brought us "Blade Runner" and the first "Alien" is making a return to sci-fi in a film titled "The Forever War". Ridley has been planning to make "The Forever War" 25 years ago but never got around to it, but now he finally has the opportunity.

"The Forever War" will be adapted from the novel by Joe Haldeman, the story is about a soldier who battles an enemy in deep space, only to return home to a planet he doesn't recognize 20 years later.

Variety Reports:

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117993856.html?categoryid=13&cs=1

Ridley Scott has always been known to be switching from different genres in film from sci fi, fantasy, drama, thriller, etc.

"The Forever War" sounds great. Lets just hope Ridley don't overdo the CGI effects in the film since it's sci fi.

Kev

"...You don't shoot cops. Even I know that.
Eva knows it. The only one who DOESN'T seem to know is you..."

Links: -

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0765429/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Gangster_(film)

There are no partially hidden cameos in this film, but there are a number of excellent actors; Denzel Washington, Russell Crowe, Ruby Dee (who is such a natural actor, that you cannot but help believe in her every move and every piece of dialogue). However, I must say that though the casting is seemingly perfect, many of the characters are somewhat stereotypical to the point of almost being comical. For example - Detective Trupo (played by Josh Brolin) truly is a stereotypical bad-cop, and Dominic Cattano (played by Armand Assante) is a stereotypical Italian big-time gangsta. Now, in my opinion, stereotyping within movies essentially belong to the comedy genre - such as Ben Stiller's Zoolander, where the film thrives of presenting us with various stereotypes that derive from, and mock, the "...the male-model industry...". Stereotyping is about pushing certain expectations and conventions to unrealistic extremes, moreover - in the early days of cinema, stereotyping was a way of emphasising to an audience, naive with character and cinematic conventions, what they should expect from characters, by the way that they dressed, behaved, spoke and acted. Moreover, in time, early cinema audiences became familiar with certain cliche's, of which many became unused or replaced with new stereotypes as global societies and cultures developed and progressed out of modernity and into post-modernity - whereby many of the early assumptions and truths that we, as a collective culture, held to be true. As such, stereotyping now belongs to the realm of post-modernity, which is effect, should invalidate many preconceptions that we all once held to truth. The subject of post-modernity is beyond the scope of this review, but finally post-modernity belongs to late-capitalism, where cultural conventions and norms become redefined beyond recognitions - stereotyping is but one aspect of a theory that mocks culture, and by doing so, becomes culture.

So, the film does suffer slightly as a result of presenting us with stereotypes as a means expressing ideas and themes. For the worst type of stereotype is one that is done in earnest, is it not? Zoolander pretends to be serious, whilst alas for me - American Gangster actually believes it is serious.

In many respects, it is - I mean the theme is very interesting, and the quality of the production in terms of cinematography, screenplay, and pace all work together to take us through an exiting aspect of Harlem's modern history.

I notice that Det. Richie Roberts (played by Russell Crowe) wears a fine gold chain, from which a larger gold Star of David hangs, and I wonder if we are meant to conclude without reason of whether it is Roberts or Crowe who is Jewish? But of course, though it isn't explained within the movie, we can conclude that this is true. Roberts is tough, non-compromising, honest and with integrity within a sea of corruption that was so amass within the narcotics department of the NYPD during the late 1960s.

This film is fast paced - and if you listen to Ridely Scott's and Steven Zaillian's commentary of the DVD, there are various facts provided in terms of how many scenes there are in the film (350); how many pages for final draft of the script (120-125), and how many locations the production used (360!). Each scene fuels the next, with the main themes focusing on dominant paradigms within 1960s New York, contradiction seemingly inherent within The American Dream, as well as the the various injustices that resulted, apparently, from the Vietnam war. It is also a film that focuses on the theme of people who are not able to commit to anything life other than what they are bound to, in the form of either passion of obligation/duty. In this instance, Richie Roberts and Frank Lucas are men that cannot function within normal family relationships and relations, for they are both, equally consumed by what it is that they do for a living - by this both of their relationships within this film can be taken to be symbiotic - but without the natural ordering we see in nature - but both rely upon each other for what both of them require, regulated by the system at large.

This is what the film achieves, it shows us the cause and effect, from the top to the bottom, and at the time, dispelling any morality in the truth of war and organised businesses/crime, social deprivation and people who we expect to be of the highest moral and ethical standing within our society.

Typically, there is music juxtaposed with scenes of drug taking, (that thankfully does not 'shaftify' the film) trafficking and good-times enjoyed by Frank's closest family - who become, by Franks pure deceitfulness and issues as a sociopath, complicit to his drug empire. Denzel Washington's performance is brilliant - wholly convincing as man devoid of any feeling, remorse, of empathy.

Seemingly, any great film must contain at least one scene of 2 great actors playing out together - and I must say, unless this is done so in a completely justifiable way, that is true to the plot, and even more truer to the truth of the story, which is turn must be true to the idea!! Otherwise, there is a danger that in the near future every film will contain pointless scenes of iconic and legendary actors sitting and playing together simply for the sake of it - this is a very self-indulgent approach from the writer's and director's perspective, and actually devalues the very idea of why we would want to see great actors brought together on stage or on screen. Unfortunately, this film makes a parody of this cinematic ideal - since the outcome of which is slightly unrealistic, and trite, that being: - 'the good and bad guy becoming good friends' resolution. Francis Ford, Kubrick, and most recently Marc Foster are brilliant at bringing actors together on screen for us to marvel at their brilliance.

Of course, the film is based on real events, but what represent the real? The Theatrical and Extended version of this film?

All in all, a good film, carried by some key acting and cinematography - but falls back upon cliches and stereotypes which reduces it from a classic to a good film.

Here are some key facts on gross worldwide revenues and production budget: -

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=americangangster.htm

You may notice the significant difference in gross, compared to The Gladiator, an earlier epic directed by Ridley Scott. The only assumption one could make here is that perhaps Historical Epics are more popular than stories based on Crime/Gangster?

Boo. Yah. Kah. Sha. I no longer have a case of the Mondays.

Ridley Scott is finally directing a sci-fi movie again (after, you know, doing two of the most influential sci-fi movies of all time - Blade Runner & Alien). He originally announced back in October that he would be tackling Brave New World, but it seems he's put that on the back-burner for a minute. Ridley getting back in the sci-fi game is good news by itself, but it gets better; the movie is going to be an adaptation of Joe Haldeman's Nebula and Hugo Award-winning masterpiece, The Forever War. From The UK Guardian:

"I first pursued The Forever War 25 years ago, and the book has only grown more timely and relevant since," Scott told the trade bible. "It's a science-fiction epic, a bit of The Odyssey by way of Blade Runner, built upon a brilliant, disorienting premise."

Haldeman's novel centres on a soldier who returns home from battling aliens for a few months in space to find his home planet has advanced many years into the future, and is unrecognisable. One aspect of the new society which jars with returning military types is the pre-eminence of homosexuality, which has been encouraged by the government to help relax overcrowding.

Many consider The Forever War to be a response to Heinlein's pro-military Starship Troopers, but the way I read it in college was as an account of Haldeman's experience returning home after Vietnam. Which is a big reason I loved it. Some of the best sci-fi, in my humble opinion, is a basic human experience put through a sci-fi filter; completely relatable and relevant despite the presence of spaceships and lasers. When the technology is in the spotlight rather than the humanity in a story, that's when I start to doze off. Sci-fi godfather Arthur Clarke once said:

We all want to escape occasionally. But science fiction is often very far from escapism, in fact you might say that science fiction is escape into reality... It's a fiction which does concern itself with real issues: the origin of man; our future. In fact I can't think of any form of literature which is more concerned with real issues, reality.

Sir Ridley Scott, back on the wagon

I assume, since Ridley and Russel Crowe have a (professional) boner for each other, that Crowe will be cast as the lead (soldier William Mandella) and that's cool with me. I'm not ashamed to say that Crowe's role as a displaced boxer/father in Cinderella Man drove me to tears and summoning those similar emotions again for Mandella would be a bullseye. Put down your God damn comic books and read a classic, you nerds.

Joe Haldeman

(Did anyone make it to Cornerstone Books in Salem when Haldeman was there signing? I was at my ex-girlfriend's house in western MA and when I found out I missed it I punched my ex-girlfriend right in her lying mouth)

De acuerdo a Variety, el gran Ridley Scott (Alien, Blade Runner) regresará al campo de la ciencia ficción con la adaptación de la clásica novela "The Forever War" (La Guerra Interminable) de Joe Haldeman. El director señala que desde hace más de dos décadas estaba intentando llevar a cabo la idea, pero problemas con los dueños de los derechos retrasaron que esto se realizase... hasta ahora. El trabajo de Haldeman, por lo demás, es una alegoría a la guerra de Vietman, contada en los ojos de un soldado atrapado en una batalla que parece interminable, mientras el mundo que dejó cambia drásticamente.

Así, la interesante historia de "La Guerra Interminable" aborda un conflicto intergalactico entre la Tierra y una raza desconocida. Debido a las particularidades relativas del viaje en el espacio, el soldado envejece algunos meses mientras en el planeta pasan centurias, por lo que a su regreso se encuentra con un planeta totalmente distinto. Al respecto, en el último tiempo se ha rumoreado sobre el trabajo de Scott para la adaptación de otro clásico Sci-Fi en "Brave New World". Sin embargo, la información de Variety no da cuenta de esta adaptación por ningún lado. ¿Será que eso aún no está tan seguro?.  Eso queda en la nebulosa, a pesar del interés mostrado hace un par de días por el propio director. Sea como sea, lo único claro es que la ciencia ficción está en el futuro del viejo Ridley con "La Guerra Interminable" y eso, considerando su currículo en el campo, es una gran noticia.

Hoy por fin, y tras mucho debate, se ha dado a conocer la obra elegida. Se trata de The Forever War, novela de Joe Hadelman publicada en 1.974. Desde hace más de 25 años Scott ha intentado hacerse con los derechos de la obra, pero problemas con los mismos han retrasado el proyecto más de dos décadas.

El libro parece tener ciertas similitudes temporales con la misma aventura de Scott, ya que tiene como protagonista a un soldado que tras combatir durante meses a un enemigo en el espacio profundo, regresa a la Tierra para ver que aquí han pasado más de 20 años.

I realize I'm a little bit slow on this, as Body of Lies actually opened a few days ago. However, I just got out to the theaters to see it, and I figured it should get stuffd. It's not really any different than most other terrorist-centic films lately, except that the action sequences are much worse. The dramatic sequences more than make up for them; Russell Crowe, Leonardo DiCaprio, and the supporting cast all shine there. Unfortunately, Ridley Scott really focused on the action sequences for the first half the movie, and by the time it gets going, you're already too bored to care. If you can power through the first hour, the second hour is perfectly tense and dramatic; if the entire movie was like the second half, I'd be in love with it. As it stands, the first half hinders Body of Lies just enough for me to be wary of recommending it.

You mean to tell me the hidden Harry Potter novel is NOT in this folder?

There are certain things a country does when it goes to war, the economy usually booms into action, the populace rally behind the sitting President and Hollywood starts production on films portraying America as the patriotic force of good against whatever evil it is we are currently fighting with. And so it went during the early years of the Iraq War, but as time dragged on everything started to slip away. The economy slid into one of the worst depressions on record, the general populace turned on the sitting President with such vitriol and distaste it is a wonder he's still in office, and lastly Hollywood began to show another side of the conflict, one where we were not cast in the best of lights. The movie going public usually eats this all up with a popcorn flavored spoon, but eventually there is a line crossed where the audience just doesn't care anymore. We've moved on, the war has become old news and we don't want to be reminded anymore about how badly we screwed the pooch. But films take a long time to go from start to finish, so this weekend we were graced with one more wartime vision, Body of Lies, this one from greatly acclaimed director Ridley Scott and powerhouse actors Russell Crowe and Leonardo DiCaprio.

Russell plays Ed Hoffman, an arrogant, egotistical CIA operative constantly wired to the cell phone in his pocket and somehow managing to pillage information from halfway around the world while still attending his daughter's soccer game. Leo takes the role of Roger Ferris, the rough edged man on the ground who provides Ed with his intel and carries out whatever orders flow through those encrypted phone lines. As with anyone who stays in those situations for too long, Roger is getting strung out and he starts to wonder if these secret missions and assassinations are really the correct course of action. Ed does what he can to talk sense into him, make him see the bigger picture, but Roger begins to think the two of them are picturing different things. Old loyalties are tested and broken, while new ones are forged in the heat of a silent war. Once again, it's shown that every man must choose his own destiny and find out what he truly believes.

The main thing getting in the way of this film's success is the timing. No matter how much action you put in, no matter how much drama you layer over it, the fact remains this is yet another Iraq War movie and the audience just isn't there anymore. We have grown weary of seeing our enemies, the ones fighting against us and the ones claiming to be fighting for us. There will always be a place for war movies in the annals of cinema, but the market right now has become glutted with them, especially with the extra helping on documentaries on the subject. Deep down we all go to the movie theater to be momentarily distracted from what we see on the news every night and right now the voice of the people is speaking loud and clear on that point.

Yet, even if this movie had been released earlier by three or four years, I'm not sure it would have done much better. Ridley does his best here to set up tension and a good sense of paced action, but with only an hour gone from the opening shot I was already beginning to wonder how long we had left. The film seems to drag itself towards an end, which when it finally arrives has little to no impact. The story lacks a sense of closure, which possible stems from the reality of the situation in Iraq. There is certainly a ride to be had by watching this, but I'm not sure you finish the ride feeling any different than when you got on.

The excitement surrounding Russell and Leo getting to work together was palpable when the casting was first announced, but they both deliver only during certain scenes. Russell relaxes into the skin of Ed Hoffman, a man who can't be bothered to think about the humanity of his actions because he has the safety of the world on his mind. Yet barely underneath that is his own desire to be recognized as the one who saved it. In particular moments of the film, Russell really flowed with the brimming confidence of Ed, but in other scenes he came off rather uncaring and unmotivated. Leo got a touch luckier in his role because all the drama and conflict really resides in him. He showed some good chops while playing the political game between Ed and the local contacts, but it never came up to the power of Leo's earlier stuff, like The Basketball Diaries, What's Eating Gilbert Grape or most recently The Departed, which he will forever be measured against. The one person who actually stepped out of the film and truly gave a measure of weight when on screen was Mark Strong, who played Hani the head of the Jordanian Secret Service. His cool demeanor was a translucent mask over an intimidating and unremorseful nature. Hani saw the world very plainly, those who were with him and those who were against him, and you knew which side you wanted to be on.

Recommendation: I can't honestly say there is much here we haven't already seen in the last couple of years with films like The Kingdom and Lions for Lambs. If you really want power and performance inside a war story, Ridley is still your man, just go rent Black Hawk Down instead.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

Here are links for two of the posters for the movies I mentioned in this review:

Roger Ferris (Dicaprio) is a rising member who knows the score, hates all the deception, but at the same time knows he has to accept it. Ed Hoffman (Crowe) is a senior member whose so full of himself that he thinks he can play god and toy with the lives of others, and sometimes does, but only "for the good of the country". Don't get me wrong though, Hoffman isn't the villain of the film, he's just a good man he sometimes does bad things. Everyone in the film is on the top of their game especially Crowe, who plays a very different character, as he plays a fat arrogant prick who you can't stand at times.

Body of Lies is a very realistic and intelligent movie that deals with topics that are political, technological, and most of all deceptive. Body of Lies sort of reminds me of a Global version of the movie The Departed. I'm not saying this movie was as good as The Departed by any means, but what I am saying is that it's no that far from it.

Grade: A

Ciak ha in copertina gli eroi di Tropic thunder, ossia Jack Black, Ben Stiller e Robert Downey Jr., che prendono in giro un argomento quasi intoccabile come il Vietnam per gli USA. Altro film citato in copertina è Wall-E, robottino talmente puro di spirito da candidarlo alle presidenziali. Al contrario Mickey Rourke si è sporcato le mani per The wrestler, con il quale ha vinto a Venezia (ci sono anche alcune pagine dedicate alla manifestazione) e si trova di nuovo con un futuro davanti. Altro attore che Ciak intervista è Brendan Frazer, simpatico avventuriero ne La mummia 3, in cui si è divertito, dice: spero di divertirmi anch'io a guardarlo...

Il potere alle donne, altro argomento di Ciak di ottobre: a parte i soliti nomi, con preponderanti quelli della stagione attuale (Penelope Cruz tra tutti), c'è una interessante classifica delle donne più potenti di Hollywood. Questa rivista ha anche un articolo su Al Pacino e Robert De Niro, che non ha richiami in prima...

Best Movie:

In copertina c'è Leonardo Di Caprio per il nuovo film di Ridley Scott, bella storia, da andare a vedere al cinema. Altro film del mese è Mamma mia, con una Meryl Streep giovanile, carino e leggero, quasi quasi lo vedo, non al cinema, ma lo vedo. Una delle donne citate nell'articolo di Ciak qui sopra, Penelope Cruz, fa parte del triangolo con Scarlett Johannson e Javier Bardem: che lassù ce le conservino ancora per decenni. Pierfrancesco Favino è un attore particolare, che non disdegna ruoli impopolari in Italia, e forse anche per questo lo chiamano a Hollywood. Altra star italiana volata a Los Angeles è Monica Bellucci, che apre il Festival di Roma.

Filmtv:

Questa settimana l'unico settimanale di cinema ha in copertina 007, un marchio che vede passare registi e sceneggiatori, ma con una formula standardizzata fino all'ultimo film, Casino royale, e il successivo, non ancora in sala, Quantum of solace, dove all'agente inglese viene data una personalità. Personalità che possiede anche Dexter, ma tipicamente antisociale, al di sopra dell'anticonformismo, per cui non mi piace; si parla quindi dell'attore che lo interpreta. Ho diversi mesi di riviste in arretrato da leggere: ho recuperato un pò di Filmtv, ma non mancherò di leggere le pagine dedicate ai critici cinematograifici più bravi. Naturalmente la rivista settimanale dedica un bell'articolo anche a Paul Newman, l'ultimo vero divo dicono loro, personaggio un pò scomodo e persona vera secondo l'autore.

But I took some time out for a follow-up visit to my doctor.  A good thing that I did.

* * * * * * *

As I sat waiting in the exam room for my doctor to come in, I looked around.  All the usual stuff.  But high up on top of a cabinet, only barely visible from where I sat on the exam table, was a wooden box.  Some light-colored wood, perhaps pine or a light oak.  It was a bit battered, but in decent shape, about the size of loaf of bread.  Not one of those long loafs of sandwich bread - a short loaf, of something like rye or pumpernickel.

One the end of the box bore a large seal, the sort of thing which was popular in the late 19th century.  Big outer ring, inner motif of a six-pointed star, cross-hatched on half of each star arm to indicate motion or something.  Center of the star had three initials: JBL.  Around the ring was more information: "TYRELLS HYGIENIC INST.  NEW YORK CITY U.S.A.  PATENT JANUARY, 1894 AUGUST, 1897 JUNE 1903." Outside the ring, one in each upper corner, and one below in the center were three words: "JOY.  BEAUTY.  LIFE."

You can get some idea of what this looked like from this image.  So far, I have been unable to find an image online of the box I saw.

* * * * * * *

I'd gone in first part of the week to have blood drawn, for tests my doctor wanted to run.  I still have the bruise where the aide who drew the blood went a bit too deep and punctured the back of my vein.

My doctor looked over the lab results, looked up at me.  "Not too bad.  LDL is a bit high, so is your HDL, which helps. Fasting blood sugar also a bit high, but not bad.  I think we should give both of those a chance to settle out some more, as you continue to get diet and exercise back completely under your control.  The rest all looks pretty good - liver & kidney function, et cetera.  Nothing to be too worried about."

She handed over the sheaf of papers to me.  "But I want to do something more about your blood pressure.  It is still dangerously high, though you seem to have made some real progress with the beta blocker."

Yeah, I had - I'd been testing it.  And it was down 50 points systolic, 20 points diastolic.  About halfway to where it should be.

"Would you be willing to try something else?  Another drug?"

Echo of the first conversation we had on the topic.  "What did you have in mind?"

"Calcium channel blocker," she said.  "We could still increase the dosage of the beta blocker you're taking, because you're on the low end of that.  But I would like to see how your system responds to this additional drug, also at a minimal dosage.  Then we can tweak dosage levels, if we need to."

Another good call.  "Sure, let's try it."

* * * * * * *

My doctor returned with my prescriptions.  "Do you have any other questions?"

I pointed at the box up on top of the cabinet.  "What's the story behind that?"

Caught off-guard, she looked at the box, confused.

"I mean, what was in there?  Is there a particular reason you have it?"

"No, not really.  Nothing's in there.  I just came across it at an antique shop some years ago."  She looked at me.  "Why?"

"There was an author in the 60s & 70s who wrote a lot of stuff I like.  Philip K. Dick.  He had a lot of health issues, and I can imagine him sitting in a room not unlike this one, looking at some variation of a box like that."  I got down off the exam table.  "One of his most important books was made into the movie Blade Runner in the early 1980s.  In that movie one of the major characters goes by the name Tyrell, and he has a connection to . . . um, the medical industry.  I just thought it an interesting coincidence."

"Oh."  She was completely lost.  I've worked with doctors enough to know that they do not like this feeling.  "Well, we'll see you after your trip, check out how the new meds are working, OK?"

"Sure."

Jim Downey

There are two new and very different movies at Hong Kong cinemas this week. One is Ridley Scott’s spy movie “Body of Lies”, the other is the latest romantic comedy from Woody Allen “Vicky Cristina Barcelona”. I had expected to like the Ridley Scott film more, particularly as Woody Allen has been a bit off form for a while, but the comedy worked better.

 “Body of Lies” is based on a 2007 novel by Washington Post columnist David Ignatius. The central character is a CIA agent, Roger Ferris (Leonard DiCaprio), trying to track down Al Saleem, a terrorist leader who is conducting a bombing campaign worldwide and is suspected to be in Jordan. Ferris, in turn, is being watched by his supervisor Ed Hoffmann (Russell Crowe), often from satellites or spy planes.

Hoffmann directs many aspects of the operation as if by remote control, chatting on his mobile phone and making ruthless life-and-death decisions about people in the Middle East, sometimes while he’s doing domestic tasks like taking his daughter to school.

It's hard to see why Ridley Scott wanted to make “Body of Lies”. Possibly the novel has a density and a complexity that appealed.  It also has a jaundiced view of American anti-terrorist activity in the Middle East, which - it says - acts without caring much whether the people it kills are innocent or guilty. The problem is that in the movie, the complexity often turns into muddle and too much of an emphasis on background colour, and the moral laxity of the main characters makes you not care about any of them.

Ferris, who speaks Arabic, is in charge of things on the ground, but doesn’t always have all the information he needs to make the right decisions. His supervisor is manipulating him as surely as he’s manipulating the assorted Middle Eastern characters they are dealing with.  For Hoffmann, because he doesn’t build personal relationships with any of their collaborators, everybody is disposable.

When Ferris gets a lead to a safe house used by Islamic terrorists with connections to Al- Saleem, he is sent to Jordan to replace the CIA’s main agent there. The man had refused to work with the Jordanians; Ferris knows it’s the only way to get anything done. He builds an alliance with Hani (Mark Strong), the head of Jordanian Intelligence, who makes one crucial request of him, that he will not lie and betray their trust.

Inevitably, and because he doesn’t know exactly what Hoffmann is up to, Ferris is put in a position where he either does lie, or seems to be doing so.

One major problem comes as the result of one of Ferris’s own plans. He decides to create the appearance of a fake terrorist cell, in the hope that it will smoke out Al Saleem who will be curious about what’s going on. He picks on a random architect, engineers meetings between him and low-level terrorists, and sets up a fake terrorist attack by the fictitious cell, with all the clues pointing to that man. He does not seem to realize what most of us realize immediately – that he’s placing an innocent man in danger.

This one operation itself would have been a good strong plot line for any film. One of the problems with “Body of Lies” is that a lot happens before we get to it, and much else happens while it’s going on. There’s even a spurious love interest in the form of an Iraqi nurse. Given how unfocused it all is, important areas don’t get the attention they deserve, and you are left to find them amid all the clutter. While DiCaprio and a deliberately overweight Crowe do fine, neither occupies the screen as brightly as Mark Strong, as the Jordanian Intelligence Head, who is – despite his own pragmatism – the only alleged force of good who has a sense of honour. For me, as a whole, the movie is a disappointment.

Woody Allen’s “Vicky Cristina Barcelona” is the opposite of a disappointment. He’s been off form lately. Maybe the last Woody Allen film I fully enjoyed was 1999’s “Sweet and Lowdown”. As Allen makes around a film a year, and I’ve seen most of them, that means he has struck out several times over for me.

“Vicky Cristina Barcelona” is a welcome return to form, although not, it must be admitted, to his peak days of “Manhattan”, and “Stardust Memories”. Perhaps because the story is about two American women in Barcelona, Allen feels on surer ground with his characters. One of them, Vicky (Rebecca Hall), is about to marry. The other, Cristina (Scarlett Johannson) is footloose and fancy-free, having recently broken up with someone.

In Barcelona, they meet painter Juan Antonio (Javier Bardem) who would very much like to sleep with both of them, even at the same time if they are willing. Vicky says she is not, although we are not prone to believe her, even at first. Cristina thinks a fling with an artist might be what she’s looking for in life. They go off to a small Spanish village with him, and all three grow closer.

Although Vicky is interested in him, and they do spend one night together, it’s Cristina who eventually moves in to his studio and apartment. After all, Vicky does have that troublesome fiance, who has even come to Spain for a pre-wedding wedding. And then the highly-strung wife from whom he is separated, and who once tried to stab him, returns. She’s Maria Elena (played by Penelope Cruz), the epitome of the passionate and tempestuous Spanish artist. She too is a painter. She and Juan had a turbulent relationship which takes off again when she begins to live with them again after having tried to kill herself. The two artists find that somehow, with Cristina there, they can achieve some balance. But this ménage a trios may not be what Cristina is looking for.

The movie’s funny and cynical. It has overtones of the novels of Henry James in which he sometimes contrasted naïve and brash Americans with those shady Europeans, usually to the American’s loss. It’s funny not because Allen has written laugh out loud specific set pieces but because there are insights into character that we see as true, and sometimes even painful to watch. As in one scene where Vicky's fiance calls while she's dining with the artist, and she pretends the reception is too bad to talk to him.

Neither Vicky nor Cristina are the nicest of characters. And neither of them knows it. I wasn’t sure at first I was going to like the film. Johannsson and Hall begin by delivering Woody Allen’s lines in a style that’s too much like his own, but they do get over this after a while. You’re left with a comedy that both amuses and dismays, as Allen – like Eric Rohmer – looks lucidly at the romantic foibles and self-delusions of people who will almost certainly never see them equally lucidly themselves .

And so gentle reader I enter my terrible twos. Accordingly I intend to become more boisterous, opinionated, self-absorbed, mischievous and hysterical. What's that, business as normal I hear you cry? If you'd like to get me a birthday present then I'll always accept donations from the superb Criterion Collection, fascinating link on how they are upgrading to new technologies here.

May you live in interesting times - fuck that. Recent economics 101 here. Text heavy sure but I found it to be a brilliant synopsis of where we've arrived at including educated predictions of how the Jenga banking system could possibly come all crashing down - it was written in January so quite superbly prescient. As the immensely depressing fallout continues I've read and discarded many observations on the inevitable implosion, I cling hopelessly to the belief that such a shock may lead to a real and proper consideration of western values in light of the real challenges facing the planet. Exactly what progress could have been made on poverty and tackling climate change, investing in new technologies with (as I write this) £50 billion from the UK alone, $700 billion in the US, no doubt more to follow as the...look, its just too fucking much. It is a fucking disgrace. Words fail me. I don't know about you, but I am continuing my training for the inevitable, although the upside is a possible new girlfriend. Clouds, silver lining etc.....

Riddle me this - what links 'The Italian Job', 'The Wicker Man', 'Don't Look Now', 'The Man Who Fell To Earth', 'The Deer Hunter' and a quietly admired early 80's tech-noir Raymond Chandler picture? Go on, I'll give you one guess? What, no idea? No idea at all? OK, I'll put you out of your misery - it's cult movie UK born supremo producer Michael Deeley of course, good lord do keep up. Last week I went to a NFT hosted book launch of Deely's autobiography with the requisite on stage interview, interspersed with clips from his work and traditional Q&A follow up session. It pains me to report that this was far and away the most disappointing event I have attended at my beloved NFT as quite simply the whole evening failed abysmally to unearth any interesting insights into his career and work, mostly scuppered by the sheer ineptitude of the interviewer  whose entire strategy seemed to revolve around the same line of interrogation - 'what drew you to this project?' That's not a bad start but to repeat that for every stage without teasing out any tit-bits or revelatory moments was real waste. Apart from the revelation that Steve McQueen hired Peter Yates to direct the Deeley produced 'Bullitt' on the strength of the car chase in their early UK film 'Robbery' there was nothing of any real value here, the old and well known tale of Kubrick submitting out-takes from 'The Shining' for the final reels of the original cut of 'Blade Runner' was trotted out as some amazing coup, must try harder. I don't know about you but I've been using this question as a curve-ball in my interviews for years (one day those HR witches will understand my method) but now its tired.

Birthdays are always an apt moment for pensive reflection so I've nominated Ridley Scott as this months choice of director whose work I follow with interest. Along with Carpenter he's one of the first filmmakers where I detected something of a particular style of approach and beautiful visualisation, even if they didn't always result in a satisfying final product. I think it's fair to say that Sir Ridley has had his ups and downs,after a stunning early trilogy he seemed to get sidetracked into poorly written mainstream rubbish that never made the best of his particular visual skills, recovering with 'Gladiator' which put him back on the Hollywood A list. 

I love the story of Russell Crowe discussing future offers on the set of 'The Insider' with Michael Mann, uncertain whether he should take an offer of the role of a Roman Centurion in some complex historical production with a director whose pedigree had somewhat waned. Mann urged him to take the role, explaining that Scott was 'in the top 2% of visual filmmakers at work' and the rest as they say is history. Scott has been long attached to 'Blade Runner' sequels which I'm curiously ambivalent about, whether he or someone else makes them (must be mellowing in my old age), other projects like this seem far more intriguing and relevant. 

So then, the best 500 movies of all time. I stopped reading 'Empire' a long time ago - bring back the sadly lamented 'Neon' or morphed 'Hotdog' for real fun cult/mainstream periodical perusal but such an obvious challenge to be offended and disgusted at the predictable results couldn't be resisted. No late periodFellini? Philistines. Where's Rivette? Sacrilege. Calm down, I'm joking of course as obviously it's an English language centric list with the obvious pictures leading the pack, just as my favourites are and always will be. Gun at my head, family in gas chamber, every existing Kubrick film print suspended over a Volcano, what would Minty choose between the entire (a quick guess) of Tarkovskys 20+ hour work or 'Escape From New York'? One answer - '...I heard you was dead....' What I do find fascinating as a film nerd are the choices of film makers I love, for instance Fincher has quite an interesting choice which was quite revealing, 'Kane' being the only prior 1970's choice. I can't find a link to his submission so you'll have to buy the magazine to find out what I'm talking about but think 'Chinatown', 'The Godfather',  'Days Of Heaven', 'Strangelove', 'All The Presidents Men', that sort of thing. Nick Hornby must be sharpening his pencil as we speak.

That said, general discussion threads from this 'Empire' poll has lead me back to the Holy Grail of Film lists that I stumbled across some years ago. 500? Fucking amateurs. Any real film nerd must worship at the temple that is 1001 films you must see. Praise Allah, Jesus, Buddha, Thor, Odin, Thunderbird or any other fictitious deity you care to follow. As an antidote of sorts I have posted in the first comment of this post that omnipotent list which is real tough stuff - it covers the majority of my reasonably educated base of mainstream film (meaning narrative film, none of the Avant-garde experimental type stuff like the Warhol's, Borzages etc.) and I think its superb. Yes, I pride myself on my twenty year plus movie obsession but there are many titles on there I have never even heard of which is a humbling experience, I stand in awe of such an encompassing and massively knowledgeable pantheon, purely by virtue of what it does cover by historical era and geographic scope. It flirts from Greece to Russia, Korea to Argentina, genre to genre, movement to movement. I love it when you stumble across things like this as it can lead a fan in previously unknown and unforeseen directions. As expected the DVD acquisition coverage ain't great prior to 1930 but there are many titles in there from the 70's to 90's which are now on my research list. I have included the films in the first comment a separate entry to this post, purely as an memory aide for my absurd new cinematic endeavour. You can find the list below, should keep me occupied...

That's enough movies for the moment. Lets finish off the 'party' with some music links which have been gracing my ipod during my commuting maneuvers over the past few weeks. I've pretty much got my podcast addiction under control with everything up to date (this was a recent find which is admittedly fratboy humor heavy but still fun to listen to, also recommended is this) so without further hesitation, over to the tube of you.....

Courtsey of Neil, my most learned friend when it comes to music. 'The Monks' are one of Mark E Smith's favourite bands...

Shout out to the Bryski massive. Or something.

No comment.

Forgot to thank the Scally for turning me on to this guy, apologies but it took me a while to get round to listening to the disks. Good stuff.

The closest any individual release have got to the original Mode for me. Rubbish video but I'm happy to hear that the Basildon trio are playing down the road at the o2 next year, tickets are hopefully en-route....

Best track when I saw them in Hammersmith a few years ago and the best live quality version I could find...

Looking forward to the new album. It's possible......

Polysics or Die!!!

Good. Better but unable to embed in the blog for some stupid reason....

Just to fuck with you.....

I'll always treasure having friends who worked in one of my local vinyl dealers back in my teenage years, I got the album this terrific track was on for free, slipped in with whatever noisy nonsense I was spending my hard earned cash on. RIP Andy's Records.....

OK, just one. Has to be said though, it's typical that my favourite bands leader had to be such a short sighted twat to call his musical collective 'The the' and then compound that moment of genius to name one of his most desired and rare albums 'Pornography Of Despair' - fucking excellent web results I get from punching that combination into Google or ebay. I won't argue that it doesn't lead to some intriguing avenues of exploration but that is, as they say, another story....

'The Hollowmen' Posh Club. 1989. Not pretty. Some of you know what I'm talking about.

Just for laughs, some old and rare 'Cure' brilliance. You've got to love YouTube....

Russell and Leo spar aplenty in Body of Lies.

I have not blogged for awhile - and since I am still getting plenty of page hits for a post about Meryl Streep's birthday I decided to go in an entirely opposite direction and talk about a picture guys will love and chicks might actually enjoy even if there is no Cosmo-swilling or singing involved. Alas, and no Meryl.

Hubby asked me to go see Body of Lies and it was great fun, I have to admit.  Leonardo DiCaprio just gets better with age and Russell Crowe, who packed on 50 lbs. to get into character is a hoot. Funny, I don't believe the whole weight gain thing was too hard for old Russell - kinda fun doncha think -- downing  brewskies and eating plenty of beef on the barbie. Method-schmethod - bulking up for your art can be fun.

Here's the plot synopis:  Leo plays Roger Ferris, who his boss Ed Hoffman (Russell Crowe) calls "Buddy" all the time, and the Chief of Jordanian Intelligence, Hani Salaam (Mark Strong) calls "My dear." Anyway, if you can keep Leo's name straight you will soon figure out that he is a very smart, resourceful CIA operative who is constantly getting injured but looks great in surgical tape. Anyway, old Ferris uncovers information on an Islamist mastermind Al-Saleem and devises a plan to infiltrate his terrorist network. His boss and Hani Salaam help him get in and out of trouble.

Mark Strong as Hani is a real gem -- hubby says he is reminscent of Andy Garcia in hs early days but frankly, subtlety has never been Andy's long suit so I didn't like the comparison. Look, anyone who can call Leo my dear and still not seem gay is a fab actor in my book.

Of course, the plot and feats of technology are incredible -- Roger Ebert summed it up perfectly when he calls it a James Bond plot inserted into today's headlines. Ridley Scott is a great director - he makes the most absurd things seem believable -- even aerial surveillance that can pinpoint a guy walking down the street in a white beanie.

There is also a love interest for old Leo/Ferris/Buddy/my dear -- a  nurse named Aisha (Golshifteh Farahani), who has the biggest most beautiful eyebrows I have ever seen.

I have big eyebrows too but not the exotic features to carry them off. So, anyway, the movie has something for everyone, action, adventure, rabid dogs, technology, subtitles, explosions, etc.