Review: IN BRUGES

This won't be a long review, because I can't imagine speaking at length about this godawful waste of celluloid. While I hadn't expected much, it received a respectable 77% on Rotten Tomatoes and looked better than any of our other options. Obviously, dumping season has begun.

The movie fails in many, many ways. It is not sharp enough to match the verbal ratatat and dark situational irony of a Quentin Tarantino or Guy Ritchie flick, which it tries desperately to be. It never establishes how dreadful the titular city is, instead substituting fat Americans in Yankee caps and bitchy Canadians for real satire. And it can't decide what kind of film it wants to be: the dialogue isn't funny enough for straight comedy, the action isn't any good for a crime caper, and the dark moments are played for drama instead of black comedy. Also, the screenwriter thinks midgets, racism, and senseless gore are comedy gold.

Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson are wasted as a pair of hapless hitmen, as is Ralph Fiennes as their dreadful boss. They all play on the criminal stereotypes that have been done to death in every ironic crime movie since Pulp Fiction.

If you've already seen every Tarantino or Ritchie film and you want some of the style but none of the substance, see Smokin' Aces or Layer Cake. But stay the hell away from In Bruges.

My Rating: 0 out of 5 midgets

What's Next for the Clinton Campaign

With Barack Obama going 10-0 since February 5th, the Clinton campaign has been on the ropes. Insider accounts of campaign infighting don't paint a pretty picture, and the lame negative attacks on Obama have failed to stop the bleeding. Today, the NY Times published a story that further illustrates the campaign divisions, with Mark Penn pushing for sharper negative attacks and Mandy Grunwald begging Clinton to consider the future.

Mark Penn, when he's not busy attacking Democratic voters or busting unions, is quite the loser. His claim to fame is being Clinton's pollster for the re-election campaign of '96, a victory that is more the work of Penn's mentor, Tricky Dick Morris. He was also the chief strategist in Hillary's two Senate coronations campaigns. However, he's never won a tough campaign like the one we have now, and his incremental, triangulation style is not suited to this race. This Washington Post profile from April 2007 demonstrates how wrong he was about this campaign.

Mandy Grunwald, to her credit, is one of the few Hillaryland people with actual experience from Bill Clinton's 1992 race. In a lot of ways, that campaign is similar to the one that Obama is running now: insurgent, positive, hopeful. Now, on the other side of such a campaign, Grunwald knows how difficult it is to push back on the momentum, no matter how negative it gets. So she's asking Clinton to think of a possible 2012 campaign, or even a future as a Senate leader.

Ohio and Texas could very well be Hillary Clinton's last stand in this campaign, despite her ability to consistently move the goal posts. Even Bill is acknowledging the stakes, saying at a recent speech in Texas, "If she wins Texas and Ohio I think she will be the nominee. If you don't deliver for her, I don't think she can be." The debate tonight should be an indication of how down and dirty the next two weeks will be. At this point, the campaign needs a major gaffe or scandal from Obama, as it has been proven they cannot make the case for Hillary on their own.

WTF Politico?!

Apparently I'm not the only one who sees the similarities between The West Wing and the 2008 primary season:

In presidential campaign, life imitates TV

However, they flip it a bit and draw on the Abby Bartlett - Hillary Clinton connection: ambitious First Ladies unsatisfied with serving cookies and hosting dinners.

Did The West Wing Predict the 2008 Primaries?

So, I've finally been able to catch up on watching The West Wing, finishing the sixth season last night. Without Sorkin/Schlamme at the helm, it had become a shadow of its former self, using cheap "Must See TV" gimmicks and frenetic camerawork more akin to ER. But the introduction of the campaign midway through the sixth season rejuvenated the drama, reclaiming some of the gravitas that The West Wing was so adept at presenting.

The most interesting thing about watching the sixth season right now, however, is the often eerie similarity between The West Wing and the 2008 primary season. While not perfect, it's a pretty good analogy:

Congressman Matt Santos (Jimmy Smits), the Hispanic representative short on experience but inspiring and charismatic, easily compares to Barack Obama. Even their speeches are cut from the same cloth, focusing on hope, innovative solutions, and uniting the country. VP Bob Russell (Gary Cole), the presumptive nominee with perceived weakness in the general, can be seen as Hillary Clinton with a bit of Bill Richardson's glad-handling and resume-flaunting. I've always thought former VP John Hoynes (Tim Matheson) was Al Gore with Bill Clinton's indiscretions, and Josh's offer to make him a "party elder" seems to be the role those two men have in the party. The last two may be stretches, but the Santos-Obama connection cannot be dismissed.

For the Republicans, Arnold Vinick (Alan Alda) seems to be an idealized version of John McCain, with elements of Arlen Specter: a maverick moderate who fights for pragmatic solutions and regrets the influence of the Religious Right on the GOP. While Vinick's main difficulty in securing the nomination is his pro-choice record, McCain has his own problems with conservative orthodoxy (immigration, campaign finance reform, the environment, etc). The Reverend Don Butler works as a Pat Robertson clone, but functions as Governor (and Reverend) Mike Huckabee in this analogy.

Despite being dogged by Huckabee, McCain is almost certain to wrap up the nomination in advance of the convention, while the Obama-Clinton battle may continue into the summer. Same thing happened in the West Wing. So, will Obama have to make a passionate speech on the floor of the convention after being asked to drop out for the sake of the party? Will a party elder come to his aid and swing the necessary voting blocs, like Bartlett did for Santos? Anything is possible, and this analogy may prove useful (even though the West Wing implied that the state delegations were winner-take-all, while the Democrats actually use proportional delegation).

One of the intriguing points that I hadn't thought much about in the real world is the role President Bush will play in the convention. Will the GOP trot out Mr. 24%, 2 months before the election, perhaps letting McCain and Bush relive The Hug? Or will a two-term president be relegated to some opening remarks, pushed aside, and flushed away with the remainder of this administration?

Slacking, Redemption

Nearly two weeks since my last post. I let myself off the hook because I've had a nasty bug for about 10 days, but I need to show a little more dedication to my own project. Many observations have been ruminating, so without further ado:

The February 5th races led to a few surprises, but the main result was a draw with a slight edge for Obama, simply for surviving. I remember not even 6 months ago thinking this primary would be sealed by Super Tuesday. Instead, the contest is escalating and gaining excitement. Massachusetts was not a big disappointment: the machine politics are far removed from Kennedy, Kerry, and Patrick, and Obama held his own. Neither Edwards or Richardson has endorsed, instead choosing to wait for the right time to play their cards; at this point, I'm not sure if either really matters, unless Edwards' 20something delegates are required for a win. Obama rolled to huge victories in 13 states throughout the country simply by showing up, something that the Clinton campaign is now admitting they didn't do.

The momentum carried Obama to wins in Washington, Louisiana, Nebraska, and Maine. What is astounding is that he won by huge margins (21, 46, 37, and 19 points, respectively) in geographically and demographically diverse states. By this point, he was expected to win the Potomac Primary on the 12th, and I began to get a little nervous about the expectations game: would a win of "only" 10 points in VA be seen as a Clinton victory? Or would there be a huge swing in undecideds a la NH?

Last night, my fears were put to rest. Barack Obama crushed Hillary Clinton by 23 points in Maryland, 51 in DC, and 29 in Virginia, well past most polls of the region. Maybe the Clinton camp can continue to disrespect the voters, saying that MD and DC don't matter, but Virginia? Obama won across all demos, with a decisive win with white males. He's shrinking her supposed base with each successive victory, and her camp is grasping at straws.

Things are getting worse before they get better for Clinton (if they ever do). Long-time Clinton confidante and campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle was fired. According to everyone close to Hillaryland, it was way past due, and possibly too late. Solis Doyle was an ineffective manager and in way over her head. Plus, the person who supposedly coined the term "Hillaryland" for a group of professional adults needs to hit the bricks. Deputy campaign manager Mike Henry also left after the embarrassing loss in Virginia, a state he won for Gov. Tim Kaine (who must. Plus, the surrogates are out freelancing, with Carville saying she needs to win Ohio, Texas, AND Pennsylvania, and Ed Rendell blathering on about race. If I was impartial, I would feel bad. As it is, I'm thrilled that her hubris is coming back to her tenfold.

Wisconsin and Hawaii look to be locks for Barack, and Clinton has conceded both of them to move down to Texas, sombrero in hand. If he goes 10-0 post-Feb. 5, the Clinton-Giuliani comparisons become more apt. She's banking on states where her leads are soft. Plus, thanks to a primary-caucus hybrid only Texas could love, her diminishing leads among Hispanics might not even help in her "firewall state."

As good as the picture looks, Obama supporters need to keep fighting. Hillary has nothing left to do but go negative, so the missiles should start flying... now.