Mean Girls Do Cry

In "Mean Girls" a softer version of "Heathers" written by SNL's head-writer Tina Fey, a group of ultra-popular, ultra-pretty and ultra-bitchy girls terrorize the entire high school and each other.

None of this is news and no one should be surprised that these movies keep being made, mostly because girls keep being nasty to each other. Based on the book "Queen Bees and Wanna-Be's", Fey turned this non-fiction study into an occasionally hilarious look at "girl world".

Cady Heron, played by Lindsay Lohan, has been homeschooled till the age of 16 when her parents, no longer researching in Africa, settle down and send her to high school. She is sufficiently naive and when approached by the Plastics, the group of girls everyone else wants to be, she agrees to hang out with them only because her new friend Janice convinces her to spy on them.

Of course, Cady ends up becoming just like the Plastics and both hilarity and disaster ensue. The ending of a utopian society where everyone realizes they are equals is a result of an emotional feeding frenzy provoked by a book of nasty comments and rumors about everyone in the school. This idyllic school environment is essentially bullshit and is what causes the movie to falter a bit. The sharp and biting sarcasm that pervades the rest of the script seems to have been sucked out of the last ten minutes or so. "Heathers" which ended with the bombing of a high school gymnasium and Winona Ryder walking into the sunset, not with the handsome hero, but her wheel-chair bound, overweight buddy, provides a much more snarky view on high school politics.

Still, "Mean Girls" is funny with a number of quotable lines and a decent performance by Lohan who, by not losing the audience as Cady becomes the Queen Bee bitch, lets us cheer for her attitude adjustment and eventual redemption. And, as teen chick flicks go, this is a much better offering than "The Prince and Me".

Another Reason to Hate the French

In a move that is sure to inflate an already inflated ego, Michael Moore was presented with the "coveted" Palme d'Or, the top prize at the Cannes Film Festival.

We should have seen this coming when Moore's controversial film, "Fahrenheit 9/11" received a standing ovation after its screening. The film supposedly documents the Bush Administration's failings regarding 9/11 and specifically G.W. Bush's ties to the Bin Laden family. Disney, who owns Miramax, the movie's producers, have refused to distribute the film. However, after this incredible showing at Cannes, I'm sure Moore won't have a problem.

It's not surprising that the French have embraced the film. Anything that shows the US in an embarrassing light is sure to garner respect and accolades in France and these days, most of Europe. Moore's film is said to paint the current Administration in a light that beyond unflattering and this alone, talent and quality be damned, would be enough for him to win first place. (Granted the entire Cannes Jury isn't French, but get enough Hollywood'ers and enough Europeans and you've got a nice big bunch of anti-American sentiment right there)

Like most people, I have yet to see "Fahrenheit 9/11", so I can't really speak intelligently about it. What I've read about it hasn't helped much either. Some people lambast the film, talking about its ridiculous portrayal of pre-invasion Iraq as a bucolic haven for its residents, which is then scorched and destroyed by the American Invader. Some people, such as Frank Rich in this weekend's NY Times, are supportive of the film and its message that we are being led by some less than savory characters into a seemingly unending war. Who to believe?

I suppose if I felt Moore was trustworthy himself (see my comments on his being a douchebag below), I wouldn't have such an issue with all this hoopla. But knowing that Michael Moore's theories aren't always kosher gives me pause. Just as I would never want someone to blindly believe any propaganda spewed by the Right, I'd want the same consideration given the Left. If "Fahrenheit 9/11" is seen for what it is, then fine. But if his film is seen as THE TRUTH then we are all in trouble...even the French.

Ugly Ogre, Nifty Sequel

The third blockbuster movie to be released this summer has the requisite battles, the monsters, and the love story. However, unlike "Van Helsing" and "Troy" it also has a heart, an admirable hero, and a wonderful sense of humor. All this and a sequel...who knew?

"Shrek 2" is precisely what you'd expect from the makers of the original "Shrek" - a highly amusing spoof on fairy tales and popular culture that only somewhat hides it's message of "be true to yourself". It's cheesy, but it works in the movie.

Instead of skewering Disney, "Shrek 2" takes on the theory of "happily ever after". What happens when a princess marries an ogre? Can they really live happily ever after? Well, I guess we all know the answer to that. However, the trip the movie takes us through is still worth it.

Antonio Banderas is especially welcomes as Puss-In-Boots, Shrek's would-be assassin. He easily sends up both his Zorro performance and his general movie persona. Puss and Donkey's plays for Shrek's affection are very entertaining. Another vocal stand-out is Jennifer Saunders as Fiona's Fairy Godmother. She is a wonderful blend of sickly sweet and deviously back-stabbing and her "songs" are spectacular. As the King and Queen of Far Far Away, John Cleese and Julie Andrews are fine, neither making much of an impression. Mike Myers and Cameron Diaz work well together as Shrek and Fiona, imbuing their bickering with the undertone of feeling that you saw develop in the first movie. And, as in the original, Eddie Murphy steals the show as Donkey, the annoyingly verbal side-kick who just wants to be loved.

Though "Shrek 2" lacks the magic of the original, it's still a good time, which is more than can be said about the majority of movies out right now.

The Cinematic Fall of Troy

Freshman year of college I was forced to read The Iliad. Then I read it again in a mythology class during Junior year. It was this second reading that actually stuck. Stories of great princes, warriors, and king all battling for glory and honor, with a smattering of gods and all their egos. I think it was only a matter of time before someone made it into a movie.

And so finally this movie opened: a big bad epic filled with heavily armored soldiers, weeping women and one very very attractive Achilles.

The movie was OK. I wanted so much to like it that I went in with massively lowered expectations. However, it was only decent. The acting was excellent at some points, the scene between Priam and Achilles was particularly affecting. Eric Bana managed to convey Hector's conflicted approach to entire situation without any serious overacting. (Too bad Brian Cox didn't take his cues from Bana; that man chewed up the scenery as if he had a knife, a fork, and a bottle of tabasco sauce!) The costumes and scenery were wonderful, more authentic, less Spartacus. And the story, more or less followed what Homer had set out. But the overall effect was just lacking.

Perhaps the decision to take out the gods so totally was a mistake. The Iliad and the Odyssey are so heavily entrenched in the Gods that the story drastically changes once they are out of the picture. According to Greek mythology, the Trojan war began because Paris, as a reward for judging a beauty contest between the goddesses, got to pick for himself the most beautiful woman in the whole world. (It was of little matter that she belonged to someone else). Paris spirited Helen of Sparta to Troy, thus causing Menelaus, Agamemnon and the whole host of Greek soldiers to come after her. Without the divine aspect, Helen was just a lonely woman in a miserable marriage who fell in love with a visiting prince and ran away with him. Even Achilles was deprived of his true divine heritage and downfall. The nod to the heel as weak point was not really sufficient.

So much of Greek mythology deals with the whims of the gods and the way they used humans as their pawns or playthings. The story of the sack of Troy is still a good one even without the gods, but you can still feel that something is missing.

Van Helsing or Werewolves, and Vampires, and Gypsies, OH MY!

In an effort to maintain the illusion that I go out on occasion, I joined two old tyme friends at a viewing of Van Helsing. And boy oh boy were my very first impressions wrong.

The movie sucked.

It sucked A LOT.

The writer/director, Stephen Sommers had done "The Mummy" which I really enjoyed. And NOT just because Brendan Fraser was a featured player. It was light and funny and had enough action and suspense to hold the short term attention spans of the average American. And so I thought that Van Helsing couldn't possibly be all that bad.

And I was oh so very wrong.

So what was so bad? Apart from the fact that it was the silliest monster movie I've ever seen, it took itself way too seriously. Sommers tried to get the blend of comedy and action and suspense just right, the way he had before. But perhaps this material didn't lend itself to the combination. Van Helsing's character is an amnesiac working for a secret Church organization. His soul is tortured because he is the one who has to kill the monsters and watch them revert to the humans they once were. However, the tortured soul of a man who doesn't remember his past isn't really fodder for a comedy.

The special effects were OK. Some were nifty, such as the changing of man into werewolf. But overall it was just cheesy and the FX guys seemed in love with the effects more than the story. Granted the story left much to be desired...some bs about Dracula needing Frankenstein to give life to his dead children. Yep. That's right. So maybe concentrating on the effects wasn't that bad after all.

As for the acting, overall the less said the better. I usually like Kate Beckinsale but her over-the-top accent proved to be less authentic and more Ed Wood. Plus it annoyed me how no matter what happened, she always had impeccable makeup, including a lovely burgandy lipstick. Give me a break. Hugh Jackman seemed to have been doing the best he could with the material, but no number of shirtless scenes could save him. Richard Roxburough is a campy parody of Bela Lugosi and Frank Langella, with an awesome wig that, thankfully, doesn't remind me of Gary Oldman's.

The two standouts were David Denham, of LOTR fame. Here, Faramir played Carl, a James Bond "Q" type character. Who knew he could do funny? And the guy who played Frankenstein (name escapes me and I'm too lazy to look at IMDB) was pretty good. He was the only character you actually cared for; and oddly one of the few characters who weren't treated with Sommer's leaden comic touch.

With "Troy"'s early reviews seeming only tepid at best, I fear we are in for a long cruel summer, filled with the dashed hopes of the brilliant summer movie.

Sex and the City Finale Revisited

In an attempt to find the Friends series finale that I had oh so carefully taped last week, I stumbled upon the recording of the SATC series finale. I had watched it multiple times when it was on HBO, but for some reason I was unable to download it and so have no watched it since.

It remains a totally affecting episode. It's easier to notice how there were the "let's tie up this plotline" moments, but they were never out of character and therefore didn't really bother me. Even knowing how the girls end up, I still felt a lump in my throat at times, and yes, I did cry at certain points. Again.

This episode remains one of the better series finales I've seen. Not only because I was happy with the way everyone's life wrapped up, but because I thought it was done in a manner true to the characters and to the show. Like any good tv show, it referenced some of the key moments in its early episodes -- especially between Carrie and Big (or John as he is now known)-- and made those of us who've seen every episode feel like part of a club. None of the plotlines were out of synch with the trajectory of the show and it was heartening to see how all of the women had grown up and grown into themselves.

Samantha, who started as the powerful and uber-sexual woman on the prowl, got a man who provided her not only with mind-blowing sex, but with the support she needed to get through cancer (and middle age). She also managed to maintain her own distinct personality without compromising the way she had with Richard. Charlotte realized that her dreams of the perfect WASP marriage with the perfect WASP man wasn't what would make her happy; she converted to Judaism and married a shlubby little man who worshipped her and made her smile. The news of an impending adoption made her life only that much sweeter. I felt the character who grew the most was Miranda, who started as the cynical, hardened corporate lawyer and ended up a cynical mother and wife. By opening herself up to vulnerability, she found herself in the middle of something wholly fulfilling.

Carrie ended up with Big. We all knew that would happen. However, she left Aleksandr on her own, realizing her need for consuming, passionate love...and the need to be her own person. Had Big shown up and "saved the day" the show would have been a lie, a scam. Allowing Carrie to make the choice herself, saved SATC from betraying itself.

At the end, Carrie summarizes the various relationships you have in life, ending with the most complicated one being with yourself. It is because she ends with that one, that the show maintained its honesty for me. The additional line of "And if you can find someone who loves the you YOU love, then that's just fabulous" is what the made the show brilliant.

Biggest Douchebag in the Universe

A few years ago Southpark dubbed John Edwards, psychic extraordinaire and speaker to the dead, "The Biggest Douchebag in the Universe".

I propose that someone else has recently de-throned Edwards and taken up that title for himself.

Michael Moore is a jackass, a liar, and a douchebag.

When Disney announced publicly that they weren't going to be distributing Moore's controversial film "Fahrenheit 9/11" Moore played the part of the put-upon genius and victim of Big Business's ties to Big Government. People who have little grasp of the concept and working parameters of Free Speech quickly rallied behind him, declaring the Mouse and Eisner to be pure evil, devils kowtowing to the Bush Dynasty and denying Moore his Constitutional rights. The fact that Disney had no government mandated requirement to distribute his film seemed to have pass these people by. Even the NY Times issued an Editorial lambasting Disney's decision. (Between all this and Jayson Blair, I am having serious doubts about my beloved Times)

But now everyone who supported Moore has egg on their faces.

Yesterday it came out that Moore knew a year ago that Disney wasn't planning on distributing his film. Eisner had made it very clear to Miramax, the studio that produced "Fahrenheit 9/11" and which is owned by Disney, that he was unhappy with the content of the film. However, Miramax and Moore continued on. Fast forward to next week when the film is being shown at the Cannes Film Festival and it would seem Michael Moore needed some additional publicity before heading over to France.

I used to be a fan of Michael Moore's. I loved "Roger and Me" and "The Big One" was pretty good as well. "TV Nation" was hysterical and timely and lacking in the mean-spiritedness of his later work. So much of "Bowling for Columbine" and even "Stupid White Men" is nasty and sometimes unnecessarily so. His methods seem questionable, his conclusions occasionally far-fetched, and his tactics sensational. This is all fine and good and godbless the fact that he can do this. However, his elevation to truthsayer for the Left and spokesperson for the Anti-Bush brigade makes him a bit dangerous. As is proven time and time again, our country is full of easily led sheep who just want a snazzy party-line to shout and an outspoken and hip leader to follow. Moore has the cult status to be cool and engaging theories that make him interesting to listen to, but he is not the honest downhome guy that everyone thinks he is.

And if people still believe that after this week, then they deserve to be led by the Biggest Douchebag in the Universe.

5/24/04 ETA - When asked about Moore's methods and conclusions, I cannot provide the concrete proof I read about when "Stupid White Men" was selling like hotcakes. I can however discuss what I remember from "Bowling for Columbine". Moore tried very hard to make us believe that growing up in a town that made weapons for the government contributed -- heavily contributed -- to the shootings at Columbine. Just putting the scenes together in the movie isn't enough to convince me and he never showed any direct corollary between the two. His "interview" of Charlton Heston was nothing more than an attack on a man suffering from Alzheimer's. While Mr. Heston does indeed need to be brought to task about his involvement with the NRA and some of the speeches he's given, I don't believe it should have been done by someone who was invited into his house under false pretenses. Michael Moore's theory of causality is highly dubious.

Viva Las Gaygus
Tomorrow night marks the end of an era, in a year when quite a few eras are ending.
We've already seen the end of "Sex and the City" and tomorrow we will watch the final episode of "Friends". ("Frasier" is ending too, but I have had little invested in that show)

Even more than SATC, I have felt like the cast member from "Friends" were real people. Yes, I can differentiate between reality and TV, but the mind can play some powerful tricks on you. The show began my freshman year in college. I remember quite well that first episode, sitting around with all the girls from 3rd floor Carmen, settling in to what was to become a routine that lasted for years. It was around the TV, watching Ross, Rachel and the rest, that I met one of my now best friends. It was all the start of something totally new.

As life went on and some people I know went by the wayside, "Friends" was still on the air. It became a constant in my life during periods of extreme turmoil. Granted, that is one of the reasons people are loyal to shows even during times of poor quality -- I'm looking at you Simpsons. No matter which state I was living in, whom I was seeing, where I was working, every Thursday night at 8 I was greeted by the same purple-walled apartment and the faces of the same six people who stuck by each other through all of life's travails.

Let me pause and say that SATC provided a similar comfort, though I only came to the show in its fourth season and only in it's sixth and final season did I have HBO at home. In fact, despite this johnny-come-lately situation I found myself in, catching up on four seasons at once helped me to see the flow of "Sex and the City", with no nine month lags in the plot. However, for sheer familiarity, there is nothing like a solid 10 year investment. Unlike "Sex and the City", we don't say "I'm SO Monica" or "God, I want someone like Chandler" because they are real people. Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte were all great archetypes of the various sorts of women you would find lounging about in all the hot spots in Manhattan. They represented something or someone; Monica, Chandler, Joey, Phoebe, Ross and Rachel represented only themselves.

"Friends" has been good, it's been middling, it's been downright cringeworthy, and it has been great. Episodes like the one where Rachel and Monica lose their "girl's apartment" to the boys after a trivia contest are just sheer strokes of genius. Personally, I hear the line "What are you going to do? Show me my clothes?" every so often and I can't help but chuckle. I think that everyone who has been in a relationship wants to yell out "We were on a break!". It has been a sitcom with all the melodrama of daytime soap, but it managed to rise above itself and become part of Americana. We all want to find our lobster.

For me, there's no excitement about how the story will end; there's no giant party planned, with meatball subs and coffee, to usher out the end of the show; I don't expect to sit there waiting to see if Joey moves to LA or if Ross and Rachel end up together. "Friends" will end however it will and that will be good enough for me. But there is a deep sadness at saying goodbye to something that has given me so much laughter and made me feel a part of a group for so long and when I sit down next week at 8 pm to watch TV, it will be obvious that something will be missing.

Don't worry about me; I'll be breezy.

Someone Else's Shoes
Can we really ever know what someone else is feeling? With the sum total of our life experiences being so totally different how can we possibly understand what someone else goes through?
Not to say that there aren't certain fundamental life experiences that most of us undergo and we all have a common understanding based on the basic human experience. But the individual events, the little things that make up someone's life...these things aren't universal.
So how do we have pity, compassion, understanding for others when we really can't appreciate what led them to this point?
I don't really have an answer, just looking for one.

NOFX Votes
Going one step beyond MTV's Rock The Vote, Punk Voter is not only mobilizing today's youth to get out and vote, but they are telling these impressionable young minds exactly WHOM they should be voting for. With a concert tour called Rock Against Bush, and an album release under the same name, Punk Voter is making it clear through not-so-good music that Bush is the devil and must be taken out at all costs.

Some of their "reasons" why Bush is evil are just a wee bit problematic:
-Kids under our country's legal drinking age are fighting overseas and dying. Hrm. OK I could buy the whole Vietnam thing about not being able to vote for your country but being allowed to die for it. However, not being able to chug a 40 doesn't really have anything to do with it. If you are going to protest the fact that over 700 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq, you'd best find better ground to stand on than the drinking age limit.
- Unemployment has reached 9 year highs. True, very true. But one president doesn't control the employment rate by magically causing it to plummet one day and then pulling the proverbial rabbit out of the hat the next and creating a million new jobs. The economy is a complicated organism and while economic policy can effect change here and there, there's more to it than Bush is evil and wants the average American to live off of bread and water in their refridgerator box condo. 9/11 dealt a devastating blow to our country's economy and personally I'm impressed we weren't more destroyed than we were. I'd say pick specific Bush economic policies to complain about rather than just acknowledging that we are in economic trouble.
- The 18 to 24-year-old voter demographic dropped to an all time low of only 38% in 2000. And is that such a bad thing? If these 18-24 year olds are highly educated on both the issues and on the candidates, then yes. If it's just a matter of pure numbers and they just want all these kids who can barely tie their own shoes and make it to class on time to be deciding the outcome of a national election...then I don't know if this is such a bad thing. Perhaps talk about the percentage of that age group who can talk intelligently about the election campaign and can provide solid reasons for voting one way or another. And not just because their favorite band told them to.

In the 2000 election, I complained that fashion magazines were telling women who to vote for and why. Nail polish color and international politics don't have much to do with each other. I can admire some of these bands involved with Punk Voter for trying to get kids excited about the political process and away from their PS2's, but bashing them over the head with propaganda just negates any positive effects their movement may have had.

Besides, do we really want someone named "Fat Mike" telling us what to do?