Rushified

I've been Rushified. The best thing about the new film I Love You, Man is the tribute to Rush -- the band even plays a song in a cameo.

I thought it was a fun but not hilarious movie about male bonding, and I really like the cast. (I went with my wife, though obviously I should have planned a "man date." Maybe for the DVD release.)

If the official web page's hurdles annoy you, you can find most of the best clips through YouTube. Check out the man cave, for instance.

A Rush fan site has some more info on the links between the movie and the band.

Gotta go now -- got a Rush DVD in the computer.

Don't Watch the Watchmen

Who watches the Watchmen? Me, unfortunately. But you can learn from my mistake and stay away, far, far away, from this viciously repugnant film. I cannot explain what is wrong with the movie without revealing key elements of plot, so if you are already determined to see the movie, DO NOT read on. At least you can't say I didn't warn you.

Though a movie superficially about "super heroes," these "heroes" are either brutal murderers, vicious psychopaths, or impotent sideliners.

I'll get right to it. In order to get the United States and Soviet Union to start working together in a common cause, rather than blow each other up in nuclear war, Ozymandias murders some 15 million people in various cities around the world and lets the world believe Dr. Manhattan, another of the Watchmen, is to blame. Dr. Manhattan, who set up Richard Nixon for additional terms as president, "understands" this mass murder while neither condoning nor condemning it, right before splattering another of the Watchmen for threatening to tell the truth about what happened.

The theme of the movie, then, is that the ends justify the means, however barbaric, murderous, unprincipled, detestable, and horrific. (In reality the chosen means would achieve only suffering, tyranny, and death.) Notice a couple of things. It is the very existence of Dr. Manhattan and his support of Nixon that led to Nixon's continued presidency and the continued cold war, and thus the "need" for Ozymandias to murder 15 million people. And Ozymandias is known as the "world's smartest man." The movie thus attacks heroism as such at the deepest level.

The film's stylish artistry, along with its two characters of any virtue, serve only to mask the film's basic indecency. Ultimately, though, those two characters -- Silk Spectre II and Nite Owl II (brilliantly portrayed, I confess, by Patrick Wilson) -- serve only to illustrate the fundamental futility of true heroism.

Though Flibbert is basically correct about the film, he doesn't get these characters' relationship quite right. Owl can't express his romantic interest in Spectre so long as he surrenders to fear. So he comes out of retirement and, with Spectre, first saves people from a burning building and then breaks a compatriot out of prison. Here these characters are tough, resilient, actually heroic, and very bad-ass. But these adventures do not impact the broader course of the movie. In the end, they accomplish nothing. Ozymandias claims that their greatest triumph is failing to stop the mass murders.

This disgusting film -- which got a 65 percent "fresh" rating at Rotten Tomatoes, leading me to question the sanity of movie critics -- made $55.7 million opening weekend. It cost around $130 million. My only hope is that those of us suckered into seeing it tell all our friends to abstain from rewarding this monstrous film with additional ticket dollars.

Slumdog Millionaire

In my recent list of "good cross-cultural" movies, I forgot to mention the spectacular film, Slumdog Millionaire. Oscar gave me a helpful reminder by nominating the film for 10 of its awards.

It's about three impoverished Indian children who struggle to survive and reach adulthood with their spirits and bodies intact. The "Millionaire" part comes in when one of the trio, as a young adult, lands a spot on the native version of "Who Wants to be a Millionaire." The young man does very well, which leads to suspicion. He tells the story of his life in flashbacks. This is not a story about becoming a millionaire, but about fighting for one's loved ones, no matter what. If features very fine acting and directing.

What's culturally interesting about the film is that it's an English film set and filmed in India, mostly in English, and its gimmick is an international game show. Wikipedia notes about the game show, "The format is owned and licensed by the Japanese production company Sony Pictures Television International." So it is a truly global film.

My only minor gripe with the movie is that it shows some of the economic development of India without indicating why it happened. But that's background.

Wiki also notes the film had a budget of $15 million, yet it is phenomenally better than many films that cost ten times more.

Good Cross-Cultural Movies

By coincidence, my wife and I have seen several movies lately that deal with themes of ethnic relations. Culture clashes can give rise to funny as well as poignant moments. Last November, we saw Outsourced, in which an American goes to India to train his replacement.

Gran Torino remains in theaters. Clint Eastwood plays a widowed war veteran with rough and bigoted language. His neighborhood has been largely bought out by Asian immigrants, and an Asian gang roams the streets. Yet Eastwood's character finds that he has more in common with his new neighbors than he thought, and he resolves to help them fight off the local gangsters. Unfortunately, some idiot reviewer spoiled the ending for me. But I still really enjoyed the movie, even though it takes the bigoted language too far and features some occasionally clunky acting.

Under the Same Moon tells the story of a boy living in Mexico who travels to the U.S. illegally to join his mother, also in the country illegally to find work. I enjoyed the story for two main reasons. The boy shows amazing determination and cleverness in making his journey. And a friendship that the boy develops on the road proves inspiring in its bonds.

The Visitor also deals explicitly with the immigration issue. Richard Jenkins brilliantly portrays a man who has lost the meaning of his life. He finds it again when by chance he meets a young foreign couple. He is inspired by the couple's love and by the young man's devotion to African drumming. The fact that the film takes an overtly political turn in the end didn't diminish my enjoyment of it, though it will turn off some.

August Evening is a slow, ponderous film about an elderly man and the young widowed woman once married to his son. I really enjoyed the acting in this movie, especially by Veronica Loren, the young woman. Both the main characters struggle to move into the next stage of their lives. The father-in-law struggles to find work and maintain bonds with his family, and the woman tries to push out new love. The pair moves around Texas, staying for a time with the man's two surviving children. Not much happens in this movie, but it's a nice portrayal of a loyal friendship. And there is one very funny scene that I won't describe here.

In The Band's Visit, the band is from Egypt, and its members accidentally visit a tiny town in Israel. Very strong acting, especially by Saleh Bakri, who plays a young womanizer and musician, and Sasson Gabai, the band's leader who often clashes with the younger player. As with August Evening, there's not much going on plot-wise, but these characters are mesmerizing to watch, and again parts of the movie are very funny.

Finally, I will mention The Kingdom, in which FBI agents travel to Saudi Arabia to figure out who attacked an American installation. The best part of the movie, besides its heroic and tense finale, is the friendship between the lead American and the local officer assigned to protect and monitor the group. I must offer special praise to Ashraf Barhom, whose touching portrayal of the Saudi officer makes the film. Barhom, like Bakri, is from Israel. I hope to see much more of both of them.

We live in a global economy, in which international travel is easier than ever before. One reason I like these movies is that they help us discover the richness of our world, as well as the themes universal to humanity.

Outsourced

Outsourced surprised me with its warm humor and thoughtful treatment of culture clashes. The premise is that an American is sent to India to train his replacement. The job is "selling kitsch to rednecks" over the phone.

The inevitable romance seems contrived, but I quite like the actors. More compelling are the friendships the American forms with his new coworkers (including his love interest).

I also like the film for some of its cultural themes: cultures have much to offer each other, we do well to pick up the finer aspects of other cultures, and outsourcing brings its benefits as well as its difficulties.

The film looks mostly at the brighter side of India, which is indeed heartening as economic opportunity makes headway. The film barely touches on the continuing problems of India, but, hey, it's a romantic comedy.

And the film mostly was filmed in India by local crews, so the film manifests its own theme. Apparently the big difference is that Bollywood typically films first, dubs later, while this American project filmed with the sound, creating a few problems. (Watch the documentary material when you rent it.)

I had really been looking forward to Wall-E, which I found to be a disappointment with its ridiculous premise. I was grateful that in the same week I found the truly enjoyable film Outsourced.

The Visitor

The Visitor is a great movie of both powerful writing and acting. First the basic story: Walter Vale is a lonely, burned-out college professor who meets a young couple when he shows up at his city apartment and finds the two living there. Okay, so it's a device: the couple are the victim of a scam; they thought they had rented the apartment. Obviously, the three become friends, and this opens up Vale in some interesting ways. The major theme revolves around Vale seeing the meaningless of his life -- and then finding meaning in new friends and hobbies.

Politically, the movie is a sustained and emotional critique of America's immigration policies. The couple are immigrants and in the country illegally. Vale's anger at irrational and immoral U.S. immigration restrictions is powerfully portrayed by actor Richard Jenkins, who is amazing in the film (as are the other major actors).

Not long ago I was talking with a smart, well-educated, affable European -- who may not be able to stay in the country. I've heard enough maddening immigration stories that The Visitor steamed me. Indeed, the film's strong political theme is also a distraction, for those of us who care about this issue. See it, whether in spite of or because of the film's politics.

Persepolis, Virgin Territory

Recently my wife and I watched two films on DVD that we quite enjoyed.

The first is Virgin Territory, very loosely inspired by Boccaccio's Decameron. Completely ignore the stupid publicity blurb that accompanies the movie. This is pop comedy, nearly soft-porn with its nudity, yet beneath it all there is a sweet love story. The cast is lovely and talented; for the first time ever, I'm convinced that Hayden Christensen (of Darth Vader fame) can act. If you approach it as a sexual fairy tale, rather than as a period piece, it can be fun.

The second film is considerably more serious in tone and content: Persepolis tells the story of a girl who grows up in Iran as witness to revolution and war. It is based on the life of Marjane Satrapi, who also co-wrote and co-directed the film. Again I am reminded of what went wrong in Iran, a nation torn between tyrants, Marxists, and theocrats. Be sure to watch the special features, which I found as interesting as the film, as they show what happened to Satrapi after she moved to France. One thing that struck me about this film is the strong American influence it reveals, even as told by a woman from Iran living in France who doesn't seem to have any special sympathy for the U.S. We watched the French-language version with English subtitles (the default on the video we rented), which I recommend, as I'm not persuaded the English dubbing was as good. I really like the original voices, and the animation was completed around the French recordings.

Hellboy II

I was pleasantly surprised by Hellboy II. I remember the story from the first one being completely ridiculous. Here the main story is more interesting if hardly plausible, but the rich characters make it a memorable movie. Center stage are two romances. Even though only one of these four characters is human (and two don't even look human), their relationships are quite compelling. The bad guy is the son on an Elvish king and the brother of one of the love interests. He's a "complex" villain, meaning that the viewer is supposed to sympathize with him. This leads to a bifurcated character.

The movie is hilarious. Truly, deeply funny. This from the guy who gave us Pan's Labyrinth. Two of the fight scenes are an absolute riot (given that our hero is nearly indestructible). And there are some very funny moments in Hellboy's love life. So "funny" comes to the fore, leaving melancholy to fill the recesses. I have no interest in seeing the first film again, but I'm sure I'll rent the second film down the road.

Dark Knight Shines

I loved Dark Knight, the latest Batman film. The acting is superb -- I already loved Christian Bale, Heath Ledger, Gary Oldman, MIchael Cane, and Morgan Freeman, and they certainly live up to expectations here.

Ledger's performance is everything the hype suggests. However, I found him to be frightening not because he played it "over the top," as some critics have alleged, but because he is at times so chillingly calm. I confess to mentally leaving the movie for a moment in sadness as the Joker tells Batman, "We could do this forever." No, they can't.

I was not overwhelmed by Maggie Gyllenhaal, whom I generally like, but who couldn't seem to spark much excitement here. I just couldn't buy a romantic link between her and either of the two men in her life (Bale's Bruce Wayne or Aaron Eckhart's Harvey Dent).

This is a movie of serious ideas as well as superbly crafted action, and I like that. Americans, it seems, hunger for intellectual material, so long as it's part of an interesting and heroic story. Sadly, some of the ideas the film presents are terrible.

Spoiler Alert: From this point on, I'll be discussing details of the film's plot that you probably won't want to read until after you see the film.

There are three main thematic elements to the film. The first may be summarized, "Don't negotiate with terrorists." The Joker is essentially an urban terrorist, motivated not by some religious cause but by raw nihilism. He hates societal order, hates good people planning their lives, hates the good-faith pursuit of values. His goal is to destroy values, destroy peace, and destroy the best people. So the film creates a very compelling villain.

Much of the film involves the Joker unleashing mayhem in order to blackmail Batman into turning himself in to the authorities and removing himself from the action. For a time, Wayne considers doing so. But Dent, the District Attorney, refuses to allow Batman to give in to the Joker, and turns himself in as Batman instead.

Another significant part of the non-capitulation theme rests with an employee of Wayne's who has discovered the secret identity of his boss. He threatens to out Wayne -- until the Joker also threatens violence unless somebody kills him. Then the employee learns quickly why it's a bad idea to play games with terrorists and give in to demands. This first thematic element is positive and a huge reason why the film succeeds.

The second element is closely related to the first. Will people remain decent when pressured by a violent madman? The key sequence involves two ferries, one filled with good people of the city, another with criminals. The Joker loads both boats with explosives and gives each boat a detonator to the other boat. If one boat doesn't blow up the other by a set time, the Joker will blow up both boats.

This is obviously a set up, but it plays well, and the dramatic suspense is palpable. This sequence involves a truly great moment aboard the criminal ferry. In many emergency contexts, I would choose to save the lives of decent people over criminals. However, in the context of the film, the people are aware that the Joker gets a special thrill out of manipulating people, and they also know that Batman as well as the authorities are on the case. So I think that the actions the people take -- not to blow each other up -- are defensible on grounds of not negotiating with terrorists. As others have noticed, this sequence has a lot to do with game theory in economics.

The third main thematic element is the fall of Dent from a respected District Attorney to villain, and the response of Batman to this. The fall of Dent from criminal-chasing hero to embittered villain is not set up well enough be be plausible. The only way such a fall would be possible is if Dent had dramatic personal problems that he'd been hiding. There is a hint of previous trouble: he was once known among police as "Two-Face Harvey." He goes from making his own luck to thinking the world is fundamentally unfair and that such a condition excuses his vindictive violence. I knew the turn was coming, so I wasn't too upset about it. Nevertheless, the mostly inexplicable turn of a hero into a villain is deeply unsatisfying and morally distressing.

Even worse, though, is Batman's reaction to Dent's fall. Batman wants to preserve the people's faith in a hero, so he decides to take the wrap for Dent's crimes. That's horrible, horrible, horrible. Deception can never be the basis of a healthy social reaction. Batman's action is profoundly unjust, not only to himself, but to Dent (who deserves condemnation for his fall), and, more importantly, to the people he claims to defend. Assuming that people must be deceived if they are to do the right thing is fundamentally disrespectful of those people.

I got the idea that the film was trying hard to make Batman a particularly "dark" knight. We can't have him seem too heroic! Given that despicable goal, dinging Batman for crimes he didn't commit is the least-bad way of mucking up his character.

As much as I hate Batman the Liar, the ending does not ruin the film for me. The dominant theme of standing up to villains saves it. That's good, because there's far too much talent here to waste.

Great Debaters

The Great Debaters tells the (fictionalized) story of a black college debate team in 1935. What I like about the movie is that it takes education and language seriously. This was a serious college that attracted top-notch faculty and dedicated students. Be sure to watch the documentary, which includes interviews with people associated with the school in that era. I find myself contemplating a local debate club; the film inspires students and adults alike to reaffirm their commitment to education.

By its subject matter, the film necessarily deals with the politics of Jim Crow, segregation, and related issues. What I found unfortunate is that the film conflates left-wing themes with its universal themes of liberty. But it was an era of socialist ideas, and some of the people on which the film is based held such ideas.

Also unfortunate is the film's gratuitous and implausible love triangle. Not every movie needs a sex scene, and this one seemed quite out of place.

Maybe it's just because I'm getting a little older, but it seems like practically every movie coming out these days is terrible. The three most popular genres seem to be ridiculous horror, mindless action, and stupid comedy. So this film about discussion and the intellect is quite welcome.

Go, Iron Man

I admit I was pleased that Iron Man squashed Speed Racer. While I have not seen the latter movie, its previews are boring, and I loved Iron Man.

I wasn't going to watch Iron Man, either, but it got good reviews, and one reviewer said it's pro-America. It is. It has three main things going for it.

1. The film's message is that defending America is good, while doing business with terrorists is bad. Iron Man unapologetically blasts terrorists.

2. Iron Man is self-made, and he's proud of who he is. Unlike Spider Man, Iron Man creates his super powers. Unlike Batman, he does so not because of childhood psychosis, but because he needs the powers to kick ass and save his life and legacy. I never thought Robert Downey, Jr., was super-hero material, but I was wrong. He is brilliant as the haughty yet charming man behind the mask. It's nice to see a super-hero have fun.

3. Iron Man is pro-science. Unlike Bruce Wayne, Tony Stark does not just buy himself a bunch of fancy gear; he engineers and builds it himself.

The movie does have a couple of problems. First, the idea that a power generator keeps shrapnel out of his heart is silly -- though I did love the idea of the miniature power generator. Second, the movie seems like it's split into two parts. In the first part, Iron Man fights terrorists in the Middle East; in the second, he fights a U.S. traitor (you don't need three guesses who, given the poster art). The stories are tied together but not very tightly.

Still, this is a good movie, and the fact that American audiences are rewarding it says something good about the audiences.

No Country for Good Movies

That's not true, of course; this country produces a few great movies. For instance, recently I praised the films Waitress and Stardust. And my wife and I watched Enchanted on DVD a couple of days ago and loved it. It's the story of a cartoon princess who falls into the real world and has to cope with New York while she waits for her prince to rescue her. It's Disney winking; what is superficially self-parody is actually a defense of fairy tales.

We also watched No Country for Old Men. Yes, the acting is great, though I thought Tommy Lee Jones's performance was the more memorable one. Artistically the film is amazing. But the story is terrible. The theme, if there is one, is that there are vicious, brutal people in the world who do vicious, brutal things -- and there's not a damn thing we can do about it. Yet that's one of the movies that got the Oscar attention. I guess it's just not culturally sophisticated to praise movies with a decent theme or a bright spirit.

I'll take the fairy tales.

Stay Out of the Wild

I made the dreadful mistake of wasting 2.5 hours of my life watching the film Into the Wild. I didn't realize it's based on a true story. I thought I was renting a movie about an Alaskan adventure. No, no, no. If you're interested in watching the film, you might first read the story of Christopher McCandless, on whose life the film is based.

This bit from Wiki should give you some idea of what you're in for:

He was last seen alive by Jim Gallien, who gave him a ride from Fairbanks to the Stampede Trail. Gallien was concerned about "Alex", who had little gear and no experience in the Alaskan bush. Gallien tried to persuade Alex to defer his trip, and even offered to drive him to Anchorage to buy suitable equipment. McCandless refused all assistance except for a pair of rubber boots, two tuna melts, and a bag of corn chips.

The outcome is predictable.

Wiki also notes that McCandless "dreamed about leaving society for a Thoreau-like period of solitary contemplation." Well, he succeeded in leaving society, all right.

The movie is a contradiction. At one point, the film shows McCandless burning his money; the film cost around $15 million to make and cleared that amount at the U.S. box office. McCandless shuns technology, but the cinematography is fairly good.

I grant that the performances of Kristen Stewart and Hal Holbrook, who portray two of McCandless's friends, are quite good.

But basically this is a movie about a guy who kills himself with self-induced stupidity masked by left-wing platitudes.

Waitress, Stardust Best Movies of '07

I spent Oscar night watching good movies on video. I didn't even know the Oscars were on television until I happened to check the news online and notice that some winners had already been announced.

Out of the 24 Oscar winners, I've seen only four of the movies. Of those, I didn't particularly like Golden Compass, and Bourne won only for technical achievements. I quite liked Ratatouille (even though I've never understood why "animated feature" gets its own category, given that there are so few decent animated movies in a given year), and Elizabeth: The Golden Age was okay. The only other winner that I have a particular interest in seeing is Juno. I do want to see No Country for Old Men, and I might watch Once, though I've already marked There Will Be Blood off of my "maybe" list. I don't care how good the acting is if the movie is fundamentally grotesque.

So what did I do while happily ignoring the Oscars? My wife and I watched Feast of Love, which we enjoyed despite some serious problems with the writing (such as the use of a psychic as a plot device), and then we discovered a very fine film: American Pastime.

I'd never heard of this latter film till we saw a preview on another rental. Both my wife and I loved this movie. Okay, part of the plot is somewhat contrived; the interracial romance, the father who just doesn't understand his daughter, the competition among brothers, and the miracle sports comeback all felt a bit obvious. But I'd rather watch an old-fashioned, heartfelt story than a play of some miserable moral monster. Oscar can stuff it, as far as I'm concerned (though I've rarely been much of a fan, as my notes from 2006 and 2004 suggest.) At least Michael Moore didn't win, which surprised me.

American Pastime is about a baseball team formed in a Japanese-American internment camp. But it's about much more than that. It's mostly about a young man's struggle to deal with racism and injustice. The main character loves jazz and baseball, but his pending college education (on a baseball scholarship) is interrupted by the war and his forced relocation to the camp. Understandably, he feels bitter about this. He and his brother clash -- until his brother joins the Army to fight in Germany. And the young man finds a romantic interest in a girl who just happens to be the piano-playing daughter of the camp's main guard, who just happens to be the star player on the local baseball team. As I mentioned, this sounds like a story-telling setup, but the characters are well developed and believable. The main actors are quite good.

Looking back at 2007, two movies stand out for me. Neither received a single Oscar nomination.

Waitress is a spectacular movie. The Oscar group committed something approaching a moral sin by failing to recognize Adrienne Shelly for screenplay, Keri Russell for best actress, and Andy Griffith for best supporting actor. Waitress is among the great films of the decade, not just of 2007.

Russell plays a waitress (big surprise) who is also a spectacular baker of pies, which reflect her moods. She works at a pie shop owned by Griffith's character, and Griffith is absolutely superb as the grumpy but perceptive proprietor. He nimbly tightropes between a cynical demeanor and a compassionate heart. The problem is that the waitress is married to a complete jerk -- and she is pregnant. This is a love story, but not between the characters of Russell and romantic interest Nathan Fillion, but between the woman and her child. It is a beautiful, gorgeously written story.

Stardust is my other favorite film of the year. I've already briefly summarized it:

A young man, trying to win the heart of the local beauty, sees a falling star and pledges to fetch it in exchange for the girl's hand. But to retrieve the star, our hero must cross the wall that separates England from the magical world beyond. In that world, a fallen star is not a hunk of metal and ash -- it is a lovely young lady, in this case portrayed by Claire Danes. Our hero must learn to become a man, save the star, and figure out whom he loves.

This coming-of-age story is a fantasy for grownups. Forget about how silly it sounds to make a star into a girl: it works. And Robert De Niro as the tough-talking (but eccentric dressing) pirate is both hilarious and touching.

Both Waitress and Stardust are such fabulous movies that, of course, neither won even a single nomination from Oscar. (In neither film is a despicable son of a bitch the main character.) But who cares what Oscar thinks: both films earn an Ari.

Heath Ledger, 1979 - 2008

I was saddened to read of the death of Heath Ledger, who had become one of my favorite actors.

On the very day of the Oscar nominations being announced for 2007, the Australian actor Heath Ledger was found dead in a Manhattan apartment. Born in Perth, in Western Australia, Heathcliff Andrew Ledger would have been 29 this April 4th. First reports of his death mentioned drugs in evidence, but no one really knows enough yet to say anything except how great the loss is. Ever since he played Mel Gibson's son in The Patriot (2000), it was apparent that his striking handsomeness went hand-in-hand with high ambitions as an actor, courage in the roles he took and a fierce intelligence. He is likely now to be known forever for his cowboy, Ennis, in Brokeback Mountain... At his death he had just finished playing the Joker in a new version of Batman - The Dark Knight - and that may reveal fresh sides to what was a developing career.

A year and a half ago, I wrote:

Previously I predicted that I wouldn't think much of Brokeback Mountain, the gay cowboy movie. What I did not anticipate was Heath Ledger's hauntingly sorrowful performance. Yes, the movie is beautifully directed and the rest of the cast is very good, but it is Ledger who makes it a memorable movie. I've always enjoyed Ledger's movies, but his performance in Brokeback is amazing. ...

An aside. It occurred to me that, if somebody wanted to spend a lot of money and make even more, they'd hire a competent writer to turn Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead into a full season of television (roughly 22 episodes each 45 minutes in length), then hire Ledger to play Howard Roark...

I also enjoyed Ledger's Casanova, even though the story of the movie spins a bit out of control.

The movie I've been most looking forward to is Dark Knight. Judging from the previews, Ledger's performance is stunning. I'm still looking forward to the movie, but now I'll have to watch it with more than an undercurrent of sorrow.

The Wendell Baker Story

I've been thinking about The Wendell Baker Story, off and on, since I saw it yesterday. That confirms my thoughts that the movie, which few people have heard of, might be worth a second glance. On the whole, it's not a spectacular film (it earned a 45 percent fresh rating from Rotten Tomatoes), but it shows flashes of poignancy and heart. After a slow beginning, the film introduces older characters played by Kris Kristofferson, Harry Dean Stanton, and Seymour Cassel. The relationships among these characters, and between them and the lead character of Luke Wilson, give the comedy a soul of benevolent dignity. I especially enjoyed the performance of Kristofferson. Wilson wrote the screenplay, and his brothers Owen and Andrew join the project.

Take a moment to get your mind off of that movie, because, while I'm discussing movies, I thought I'd warn readers about a repulsive, disgusting film, Year of the Dog. I regard it, along with I Heart Huckabees and The Butterfly Effect, as the three worst, most nihilistic films I've ever seen.