Fútbol clip of the week, not really

After watching the Fulham v West Ham game, I realize that there's nothing better than watching two well-matched teams duke it out for that much needed point, even if they're just the little fish in a big pond. And for that I was going to post highlights of the game, becuase really, it was just splendid. However, it seems I was alone in my appreciation of this match and thus couldn't find any clips worth showing. But luckily for you footie fans, I will supply my completely arbitrary commentary for your pleasure.

Fulham put on quite a fight against the burgeoning West Ham. Alas, despite giving West Ham a run for their money, nothing went in the net. My advice to Fulham would be as such: scrape together whatever dough is in the till and purchase yourself a South American on the cheap. River Plate's Falcao, for example, would be a great candidate.

That said, Argentina is a fantastic resource for international teams, specifically in the UK, where they can add a bit of delicadessa to the thuggery that is British footie. The thing is, there's not much left of the Argentine greats. For instance, Palermo would make a great addition to a foreign team, but you can't have him without Palacio, and to break up that duo would be a crime. Then there's River Plate's Ortega, the aging gallego who's performance on the team has been consistently brilliant. And let's not even talk about Riquelme, who's tied to Argentina like a newborn baby to its mother (literally). None the less, there's a lot of newbies on those Argentian teams that can benefit greatly from globalization and a weak peso.

And if that doesn't suffice, one could easily snatch up a Brazillian. It seems they've become quite the crowd favorites with their little scissor kicks, look no further than Ronaldihno, KaKa and by extension, Ronaldo.

So get to it, Fulham.

Monday Movie Madness (on Friday) - Don't Look Now, it's a 10 minute sex scene

As per usual, spolier's below.

So I finally got around to watching Nicolas Roeg's psychological thriller, "Don't Look Now" - only to realize that I've already seen it! However, considering that I didn't remember that I'd seen it until I caught a glimpse of that wretched mini- killer running around in her little red mac (raincoat, for those of us who don't know 70s-speak or aren't British), it was just like watching anew.

1) I've never been to Venice, but it looks wet. And despite the fact that I have what I consider to be a Mediterranean look (read swarthy), I'm not too keen on water. On top of that, my acupuncturist told me I have a wet constitution, I happen to be a Leo, and I'm also a weak swimmer. In other words, the topographical location of this movie alone makes me uncomfortable. Myself aside, Roeg did a great job with the setting of this film. Venice has an all around creepy look about it, which makes the perfect backdrop for a psychological thriller.

2) Not that I'm any authority on child rearing, but I'm not sure I agree with the Baxter's leaving their last living child in an English boarding school while their off in Venice. I understand that Mr. Baxter needs to excavate a building in Venice, but what is Mrs. Baxter doing? Emotionally recuperating from her loss, I guess. But still, what about their son? He should be with his parents trying to assimilate to the bonanza that is life as the only child of bereaved parents, and not at some glorified orphanage (no offense if you went to boarding school).

3) Wow! Talk about an extended sex scene! I imagine Roeg in the cutting room pulling at his hair and yelling to his editor "More! MORE!...(then calmly) Now flashback" This movie should win the prize for most drawn out sex scene, and/or scene with most conventional looking sex, and/or sex scene with the most human-like horse...c'mon, doesn't Donald Sutherland doesn't look like a horse? Anyone?

4) That said, Sutherland and Christie play their characters to a tee. They both did a great job of showing the audience the various faces of mourning and how differently persons in a relationship might cope with the death of a child. I liked Sutherland's quiet reservation as opposed to Christie's more palpable sadness. And while I don't generally ascribe to gender roles, in the case of husband and wife their acting made sense. Plus I think they had great chemistry, it seemed as if it was easy for them to play a married couple.

5) The scene where Mrs. Baxter somehow convinces the Mister to sit in on a psychic session with the two sisters was brilliant. In this scene, towards the end of the old woman's psychic revelry, she goes into a kind of rapture and cries out some sort of premonition between pants and orgasmic-like affirmations. It was both fabulous and horrifying, and much like Bernini's the Ecstasy of St. Theresa, it inspires the kind of uncomfortable feeling that will make you want to go to church. As if being an elderly blind psychic isn't creepy enough!

5) The ending was well done and fairly believable considering the outlandish plot. I like the way Mr. Baxter dies (I imagine a hit to the jugular makes a bloody mess) and the mini-killer was kind of endearing.

This movie was solid and, well, good. Its the kind of film you take at face value, which I can appreciate. You just have to roll with the plot, and much like Sutherland's character, you have believe what you see without (over)intellectuallizing anything i.e. what a coincidence that their daughter died in her red coat and the killer happens to be a tiny Venetian wearing a red coat! However, besides the terrifying scene where Roeg shows us his take on septuagenarian ecstasis, the movie wasn't all that scary. In sum, this movie deserves a 7.3.

Monday Movie Madness - There Will be Blood, but there won't be entertainment

Let me pre-empt my Monday Movie Madness 2nd entry by saying that, as you may have realized, I'm not skilled in the art of movie reviews. So unless you're planning on seeing any of the movies that I review on this here blog, I would be wary reading the rest of my entry, since I may unwittingly give some of the plot away.

With that in mind, onward!

There Will be Blood was a BIG movie, with big ideas, about America's most important commodity, and yet, I left the movie theater with that feeling you get after gorging on sushi - you know, 2 hours and 45 minutes later you're hungry again. Put more succinctly, I was dissatisfied. And frankly, I was surprised that this movie came so highly recommended by many a person, one of which stated that it was "Shakespearian".

1) This movie could have easily been wrapped up in 90 minutes without losing any significant value. It was simply too unmemorable to be this long. And when there are a plethora of scenes that I visually can't recall, I get the feeling that they were simply fluff and filler. Out of curiosity, I looked up the director and I saw that this Anderson was the man behind Boogie Nights, which I loved, Magnolia, which I loathed, and Punch Drunk Love, which was so-so, and ALL of which were TOO long. So, I guess that explains that.


2) Maybe I've been jaded by the Bush/Cheney years, but Daniel Plainview isn't such a spectacular villain, especially when viewed in the historical time line of the United States. In fact, Anderson paints this man like he's just a regular Joe trying to make a buck. Yes, Plainview is unscrupulous and has little regard for humanity, but he's not exceptional to any other businessman. But maybe Anderson wanted to show the banality of capitalism? In which case he did a great job. But if this was Anderson's attempt to demonize early capitalism, then he'll have to try harder.

And a note to Anderson: if the latter is the case, it shouldn't be worth 2hrs and 45 mins of hard work. Especially when you're talking about capitalism in this great country, where Manifest Destiny and the Protestant Ethic form the most perfect union of exploitative prosperity. Frankly I've been more distraught after reading an Upton Sinclair novel.

However, maybe this isn't Anderson's message. Maybe this is me wanting Anderson to show capitalism for the evil agent that it often is. None the less, even if this is my subjective interpretation, the fact that Plainview ends up an emotionally destitute alcoholic is trite. I mean, a man who was a laborer, actively sought to expand his empire, and in the end built an immense fortune, does not tumble into life of inebriated disarray. No, this man breeds and bequeaths his fortune to his progeny; invigorating his empire and taking over the world!

3) Speaking of trite, its so timely and Hollywood to show religion as the ignorant and vulnerable masses who get exploited by big business. Its as if Anderson read Marx and thought, "well I can make a movie like this about the oil industry". Except this is the US, and we are not, and never were, a secularized country where religion is just the opium of the masses. Oh no, religion is our big business. And, as I stated before, in the US you can't have capitalism without religion. So chances are, if there ever was a Plainview, he was probably a religious man.

4) That whole Paul/ Eli Sunday ordeal was confusing. For a while I thought Eli and Paul were the same person. And almost as if Anderson had read my mind, he threw in that scene where Eli attacks his father at the dinner table, which rather than clarifying anything, further confused me.

5) Big ups to the scoring of this movie. I'm almost inclined to say that without the soundtrack this movie would have been disastrous. I loved how eerie and ominous it was.

6) Just a comment on my colleague who said this movie was Shakespearian - it's not. Shakespeare would never leave a message to be parsed. S/He'd have nailed that message in a coffin and buried it to rest.

Here's the thing about reviewing movies - when I left There Will be Blood I thought, "that was ok". But now that I've fully internalized what I viewed I realize that this movie is sub-par. There Will be Blood deserves a 6.5.