That's Low, George. Solo.

George Lucas has come forward to set the record straight for all those of you who were wondering--Greedo shot first. Of course some of us weren't wondering. I was one of the many who saw it in the theater when it fist came out. Lucas can talk about his intentions until the Death Star flotsam reaches the outer ridges of that galaxy far, far away, but what was there on the screen was large as life and pretty damn clear. Han shot first. Greedo didn't shoot at all.

Now I don't know why Lucas continues to fuck with his films. Honestly, I don't. If I had to make a guess, I'd say it was something psychological, some form of OCD. Or maybe it's just because he can. Whatever the reason, it doesn't matter. I'd even argue that Lucas' "intentions" don't matter. I've heard people argue that they're his movies, so what he says goes. But that's not entirely true, in my opinion. When an artist creates art, he can tweak it and fix it and reinterpret it as much as he wants privately, but once he puts it out there, it belongs--at least in part--to the public. If Leonardo was alive today, we wouldn't let him and his paintbrush back into the Louvre because he suddenly realized the Mona Lisa should have had bigger tits.

Authorial intent certainly means something, but it doesn't mean everything. If I write a short story, and you get something out of it besides what I intended you to, then good for you. It doesn't mean you're wrong, and it doesn't mean I've failed in writing my story. Lucas claims we shouldn't see Han as a "cold-blooded killer," but that just shows how distant he's become from these characters, because I'm betting that no one ever saw Han as that. After all, Greedo had his pistol pointed at Han, and had just told him that he was going to enjoy killing him! That's not cold-blooded; that's self-defense. Or look at it this way--if we see that scene as Han being "cold-blooded," what are we to make of Han swooping in out of nowhere during the final battle to destroy the TIE fighter that never fired a shot at him? Isn't that the equivalent of shooting someone in the back? Now, of course he was defending his friend, so we don't fault him, just like we don't fault him when he shot Greedo. First.

One last thought: even if you believe that Lucas has the right to "clarify" his original intentions for the character, it still doesn't change things. Lucas apparently forgot that he had a script. That's the thing about having stuff written down--it makes it pretty easy to see what those original intentions were. This is from the script:

GREEDO: Going somewhere, Solo?

HAN: Yes, Greedo. As a matter of fact, I was just going to see your boss. Tell Jabba that I've got his money.

Han sits down and the alien sits across from him holding the gun on him.

GREEDO: It's too late. You should have paid him when you had the chance. Jabba's put a price on your head, so large that every bounty hunter in the galaxy will be looking for you. I'm lucky I found you first.

HAN: Yeah, but this time I got the money.

GREEDO: If you give it to me, I might forget I found you.

HAN: I don't have it with me. Tell Jabba...

GREEDO: Jabba's through with you. He has no time for smugglers who drop their shipments at the first sign of an Imperial cruiser.

HAN: Even I get boarded sometimes. Do you think I had a choice?

Han Solo slowly reaches for his gun under the table.

GREEDO: You can tell that to Jabba. He may only take your ship.

HAN: Over my dead body.

GREEDO: That's the idea. I've been looking forward to killing you for a long time.

HAN: Yes, I'll bet you have.

Suddenly the slimy alien disappears in a blinding flash of light. Han pulls his smoking gun from beneath the table as the other patron look on in bemused amazement. Han gets up and starts out of the cantina, flipping the bartender some coins as he leaves.

HAN: Sorry about the mess.

See the part where Greedo shoots? Neither do I.

My Top Ten Films of 2011

Okay, first of all, I did my top 11 films because it's 2011, and also because I suck at choosing. Second of all, I didn't see a lot of the films that many people are putting on their top ten lists, so really this should be called "My Most Entertaining Films of 2011." Third of all, this list was tough to put together. I just didn't feel as strongly about any of these films as I have about films from previous years. Maybe it's that those ones I missed this year were knock-outs, but I felt it was a pretty weak year for films. Finally, I'll probably change my mind about the list tomorrow, anyway. But here it is:

11. Kill List: This is one of those films I enjoyed, but know better than to recommend it to anyone else. It’s a little like Pulp Fiction meets The Wicker Man. And there are more than a couple of WTF? moments. Be warned: some of you will hate this.

10. A Separation: I wasn’t sure I’d like it at first, but quickly found myself caught up in the lives of the characters, right up until the ambiguous ending, which I actually could have done without.

9. I Saw the Devil: Watching this, I felt like I was abused…but in a good way, I guess, because here it is on my list. Disturbing film.

8. Hanna: I thought this was a well-done action thriller, with a strong performance by Saoirse Ronan.

7. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows, pt. 2: A really, really great ending to a great series. I was never a huuuge fan, so I was really surprised at how moved I was by the film.

6. Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol: This might be on here just because I saw it so recently, but I doubt it. I love these kinds of films more than anything, and Mission Impossible does it really well.

5. We Need to Talk About Kevin: Of all the films on my list, this one got under my skin the most. I found it very difficult to watch, and very difficult to let go of afterwards.

4. X-Men First Class: With the talent involved, I would have thought Thor would have been the superhero movie of the year, but this one blew it away.

3. Martha Marcy May Marlene: Unlike A Separation, I felt this film’s ambiguous ending was justified. Great performances, especially by Elizabeth Olsen. John Hawkes, who I thought had one of the best performances of last year, as Teardrop, in Winter’s Bone, does it again here, as the deliciously creepy Patrick.

2. Drive: Unlike everyone else who liked this film, I didn’t care for the soundtrack. But man, did I like everything else.

1. Attack the block: I’m still not sure this should be at number one. But this film felt like the beginning of something, kind of like Carpenter’s Halloween. The feeling of a loving hand behind the camera, which should have been there in Super 8 (which didn’t make my list, despite some decent performances), but wasn’t. Also, love love LOVE Jodie Whittaker, ever since Venus (2006).

Honorable Mentions: The Help, Killer Elite, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, The Eagle, Paul, Straw Dogs

Not Seen, but probably should have: The Skin I Live In, 50/50, The Descendants, The Artist, The Tree of Life, Girl With the Dragon Tattoo

Most disappointing movies of the year: The Dilemma, The Green Hornet, Sucker Punch, Thor, Fright Night, and the worst film I saw all year: Abduction.

Final Note: Tucker and Dale vs Evil would be on my list, but I think that technically it's a 2010 release, even though it didn't get any release to speak of until this year.

Fuck You, Academy

This is why I hate the Oscars. I'm watching the DVR of last night's events and I notice that they failed to include Farrah Fawcett in their "In Memoriam" section of the show. I figured it had to be some oversight on their part, but no--I do a quick search and find out that not only am I apparently the last person to notice this, the Academy has claimed it's NOT an oversight, saying “unfortunately we don’t include everyone.” They saw their way clear to include Michael Jackson, though. Apparently, his performance in The Wiz, alongside Nipsy Russel, was enough of a film credit to qualify him. And I'm sure that's what everyone thinks of when they hear his name. "Michael Jackson? Isn't he the guy that played Scarecrow in that delightful Broadway version of The Wizard of Oz?" I just can't fathom why they would leave her out. I have seen some people speculate that she was a "television actress" and therefore shouldn't have been included. Again, I would point out Jackson's inclusion, but I would also mention that not only was she a member of the Academy for 40 years*, but she starred in such critically acclaimed films as Extremities and The Apostle, for which she was nominated for a Golden Globe and Independent Spirit Award, respectively. She most definitely should have been included, and frankly, this just adds insult to injury, as I feel her passing was all but forgotten when Jackson died the same day.

Fuck you, Academy. Fuckyou fuckyou fuckyou.

* Unlike, apparently, Sean Penn, who was invited to join in 2004, but according to his own rambling, incoherent narrative last night never became an "official" member. I'm pretty sure that anything other than an "official" member means "not a member." At least that's what they told me when I tried to justify hanging around the girls' swim team locker room by calling myself a member of the team.

And One More For Luck

I've already added 50 films to my "best of the decade" list, but I wish I'd seen this one before I did, as it surely would have held a place on the list. Flame and Citron is a beautifully shot and acted film. Thinking back over it, I can't seem to find a misstep anywhere. The two leads, Thure Lindhardt and Mads Mikkelsen, were just mesmerizing. Lindhardt's IMDB page says he is known in his native Denmark as "the Man With a Thousand Faces" because he so completely disappears into widely disparate roles. I can believe it. I was blown away by the performances of both men. If you have a chance, check this gem of a film out. It's what Valkyrie and Inglorious Basterds could have been.

The "Best" And "Worst" Films Of The Decade

Yeah, I know--everyone's making these lists. So why should you give a shit about mine? I honestly don't know. I don't know if anyone even reads this thing anymore, but I took the time to sit down and make the list, so I'm damn sure going to include it here.

A couple of points:

• I have "best" and "worst" in quotes because I'm not really maintaining these are the best or worst films of the decade. The best list should rightly be called "my favorites." For example, I'm sure there have been any number of great films over the last decade that I haven't seen. I could probably name them, but I'm not including them. And the worst list is even more vaguely defined. Here, I've included not only "bad" films, but films that I thought were vastly overrated. (Some of them are on a lot of "best of the decade" lists!) As with the other extreme, I'm sure that there were some really terrible films out there, but I wasn't stupid enough to waste my time with them. Let me repeat: these are only movies I have seen.
  
• I didn't run the numbers, but it feels like I have a lot of recent ones. Even though I hate lists that do that, I can't help it--it's tough to think of the older films.
• The list is alphabetical*
  
• I know...the list isn't complete. I just thought I'd put it up here until I finished.
  

The Best:

1. Amelie(2001)
2. Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy(2004)
   
3. Apocalypto(2006)
   
4. Batman Begins(2005)
5. Black Hawk Down(2001)
   
6. The Bourne Identity(2002)
7. Brick(2005)
   
8. Casino Royale(2006)
9. The Dark Knight(2008)
   
10. The Descent(2005)
11. District B13(2004)
    
12. Elf(2003)
    
13. The Fall(2006) 
14. Finding Nemo(2003)
15. The Gift(2000)
    
16. Gone Baby Gone(2007)
    
17. Gran Torino(2008)
18. Grizzly Man(2005)
19. Iron Man(2008)
20. Joy Ride(2001)
    
21. King Kong(2005) 
22. The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters(2007)
    
23. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang(2005)
24. The Last Samurai(2003)
25. Let the Right One In(2008)
    
26. The Lord of the Rings trilogy(2001/2002/2003)
27. The Magdeline Sisters(2002)
    
28. Man on Wire(2008)
    
29. Memento(2000)
30. Oldboy(2003)
31. The Reader(2008)
    
32. Requiem for a Dream(2000)
33. Shaun of the Dead(2004)
    
34. Sin City(2005)
35. Sin Nombre(2009)
36. Spartan(2004)
    
37. Spider-Man(2002)
38. Sunshine(2007)
    
39. Tae Guk Gi(2004)
40. Taken(2008)
41. Things We Lost in the Fire(2007)
42. Towelhead(2007)
    
43. Unbreakable(2000)
    
44. Unleashed(2005)
45. Venus(2006)
    
46. Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit(2005)
    
47. Watchmen(2007)
    
48. Whale Rider(2002)
49. The World's Fastest Indian(2005)
    
50. The Wrestler(2008)

The Worst:

1. The Departed(2006)*
2. Kill Bill, volumes 1&2(2003/2004)*
3. Slumdog Millionaire(2008)*
4. 88 Minutes(2008)
   
5. Basic Instinct 2(2006)
6. A Beautiful Mind(2001)
   
7. Borat(2006) 
8. Catwoman(2004)
   
9. Click(2007)
   
10. Cloverfield(2008)
    
11. Crash(2004) 
12. Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon(2000)
    
13. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button(2008)
    
14. Dawn of the Dead(2004)
    
15. The Day After Tomorrow(2004)
16. Death-Proof(2007)
17. The Devil's Rejects(2005)
    
18. Disaster Movie(2008)
    
19. Fahrenheit 9/11(2004)
20. Freddy vs. Jason(2003)
21. Friday the 13th(2009)
    
22. Halloween(2007)
23. Halloween II(2009)
    
24. High Fidelity(2000)
    
25. Hostel, Part II(2007)
    
26. I Know Who Killed Me(2007)
27. Inglorious Basterds(2009)
28. Knowing(2009)
29. My Bloody Valentine(2009)
    
30. Nature's Grave(2008)
    
31. One Missed Call(2008)
    
32. Planet of the Apes(2000)
33. Prom Night(2008)
    
34. Righteous Kill(2008)
    
35. Rollerball(2002)
36. The Room(2003)
    
37. Signs(2001)
38. Sleuth(2007)
    
39. Snakes on a Plane(2006)
40. The Spirit
    
41. Superman Returns(2006)
42. Train(2008)
    
43. The Wicker Man(2006)

* You probably noticed that the first three "worst" films are out of alphabetical order. That's because those three boggle my mind. Two of them were Oscar winners. And for the life of me, I can't figure out why. They weren't terrible films, but I wouldn't even have put any of them in the top 10 for their respective years. I know people disagree over matters of taste, but I look at those films and I truly can't understand how anyone could possibly put those in a "best of" list. They're not terrible films. I just find them to be...mediocre, at best. The Departed, despite having a slew of great actors, was acted amazingly poorly, the bad accents made me wince (yeah, I'm talking to you, Sheen), and the plot was illogical and full of huge holes. Kill Bill is yet another mishmash of "stuff that Quentin thinks is cool," and I really resent that it was split into two films because a) it didn't need to be, and b)of course it was about the money. Get an editor, Quentin. That said, the second installment was much better. Slumdog is the one I am least offended by, but still...it's so caught up in its gimmick that you can never really become interested in the characters. Forget about the fact that we know the main character survives from the beginning, which tends to reduce any sense of suspense or danger we might feel. What really bothered me is that every time I started getting interested in the characters, the film jumped to a different time. To be honest, I would have rather watched a complete two-hour film about any of the various incarnations of the characters (like the young boy looking to meet his hero). I wanted a film that fully developed the characters. Instead, I feel like I got a bunch of different characters that I never really got to know, and consequently never cared about.

Yet Another List That Frustrates Me

So, PasteMagazine.com has a post up with their choices for the "50 Best Movies of the Decade." If you know me, you know that I generally hate these types of lists. I knew I was going to hate this one when I saw The Departed and Kill Bill 1&2 on there. I didn't think The Departed was the best picture of the year when it won, and I sure don't think it's in the top 50 of the decade. There were a few nice choices in there (Whale Rider, Memento, Amelie), and a few "really?" choices (Juno, which--only two years later--already seems tired, and High Fidelity), but overall, the choices struck me as a bit pretentious. There were a couple fairly obvious "mainstream" films listed, such as the Lord of the Rings trilogy and The Dark Knight, but many of the films picked seemed designed to show off the authors' "hipness." I'm reminded of the "game show" episode from "Friends":

Ross: Rachel claims this is her favorite movie.
Chandler: Dangerous Liasons.
Ross: Correct. Her actual favorite movie?
Joey: Weekend at Bernies.
Ross: Correct.


I'm not saying that they're necessarily bad films*, but I thought there were some better choices out there. I'm thinking about making my own list of the best 50 of the decade, so feel free to send me your suggestions in the comments section.

*except for The Departed and Kill Bill. And fair disclosure--I haven't seen every film on the list.

Paranormal Activity

For a small-budget movie, it was decent, but overall I was a little disappointed. I didn't find it all that frightening. My biggest complaints were some believability issues, but I think you run into that any time you have a film done in that "shot from a character's videocam" mode. It wasn't bad, necessarily, but if you're thinking about going to see it, go in with realistic expectations. Leave the hype at home.

I Like Will Ferrell, But...

I have to take issue with his latest video, which sarcastically attacks health insurance company executives, in part by highlighting how much money they make.

Really?

Will Ferrel's salary for Talledaga Nights was $20 million dollars. The film's U.S. gross was just over $148 million. That means Will got about 13.5% of the money the film made. His salary for Bewitched was also $20 million. That film wasn't quite as successful, and only grossed about $63 million. In that case, will got about 32% of the film's money. I wonder how that compares with your average insurance executive?

Let's take a look at everyone's favorite villain: AIG. According to their 2006 Annual Report, AIG got about $14 billion (that's net, not gross, by the way). Now, I could look up the CEO's salary, I suppose, but as you'll see in a moment, there's no real need to, to make my point.

Now, if one of those big, bad insurance executives was to make those same percentages that Will Ferrell makes?

13.5% of $14 billion=$1.89 billion
32% of $14 billion=$4.48 billion

I couldn't find one single CEO who makes that much. And because I do like Will, and I didn't want to be unnecessarily cruel, I didn't even bring up the percentage he make from Kicking and Screaming (about 38%). I suppose you could crunch those numbers yourself, if you were so inclined.

Look, I don't have much sympathy for these high-paid executives, but...celebrities? Celebrities who are making $20 million a movie? They should shut the fuck up.

P.S. I looked it up. AIG's CEO made about $14 million (or about a tenth of one percent of the company's net) in 2007.

A Laugh For Friday

I've Done That A Few Times Myself

The Men Who Stare at Goats looks hysterical. Can't wait!

Movie Tip: The Silence

I've been wanting to write about the typical political crap I usually do, but there's been so much of it lately, I don't know where to start. And I'm afraid if I do, I won't stop. But I didn't want to stop writing altogether, so I thought I might put up the occasional post encapsulating films I've seen lately that have been particularly good or bad. I see a LOT of films, partially for work, but mostly because I have a problem. (Isn't that the first step, admitting it?) I've seen a number of ones recently that fall into both categories, but I thought I'd start with the one that moved me enough to start writing these things.

I've always liked foreign films, but I've been particularly impressed with some of the stuff that's come out of Australia in the last few years. (Especially films like Wolf Creek and Rogue.) The latest one to impress me is The Silence, which was apparently a television offering Down Under, but was just released on DVD here in the States. There's nothing about it that made me say "wow," but it was a solid little film with some good acting, which kept me interested throughout (particularly from lead Richard Roxburgh and his "Gal Friday" Emily Barclay, who stole just about every scene she was in). I won't go too much into the details of the plot, as you can look those up on IMDB, but I will say that this was a '40s style film noir, set in modern day Australia. It's like a Chandler novel, brought to film, with a little bit of Blow Up thrown in. There are a number of cliches (the haunted cop, the bad relationship, etc.), but rather than detract from the film, I thought they contributed to the overall noir-ish vibe.

If you like a thriller without all the explosions and gunfights, it's worth a rent. I suppose I'll have to come up with some sort of rating system, although I really hate that sort of thing, as films are such diverse creatures that it's hard to compare or quantify them. I'm open to suggestions, though.

This Is My New Favorite Video

It's obviously fake, but still awesome, if only for the concept.

Trickey with Balls - The best bloopers are here

I Can't Stop Clicking!!

So I've been absorbed with this website lately: flickchart. There's not much to it, really, but it's addictive. You start out being given a choice between two films. Depending on your choices, flickchart makes a personal ranking for your top movies. You also get information on others' picks, and can discuss the various choices. Sound boring? It's not. And sometimes the choices are easy. But sometimes they're not. I would guess that most people would have no problem choosing between Rocky and Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure, but is it equally as easy to choose between, say, Die Hard and Raiders of the Lost Ark?

It's not perfect. Since the first several movies you rank create your list, I've found it tough to get some of them off your top 20. Dumb and Dumber was in my top 20 for a loooong time. For the most part, though, it does a fairly accurate job, especially the more choices you go through. For example, I've got just over 1000 decisions, and here's the makeup of my top 20:

1. The Wrestler
2. The Professional
3. Midnight Run
4. Spider Man
5. Dark City
6. Spider Man 2
7. Young Sherlock Holmes
8. Deliverance
9. The Sixth Sense
10. Jaws
11. The Bourne Identity
12. Rocky
13. Live Free or Die Hard
14. Caddyshack
15. Sharky's Machine
16. Die Hard
17. Mission Impossible III
18. Batman Begins
19. Terminator 2: Judgement Day
20. Boogie Nights

Some of them should be higher (Jaws, Die Hard) and some lower (The Wrestler, Deliverance), and some are missing (Raiders of the Lost Ark, Star Wars), but if these twenty were at a film festival? I'd never leave my seat.

You can create your own profile at www.flickchart.com, but I understand the waiting list could be a couple of weeks. I, however, have a few invites that I might be enticed into giving away. Make me an offer I can't refuse...

Coolest Trailer For A Movie That Doesn't Exist?

I think so.

Oscar? I Barely Know Her!

As I've already said, I'm not watching the Oscars this evening. I so rarely agree with the winners these days that it would just be an exercise in frustration. I've tried to watch all of the films with any kind of buzz around them, and got through all but The Reader. I had planned on writing a long diatribe about my picks for the major categories, but this morning my motherboard crapped out on me.

Since I'm borrowing time (and a computer) to write this, I'll have to make it brief:

I really hope that Mickey Rourke wins for The Wrestler. Not only was that the best performance, I think it was the best picture, even though it wasn't nominated. I'm one of the few people who aren't rooting for Slumdog Millionaire. Not only do I not think it was the best film of the year, I wouldn't have even nominated it. Hell, I don't think I would even put it in my top ten of the year. I honestly can't understand the push for this movie to win. (Of course, I couldn't understand The Departed winning either. I still think it's one of the worst films ever to win.) The characters are barely developed, the acting isn't that good (you'll notice none of them are nominated), the score quickly becomes irritating, and the direction--more specifically, the camerawork--is so "in-your-face" and obvious that it obscures what, at times, is an interesting story. And speaking of the story, I also felt that it couldn't decide what kind of film it wanted to be. If any of my students had turned in something like that, I would have called it "unfocused."

Don't get me wrong: It's not a bad little film. I just don't think it ranks up there with the others. I would gladly have replaced it with Gran Torino if I could. I never felt a connection, a care, or even a worry about the characters in Slumdog. Every time I thought I might, they moved on to some other aspect of the film. The Wrestler, Gran Torino, and many of the other nominees? I got into the characters; I felt moved by the stories. One of the ways I judge a film is how often I look at my watch, or how quickly (or not) the time flies by. I've had three hour films (such as The Shawshank Redemption) that seemed over before I knew it, and eighty minute films that seemed interminable. I checked my watch more than a little while watching Slumdog.

And I don't have anything against foreign films, or films with socio-political undertones, as anyone who knows me will attest. I thought The Visitor was a better film than Slumdog. (And even though I want the Mickster to win, I won't shed a tear if Richard Jenkins wins--he was great.)

Well, the ceremony is almost here, and I'm certain later tonight, or tomorrow, when I hear the winners, I'll be disappointed, but not that disappointed, as I've come to expect so little from the Academy.

There's always next year...

We Asked For It

By getting rid of Ebert, Roeper, et. al.

I'm watching the "Ten Worst" episode of the Ebert replacement show, and the one guy puts Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull in the #1 slot on his list. Really? You thought Beverly Hills Chihuahua was a better film than Indy?

Douche.

I'm Just Talkin' Bout Liam!

I had occasion to see Taken, and I have to say...

Of all the bad motherfuckers in all of the action movies...Liam Neeson could just be the baddest. Hardcore...just hardcore.

It's not going to win any awards, I think, but I sure enjoyed watching it.

I'm Sorry, Blockbuster Online Customer Service; I Can't Hear You!

Must be because you have you have your head up your ass.

I'm a member of both Netflix and Blockbuster Online. Looks like I may have to drop Blockbuster. I've had a few problems with the films over the years, but lately it seems to be getting worse. And the customer service? Well, it all started when I noticed something wrong with my "recommendations...."

(Cue flashback harp music)

On both online sites, you rate movies you've seen and--based on your ratings--new movies you might like are suggested. At least that's how it's supposed to work. That's how it works on Netflix. On Blockbuster Online, though, about half of my shown recommendations were movies I had already rated. It really wasn't that big of a deal...until I got involved with Blockbuster's customer service. I sent them an e-mail alerting them to what was happening. My first response was this (I changed the tracking number):

------ Please do not remove your unique tracking number! ------
<<#8-675309#>>

That's it. Nothing else. No message. Frankly it was a little creepy. Of course I wrote back to ask what the deal was. Then I got a response which included this:

Our system is designed to not recommend movies that have previously been rated by the customer. The recommendations area should only display non-previously rated movies confirmed by the stars being only blue (yellow would indicate that they've been rated.)

There is, however, a limitation to this feature. Once the customer has rated over 1,000 movies, this function is no longer available and the customer may see previously rated items.

There is an enhancement request to up this limit to 2,000 and we hope that will be completed sometime in the near future.

I again responded, letting them know that their system wasn't working the way it was supposed to and that I hadn't rated anywhere near 1,000 films.

From the next e-mail:

Your comments are taken very seriously and we welcome them as a valuable tool needed to improve the quality of our service. I will make sure to forward your feedback to the appropriate department for review.

"Your comments are taken very seriously," which means nothing. I waited for the next e-mail:

I apologize if your issue about the rating system in our website is still not being addressed properly. Since addressing the issue through e-mail is a bit complicated, I kindly advice you to contact us at our Customer service hotline at 1-866-692-2789, we are open from Mondays to Fridays 8:00 am to 8:00 pm Central standard time. Our customer service representative will be happy to assist you and guide you through the website. We will try and come up with a solution or an answer to the recommendations issue in the websiste. We kindly appreciate your patience and understanding.

This was the nicest response yet, but seemed to still be foisting me onto someone else. I grabbed my phone.

After being on hold for about 20 minutes, listening to a recording ("We take your calls very seriously...") I finally got an agent who spoke what I'm pretty sure was English, as I recognized a few words. I briefly explained the problem, at which point she put me on hold again for five more minutes. When she came back, she told me with what I can only assume was a straight face that Blockbuster doesn't use personal recommendations. I explained to her that a previous e-mail from them explained to me that they did indeed have them. This began a strange dance where she would repeat my problem back to me ("You are saying that...") and after I affirmed the problem, she would repeat her claim that there were no recommendations. I eventually gave up, and she asked me if I would care to participate in a satisfaction survey.

You bet your ass I wanted to.

The next thing I know, I'm listening to another recording, asking me to enter my agent number followed by the number I want to transfer my customer to. Over and over and over again. Apparently she couldn't ever transfer me properly.

What started as a non-issue had grown into an "I'm pissed off at your complete lack of competence" issue. I sent yet another e-mail. This one contained this little gem from the Blockbuster help web page on recommendations:

To give you personalized recommendations, we need to know what you think about the titles you've already seen. Start rating movies and let us know what you love and what's not your style....The more movies you rate, the better we are st[sic] recommending titles that you're sure to like. Once you've rated at least 20 movies, we'll be able to provide personalized recommendations. [emphasis mine]

I also pointed out the typo. You'd think that a big company like Blockbuster could afford to hire people to find and correct those kinds of errors. I thought so, too, until I got the latest e-mail today. If anyone can figure out what this means, please let me know:

I am sorry to learn that you were having concern with the personalized recommendation in our movies in our website. I am glad that you have informed us of your concern. The star ratings or personalized recommendation in our website was replaced by the shopping cart. Because majority of our customer is asking for it because of the convenience on purchasing movies on line. I sincerely apologize for any inconvenience that this concern brought to you.

It was then I began to suspect that it was not a real person answering my e-mails, but one of those computer programs that's designed to sound like an actual person. I'm going to try including the phrase "open the pod bay doors" in my next e-mail and see what happens.

And here's the kicker....

Today the personal recommendation function that I've twice been told doesn't exist is working fine.

Yet Another Ceremony I Won't Be Watching...

I've given up on watching the various Hollywood awards ceremonies. Looks like this year will be no exception. While I am glad that Mickey Rourke got nominated, I have some issues with the other choices. First of all, nothing from Gran Torino? Maybe it's a slight to Clint for his (sometimes vocal) politics? Nah, that would never happen, right? In addition, although I have to see Benjamin Button for myself, everyone I've talked to has been...I guess "underwhelmed" is as good a term as any. And these are people whose opinions I trust when it comes to film.

UPDATE: Ken has a few choice things to say. Check the comments section for more from me.

UPDATE #2: Does anyone besides me think it's unusual that none of the Best Picture noms were in general release before mid-November or so? I know studios schedule the films they feel will be contenders that way, but not one from earlier in the year was worthy? It reminds me of those awful "Top 20 Whatevers of All Time" lists where nearly all of the entries are from the past couple of years. I hate those lists.

Uh-Oh-Seven!

I actually like Daniel Craig as an actor, but I was a little bothered by his reasoning in answering a question for Parade Magazine:

"I finally ask this British actor a deeply American question: 'Who do you think would be the better James Bond—Barack Obama or John McCain?'

Craig doesn’t hesitate. 'Obama would be the better Bond because—if he’s true to his word—he’d be willing to quite literally look the enemy in the eye and go toe-to-toe with them.' "

Maybe someone should point out to Craig that one of the two actually has "quite literally looked the enemy in the eye and [went] toe-to-toe with them." Every day for five years.

Guess which one.