Nine, Up in the Air, and other Awards Movies

Langdon Auger

As an update to the awards season madness, I bring you two new movies. The first is the Rob Marshall directed musical Nine and the other is the Jason Reitman helmed, George Clooney starring Up in the Air.

As a quick aside, I pulled into the theater for Nine and I saw massive crowds and paparazzi. Apparently Brad Pitt and Quentin Tarantino were doing a Q and A session after a special screening of Inglorious Basterds. As jealous as I am that I missed the screening, I was a little shocked at the number of paparazzi who hounded Brad Pitt. This guy can't go anywhere without those guys harassing him and I thought that was pretty sad.

Then I remembered he is rich, attractive, talented, successful, and sleeping with Angelina Jolie and I decided, screw him.

Nine is a musical remake of the Fellini film 8 ½, a trippy mid life crisis film about a director reflecting on his life and the women who shaped it. While I personally consider the original Fellini film too inscrutable and perplexing, many consider it a masterpiece and it should definitely be on everyone's Netflix queue (it's available for streaming video, so it doesn't even need to take up one of your mailing positions).

Everything about this musical suggests it is good. The director did the previous Best Picture winner Chicago. The cast consists of Daniel Day Lewis, Judy Dench, Penelope Cruz, and the ever beautiful Sophia Loren. On a less enthusiastic note, it also stars Nicole Kidman Kate Hudson, Fergie from the Black Eyed Peas, and everyone's favorite conspiracy theorist, Marion Cotillard. That is seven acting Oscars between them, and several more nominations.

But fantastic sets, direction, and a cast to die for can't make up for a lackluster source material. The Tony award winning musical simply isn't that good. I judge musicals based on how long I wait before buying the soundtrack. With Dream Girls, the first thing I did on leaving the theater was find a Target before it closed and buy the soundtrack. I don't feel like Nine has any songs that I want to hum on my way home. But this movie is definitely justified with Penelope Cruz's sex kitten dance. God damn, that's all I have to say. Of course, this film does have the Weinsteins behind it so I can guarantee nominations for Best Picture, Director, Actor for Daniel Day Lewis, Supporting Actress for Penelope Cruz, and all the technical awards no one cares about.

Up in the Air is a fun dramatic comedy from the Director of Juno. My uncontrollable man crush on George Clooney pretty much means I was going to enjoy this movie no matter what. But it is a great movie, dealing with the isolation of modern society, massive economic layoffs, and the quest for more frequent flyer miles. I guess it stars some broad from Twilight, but I won't hold that against the movie. (She was pretty good anyway.) The film has a clever script about the bachelor George Clooney starting to realize he wants more out of his life than he gets as a corporate flyer. It tends to veer into a conventional story line by the end, but I think the film should be a big awards contender. I'm predicting Oscar noms for Best Picture, Director, Actor for Clooney, and an Oscar win for screenplay as a sort of reward for the impressive early career of Jason Reitman.

Overall it has been a weak year for movies. These are all the films made immediately after the writers' strike so that's why so many movies have crap scripts that feel rushed and not fully thought out (I'm looking at you Wolverine and Star Trek). I've heard mixed reviews about The Lovely Bones and I don't think Avatar will be a serious contender for Best Picture, so I am officially calling it right now. Mark my words, Precious will be Best Picture, Best Director for Lee Daniels (this would be the first African American Best Director winner, by the way), Best Supporting Actress for Mo'Nique, and possibly Best Actress for newcomer Gabourey Sibide. You can take that to Las Vegas and bet on it.

-LA

Thoughts on District 9

Langdon Auger

Broken into five thoughts, for easy reading consumption. -TLB

1. How is it that Transformers 2 cost 200 million dollars to make, and yet District 9 had better special effects? I believe this is the law of diminishing returns. Now the more we spend on special effects the less difference it makes. We are starting to get to the point where special effects can't get much better and become truly pointless. There is no reason to render Optimus Prime in such detail. We don't need every gear and lugnut in painstaking IMAX. This is why District 9 could rock ass for 30 million dollars and still be believable.

2. How amazing is it that we have a small movie with no stars, no Americans, heavy accents, and a solid R Rating that comes along and rescues the summer movie season? And what's interesting is that the film doesn't really explain everything in painstaking detail like you would expect from a Hollywood movie. It doesn't really explain why the aliens are there because its not important to the story of the film. On the one hand that bothers me because I want back story, while on the other it impresses me that they would leave so much to the imagination.

3. Sharlto Copley is a fantastic actor. He runs the gamut in this film from dweebish bureaucrat to action star and it is pretty believable. How do they find so much talent in somebody who has never acted before?

4. I truly hope that this movie becomes a science-fiction Easy Rider. For those of you who don't know, Easy Rider was a kind of dopey counter culture film from the 60s that was made on the cheap and became immensely successful. It turned Hollywood towards smaller productions and more individualized projects shepherded by interesting directors. It might be too early to tell but I hope the execs start to realize that they can get interesting science fiction movies made for cheap and that they don't have to shovel Transformers size budgets at the problem. With the reduced budgets can come more daring movies, more R ratings, interesting directors, and less pressure on opening weekend box offices.

5. Well, I can dream can't I?

-LA

Transformers: Robot Fall Down Go Boom

Transformers: Robot Fall Down Go Boom
Langdon Auger

I am not necessarily going to rip this movie a new one. Let me explain.

The second Transformers film is a big dumb action movie but I really don't feel it can be called a bad movie, mainly because it is a sequel. For a movie to be truly bad you have to have the expectation of quality.

That is why The Godfather Part III is a worse movie than Deuce Bigalow: European Gigalo. If the first Rob Schneider movie didn't put you off seeing the sequel then you got the movie you deserved. Clearly the last Godfather movie had much higher expectations attached to it and thus is far more disappointing. For a movie to be really bad there has to be an expectation of quality and disappointment in the film's ability to achieve that quality. That's how Rob Schnieder made a better movie than Al Pacin and how Transformers: Robot Fall Down Go Boom in this sense, is a good movie.

If the first movie didn't prepare you for sledge hammer quality special effects and sound design then the fault is yours, not the movie. Both Transformers movies are dopey and have a lot of scenes that don't make sense.

My favorite particular scene is the new one is where the douche Shia Lebouf is telling his parents they have to go to safety so he can run across an exploding field of Decepticons. You guys know this scene, it's in every movie where one guy yells "you have to go" and the other yells "I'm not leaving you." Well, it happens here because Alex Kurtzman and Roberto Orci are talentless hacks who put the most cliched and garbled crap in their movie scripts (they also did this year's Star Trek, not exactly renowned for its coherent and fully flushed out story).

Alright, so douchebag is yelling at his parents and he finally convinces them to go. He then turns around and mega-hottie Megan Fox tells him she is not leaving without him and he decides to take her along. I guess he just didn't want to have the same argument again, but reversing his "I have to go alone" position was literally the next line of dialogue after making a big scene of getting his parents to safety.

The other dopey scene was where they go to the Smithsonian to get help from an old transformer who is hiding there as a stealth bomber. That's the Smithsonian. The Smithsonian in Washington D.C. a densely urbanized swampland. So explain to me how they break out the back of the Smithsonian and they are suddenly in the desert. I have an idea, why not put in the script a line about going to the "Arizona Air and Space Museum." That explains the desert. This is also the scene where the mini robot humps Megan Fox's leg and then the robot teleports them somehow to Egypt. I don't know why he did that. Or how he did it. It never made sense.

But as dopey as this movie is you can't hate it that much if you even mildly enjoyed the first movie. I don't understand the screamingly negative reviews. Here is my challenge to all the detractors of the film. We can do this in the comments section. Explain your reason for hating the movie, but use this phrase at the start of your sentence: "Unlike the first movie, I disliked this Transformers film because…" Try it out.

"Unlike the first movie I disliked this transformers film because of the negative depiction of African Americans." You know, as opposed to how the first film showed a delicate and nuanced portrayal of black people and the challenges facing them in a white dominated society.

"Unlike the first movie, I disliked this transformers film because the plot didn't make much sense and the action scenes had big explosions that seemed to come from nowhere." Right, as opposed to the first film and its Chekhovian commitment to dramatic development.

When you frame all the complaints from the film in this way, you see it really is not that bad of a movie. Unless of course you didn't like the first film, in which case more power to you, rip the thing apart.

And now for a special Literary Brothel treat, an exclusive clip from Transformers: Robot Fall Down Go Boom.

-LA

Land of the Lost Review

Land of the Lost Review
Langdon Auger

Tonight Horace and I attended a sneak preview of the new Will Ferrell movie Land of the Lost. Despite unfinished special effects and soundtrack this movie was quite entertaining. Will Ferrell is able to do his shtick and this time he is joined by relative newcomer Danny McBride. (If you haven't seen his debut film The Footfist Way, rent it.)

Together the two bring a bit of fun to a horrible, fan-boy-infested show. There is something having to do with Sleestaks and some chimp thing named Chaka that gets old fast, but before you know it, Ferrell is running around in his underwear and having a good time. But I'm not quite sure what sport he was trying to spoof in this movie.

This was the first time I participated in a sneak preview where they take reviews. Horace and I were asked to stay behind and have a discussion of the film with about twenty other people. I follow films in production as a hobby and I know that this is the part where good movies get turned mediocre, so it was a little exciting to be there for it.

Sure enough they start asking questions and people start saying the best scenes were their least favorite. For instance, there was one scene where Anna Friel's character is misinterpreting Chaka's ape language and says he was expelled from his tribe for raping an apple. Turns out that wasn't the correct interpretation.

A girl at the screening says they shouldn't be making jokes like that in a movie and that rape is not something to be made fun of. First of all, as if it needed to be said, rape is absolutely wrong. Second of all, but he didn't actually rape anything. Third, it's funny scene because it is a rape of an apple. This is a victimless crime if i ever saw one. I doubt that the apple was really capable of resisting in the first place, or feeling one way or the other about the whole ordeal. And as for the blanket statement that something shouldn't be made fun of, well:

"I can prove to you rape is funny. Picture Porky Pig raping Elmer Fudd."- George Carlin

Then another woman chimed in and said how she shows the original television series to her fourth grade class and doesn't feel comfortable having them come to a movie with so much swearing and sexual innuendo.

Let's get something straight: kids are idiots and parents are panicky stupid morons (see Horace's post on a scary Duracell commercial). This is the reason why cool toys are taken off the shelf when some dope chokes himself. This is the reason we have zero tolerance policies in school that result in the valedictorian not graduating on time because of an aspirin in her purse. And finally (and most importantly) this is the reason we got rid of the dark Tim Burton Batmans and had to endure the cinematic fiasco of Joel Schumacher's technicolor cape and cowl. But Warner Brothers smarted up, told the four year olds and parents to go screw, put Christopher Nolan in charge, and made a Batman movie that was worth seeing.

But I digress. To be in a screening where this issue comes up was astonishing because I have seen so many movies with great potential crippled by an insistence on PG-13 ratings and family friendly fare. It would be so much better to make a more risky movie with sharp humor. The film will be more honest and true, and whatever box office you lose out on because of the children you will make up for in rentals when those kids get old enough to rent the movie on their own. Why is it that so many people still watch Animal House? Because they made their jokes and didn't apologize for it. Not that Land of the Lost is as good as Animal House, I'm just using it as an example.

But movie execs don't think this way, so i am dreading seeing the final product when it comes out on June 5th. Will it have the adult humor or will it be a bland, neutered piece designed to appeal to the largest and least specific market possible? I'm afraid I know the answer already.

-LA

Let the Right One In: Twilight For Grown Ups

Langdon's movie recommendation for the week is Let The Right One In - a vampire film from Sweden. The film is just your typical boy-meets-girl, boy-gets-beaten-up-by-bullies, girl's-live-in-boyfriend-slaughters-innocent-civillians-to-cure-her-vampire-bloodlust, boy-and-girl-form-bond-against-the-cruel-society movie. In other words, it's Ingmar Bergman meets John Carpenter.

As the title of the post suggests, this is the teen angst film that Twilight was supposed to be, only done right. It has gloomy and oppressive scenery, filmed during winter storms with dark colors. It is simultaneously creepy and touching. You feel the kids in the film really form a bond. Plus, there is no silly old timey baseball scene like in other teenage vampire movies that shall remain nameless.

And get a load of that messed up girl in the photo. The violence is shown in ample amounts but it does not seem exaggerated (the way the American remake will be, no doubt). There is enough to satisfy my typical American male bloodlust, but enough is shown off screen to leave it to the imagination and make the film truly scary.

If you are the sort of person who is more afraid of subtitles than vampires, this film may not be for you. Everyone else: check it out.

-LA

"I Love You, Man" review turns into a short rant on Buster Keaton

"I Love You, Man" review turns into a short rant on Buster Keaton
by Langdon Auger

In the middle of trying to write a humorous review for I Love You, Man I came to two conclusions. First, I can’t make a review that is any funnier than that movie. Go see it. You’ll be telling everyone you “slap da’ bass” for the next several weeks.

Second, I have a more pressing desire to push a personal favorite director of mine. Through a fortunate series of events I found myself hitting the Buster Keaton section of my Netflix Queue just as I started reading a biography of the silent film director called Tempest in a Pork Pie Hat. (I had to justify the book to myself as legitimate research for my dissertation topic. I live a lie.)

Buster Keaton was one of the most famous silent comedians, along with Charlie Chaplin and Harold Lloyd. He got his start working with comedian Roscoe “Fatty” Arbuckle who was most famous for his girth, his mugging for the camera, his flair for visual gags, and his lurid murder trial that subsequently ruined his career. Keaton was the sidekick turned star and was famous for his flat hat, his stone faced stare, and his extreme athleticism. For those of you who are Jackie Chan fans (like me), he references Buster Keaton as one of his main influences. So the frenetic and often times humorous action sequences from Rumble in the Bronx have their origin in these early shorts and features.

Perhaps his best movie is The General. While other comedians made their name with their slapstick, Keaton was famous for having more emotional driven comedies. This film flopped as a result but it is now regarded as his best. It has some death defying sequences on a moving train, performed without any safety precautions whatsoever. Keaton famously told his cameramen “keep filming unless I die.” I watched this in a college classroom and modern day action-film-inspired students were gasping in awe at some of the stunts.

Also check out Sherlock Jr. if you want to see some camera trickery that predates blue screen or advanced editing techniques. Keaton was quite the innovator.

Anyone remember the episode of Arrested Development where Buster is trying to get out of the army and he jumps on front of the model house as it crashes down around him? Keaton performed the stunt with a fully built house in Steamboat Bill, Jr. He had two inches of clearance protecting him from certain death.

So put some of his movies on your queue, you won’t regret it.

-LA

Sunshine Cleaning Rips off David Sedaris

Sunshine Cleaning Rips off David Sedaris
Klaus Varley

Warning: No spoilers. You'll have to sit through Sunshine Cleaning if you want to know what happens in that very mediocre indie movie. -KV

Very snarky, Mr. Movie Critic. -ed.

Dude, don't say, "snarky." -KV

Dude, don't say, "dude." -ed.

Now THAT is snarky. -KV

There's a scene in the new Amy Adams movie Sunshine Cleaning where a kid licks random objects in his classroom and gets in trouble for it.

Actually, the scene is a couple of angry school officials TELLING Amy Adams about the kid licking things around the classroom. As Script Doctor Eric would say "Show it, don't tell it, this is a movie for Christsakes," or something to that effect.

But that's only HALF the reason it's lazy writing: this scene is stolen from "A Plague of Tics," an essay in Naked, by David Sedaris. In the essay, Sedaris describes many of his OCD obsessions as a boy, one of them being LICKING things, and getting thrown out of the classroom for it.

Coincidence?

Not a chance. A movie aimed at the "indie" crowd, Sunshine Cleaning smacks of hipster know-how. The movie was produced by the guys who did Little Miss Sunshine and Sherrybaby.

And writer Megan Holley sports a fashionable scarf and hip clothes in her pic on IMDB.

That's right, a scarf. Not proof of plagiarism, you say? Did I mention David Sedaris's Naked is imprinted on it?

Seriously though, did they really think none of us had read Naked? Could they not come up with something else for the kid to do to get in trouble?

Shame on you, Megan Holley. You and your cool scarf.

-KV

Pink Flamingos: A Forgotten Film I Wish Had Stayed Forgotten

Pink Flamingos: A Forgotten Film I Wish Had Stayed Forgotten
Langdon Auger

I thought I understood John Waters. I thought he was a funny counter cultural guy. I had seen his films Hairspray and Crybaby and thought they were kitschy fun throwback films that reveled in poor taste. He even did a voice on The Simpsons. But then Pink Flamingos arrived on my Netflix queue. Gone are the notions of the mischievous gay man pointing out the foibles of mainstream society. In its place is me, a shattered human being who is still trying to come to terms with what he saw.

Many of my friends had told me about this film and all they could bring themselves to say was “Divine eats dog poop.” After having seen this movie I begin to wonder about some of my friends. Why is that the scene that is so memorable?

When the movie begins there are pregnant women in the basement being used as baby farms for lesbian couples, a man having sex with a chicken, rape, toe licking, a grandma forced to live in a cage, and a sister watching her brother have sex. That's when I turned the movie off.

Later there is cannibalism, twitching buttholes, and castrations (as related to me by my roommate who finished the film). Maybe because I didn’t see it, but I can’t understand why the dog crap scene is so well remembered. Never did any of my friends tell me about the rest of the film. I think aside from the fact that it was real there is very little reason to claim it as the most outrageous scene in the movie.

Even though I could not finish the film, it is quite admirable. Or maybe because I could not finish the film it is admirable. Let’s not pretend that I am a prude. I am a proud fan of South Park and I love Dave Attell’s standup comedy. This film elevates filth to an entirely different level that for lack of a better word can be called art.

When you look at “degenerate” movies today they just pale in comparison. John Waters makes those guys from MTV’s Jackass look like little 12 year old girls with skinned knees. I thought I knew what degeneracy was, but then I saw Pink Flamingos.

I think I will go pray now.

-LA

Man Dong vs. Naked Breasts (if this title doesn't get us more hits then I'm all out of ideas)

Man Dong vs. Naked Breasts
Langdon Auger

As a fan of the graphic novel I have to give the film adaptation of Watchmen a passing grade. It could have been better, and apparently if you haven’t read the graphic novel it doesn’t make much sense. But I can think of a worse way to spend three ass numbing hours in a movie theater (check out some of my previous posts, I won’t rehash it here).

The changes to the story were minimal and in a sense worked a little better. I have heard some criticism of the film for being racist and sexist, which I feebly defend by saying those elements were in the graphic novel and show how these “heroes” are merely advanced fascists. Overall I give the movie a B-minus, maybe a B if the Watchmen come to office hours and appeal the grade.

But now for the important question on everyone’s mind. Does the overlong and embarrassing sex scene make up for the multiple shots of glowing-blue man dong? Let’s begin by looking at the facts.

The sex scene offers a nice respite from the glowing-blue man dong after about an hour and a half of seeing it on screen. You have a naked lady and a small bit of man ass. But, rather than being a welcome respite, the sex scene gets dragged out to an uncomfortable level. So when you go see this movie with your childhood preacher or your 80 year old grandma, you might have some explaining to do.

On the other hand, the glowing-blue man dong is a glowing blue man dong. There is no getting around that simple fact. And as if that weren’t enough the character can duplicate himself, meaning more than one man dong on screen at a time. Also at play is the childhood preacher/80 year old grandma variable. But, might a graphic onscreen depiction of male genitalia counterbalance some of the claims to misogyny? Or should this even matter?

“To gaze at the glowing-blue man dong or not to gaze at the glowing blue man dong? That is the question.” Does it mean I am mature enough to enjoy an adult style of entertainment, or does it mean I am simply willing to put up with it in return for the naked lady? Perhaps the comments section will provide some relevant insight to this perplexing question.

-LA

The Curious Case of Forrest Gump

Note: This does not officially count as a post - the "official" posts will be on Tuesday and Thursday of this week. See ya tomorrow. -KV


After seeing The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, we here at The Brothel not only whole-heartedly agree with Langdon's review, but also thought it was basically Forrest Gump without the laughs. Apparently, we weren't the only ones:

The Curious Case of Forrest Gump

Editor's Note: Before you could say "copyright infringement," the video was taken down. Did ya see it? Hope so. It was worth all the legal troubles.

-TLB

Movie Review: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (No Spoilers)

Though we use a lot of fake names here at The Brothel, I assure you this piece was not written by me, Script Doctor Eric, DJ Octoon, or any one else who has contributed to the site in the past. It was written by a friend who we're going to try to get to write for us regularly - a friend who has some sweet connections and got to go to an early screening. Really, a friend. I'm not going to write "seriously," because that might negate my sincerity. -KV

A Movie Review: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (No Spoilers)
by Langdon Auger


As a David Fincher fan (Fight Club, Seven, Zodiac) I am quite disappointed to say Benjamin Button is an awful film. Two hours and forty-five minutes to tell the story of a man who ages backwards for some reason. It's never really explained and it never seems to impact the story. And as if it's the most normal thing in the world, nobody acknowledges that the guy ages backwards.

Also confusing is the relationship Button has with his adopted mother. He gets abandoned by his dad and is raised by an African American lady in Louisiana. Is 1920s New Orleans so forward thinking that nobody from the local government wants to intervene when a black woman raises a white baby? Of course I'm fine with mixed race families, but I am not fine with movies that are this fundamentally ignorant of history. Everyone in 1920s New Orleans is okay with a black woman raising a white kid? Maybe that's why this is called a fantasy film.

This mother character also has the most ambiguous job. At first she seems to be a maid in a retirement home, but as the story progresses it looks like she owns the place because I never see a boss or anything. So this is an independent black woman in 1920s New Orleans who raises an abandoned white child while owning her own retirement home comprised of elderly-white-southern people who don't seem to mind being told what to do by this woman. Again, no one in the movie even seems to acknowledge how unlikely this situation would be.

It's a silly movie because it is supposed to be this profound treatise on life, love, and death and never really makes any sincere comment on life love or death. It treats it superficially and a bunch of teeny-bopper girls in love with Brad Pitt will confuse it with philosophy. Maybe i have seen too many Woody Allen movies to take this superficial tripe, or maybe i just saw the same subject matter dealt with more satisfactorily by Charlie Kaufman's "Synechdoche, New York."

I also have problems with the setting of the story. It is told in flashbacks as Cate Blanchette is in a hospital during hurricane Katrina. I will give a bright shiny nickel to whoever can tell me what the significance of hurricane Katrina was to the story. No one can do it because it was nothing but a cheap attempt to piggy-back off the national sympathies towards New Orleans. I heard David Fincher talk about directing this movie and even he couldn't tell us why. He just said it was a big event. Thanks douche bag, thanks for making the movie so long and pointless.

Also during the talk, Fincher admitted he had never read the short story the movie is based on. Jeez, you cant be bothered to read the 20 pages of source material to learn that this is not a story which should be blown up to a nearly three hour film?

Some other points:

-Just because it's long doesn't make it an epic.

-Just because it's sad doesn't mean it's dramatic.

-Just because it's an accent doesnt mean it's acting
(But Cate Blanchette rocks)

-Just because it's Fincher, doesnt mean it's good

-Just because there are conflicts with the studio doesn't mean it has artistic credibility. (Sometimes studios step in and interfere because an egotistical director has blown the budget of a small art house film up to 150 million dollars because he has to have digital effects for a story conceit that doesn't make that much sense and isnt all that important.)

Other than that, it's not a bad movie. Good visual effects, for sure.

-TLB

the second hellboy on the third budweiser

Here's a quick review of Hellboy II while I finish this can (yes, can) of Budweiser and go for another in the midst of writing, indicating that point within the text. -KV

Just got back from Pan's Labyrinth - Leftover Edition. I mean, Hellboy II.

I know what you're thinking: didn't that come out like a month ago?

Yes, it did. But I promised to see Batman with my girlfriend, and my friend L____ (we've ceased using anything resembling real names on this site) had seen Hancock. So it was either the Mummy III or HBII. And I hate the Mummy. Don't ask why.

So here we go (finally, the review): Don't see Hellboy II. In fact, if you are one of the many who inexplicably liked Pan's Labyrinth, rent the DVD from your local video store (They need your support. Plus, you can say things such as: "I support A Video Store Named Desire." Which, I do. Seriously.). Did you rent it? Good. Now close your eyes, and remove anything serious about the movie, supplant the little girl with a big red monster, move the locations from Spain to Hungary posing as New York City (Confused yet? Welcome to Guillermo Del Toro movie!), throw in some cheesy lines and unmotivated character choices and vuala! Welcome to Hellboy II!

Think I'm exaggerating? See for yourself.

Oh damn, I promised to finish my Budweiser in the middle of this.

[Finishing...Done!]

[Supplanting the Budweiser...Supplanted!]

Enjoy your weekend. I'm going to stay up a little later and write a few more blogs, but they will be timestamped and released later in the week so you don't get overwhelmed on the weekend from The Brothel.

Always looking out for ya,

-KV

PS. I am aware this didn't start out as a letter, but that doesn't mean it can't end like one!

PPS. Does it?

PPPS. Apparently, it does. Most of the time.

PPPPS. But not this time!

Okay, this time.

Searching for Keyword Brothel + The Assassination of Jesse James

This is a pretty straight-foward blog, written as I procrastinate doing any type of productive (read: history) work on a Friday evening. -KV

Looking for a piece I have about keywords hitting the site. Was something about the top keywords, making fun of the adult nature of each one. They were all things like naked, boobies, brothel, and what not. I thought it was called Keyword Brothel.

It seems I have thought wrong.

So it turns out that I'm writing a blog entry. Or am I simply writing a blog?

Since I'm writing a blog, lets jump topics. I just watched The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, (which is listed on IMDB as Jesse James, 2007) and though it is not bad at parts, the voice-over reminds me of The Royal Tenenbaums, but pretentious.

You might think, wait, Tenenbaums was pretentious. Well, this was pretentious not in the"we know we can't really make a serious movie, so hopefully you'll find this quirky" sort of way, but in the "we are artists, we shoot on film, this is serious."

How can you tell the difference? Here's a line from James.

"Rooms seemed hotter when he was in them. Rains fell straighter. Clocks slowed."

And here's a line from the Alec Baldwin voice-over in Tenenbaums:

"No-one spoke at the funeral, and Father Petersen's leg had not yet mended, but it was agreed among them that Royal would have found the event to be most satisfactory."

Maybe Jesse James was just too long. Or maybe I just love me some Tenenbaums.

Or maybe Jesse James is freakin' long.