my random 83rd Oscar observations.

• King's Speech is a good and worthy film, but I really wish True Grit would've gotten some love.
  
• Whomever the male host was, he acted and looked stoned out of his mind...until, halfway through, it looked like someone had given him amphetamines.
  
• I really enjoy watching the Oscars. I don't care about the telecast in the slightest, really...but it's a wonderful excuse to have friends over, eat good food, and have a great time.
  
• The thing that bugs me most about the Oscars is the self-important "why does anyone watch this?" whining I hear online. I hear the same thing about the Super Bowl...which also bugs me. Hey, it's not a point of honor to not like something. It's not even a good conversational starter.
  
• I really, really, really hated the attempts to make the Oscars look hip...all of which boiled down to "oh, did you know there's such a thing as Twitter?"
  
• Do we really need to hear all the original songs? If you're gonna force us, then you should also, for the "best score" award, play every single second of every score.
  
• I really do not like how the presenters of each of the best acting awards directly address the nominees...it seems creepy and voyeuristic.
  
• If I was one of a few people to win an award, and if my co-winner hogged the mic the entire time, I would punch them somewhere very painful.
  
• If I was a winner of one of the minor awards and was only given 23 seconds for my speech, I would find the actor who was allowed to ramble for five whole minutes and punch them somewhere very painful.
  
• How depressing must it be to have to play the "we're glad you won, but shut up, so we can bring on someone else" music?
  

2009 in review: films

The best of an awesome year at the theaters:

1. Up!—I utterly love Pixar movies, and they are perhaps the only film studio to get an utterly free pass from me. However, nothing prepared me for Up! Visually beautiful? Of course. However, this film rang with a level of emotional resonance throughout that I've never before experienced. Unbelievably uplifting, sad, and touching...the best film of an amazing year in cinema.
   
2. Where the Wild Things Are—I heart Spike Jonze, so I knew this would be good, even worth the multi-year wait. You knew this was going to be unbelievably stunning visually. But did you think it would drive you to tears? So easily make you unbelievably happy, touched, and frightened all at the same time?
   
3. The Fantastic Mr. Fox—Yet another director I adore comes through with an utterly fantastic film. The retro-claymation plays really well against the retro-music. But where this movie shines is the overall, indefineable sense of coolness it exudes. Every character is someone I would dearly love to know. A friend and fellow academic told me that this film made him utterly unable to apply a critical lens to it because he was just enjoying himself so much. I agree.
   
4. Inglourious Basterds—Tarantino films are always an event, and Basterds certainly qualifies as extreme. However, it's not the violence (brutal and fun) or the dialogue (snappy and memorable) that sets this one off. No, it's the utterly unforgettable performances of both Melanie Laurent and Christoph Waltz, who bring layer upon layer of depth.
   
5. Coraline—This is the fourth film so far to prove that kids movies are best when they don't limit themselves to “kiddie” stereotypes. Great stop-motion animation, even greater characterization of the angst of growing up. Both creepy and touching at the same time.
   
6. The Hurt Locker—While this covers much of the same emotional ground as 2008's The Wrestler, Hurt Locker is notable as a movie that does pretty much everything right. It looks great. Wonderful characterizations. Moreover, this is a shockingly relevant film which will have you thinking days and months after you leave the theater.
   
7. Star Trek—A popcorn movie? Sure. More action/adventure than we're used to from the Star Trek Franchise? Granted. But as an action/adventure movie, this succeeds wholeheartedly. Nicely paced, beautiful, with just enough characterization to keep you intellectually with the film.
   
8. Men Who Stare At Goats—With talent like Ewan McGregor, George Clooney, Kevin Spacey, and Jeff Bridges, the acting in this film was bound to be outstanding. Funny, to be sure, but just enough depth to the story to keep this from being fluffy.
   
9. Monsters vs. Aliens—I wouldn't have seen this if not for a showing at the cheap theater...and that would've been my loss. This was much smarter than it had a right to be. Great acting throughout, especially from Seth Rogan.
   
10. Harry Potter & the Half-Blood Prince—It's not the best of the Harry Potter films, and, for those of us who read the books, there are a few puzzling choices. However, still a very solid entry in the series
    

Up!

As a society, we are often prone to discount full strata of experience. This is particularly the case when it comes to our popular culture. For whatever reason, ordinarily sane people feel perfectly comfortable and justified trashing media or genres of culture for no logical reason, based only on their (often wrong) presumptions.

Of course, as someone who teaches, studies, and writes about popular culture, I admit that I am firmly prickly about such matters. However, I notice it a lot. Even people who know what I do feel insistent on telling me such lovelies as "No, I would never play video games," or "that's just a kids program"...and I have heard more than one academic (who should otherwise be a smart person) brag about either never watching or not even owning a television. Being the smartass that I am, I'm always forced to wonder how they would respond if I came back with "Oh, I don't read...I'm proud not to read."

Unfortunately, this is something that is not confined to the freaks who will actually associate with me. I think it is widespread. Rather than take chances on new media experiences, many people are all too ready to just follow their blind prejudices or simply do what they've always done. This leads to narrow mindsets. Moreover, it leads to people thinking of entire realms of experience as being "no thought zones." And is there really any good that can come of us just deciding not to think of something?

Even worse is when this happens within the culture industry itself. I've always said that there can be, for instance, magnificent children's entertainment. Roald Dahl works (James and the Giant Peach and the Willie Wonka stories are great examples of kids stories which are smart, witty, and never talk down to their audience. Harry Potter is the same way. As a result, these are magnificent experiences for kids and adults alike.

Unfortunately, most of the children's entertainment out there does not have respect for their audience, and this is a prime reason many disdain children's culture. As a man with two nephews and a niece, I've seem my share of awful bilge pumped out in the name of Children's Entertainment. Parents have undoubtedly seen more examples of this than they would care to recall. All I have to do is even think of the trailer for Hotel for Dogs or see an ad for some Hannah Montana crap, and I'm ready to discount anything written for anyone under 18.

This would be a real shame, though, because I would lose Pixar films.

I liked Toy Story a lot, but I never really thought too much about the studio behind it. Then the spousal unit and I saw Wall-E and were blown away...I still think it should've not only received a nomination but should've won last year's Best Picture Oscar. Then we saw Ratatouille and The Incredibles. These brilliant movies all convinced me to give Pixar a free pass. If they make it, I will see it.

This faith was rewarded this weekend when the spousal unit and I saw Up.


Up, plot-wise, follows an elderly balloon salesman named Carl Fredricksen on his quest to finally escape his life and enter into a world of adventure. He does this by tying a gaggle of helium balloons to his house and flying to South America.

However, this (or any other plot description) does not really do justice to the movie. Rather than being plot-centric, Up is a character piece about loss, closure, and life. While there is a definite action theme central to the movie--after all, it focuses on a man who's dreamed of adventure his whole life--this movie is about emotion.

The first scenes show Carl as a little kid, watching a movie theater newsreel about a daring adventurer named Charles F. Muntz, who Carl idolizes. The next day, he meets a young girl named Ellie who's similarly obsessed with Muntz, and the two become friends.

However, the next sequence is utterly devastating. In a montage spanning 70 years of Carl's life, we see Carl and Ellie growing close, falling in love, marrying, building a house together (while still wearing their wedding clothes), working together, promising to each other to go on a grand South America adventure some day, planning for children, being told by doctor they will never have kids, having life (in the form of car repairs, house repairs, and such) get in the way of their planned adventure, growing old, and Carl finally being able to buy plane tickets for the two of the to finally visit Paradise Falls in South America...just as Ellie gets sick and dies.

It's a haunting sequence, slamming the viewer from highs to lows, making you first get interested in these two characters, then start liking them, then become intimately involved in their life together which never quite reaches their dreams. If I were not so strong of a man, my emotions would've gotten the better of me.

(okay, damnit, I choked up and cried)

From then on, the "adventure" phase of the movie starts. However, even in the most adventure-ridden scenes, there's such a strong current of emotion that underlies the plot. There are big events. There are funny jokes. The talking dogs (constantly obsessed with and distracted by squirrels) are amazing. But while every other element of the movie is great--the visuals alone are stunning--the movie makes sure you never forget that it is a ride of emotions, first off.

While flying to South America in his balloon-lifted house, Carl discovers Russell (a Wilderness Explorer--basically, a Cub Scout) has accidentally stowed away. This of course leads to some good "old guy versus young kid" humor, but the relationship between the two gets much deeper, and the movie never lets the viewer forget it. While resting for the night, Carl asks Russell about the kid's father, and Russell tells him his parents are divorced. While Russell doesn't see his dad that much, he does enjoy sitting with him and eating ice cream while counting cars. Speaking about his dad, Russell tells Carl "It's funny...it's the little things about being with him I miss most."

That is the joy of Up. While there are big visuals, big action, big jokes, the movie really excels when it drives home the point that the little things are, in the end, more important, more noteworthy.

And it would be a shame if anyone missed this message simply because it came in a "kid's movie."

Lucas, leave us alone

(warning: here there be spoilers)

In my continuing effort to avoid doing the piles of work I plan to hit over the summer, I went this afternoon to see the new Indiana Jones movie. I did not have high hopes. Most people I know claimed it was dreadful (in language too obscene to print here), and the one person I know who liked it, well, he also liked the Star Wars prequels...and even he said it was more like Temple of Doom than the others, which made me both question his judgment and whimper a little inside.

Bottom line? If my review here scares one person away from watching this travesty of a movie, I will have done my job.

Don't get me wrong. The movie did have a few entertaining parts and was, I suppose, technically well-constructed. And if this were not an Indiana Jones movie, I might be more apt to forgive its flaws. Also, I fully admit that I went into this with heightened expectations to which the movie could never live up. However, it was, all things considered, dreadful and repulsive. What's interesting to me, though, was that the dread is mostly philosophical on my part.

George Lucas has a habit of killing his creations: The Star Wars prequels prove that, and when someone described the sequel to American Graffiti (called, creatively enough, More American Graffiti), that one apparently fits the bill as well. At first, I thought this was because Lucas hates his fans and wants to crush them whenever possible.

After seeing Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, however I have a better answer: Lucas has lost all faith in God.

We go from Hindi gods in Temple (the first movie chronologically) to the Ark of the Covenant in Raiders to the Holy Grail in Last Crusade to...space aliens? Really? That's just silly...but it leads to all kinds of silly stuff like psychic KGB agents, crystal alien skeletons, said aliens as archaeologists, the alien mothership destroying the Inca temple at the end before going into another dimension, and so forth. Furthermore, what would seeing alien technology do to Indy's faith? After all, he also has definitive proof that God exists via the ark and grail.

Star Wars fans, though, saw this one coming...they had the Force changed from a spiritual entity that surrounds and connects all living beings in the original movie to nanite-esque symboitic organisms in the prequels.

And in this movie, you need some faith, because a Lucas world is clearly not one where logic operates all that much.

There's lotsa scientific stupidity in this film. Giant two inch man-eating ants? That carry you back to their hive? Anyone living after one of the waterfall jumps, let alone all three? Indy surviving a nuclear blast by hiding in a refrigerator...even if it were lead-lined (and why would that be in a blasting range?)?

Plot holes: Why did Jones get not only reinstated at his University but promoted to Assistant Dean? If he was being watched by the FBI, why did they let him fly to South America? Why did the government suddenly quit caring about him? It's not like they saw him defeat the evil commies...or, more accurately, the resurrected alien's spacecraft drown them.

Just plain puzzling moments: Why did they bring up the anti-red scare stuff, then bring in actual KGB agents, and then drop the theme? Is this anti-red scare or not? Also, is he a teacher or secret agent? Why did he trust Mac a second time after the Area 51 betrayal?

There were some good moments in the film...the reunion with Miriam Ravenwood was cool, and the obligatory chase scene through the jungle was well done. And, as a first for a Lucas film, I didn't want to strangle the young/cute cast addition. But these just highlighted how awful the rest of this film was.

Overall, though, this film didn't just suck...it make me horrifically angry. It did, however, make me question my own faith...in whether I will ever see another George Lucas film again.

rooting for the monsters

Last night, several friends, the spousal unit, and I went to see the movie Cloverfield....one friend described it as "Blair Witch meets Godzilla."

For those of you who haven't been exposed to the mega amounts of hype, the premise is that the movie is supposed to be the retrieved film from the minicam of a New Yorker taken as the city is attacked by some giant monster. As such, it's supposed to be "the average person's point of view of a major calamity" kind of thing.

The film starts off with the "let's set up the character" stuff. One of the major characters, it seems, is about to move to Tokyo for a job or something, and his brother and friends are throwing a going away party. There's some subplot with him and a girl whom he has loved for years. It doesn't matter, really. The set-up went on for about twenty minutes, and although it was supposed to build our sympathy for the characters, it instead made me wish that the monster would hurry up, attack these people, and make them die slowly and painfully.

The humans were all annoying. They were the "hey, we're in our mid twenties, unbelievably rich, thin, and spoiled, and we're partying yet can still cry when our stupid little boyhood crushes go bad" types. They were stupid. They were petty. I wanted them to suffer.

Then the monster attacks NY. Everyone runs to the roof, and when debris started to fly, everyone ran to the street. A building collapsed/exploded, and the crowds scattered. Some of the major characters found refuge in a store before the clouds of smoke, dust, and crap hit.

Right then, I started to feel dramatically uncomfortable. I wondered how a 9/11 survivor watching this film would feel about their experiences being ripped off and regurgitated so the viewer can feel sympathy for spoiled brat 20 year olds who have Central Park-overlooking apartments.

It went on. The characters never became likable. We only really got limited exposure to the monster. We never figured out what it was all supposed to be about.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to focus on the small scale stories instead of adopting a big picture view. Hell, in most cases, the desire to look at the details, at the humanity, would be appealing and gutsy. The problem with this film is that the humanity we did get to see was annoying, the horror was hidden, and the big picture was non-existent. Unfortunately, while many of the lead characters died, they did so in quick, non-pain-filled ways instead of slow and horribly, which is what they deserved.

When the closing credits started, one film-goer let out a loud "That's it?" As we left, I heard another say "That's the worst movie I actually saw in the theaters." Personally, I wanted to make the filmmakers sit down and watch Godzilla 2000 to see that monster movies do not have to suck. It also made me aware that any piece of crap can be hyped into being the "best selling movie of the week."

Avoid this film, unless you just have excess time to kill, money to blow, and incredibly low standards.

the rest of 2007 best of

FILM
Best Movies

1. Zodiac—David Fincher shows restraint and directs one of the best films of his career. Quiet, subtle, and deep.
   
2. Sweeney Todd—Tim Burton’s usual eye for amazing visuals is once again rejoined by plot, and the result is his best film since Beetlejuice.
   
3. The King of Kong: A Fistful of Quarters—Surprisingly engaging, with frightfully strong characters.
   
4. No Country for Old Men—The Coen Brothers finally ignore mainstream standards and once again put out a brilliant film.
   
5. The Darjeeling Limited—Lilting, playful, and nowhere near as depressing as The Life Aquatic. Visually stunning.
   
6. The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford—Perhaps the best looking film of the year, and Brad Pitt kicks ass.
   

Not Opened in the Area Yet, Salivating Over:

• There Will Be Blood

Horrific Disappointment:

• Spider Man 3—Five plot lines inadequately shoved into one film, and it doesn’t work. Also, why in the hell would you give Spider Man a happy ending? His whole character note is that his life sucks.

TV

1. The Shield, season 6—Took the intensity of season 5, ramped it up, and made it downright creepy.
   
2. House—Still fresh…the best mainstream television program today.
   
3. Dr. Who (repeats)—Brilliant sci-fi. Why doesn’t America produce characters this deep? I’m stuck on season 2, but it has been amazing.
   
4. Life on Mars, season 2—There has been no quality drop at all since the marvelous debut. Now, can we sabotage the upcoming American David E. Kelley-produced version?
   
5. Torchwood—Not at the Dr. Who level, but close.
   

COMICS

1. Docktor Sleepless—The “shrieky girl” segment was the best writing I’ve seen in years…in any medium.
   
2. Powers—Consistently brilliant and still working out issue one plotlines.
   
3. Fell—Sadly in hiatus, but it’s always brilliant when it comes. Issue one is available online, for free.
   
4. Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Season 8—It’s early, but this is still as solid as the show.
   
5. Desolation Jones—This is only low because it’s been stalled for so long on issue 8…but that issue is one of the best things ever.
   

REASONS I HAVE FOR HOPE FOR 2008

• New Drive-By Truckers album!
  
• New Gary Louris album…AND an album with Mark Olsen!
  
• The Shield, final season
  
• Synecdoche, New York...a new movie starring Phillip Seymour Hoffman, written by Charlie Kauffman!
  
• Spike Jonze adapting Where the Wild Things Are!
  
• More Desolation Jones! Finally
  
• It could only be better than 2007

cutting through philosophy

They have released yet another version of Blade Runner. Apparently it's now the "Ultimate Version"...at least until someone else needs to make a profit. You gotta love the modern DVD market.

Blade Runner is a Ridley Scott film, and I have always had mixed feelings about that man's work. While the movies can be beautiful to look at and are magnificently constructed, they are usually emotionally cold and sterile. In many ways, his films are affect-free, almost a parody of bad academic views. If they weren't so damn evocative as a rule, I would generally hate his work. As is, I often can't look away, even though I get really angry as I think of them afterward.

Blade Runner is a great case in point. The premise is staggering: a cop/bounty hunter who specializes in killing androids, with the potential for the requisite "what does it mean to be alive?" philosophical questions. The vision of the future--nasty, raining, class-divided, dark, ecologically wasted--is refreshing in light of the "gee wiz" future of Star Wars. The visuals are stunning. And there are great moments of depth, with the real highlight coming from Rutger Hauer's dying android Batty: "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die." It's chilling to watch, perhaps one of the finest moments of cinema in the last 25 years.

But the movie has some real problems. First off, while no one can dispute the power of Harrison Ford, he gives a remarkably lethargic performance here. Hell, Rutger Hauer, veteran of over 100 B movies, acts Ford's ass right off the screen, particularly in his death scene (the home of the above quote). Maybe Ford was trying to underplay it, but it doesn't work for me.

I kind of doubt, however, that it was an acting decision. To me, Ford's underplayed performance points to more a philosophical problem with the movie. In an admittedly cool Wired interview, Scott says: "the hero, or antihero, finally gets his butt kicked by the so-called bad guy — who turns out not to be a bad guy. That's what's interesting about the movie, right? Otherwise it's all down to bad guys and good guys, which is really boring."

In other words, what is interesting about the movie is that there's no moral center. Wee. Does the film suggest an alternative? Some other way of looking at morality, humanity, or any number of other issues? Not to my eyes, and not from what I gather from the Scott interview. "We've moved beyond good and evil" is a fascinating statement, and it is one which I think has great merit, but unless you complete the equation and try to make sense of the world, it's the same reductive nonsense that a lot of bad postmodernists spout...and it just is not enough.

Later in the same interview, Scott admits to never reading Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, the Phillip K. Dick novel that Blade Runner was "based" upon. This somehow doesn't surprise me in the least, because there are very few similarities between the two. I experienced the Dick novel before I saw the Scott movie, and I was absolutely blown away by the philosophical depth of the story. In the novel, it wasn't just "bounty hunter battles robots"; instead, the novel had great stake in matters of life, spirituality, characters, and much more. The novel was a ride of both emotions and philosophy. Ultimately, the film leaves us with style...which is nice, but it's not life-altering.

I'm not saying that none of this exists in the movie, but it's very much overwhelmed by the sheen of Scott's production. This is a shame, because the novel is entirely adaptable...and I think it would still make one hell of a flick. But Scott found the book too "dense" and instead went for a neat design.

Actually, this reminds me of a whole bunch of bad theory articles I've encountered in my coursework...except that they didn't have Darryl Hannah in a bodysuit and bad makeup.

PTA trailer

For those cinema buffs among my readers, here's the trailer to the new Paul Thomas Anderson film. It's been too long.

b movies

As previously chronicled here, last night was the B movie double feature, with 1964's The Last Man on Earth and 1954's Devil Girl from Mars at one of the local chains. How was it?

When I stepped up to the concessions to pick up my popcorn and drink (I've never trusted those who can watch a film without popcorn), the worker asked me what I was seeing. when I told him, he went on a mini-rant about seeing ads for a new Will Smith adaptation of I Am Legend, the book which The Last Man on Earth is based. He then bemoaned the fact that most films are either "remaking some old film or ripping off some Japanese film. Why can't Hollywood try to do anything original?"

Why indeed. While many people would be put off by hearing a clerk moan and complain, it kinda made me feel good, because it was obvious that this guy liked movies and cared about them. When we went into the theater, there was another worker who was asking the audience trivia questions about the night's films, and it was also clear that he was excited about being able to be part of something different.

It must be a real mixed blessing for a film buff to have to work at a theater. On the plus side, you get to see all those cool movies...but on the down side, most of them will suck. Do we, for instance, really need Saw 4? Furthermore, do we need it on three screens? Were there really that many unanswered questions from the previous three films? It seems that there are many film directors who just love recycling mediocre ideas more than trying something new (case in point: 2 Shanghai Nights films, 3 Rush Hours)...and I bet that no one knows that more than the movie theater workers.

The crowd was also into the films. Honestly, it was like living in MST3K...really fun. The films themselves? Last Man was kind of slow...30 minutes of setup is entirely too much. Devil Girl from Mars, though, was a perfect bad film. I won't spoil the plot for you, but in order to demonstrate the awesomeness of this movie, I'll leave you with one quote: "I'm a scientist...that means I believe what my brain tells me to believe."

Awesome.

attack of the "B"s

I like Halloween, but my wife is a Halloween geek, though...she gets all excited, does her happy dance, and generally acts like a four year old. It's cute.

I feel the same way about bad movies. I love cheesy acting, cheesy writing. I love seeing people take themselves way too seriously.

Tonight, our two loves come together. A local multiplex cinema has been playing B-movie double features on Thursdays, and we finally get to go. Our films? 1964's The Last Man on Earth, with Vincent Price being pursued by alien zombies. The second film is Devil Girl from Mars! One of the taglines is "Invasion from Outer Space!...Sights too weird to imagine! Destruction too monstrous to escape!"

This will be good. Details to follow.

cinema and fandom

Last night, me and three great friends went to see the midnight sneak peek of the second Pirates of the Carribean film...which I can definitively say was...very long.

There were a number of previews, but the one that got the best reaction was...for the upcoming Transformers film. Hummm...life just gets curiouser and curiouser.

another reason that _Apocalypse Now_ is relevant

The name of the scent of the deodorant I recently bought is "Victory." I guess I now know what napalm smells like in the am...

web news

the depressing: The Jayhawks have broken up...see
this article from the Star Tribune

the vindicating: for those who read my bit on Eternal Sunshine of the
Spotless Mind...see
this Oscar prediction

the informative: for those who just need to know about a good dive
bar...see this suprisingly useful Stuff article (not that I normally read Stuff)

the astute: Roger Ebert on the rules of the Oscars...see his Sun Times piece

_Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind_

So, me and the wife watched Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind last night in celebration of our anniversary. Some observations:

1) Charlie Kaufman is a mad genius. He's also perhaps the only writer who doesn't direct whose name is enough to get me to see his films.

2) Would it be admitting too much to say that I saw myself WAY too much in Jim Carrey's character?

3) If I was single and stood a chance in hell, I would like to have Kirsten Dunst wearing only underwear, jumping on my bed.

4) This was much more tender and romantic than I expected from a Kaufman film. At first, I was wondering if it was really an "Anniversary" film, but I think the ending was perfect. That you can know that a huge number of elements of a relationship will go to hell, but that's okay... That you will eventually find that right person...

5) You have to love a film that won't leave you. There's been very few moments today where it wasn't stuck in my head.

6) We need more of these kind of Jim Carrey films and less of Bruce Almighty...and Adam Sandler, if you're listening, same goes for you. Go back and find PT Anderson and make him write more for you.

Red Dawn

On an e-mail list I'm on (Postcard From Hell), there is been a thread about the film Red Dawn, and I couldn't be happier. Those of you who know about my Red Dawn addiction will know that I seemingly hold this film in greater respect than most people...I want to rehabilitate it, to use Stalinist (?) terminology.

Anyway, someone posted a piece on _Red Dawn_ from TruthOut.org called "Iraqui's Red Dawn" (available hre, but you may have to scroll down some), relating the film to our current war du jour. It's worthy of a read.

Fave Red Dawn story: a girl I knew my first year in Bowling Green was from Lithuania, and I managed to get her (among others) to come back to my house to watch Red Dawn before hitting the bars. She couldn't believe the level of paranoia exhibited. Plus she said the Russian speech was bad.