Movies of 2007....

... that I saw and you shouldn't see. No matter what.

In first place is the 'film' 28 Months Later. It's a zombie flick, so it at least has the undead eating the living, but that's about all it has going for it. It tries for poignancy by tying in the zombie outbreak to the USA's foreign policy in the Middle East. Now that I think of it that's exactly what the movie was about - Americans making the simple and the violent crazy - and that alone is a pretty offensive statement about the folks who live there (MUSLIMS). In the end no one really cared though because the movie was crap. Don't see it.

In a close second is Factory Girl. I don't like post-modern art, the hedonistic lifestyle of artistic circles, or Guy Pearce, so my mind was pretty much made up before I saw it. Still, I'm rather impressionable and gave it a chance. Worst way to spend 2 hours. What did I learn? The 60's was full of people on drugs screwing other people on drugs, and a bunch of pervs watching said screwing go down. Apparently, the art world of then wasn't any different. Woohoo.


In a strong third is Balls of Fury. When a movie is named about a particularly horrid case of what the post-pubescent call 'blue balls', there is a limit as to how good it can actually be. All of my worst expectations were met and in some cases exceeded. Christopher Walken how you have fallen.

American races...

... are always more interesting than Canadian races. Political races!

Even though the 2008 presidential campaign has been going on for over a year now, it's hard not to be fascinated by it. Maybe it's my background in political science, or maybe it's just because this is one of the more complex campaigns we've seen in some time. Take for example the Republican side. There you have four plausible candidates battling it out for what is almost definitely a defensive action, with victory little more than a wishful thought. Then you have the Democrats. Oh, the Dems. You'd think with the backing of the media and the popular appeal of their anti-war, anti-Bush platforms, they would be doing more. But they aren't, and I have a few thoughts on why that is.

That this is a historical race is a understatement - it is the first race in which race and sex have become the primary selling points for two of the Democrat's major three candidates. Barack Obama, as nice and charismatic as he seems, is there because he's black. He has little political experience, no executive experience, but virtually all the media doting. Hilary has a bit more actual political experience - her claims of co-presidency are alarming, if not borderline insane. Imagine if a police officer's wife ran for chief because her husband had been chief before. Again, here Hilary's main selling point is her sex - make history by electing a woman.

Both of these candidates put impressionable voters into a precarious position because of their implicit emphasis on their being the firsts of their kind. Though it is painful to admit, many people will vote for Hilary or Barack because of their 'minority' appeal, rather than their credentials.