After sleeping for a good 5 hours last night, an epiphany hit me: I actually sort of enjoy movies. Up to this point in my life, when ever someone has asked me what is my favorite movie I'll either say Dogma, because of it's hilarious, or else I'll say I don't like movies. Up until now, I've felt that unless movies have an artificial interresting plot, like action movies or comedies, I can't watch them. By artificially interresting I mean to say, that without huge explosions or raunchy things to catch my attention, after 15 minutes my mind is adrift to a land of pink unicorns and cuddly monkey gnomes made out of candy canes. I think my previous view of movie going is utterly pointless. Apparently movies are just like books, which as much as it pains me to say this, I kind of think I kind of think they should be analysed just like books to find their true meaning.

My friend's dad manages an office building in Bloomington, one of his tenants is the director a supposedly horrible movie Mulligan. Sitting in his basement I casually glanced over the cover of this book, it looks so good "Caddyshack with Clerks" it states, to terrific comedies. But apparently this version sucks more than soccer playing duck. I guess I'm questioning what makes a good movie, a good movie? I don't understand how critics can make a list of the best movies of all time. Why is Citizen Kane up there instead of Mulligan? Hopefully I'll be able to figure that out this year.

Why do I love things like this, but dislike other things? What makes me tick, hopefully Klobuchar will help me figure this out.

So apparently Wes Anderson, potentially Mr. Klobuchar's favorite director (I don't know this he just talks about Wes Anderson alot), has made a whole slew of Commercials for AT&T. Having never seen his movies, I don't know if his directorial style is the same for both his movies and his commericals, but I thought it was interesting none the less. All the other ones are available here.

The Bourne Ultimatum

While I may agree with Richard Corliss, of TIME Magazine, that the Bourne Ultimatum is a very suspenseful movie, his review of the movie pays homage more to my 4^th grade English class, than a well respected periodical. Upon reading his piece, it appears to me as if he utilizes creative writing solely because he has nothing else to say. His metaphors and analogies lack creativity and bore the reader by throwing in too many words better left unspoken.

“Eluding or dispatching bad guys, fighting off six at a time in a stairwell, wrecking more autos than in a NASCAR blooper reel.”

It would be possible for a well versed 12 year old to come up with something better than that.

If the reader is able to get past Corliss’ drab writing style, it’s easily seen why he is a writer for TIME, a plain conservative magazine: he has an excellent point of view. He comes up with terrific ideas, and truly demonstrates to the reader that he knows what he talking about. Looking at Greengrass’ directorial decisions Corliss makes a seemingly well educated conclusion about Greengrass’ camera choice.

“[He has defined] Bourne location work as guerrilla filmmaking — using concealed cameras in "wild" situations — and he overuses the hand-held shaky-cam to shout, visually, that this is all real, man!”

He uses information given to The Art of Film students in their first few weeks of school excellently, basically giving word for word what shaky-camera shots are used for.

Corliss is able support his ideas with numerous examples of other films which, like the Bourne Ultimatum, are so suspenseful make it hard for the view to breath during the course of the movie. Tying this movie into two other of action dynasties, Bond and Die Hard, Corliss puts Bourne with other quintessential action heros. He writes,

“That's the secret of [Bourne], and Bond and John McClane and all the other action-movie studs. They are a projection of American power — or a memory of it, and the poignant wish it could somehow return.”

As many millions have seen the Bond and Die Hard films, Corliss is able to demonstrate the true determination and mastery of combat Jason has.

Although he has in my opinion one of the most uninteresting writing styles out there, this review is still a success. It makes the reader want to go and spend 8 dollars on a ticket plus popcorn to truly experience the movie.

“A pounding of the eyes and ears (John Powell's score is all urgent percussion), the movie is one continuous, exhausting, exhilarating chase.”

Making it seem as if my simple 42 incher and Dolby 5.1 surround sound system won’t be able to capture the epic nature of this film.

After giving the reader a sense of the pure unadulterated action that unfolds during the movie, Corliss casually touches on Damon’s portrayal of this invisible agent, by saying that his acting is what in effect makes Bourne invisible to the C.I.A and a hero to the viewer.