You're gonna be bothered by how cool I am.

Sclumphxterned from smallerdemon:

My Peculiar Aristocratic Title is: Honourable Lady Connielane the Laconic of Goosnargh on the Carpet Get your Peculiar Aristocratic Title

In other news, I'm pleased to see John Edwards' numbers climbing in South Carolina. I love that, despite the "win or go home" attitude the media seem to cling to, he realizes that he may very well take another third place finish there, and seems to know exactly how to move forward to Super Tuesday in that eventuality. And it's part of why I think he'd make a great President - the person in that office NEEDS a "long haul" mentality, because this country has big problems that can't possibly be solved with an easy or quick fix.

ETA: I didn't watch the Republican debate last night, but I have seen the clip of Mitt Romney's comment, remarking on the possibility of Hillary Clinton as President, that he didn't like the idea of "Bill Clinton, living in the White House, with nothing to do." Um, sir - is that really your impression of what it means to be the spouse of the President? That women like Eleanor Roosevelt, Nancy Reagan, Barbara Bush, and Mrs. Clinton herself were "living in the White House, with nothing to do"?

Sclumphxterned from smallerdemon:

My Peculiar Aristocratic Title is: Honourable Lady Connielane the Laconic of Goosnargh on the Carpet Get your Peculiar Aristocratic Title

In other news, I'm pleased to see John Edwards' numbers climbing in South Carolina. I love that, despite the "win or go home" attitude the media seem to cling to, he realizes that he may very well take another third place finish there, and seems to know exactly how to move forward to Super Tuesday in that eventuality. And it's part of why I think he'd make a great President - the person in that office NEEDS a "long haul" mentality, because this country has big problems that can't possibly be solved with an easy or quick fix.

ETA: I didn't watch the Republican debate last night, but I have seen the clip of Mitt Romney's comment, remarking on the possibility of Hillary Clinton as President, that he didn't like the idea of "Bill Clinton, living in the White House, with nothing to do." Um, sir - is that really your impression of what it means to be the spouse of the President? That women like Eleanor Roosevelt, Nancy Reagan, Barbara Bush, and Mrs. Clinton herself were "living in the White House, with nothing to do"?

It's quite good and there's nothing wrong with it, but ... I don't see what's so special about it. And by special I mean "nominated for 7 Academy Awards" and "number one on Richard Roeper's best-of-2007 list" special. Again, there's nothing wrong with it, and it's a very good movie, but...

It's like Tony Gilroy took a cluster of blockbuster cliches - corrupt corporate dealings, cover-ups, people who know too much being killed, etc. - and dismantled it like it was a bomb. Which is an interesting exercise and makes for a different kind of tension, but ... you watch a movie like this for the bomb. I kept hearing Dennis Hopper's admonition of Keanu Reeves in Speed in my head as I drove home - "Your problem is that you want to stop the bomb from becoming!"

I dunno, maybe it's just me. But this is a very delicately woven story, which means you've got to pay attention more than you're used to doing in a movie. Which is fine - I love having to pay attention, because it means the writer and director are doing their job. But there's just not enough of a payoff for that attention. I suppose there's something to be said for taking things that in lesser movies could be way overblown and just taking it down several notches and focusing on the characters. But I found the territory a bit too familiar to have been really blown away by it. I also guess that one could compare this movie to No Country for Old Men in the way both of these films sort of deconstruct the genre they're borrowing from, but I feel like No Country just ... does it better. And it has an obvious affection for the setting and characters, whereas Clayton, for all its emphasis on the characters, feels a bit cold.

GREAT performances, though. I'll give it that. George Clooney is more complex and interesting here than I think I've ever seen him. Tom Wilkinson is fantastic, as always. I'm "meh" about Tilda Swinton in general, but there was something very raw about her that I found mesmerizing (kudos to her for not being afraid to put on some weight and show it to the camera). And, as a fan of House, M.D., I *LOVED* seeing one of my favorite POTWs, Michael O'Keefe (the aphasia guy - "I'm tabled!"). Also, in looking O'Keefe up because he's one of those actors that I always enjoy and can never quite place what I've seen them in before, I just learned that he was nominated for an Oscar for playing Robert Duvall's son in The Great Santini - THE BASKETBALL SCENE, OMG!

It's quite good and there's nothing wrong with it, but ... I don't see what's so special about it. And by special I mean "nominated for 7 Academy Awards" and "number one on Richard Roeper's best-of-2007 list" special. Again, there's nothing wrong with it, and it's a very good movie, but...

It's like Tony Gilroy took a cluster of blockbuster cliches - corrupt corporate dealings, cover-ups, people who know too much being killed, etc. - and dismantled it like it was a bomb. Which is an interesting exercise and makes for a different kind of tension, but ... you watch a movie like this for the bomb. I kept hearing Dennis Hopper's admonition of Keanu Reeves in Speed in my head as I drove home - "Your problem is that you want to stop the bomb from becoming!"

I dunno, maybe it's just me. But this is a very delicately woven story, which means you've got to pay attention more than you're used to doing in a movie. Which is fine - I love having to pay attention, because it means the writer and director are doing their job. But there's just not enough of a payoff for that attention. I suppose there's something to be said for taking things that in lesser movies could be way overblown and just taking it down several notches and focusing on the characters. But I found the territory a bit too familiar to have been really blown away by it. I also guess that one could compare this movie to No Country for Old Men in the way both of these films sort of deconstruct the genre they're borrowing from, but I feel like No Country just ... does it better. And it has an obvious affection for the setting and characters, whereas Clayton, for all its emphasis on the characters, feels a bit cold.

GREAT performances, though. I'll give it that. George Clooney is more complex and interesting here than I think I've ever seen him. Tom Wilkinson is fantastic, as always. I'm "meh" about Tilda Swinton in general, but there was something very raw about her that I found mesmerizing (kudos to her for not being afraid to put on some weight and show it to the camera). And, as a fan of House, M.D., I *LOVED* seeing one of my favorite POTWs, Michael O'Keefe (the aphasia guy - "I'm tabled!"). Also, in looking O'Keefe up because he's one of those actors that I always enjoy and can never quite place what I've seen them in before, I just learned that he was nominated for an Oscar for playing Robert Duvall's son in The Great Santini - THE BASKETBALL SCENE, OMG!