YEAH lord of WAR!!!

As you can tell by the title of this here post, I finally got around to seeing Lord of War. I saw it at the Loews on 34th street right near penn station and I only mention this because tickets were only 9.50, that's a horse of a differnt color. So yeah maybe I should do all my thievin up there from now on. Anyway Lord of War was one of my big ticket (i totally sounded like leonard maltin there, who is by the way the most attractive critic on television) fall movies for the specific reason being that it was written directed by andrew niccol. Writer of the truman show and director of the criminally ignored and underrated gattaca, he has a knack for alternative realities and posing questions about humanities relationship to its paritcular environment. At least that's what the film school side of me says, and on top of that he's a fucking sharp writer and director. Lord of War is definitely his most ambitious and most technically assured film to date, there is a knockout opening sequence tracing the construction and eventual usage of a bullet told from that perspective. People have compared the style of this film to David O's Three Kings, I don't really see that. This looks like an andrew niccol film, he seems to have a thing for sleekness whereas Russell is much grittier and used. Anyway as I was saying this film is in some ways a colosssal leap for him in terms of thematic qualities but otherwise it fits right into his normal milleu of obsessions, except, unfortunately for us, this film takes place in our time and claims to have been based on a true story. Not to divulge too much story and bore you with details, it's basically about the rise of a ukrainian gun runner who keeps everything about his life secret from his model wife while dodging and evading a determined interpol agent, all the while juggling his coke head brother who used to be in business with him. This is where the film failed for me, it feels like Niccol had all these angry and cynical things to say but couldn't find the right device for them story wise. The plot feels too ordinary and Niccol is too smart of a writer to not at least know he was exploiting cliches. Don't get me wrong, this is a strong film Cage is great and there is something very angry about this film that makes you laugh at certain points where you're not really sure whether you are supposed to be laughing. Sure parts of it are over done, like Cage's extended drugged out sequence, but at the same time you admire a film that has an excess of ambition rather than one scared of it. I'm not saying that makes bad movies good, but sometimes if a film tries at all you can see the passion and integrity that went into it and you admire it just a little bit more. So yeah, go see it if you have the chance if only to support andrew niccol's career and grant him the opportunity to make more films.

In conclusion to yesterday's thrilling entry, I missed the floating island again, this time at Carl Shurz. I just didn't have enough time to get up there, stupid lack of public urinals. And when I got there the river was bone dry (with tugboats that is) Its too bad because the more I read about it, the more interesting it sounded. This guy was saying that the whole thing was a tribute to the brain behind central park. And that it is a testament to man made nature the same way that central park was just a dump until somebody decided to simply dump more grass and trees on top of it to make the postcard image we see today. It's just interesting to take a small chunk of that almost and drag it around the island, I dont know maybe i just really like tugboats. Come to think of it I dont think I've ever seen one in person, someday, someday.

Tonight's simpsons had the best O.C. parody ever and one of the best lines about divorce ever. I hope I can remember this

" But Lis, if mom and dad get divorced, you can compensate by marrying a much older man. Meanwhile, I'll be one of those 35 year old guys who hangs out at high school basketball games."