Blog of Leonid Mamchenkov

I went to see a totally other movie today, but somehow the schedules got all messed up and I ended up watching “W.“.  I haven’t seen any trailers or posters for the film, except at the time of buing the ticket.  And to tell you the truth, I wasn’t very pleased with the thought of watching more about George W. Bush - one man who has been on the screens way more than he deserves.  However, the alternative was a really bad remake of a really bad sci-fi movie of the 1950s, so I went for it.

And that turned out to be a good decision.  “W.” is one of those movies with the coolest cast, however very under-promoted due to not so popular ideas or angles.  “W.” was directed by Oliver Stone - one of the best directors to bring a controversial and unpopular discussion to the table.  Roles were played by Josh Brolin, James Cromwell, Scott Glenn, Jeffrey Wright, and a few other people that you will no doubt recognize.

What I liked the most about the movie was how the good and the bad were shown.  There was a whole range of characters, some of who were shown good with a few bad mistakes behind their belts, and some of who were bad with some good deeds done.  And while the film was mostly about George W. Bush, each and every character was given enough time and development.  Overall, it’s a really nice look at good and bad, morale and ethics, tough decisions, historical judgements, and rewards.

One other thing that I liked was how similar were the characters in the movie to their real prototypes. Not being an American, not living in the USA, not following the political scene closely, and havinga really bad memory for names, I was amazed with how fast I could recognize the characters.  Often I even had to look closer to see if the character was played by the actor or if any real documentary footage was used.  That, of course, is a combination of actors’ work with make-up, costume design, and camera operators.  In the end - an excellent result.

I’d rate this film as 7 out of 10.  Recommended to anyone who is interested in today’s world and an alternative look on how and why things ended up being as they are.

I haven’t been following the US presidential race closely.  I remember watching a few speeches by Ron Paul, and thinking that he is a really nice guy.  But somehow I doubted that he could win.  Barack Obama’s speeches were the next best thing, even though I saw just a few of them.  Here is a quote from Slashdot discussion on the subject, that I particularly enjoyed:

The thing that absolutely amazes me is the international reaction to Obama’s win. I knew that the reputation of America and Americans had been battered over the past few years, but I never suspected that it was as bad as it was. I watched the results last night, said a little “huzzah!” when Obama was declared, listened as McCain gave a warm, dignified, and gentlemanly concession speech, and then went to bed thinking I’d seen it all. I woke up at about 4:45 this morning and I’ve been flipping between news stations ever since. I got a little emotional last night during the speeches, but I’m absolutely devastated by the number of non-Americans who are dancing in the streets over Obama’s win. I never thought I’d see video of a few hundred Chinese people jumping around and chanting “Obama! Obama!” A reporter in France walked up to a woman and simply said “Obama?” Her face lit up and she simply said “C’est formidable!” Kenyans are throwing feasts in his honor. Arab and Persian states are happy. Israel is happy. Pakistan is happy. Australians are losing their damned minds over it. Russia is… well, they’re kinda grumpy, but they’re not having a good year.

(read the rest of the comment)

Well, I guess I am in the happy and joyful crowd.  It feels like something big happened.  But we are yet to see if this feeling has any substance.

I’m not usually very political.  I don’t care much about elections, campaigns, politics or policies, and things like that.  But that didn’t stop me from watching the USA presidency candidate talks at Google.  Here are the names and what I think  of them:

• Ron Paul.  This was the only video that I watched in full length.  This guy speaks good, and he has plenty of common sense in him.  He’s also pretty popular on the Web, but, somehow, I doubt that he will make it to the president.  He and his campaign contradict the interests of too many people.
• Hillary Clinton.  She speaks like a politician with a lot of experience.  That’s probably why I don’t understand much of her.  Watched the video for about 10 minutes.
• Barack Obama.  I don’t have much interest in hearing how he reads “I think” and “I believe” of the paper.  He looked very much like someone who haven’t written those notes…
• John Edwards.  This is the case of one picture being a thousand words. It’s much easier and faster to say “I don’t believe that guy” after taking half a second look at him, than listening to an hour of him talking.

I came across this wonderful quote at Doc Searls blog:

I can tell you that there are two things nearly every congressperson does not understand. One is economics. The other is technology. Now proceed.

This explains so many flaming discussions at Slashdot …

Comedy Central started to publish some of their shows online. And not only that - they’ve added an RSS feed for all of us outside the US television coverage to catch the shows on time. I haven’t yet seen all of the clips, but I already came across a few that are hilarious. Knock yourself out!