Black Swan (2010)

Natalie Portman gives an amazing performance in Black Swan, directed by Darren Aronofsky, a creepy psychological thriller that plays as half a horror movie. she's a ballerina who is cast as the lead in Swan Lake, and must figure out how she can play the black swan as well as the white, when in reality she is a frigid, sexually repressed, and mentally unbalanced young woman who is dominated by her mother (Barbara Hershey). Vincent Cassel is the ballet instructor, and Mila Kunis is a fellow ballerina, both of whom awaken her sexual desire. throughout the film she sees things that aren't there and slowly begins losing her mind completely, eventually starting to physically turn into the black swan in a crazy third act. the cinematography is great in this movie, esp in the exhilarating final ballet sequences, and look for Winona Ryder as a retired dancer turned crazy herself. i wouldn't call this the best movie of the year, but it's entertaining and i'd recommend it for natalie's performance, which is much different than anything else she's ever been in. and it definitely keeps you on the edge of your seat and wondering what's going to happen the whole time. if i were to give letter grades i'd give it a solid B+

Team of Rivals

i just finished this excellent book by Doris Kearns Goodwin, the pulitzer-prize winning historian, about the presidency of Abraham Lincoln and how he managed the Civil War along with the warring members of his Cabinet. it was a GREAT read and moved really fast, even at over 700 pages. it's not a simple biography, because it follows the lives of Lincoln's most important Cabinet members too, Secretary of State William Seward, Treasury Secretary and then Supreme Court Justice Salmon P. Chase, and War Secretary Edwin Stanton, who makes a late entrance but becomes the third most important character, behind Lincoln and Seward.

Lincoln is of course one of the most iconic figures in our history, but after reading this book you come to feel like you know him as a person, how his mind worked, his personality and sense of humor, his deep sense of pragmatism and rationality. he looms as such a myth in history, that i realized i'd never really thought of him as a normal person, more like a giant of some ancient past, who did great things but is  practically looked at as a saint now. requiring no deep understanding, just a sort of hero worship. well, this book made me look at him completely differently. he was a man like anyone else, born with even worse circumstances than most, especially compared to his colleagues, most of whom also ran for the presidential nomination in 1860. born into utter poverty, he was ENTIRELY self-taught, never having received a single day of schooling. from the age of 8 years old, he read anything he could get his hands on, and when he was in his twenties he taught himself the law, by borrowing books from other people. he emerged as a dark horse candidate for the presidency in 1860, still not well-known outside of Illinois, but managed to secure the nomination due to the failure of the other candidates to gather a majority of the delegates.  the votes were split, allowing him to sneak through in an upset win, after years of running for Congress and failing to be elected except for single congressional term in the 1840's. despite Lincoln's lack of education, he emerges as a deeply thoughtful, sympathetic, reasonable and pragmatic politician. what comes across the most frequently is his logic and reasoning. he applies it to every situation, reasoning out what course of action would make the most sense, benefit the most people and advance the cause furthest.

he also had a great sense of humor, surprisingly. he was constantly telling jokes, stories, and anecdotes that were analogous to whatever situation he was facing. Goodwin recounts a lot of the story through letters and correspondence, from Lincoln himself to all the members of his cabinet, plus their wives and family members. most of them kept long, detailed diaries as well, with remembrances from each day. some of Lincoln's own colleagues complained about his constant joke-telling at inappropriate times, while others thought he was hilarious. it's said that his humor kept him from despairing at the constant horrors of the war, which resulted in the deaths of over 650,000 americans, touching the lives of virtually every family in the country at that time.

almost everyone who ever met Lincoln ended up respecting him, thinking him a very intelligent, compassionate and wise man. he never held a grudge against anyone, and always gave someone a second, and even third chance to prove himself, or make up for a mistake. the composition of his own cabinet was made up of everyone who ran against him for the nomination, showing how magnanimous he was, and how important he thought it was to have the very best people for the job, no matter what they might be plotting against him (and some of them still harbored ambitions for the presidency themselves). despite a cabinet filled with strong and warring personalities, Lincoln was always the leader, as they soon came to find out. it was he himself who decided on the most important courses of action during the war, he himself who came up with even the idea for the Emancipation Proclamation, which he hid from the rest of his colleagues until he had already decided to do it. he did make some mistakes, and his willingness to compromise angered a lot of the more radical and anti-southern forces in Congress. at the time, there were a lot more virulently anti-slavery congressmen than i ever knew, and they were constantly pushing Lincoln to be more forceful on the slavery issue. he was always anti-slavery himself, but knew to wait until the time was right and it would directly impact the North's ability to win the war to act on it.

the book is so well-written and descriptive, with so many details of the time that you feel as if you were right there with them, in the room listening to decisions made about the Civil War. you come to know each character so well, as there are random details about their personal lives, their families, and each of their relationships with Lincoln himself. the second most important character is his Secretary of State, Seward, who was once the frontrunner to the nomination and his number one rival, but who soon becomes his closest ally and best friend. the two of them manage every important decision together and spend more time together than even with their families. on the night of Lincoln's assassination, there was also a failed attempt on Seward's life, as well as the vice-president at the time. it was supposed to be a triple assassination coordinated by 3 assassins, in order to take out the whole administration and horrify the North. that night is recounted so vividly it leaves you in breathless suspense, even though you know what ultimately happens.

there's going to be a movie made based on this book, directed by Steven Spielberg and starring Daniel Day-Lewis as Lincoln. it's supposed to come out in 2012 and already i can't wait. 

Super Lame-Duck

so, this is now the final word on the lame-duck session, and it turns out that i was right. the tax-cut deal paved the way for everything else that passed in the last two weeks, and it was a LOT of stuff: DADT repeal, the START treaty, the food safety bill, the healthcare bill for the 9/11 first responders, etc.

it was a historic session! following on the heels of the historic 111th Congress, actually. it's true, with everything they passed in the last 2 years, a headline on Bloomberg News the other day was "No Congress since the 1960's has had as much impact on the public as the 111th"

and they never would have been able to push all this stuff through if not for that tax-cut compromise Obama made. of course, a big disappointment was the Dream Act, and the lack of any action on immigration reform. if the Dems had held Congress in the elections, i guarantee that it would have passed in the next year. but with the Republicans coming in, that's obviously gonna halt any action on that front, until they can win back a majority, sadly. or until enough republicans can decide it's actually in THEIR best interest as well to do something about immigration, considering how latinos are the fastest growing minority in the country and will undoubtedly be making more and more of an electoral impact in the future. i expect Obama to push for it strongly and publicly, in order to show the latino community exactly who it is that's blocking action on this, and that MAY make a difference, but we'll see.

overall though, i'm pretty happy with the record of accomplishment since '08. it was a lot of stuff! in fact, the 4 main priorities that i personally wanted to see done went 3 for 4. health care reform, wall street reform, and repealing DADT (the other was immigration). it's pretty amazing that those three relatively giant things got done in the first TWO YEARS. the biggest thing that will have an impact on public opinion is the pace of economic recovery, of course. at least until we will actually start seeing the benefits of those other overhauls (the healthcare exchanges open in 2013 and it will take time to set up the WS reforms as well). and the economy was always going to take time. you could argue that the administration should have fought for openly visible courses of action on it, something to similar to the gov't programs that FDR set up in the 30's, like the WPA and CCC. but the investments in the gigantic stimulus package that was passed in '09 did prevent another Great Depression from even happening. and things were THAT bad at the time he took office. the jobs that were lost btw the time he was elected and the time he was inaugurated were huge. and actually, i would also argue that the reason he couldn't set up programs like that was because he DIDN'T have FDR like majorities in Congress. yes he had the full House, but the Senate, where everything goes to die, saw virtually all of his legislation filibustered by the entire Republican caucus, preventing him from the getting the very best stimulative measures possible. i mean, even with the stimulus, just 3 Republicans voted for it- even in the face of the catastrophe the country was facing. and the reason behind that was a bet made by the Republicans that the economy wouldn't be better by 2010, and they could benefit from that in the midterms (which they did). boy, that's really putting your country first, isn't it? anyway, at the time FDR was elected, he had 80 seats in the Senate, not 59, so he really could do whatever he wanted. as a result of that, he GAINED seats in 1934.

so, ultimately, the economy takes time. and the fact is we ARE in a recovery, it's just painful and slow, because the crisis was so bad. but we aren't losing jobs anymore, we're just struggling to get back upwards. and that required more than the 18 months btw the inauguration and the midterms.

The Fighter (2010)

so, this was a movie that flew off my radar until VERY recently, and then it started suddenly showing up in all the year end award nominations, so i saw it. i was ambivalent about it from the first time i saw the trailer, mainly because it's another in a long series of boxing movies, stretching back to the silent era. the boxing genre is practically as old as film itself, and the best of the bunch will always be Raging Bull (1980) and the original Rocky (1976). i honestly felt that there was literally nothing new or interesting that could be done in another movie about a boxer, even if it was based on a true story. but, The Fighter IS a good movie, and it's a lot more about family drama than it is about boxing. the main character's dream could have been another sport or profession altogether and the movie would still work.

Directed by David O'Russell, it stars Mark Wahlberg as Mickey Ward, an up and coming fighter in the early 90's, who lives under the management of his overbearing mother Alice (Melissa Leo), and is trained by his older brother Dickie (Christian Bale), a local legend in Lowell, MA because he was once a good fighter himself, who managed to knock out Sugar Ray Leonard in the late 70's. now Dickie is a crack addict and a screw-up, yet still manages to impart some decent fighting tips to Mickey once in a while. overall, Mickey is completely dominated by his  obnoxious family (that includes 7 sisters), who manage him badly and are preventing him from moving forward with his talent. then he meets Charlene (Amy Adams), a bartender who sees that his family is the problem and helps him to move forward, ultimately clashing with Alice and Dickie along the way.

The acting is phenomenal in this movie. all the supporting characters shine, but ESPECIALLY Christian Bale as Dickie. Bale has always been a good and somewhat overlooked actor, but here he has finally gotten the part that's garnering him the recognition he deserves. He dominates virtually the entire movie, mastering the mannerisms and behavior of a crack addict, letting everyone down, yet sweet talking his way out of other people's anger with him. Dickie has a kind of tragic story, yet he somehow manages to come across as the funniest and most likeable character in the film. i think i predicted that Geoffrey Rush would win Best Supporting Actor a while ago, but i have to take it back now and say Bale is a lock to win this. he'll get it hands down. and two other actors here will also be nominated, Melissa Leo and Amy Adams. they're both great here as well, and i'd bet that one of them will likely be winning. i'm gonna say Adams for now, because she's more well-known, this role as a trash talking tough girl is a pretty decent stretch for her, and this will be her 3rd nomination in 4 years. Wahlberg as Mickey is fine, but he's pretty much dominated by all the supporting characters, and i think that's the point of Mickey anyway. he lets his family and his handlers walk all over him, can't speak for himself, and they all get in the way of what's supposed to be HIS dream.

The movie is very involving, stylishly directed by O'Russell, excellently portrays a time and place in a rundown, blue collar city and the people who live there....i would highly recommend The Fighter for all the reasons that have nothing to do with boxing.

DADT Repeal

woo-hoo! the repeal of the discriminatory, 17 year old policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" just passed the Senate, by a vote of 65-31. it's now headed to the President's desk!

awesome. it's truly a civil rights victory too. in sad news, the Dream Act failed, again by a MAJORITY vote of 55-41. the worst thing about that one is that 5 conservative Democrats killed it, joining a Republican filibuster. had the dems been able to hold together on this, Dream would have passed too. i think that pretty much halts any action on immigration reform for the next two years, with an incoming Republican House. that sucks.

but overall, the lame duck session of Congress has turned into a VERY productive one, maybe the most productive ever. the tax cuts compromise sailed through (which i didn't hate as much as some other liberals, mainly because it has in there as much of a second stimulus as we're ever going to get, and that makes it badly needed- the price for it was not raising on taxes on the rich, at least not for another two years), and now the DADT repeal. i think the last thing they'll get done is to ratify obama's START treaty, which is the nuclear arms deal with Russia.

but this was definitely a good day.

Quick Update

as of today, the Dream Act has passed the House, while the DADT repeal just failed in the Senate, by a vote of 57-40. yes, you read that right, the repeal FAILED with a 57 vote majority in favor of it.

is that not the most ridiculous thing you've ever heard? it failed because the republicans filibustered, which means that you need 60 votes to pass it, and not a majority. this mass abuse of the filibuster that the republicans have done for virtually everything that's come up in congress since they were kicked into the minority is unprecedented. it's not supposed to be the norm to use the filibuster as though it's an ordinary Senate tool. but for them it's become their only weapon to prevent ANYTHING from actually getting done, even if there's a clear majority in favor if it, like there is for this. the only other time it was abused like this was during the 60s, when the Civil Rights Acts were passing through Congress. Southern Republicans at the time were so viciously against it that they filibustered over and over again to prevent it from happening. and obviously they were acting on behalf of their racist constituents at the time, but this DADT measure? repeal is supported by 75% of the public, the secretary of defense, the joint chiefs of staff, 70% of the troops themselves, etc. it's not controversial anymore, this should NOT be a partisan issue.

it's insane. i repeat my call that we should abolish the Senate, if this is the way the minority party is going to act from now on. it prevents the government from functioning and it's completely wrong.

The Final Deal

so, it appears that the deal will be to extend the tax cuts for everyone for 2 years, in exchange for 13 months of unemployment benefits. it's really sad that extending UI during a recession is now being called a "concession" from the republicans. that move has never been controversial before, in any recession we've had since the Depression.

but if they can repeal DADT, pass the Dream act and the START treaty after doing this, i guess i can live with it. i honestly think it's better than letting taxes go up on everyone and not getting any of the rest of it done.

Lame Duck Update

so, it looks like tax cuts are dead. on the other hand, MAYBE the dadt repeal will go through. no clue on the Dream Act yet, but i think the vote on that is wednesday.

first of all, the tax cuts. as expected, the House passed the middle class ones only, and the Senate GOP filibustered them. and all of them pledged to not let anything else come to a vote (by filibustering) until their rich people tax cuts are secure. sigh. of course that means they let unemployment benefits expire too, because they don't care about the jobless either.

ok, look. them being assholes and continuing to be assholes is not new, and it leaves the Dems with two options here. 1) stand up and fight for their position on this, forcing them to filibuster this vote until the end of the session. which they will. the consequence of that is pretty bad, because it will never pass. at the end of the year, taxes will go up on EVERYONE, and they never managed to get to anything else, like repealing dadt, extending UI, Dream, etc. so, i honestly think this option is out.

2) pass all the budget-busting unpaid-for tax cuts for 2 years, in return for an extension of unemployment benefits now (hopefully). and the chance to at least get to this other stuff they have to do, and only have a chance of doing before the republicans take over.

so, yeah, it's gonna be option 2. which sucks. it shows them they can effectively blackmail the president to get what they want, so we have more of that bullshit to look forward to. if taxes go up on everyone the republicans don't care, because they know they can blame the democrats and obama for it. and they just don't care about extending jobless benefits because they don't care about the jobless. they have nothing to lose. democrats do care about those things and don't WANT to let taxes go up on everyone, because they know they won't be able to blame republicans for it. i mean, yeah it would be their fault because they successfully held tax cuts for everyone hostage for the benefit of the rich- but no one will care because all they'll see is that taxes went up while the democrats were in charge.

the left has been especially unhappy lately because obama is REALLY falling into the image of a kind of weak, ineffectual leader who just does not stand up for what he believes in. he's not even actively tagging to the right, but is just seemingly drifting, not wanting to say anything or take any clear position- or if he does express an opinion, does NOT appear to fight for it. i don't know what's going on, he seems to be just beaten down by the election and doesn't quite know what to do. the truth is he's never been a big fighter, somebody who LIKES getting into it, fighting with the other side, etc. this has been said about him his whole career, that he's a guy who prefers to veer away from knockdown drag out political fights, always wanting to figure out a way he can actually get something done, get legislation passed, make the compromises to get there, all that stuff.

but the truth is, people respond to strength, no matter what they're actually saying. because most people aren't paying much attention to the issues, but they can tell if someone is standing up for what they believe in, and seems to be taking a clear position on SOMETHING, even if it's a thing they don't really understand. and this is something that i think republicans just get, to the core. they can take highly unpopular positions (tax cuts for the rich is not exactly popular) and they know if they just stand by them and don't let up, they appear to be taking a stand and they get support for doing that. people aren't in tune enough to figure out why they're doing it, they just appear to be doing something.

and the white house needs to wake up and realize that they have got to be perceived as standing up clearly for SOMETHING at some point.

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1

so, i saw the movie and for the most part i was pretty impressed with it. i've always looked at the movies as completely separate entities from the books anyway, because if you're really a fan of the books first and foremost, then no movie will ever truly satisfy you. it just never lives up to what you've imagined, so i make it a point to never compare a film to the book it's based on. just maybe to the spirit of it.

having said that, i've always enjoyed the Harry Potter films for what they are, for the most part (aside from the first two). starting from the third one, they became much more cinematic and were basically able to stand on their own i thought. and i definitely think it's an impressive feat that they've managed to make all these movies that are basically solid, quality films over the course of ten years.  they were never perfect, or even GREAT adaptations, imo, but they've been very consistent over the years.

this one is too, but there are a couple of things that were noticeably better in it. one was Emma Watson's acting. i've always thought the boys had improved over the years, but she was the weakest of the trio, so i was shocked to see that all of a sudden, between the last film and this one, she learned how to act. but it's true, she was very good and you really felt all of her emotion in this movie. there were also some genuinely suspenseful scenes and the action was was well done throughout. it's a really solid entry in the series, and i think it validates the decision to split the last book in two.

i think what's always prevented the HP books from becoming really great movies is that there is SO much plot in each book, that it's difficult in the length of a movie to develop the characters enough so that casual audience members can care about them before the plot interferes. so that pretty much leaves the movies to cater to fans only, who already know what's going on and don't need to be enticed. i think each film has TRIED to push in some character moments, but they're so few that to me it always stands out and comes across as a bit forced. and it's almost impossible to downsize the plot in these books, because every twist eventually comes together in the last one. i think what needed to happen was for the movies to have turned these characters into their own movie characters, with interactions btw them and maybe extra dialogue and chats that weren't in the book, so that people get more of a feel for their personalities. you can take the essence of someone's character in the book and make it into a separate film character for the actor. of course, one of the greatest examples of all time is Scarlett O'Hara from Gone With the Wind. Viven Leigh made that character entirely her own on-screen, and book Scarlett and movie Scarlett are different from each other, but both are still great.

Oscar Hosts

so, it's apparently gonna be Anne Hathaway and James Franco. weird. i personally thought the two host idea completely bombed last year anyway with Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin, so i'm surprised they're doing that again. but these two aren't even comedians. Anne Hathaway is sort of in the Hugh Jackman style, because she can sing and she'll probably do a big musical number, but James Franco? why'd they even think of him? he'll probably be nominated for Best Actor too, so that will be awkward. i think it's an odd choice.

Lame Duck Session

ok, so now that my rage has mitigated a bit at the Republican takeover in the House, i hope at the very least the dems can find it in themselves to make this last lame duck session the most productive one in history. why not? what do they have to lose? there are three things they can do, or at least TRY to do:

1. Pass a permanent extension of middle class tax cuts only
2. Pass the defense bill that has within it the repeal of DADT
3. Pass the DREAM Act

of these items, the one i think they may actually pull off is DADT, believe it or not. there are signs that this actually will pass the senate in december. the big study they did is expected to show that 70% of the troops believe it would be ok to allow gay service members to serve openly, so i think that the study will give cover to a couple of republicans (they only need 1 or 2), probably Scott Brown or Olympia Snowe, to not filibuster. i have a bit of optimism on that.

the other two i'm not so sure. the Dream Act is the down payment on immigration reform- it allows minors a pathway to citizenship if they join the civil service i believe. i don't think this is that controversial, but i'm not sure if this has even passed the House yet. i also don't think it's gotten much attention. to my mind the only reason for a filibuster of something like this is the fear that it will go that much further toward solidifying the latino vote with the democrats. but, that's already happening- the only polls that underestimated the democratic likely vote in the elections were just about every state on the west coast and in the southwest especially. the tightest races were california, nevada and colorado, and in every single one the dem won by higher than expected, and it turned out to be due to the underestimated latino turnout. i think if they manage to pass immigration reform (which won't happen when the GOP takes over), it solidifies that base pretty solidly. maybe even comparable to the Civil Rights Acts in the 1960s. otherwise, this could pass this session since it's not the whole thing, just a piece of it, and it involves kids for christ's sake. and who knows, even if it doesn't- it might help the Dems anyway, to have it visibly defeated by the republicans.

and the worst one, those tax cuts. sigh. imo, this SHOULDN'T be that difficult, and it won't be for the House, which is now saying they are going to vote on just the middle class ones alone. but the problem, as always, lies in the senate, where i'm pretty sure the entire GOP is deadset against this in any way. they love their tax cuts for rich people and they don't want to let them go. i think they likely WILL filibuster a tax cut for the middle class for this purpose, even if it looks horrible for them. and they say they're going to hold UI benefits hostage for the jobless for this purpose as well. it's pretty awful if you ask me. but basically, i would say have the House pass the middle class ones, and then just bring it up in the Senate and let them do what they do. have it play out in public- that the GOP blocks even a vote on permanent middle class tax cuts, over and over and over. it may well backfire on them. i personally don't think it would look that good for them to be seen defeating and blocking tax cuts (supposedly their favorite thing ever) over and over again, and for 98% of americans at that. once more (because it can't be said enough) for the purpose of giving the RICH another, even bigger tax cut, which by the way, would add $700 billion to the deficit. but they probably think they can wait it out, because the december session is only 3 weeks long and it just wouldn't leave enough time for maybe one of them to cave in the face of awful public branding. the Dems would ultimately give in rather than let tax cuts expire for everyone. it'd definitely be a face-off over what each party stands for. so, i'm not sure what's gonna happen on this, my fear is that the Dems are a little too afraid of risking the expiration of all tax cuts if the Republicans don't blink. unfortunately, that is what would happen. you have to be able to bet one of them would cave, and who knows, maybe Scott Brown would. (MA does NOT prefer to favor the rich and this guy is up for re-election in that very liberal state in 2012). it's gonna require 100% unity and some balls on the part of the Democrats in the Senate, which leaves me feeling pessimistic, esp if they do manage to get the DADT repeal through.

London Boulevard

keira knightley in a NON-period piece? maybe it'll be good

Midterm Results

so, the bloodbath is over and boy was it awful. the lunatics gained at least 60 seats, one of the worst routes ever, and now has a house majority that's their biggest since 1946?!!!

someone explain to me how the party that led us to utter ruin over the course of this entire decade, managed to wipe out 2 cycles worth of losses in one year, regaining the majority so they can screw us all over again? because i DO NOT understand it. i cannot comprehend the ignorance, amnesia and sheer STUPIDITY of the american people. seriously. why the fuck are things so bad right now in the first place? because of them. why are we NOT in another great depression? because of obama. so, how is it a rational, logical action to vote the assholes who put us here back into power, bigger than they had before????? i think it's the definition of insanity. or masochism.

i feel like people didn't even give the democrats a chance. it hasn't even been 2 years, how the fuck are they supposed to fix everything back to where it was before bush and his cronies imploded it in less than 2 years? it took them EIGHT to beat us down to where we were.

why are people so stupid? they are voting against their own interests. the only person i can sort of understand why they would actually be a republican, are the super-wealthy. because they're greedy and they want their tax cuts that they don't need and greedy assholes are the base of the party i suppose. but the other people who make up the base is CONSTANTLY voting to screw themselves over. a lot of poor, white southerners and senior citizens who NEVER benefit from anything that party has ever done for them. ever. what exactly do the republicans stand for? tax cuts for rich people, and starting mass unpaid for wars. do NOT tell me they stand for deficit reduction because that is a fallacy and completely untrue. tax cuts add to the deficit and are not paid for. all that war spending the same exact thing. they don't ever cut any spending programs, so this "wasteful spending" they rail against is complete and utter bullshit. the whole party is a fucking joke. they INCREASED the deficit like tenfold when they had power, and when they were given a surplus in 2000. they are FRAUDS.

and like anybody really gives a fuck about deficits when unemployment is 10%. the only thing that government can do to create jobs is spending, ok? that's the bottom line. so what's more important to you, debt reduction or job creation? everyone you ask would say job creation, even the idiots who voted last night. so why would they vote republican? again, because they're stupid.

the exit polls were completely incoherent. first of all, the majority of people still blame bush for the bad economy, then wall street, then obama (who got like 20% of the blame). second, people who said they were mad at wall street voted republican (WTF?). irrational. third, when asked if they favored debt reduction, gov. spending to create jobs, or tax cuts to create jobs (which it really doesn't, only minorly), 40% said debt reduction, 35% said spending, and 19% said tax cuts. ummm.....that's a 54-40 MAJORITY who favor stimulus for job creation. and what do these morons do? they vote republican.

so, this is not in any way a rejection of obama's policies, or a complaint against "big government overreach" or whatever bullshit people are saying. it's an incoherent, illogical temper tantrum about the economy and a protest vote against the party in power, and because we only have 2 parties in this country, the pendulum swings back, inexplicably, towards the people who put us here in the first place.

so what happens now? the GOP has already said their number one goal is to make obama a one-term president (very nice, very patriotic isn't it?), so that's what their agenda will be. i'm sure they won't cooperate on anything he wants to do to continue to fix the economy. so this is gridlock. people voted to PRODUCE gridlock, which is historically the one thing people always complain that they hate about congress. that it doesn't do anything. well, if you voted republican last night then you're getting what you deserve.

i don't believe in divided government anymore. i think we should abolish the senate, and just have one party control over everything. gridlock is bullshit, let's just vote for a party and see what they do when they literally have all the power. then maybe it won't be so easy to forget when the republicans destroy the country in the quest for political gain, and people can see in their faces what that party stands for. rich people and wars.

i wish i didn't GENUINELY believe that they were out to destroy the country for political gain, but when they say their number one goal is to make obama lose re-election, how can i not? at least the democrats have ideas, policy goals, things they want to accomplish. universal health care, federal regulations, clean energy, higher taxes for the rich....these are principles that are about looking out for ordinary people, a belief in a social safety net, a collective society. if i was rich i would happily pay higher taxes, because i know how many people suffer and aren't as lucky as me. why do you NEED to own 15 houses and 30 cars, when so many people have nothing? you will always have money and never struggle for anything, no matter what you pay in taxes. for god's sake, the top income tax rate was 90% in the eisenhower era, i never hear about the majority of people complaining about that! because they didn't, because people were content and happy in that economic system. the only reason it ever changed in the first place was because republicans solidified their hold on power based on racist white southerners who hated the Civil Rights Act and black people more than they liked living in economic contentment. (and that is absolutely true, look it up in a history book, republicans rise to power in the 60s was ENTIRELY based on racial attitudes and social issues, and the reverberations of that are still in place to this day)

well, to me, it IS more important to enact economic policies that are beneficial to people, and all i can do is hope that this can be erased in 2 years, when hopefully the economy has improved. but that will be difficult with no republican cooperation, now that they control the House. it makes me very depressed, i have to say. depressed and angry at people's stupidity and wanting to run over every old white person in this country with a monster truck for their prevailing ignorance. they suck and they ruin everything when they shouldn't even be voting, they'll be dead soon anyway. fuck you old people, for fucking over the rest of us.

Movie News

William Powell, Myrna Loy and Asta the Dog

Johnny Depp wants to produce and star in an updated version of The Thin Man, the 1934 classic starring William Powell and Myrna Loy. Depp's not a bad choice for a remake, but it is seriously questionable whether or not this film should really be remade at all. it may be true that not many people have seen the original nowadays, but that fact itself is pretty shameful. The Thin Man remains just as hilarious and witty today as in '34, hasn't dated at all, and anyone who hasn't seen it should netflix it right away. i'm the first to admit that some movies feel dated and may not entice an audience of 2010, but seriously folks, The Thin Man is NOT one of them. the studios didn't have William Powell and Myrna Loy make 14 movies together for no reason. the characters of Nick and Nora Charles are still funny, still enjoyable, still have AMAZING chemistry that is picked up on right away, and Powell and Loy truly remain of the great screen couples of all time.

to me, a remake has a daunting task ahead of it and a lot to live up to. but if it would inspire people to check out the original, i'm all for it. it's truly one of those movies that i can't imagine someone not liking, even if you've never seen a movie from the 30s. in fact, especially if you've never seen a movie from the 30s, start with this one and i guarantee you you'll want to see more. it's that good.

Midterm Update (3 weeks out)

i've depressingly resigned myself to the inevitability of the Dems losing the House this year. what i think is going to happen is that they lose the House but keep the Senate. so basically, that will lead to complete and utter gridlock in the next two years, so we have that to look forward to. there are a lot of people saying a Republican House will be the best thing in the world for Obama's re-election chances, some say even sealing it, because he can run so easily against a do-nothing opposition dead set against his every move (including Arnold Schwarzenegger). but me, i'm upset because it's actually more important to me that the administration ACCOMPLISHES things in its first term. which is not to say they haven't. like i said before, this has NOT been a do-nothing Congress under Pelosi, they've passed HCR and WSR, both of which account for the most progressive legislation passed by any president since at least LBJ. and the good thing is that the benefits of that legislation will very likely be felt by 2012, whereas of now they haven't quite kicked in yet. so there's that to be optimistic about, but i had two more things that i REALLY wanted done by the end of his first term. One is the repeal of DADT and the other is comprehensive immigration reform (i've lost all hope on climate change). now, the dadt repeal could actually still happen, because the pentagon review is due by december 1st, and there IS a chance that the defense spending bill could get passed in the lame-duck session (what do those people have to lose by that point?). but i think if the republicans take over, immigration reform is basically dead. which sucks.

my only hope is this: in the lame-duck session, the dems will take the bull by the horns and pass as much as they can while they can. that will include ending the Bush tax cuts while extending those for the middle class, and passing the defense spending bill, which includes the repeal of DADT and the Dream Act, which is at least a piece of immigration reform, sort of a down payment on it. that would be pretty good at least. and if the republicans just absolutely refuse to pass it (even though it's a WAR-SPENDING bill, god how hypocritical can they be), then i think obama will go ahead and issue the stop-loss moratorium on firings. in fact i'd be shocked if he doesn't, after the review comes in saying that repealing the ban will have no impact on morale, etc., which i fully expect it to. and after all this, i suppose i'll just have to become more interested and focused on his foreign policy (i'm more of a domestic policy person, although i do want the war in Afghanistan to come to an end).

it's always the right idea to hope for the best and prepare for the worst... so here's hoping. if these last little things can get done in the lame-duck session, then his first term will still be amazingly productive in the long run. and if people are right and it helps him to get re-elected, it will also likely erase the GOP gains of 2010 and give back even bigger majorities than before.

Fair Game

as an unabashedly political person, i'm interested in this one despite awards, but it is getting some pretty good buzz too

Ranking Hitchcock

Alfred Hitchcock is of course, one of the great directors of all time. i'm happy to say that i've seen just about all his films, and every one of them has something to recommend it. he was underrated in his time by the film industry, having never received an Academy Award, despite huge commercial success. he may be one of the first directors to have name recognition as a sort of "brand" ala Steven Spielberg in later years. it's difficult to rank his flicks, but i'm going to give it a shot in the spirit of Halloween and the "Master of Suspense" Hitch was known as.

1. Notorious (1946)- Cary Grant and Ingrid Bergman; this one has everything, romance, mystery, intrigue, you name it. my personal favorite of Hitch's. Claude Rains is a great villain.
2. Psycho (1960)- what can you say? Anthony Perkins is the iconic Norman Bates, Janet Leigh is the doomed heroine killed off in the first third of the movie. almost a perfect film, and of course influential in every possible way.
3. Rear Window (1954)- this may actually be tied with Psycho for number 2. i love it, love everything about it, and the very first Hitchcock i ever saw will always have a special place in my heart.
4. Rebecca (1940)- the only Hitch to ever win Best Picture, another awesome villain in the crazy housekeeper, and my 40's heartthrob Laurence Olivier at his brooding best
5. Shadow of a Doubt (1943)- less known, but it shouldn't be, and actually Hitch's personal favorite
6. To Catch a Thief (1955)- Hitch called it a lightweight, but THIS is how you do lightweight right, star casting in Cary Grant and Grace Kelly, romantic chemistry, scenic French landscapes and it still manages to hold the suspense
7. Vertigo (1958)- awesomely creepy and weird, Jimmy Stewart in a completely out-of-character role
8. The Birds (1963)- another sentimental fave, the second Hitchcock i ever saw and the concept is STILL cool
9. Strangers on a Train (1951)- classic, some say his best
10. The 39 Steps (1935)- early attempt at his beloved innocent-man-on-the run plot
11. Dial M For Murder (1954)- lots of dialogue and villain Ray Milland as the main character, love it
12. North By Northwest (1959)- Cary on the run, famous scenes galore

I have yet to see a few of his essentials: The Lady Vanishes, Saboteur, Suspicion, Rope, The Man Who Knew Too Much, The Lodger and Marnie. But this is how i'd rank them for now.

The Tourist

major star power here, but i kinda hate angelina jolie. she's always the same and i honestly don't think she's that great of an actress. and her personality sucks. in interviews she comes across as pretentious, fake, and humorless. on the other hand, i LOVE johnny depp so i will probably be seeing this movie

The King's Speech

Colin Firth will win Best Actor this year. Take my word for it, it's a done deal.

John Lennon

Today is John Lennon's 70th birthday. Or it would have been, if not for his senseless and tragic murder almost 30 years ago. This December will mark the 30th anniversary of his death. This is in honor of the legendary Beatle. (And my all-time favorite Beatles song by the way)

Mildred Pierce (2011)

SO excited!

The Social Network

The Social Network is definitely the best movie released in 2010 so far. Working from a highly literate and witty script by Aaron Sorkin, based on the book The Accidental Billionaires, by Ben Mezrich, David Fincher directs the story of how 19 year old Mark Zuckerberg created Facebook in his dorm room at Harvard in the fall of 2003. The website would of course go on to be the largest social networking site in existence, currently boasting 500 million members and making him one of the world's youngest billionaires. The movie suggests that Zuckerberg was a genius, but also an arrogant and antisocial misfit, a guy who paradoxically "didn't have 3 friends to rub together," yet built a site that was based on collecting as many as possible online.  The real Mark Zuckerberg is apparently worried that the version of him presented onscreen will forever cement his image in the mind of the public; in the last few weeks i've heard more about the guy than i ever have before, as he's very publicly donated $100 million to the New Jersey public school system, been extensively profiled by The New Yorker to refute the image of himself as friendless and mean, and guest voice-acted on The Simpsons.

     The movie itself is perfectly paced and beautifully directed, but the real star of the film is Sorkin's script, which was apparently over 200 pages of dialogue, condensed into exactly two hours onscreen. It flows really well and the cast effortlessly delivers his zingers with perfect pitch. Jesse Eisenberg is especially good as Mark, believable in his every action and inspiration, while conveying that slightly autistic sense of focus displayed by the real Zuckerberg. The cast also includes Justin Timberlake as Sean Parker, the founder of Napster, and Andrew Garfield as Eduardo Saverin, co-founder of Facebook and Mark's only friend. Both convey a natural screen presence and sense of charisma, surprisingly so in JT's case (in my opinion). The film is structured around depositions of lawsuits against Mark, and we get the founding of Facebook through flashbacks and different perspectives, Rashomon-style. Fincher handles the scenes set at Harvard especially well, as the audience is completely absorbed into the world of elite privilege and Ivy League undergrads. Mark Zuckerberg after all, was certainly no Will Hunting from the wrong side of the tracks, who had to work his way up from nothing. He was born into existing wealth, refused a job at Microsoft after graduating high school in order to attend Harvard, and was still made to feel like an outsider when faced with the exclusive and secretive collegiate clubs that refused him entrance. 

    I expect TSN to receive multiple Oscar nods this year, including Picture, Director, Adapted Screenplay, Cinematography, Editing, and possibly a couple of acting noms as well (my money's on Garfield, as Eduardo is the only character in the film to elicit any sympathy from the audience). It's a perfect reflection of society and the way we live today, and highly recommended. 

Gossip Girl

Ed Westwick and Leighton Meester aka Chuck and Blair,  Gossip Girl's best couple

4 episodes into the fourth season, GG seems to be on a roll. i've always liked it, but the episodes seem to be gelling more, with more action, fashion, drama, and stories actually combining, which it sometimes has a hard time with. it's been much easier to stay involved in the show than certain others (like The OC) which burned out really fast, and had characters that got too annoying or bad storylines that lasted too long. GG occasionally has the opposite problem, with its plots being WAY too short, just 2-3 episodes per storyline. a decent nighttime soap has to have longer lasting arcs, and Gossip Girl sometimes seems like a daytime soap. but recently i've decided maybe that's a good thing, because i always watch and enjoy it while i'm watching it, but don't really think about it when it's over. my favorite shows of all time have always been the ones that consumed my thoughts during the season, where i HAD to know what was going to happen next, obsessed about it, vigorously researched spoilers and was basically always let down by the eventual resolution, thinking i could have written it better (Veronica Mars being the prime example). but i enjoy GG just about the right amount, where i don't miss an episode, yet even a bad twist (like last year's god-awful season finale) won't prevent me from watching the rest of it or thinking it jumped the shark. it's perfect popcorn TV.

OSCAR season is here!

so, starting this weekend, i'd say the official kick-off to the Oscar season starts. The Social Network is the first truly buzzed about movie opening this year, it's already up to 55 reviews on Rotten Tomatoes and it's still 100% fresh. people think i see a lot of movies in theaters, but in reality that's not true. i've only seen 3 movies in the theater this whole year, Kick-Ass, Toy Story 3, and Inception. the studios save the good movies for fall and winter release, in time for their Oscar campaigns, and i don't like to sit through crap movies and pay $10 for it. So i'll be keeping tabs on any oscar-worthy movies i see this fall, and these are the ones i'm most looking forward to:

1. The Social Network (David Fincher directing, Aaron Sorkin writing, can't wait)
2. 127 Hours (Danny Boyle, director of Best Pic winner Slumdog Millionaire, one of my faves)
3. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (ok, not an oscar flick, but i am a true devoted fan and i WILL be finishing the series)
4. The King's Speech (Colin Firth as the King of England, practically made for awards)
5. Black Swan (Darren Aronofsky; Natalie Portman is supposedly AMAZING)
6. True Grit (new Coen Brothers film! also with Jeff Bridges, remake of old John Wayne movie)
7. Another Year (Mike Leigh, love his films)
8. Somewhere (wild card, but i have actually liked every single one of Sofia Coppola's movies)
9. The Town (already in theaters, will probably end up seeing it, not sure on its oscar potential, but maybe)

and there's a couple indies i'm gonna need to catch up with on Netflix: Winter's Bone and The Kids Are All Right. as for the ones i've already seen, i'm gonna bet that Inception and Toy Story 3 end up as Best Pic nominees, since they're holding on to the 10 nominee thing that they did last year.

Midterms

politics drives me crazy these days, so i'll limit any entries about it to once a week. but it's old news that the democrats are going to lose at least the House in november, much to my frustration. do people not remember where we were two years ago? this mess that we're in now is not the fault of the present administration, OR the democrats. the economy is still bad and unemployment still high, but the only thing republicans have done since the election is try to ensure it STAYS that way so that voters blame the dems for it and they regain the majority. despite the fact that they, you know, caused it in the first place. and people really want to go back to that? after just 20 months? when obama took office we were losing jobs at a rate of 700,000 a month, due the Bush administration. the stimulus package he signed stopped the job losses, while not being big enough to push us into a self-sustaining recovery. a lot of economists thought the depth of the hole requires over a trillion dollar stimulus, and not 775 billion, which is what we got. the admin thought it wouldn't pass congress, and they were probably right (only 3 republicans voted for it at all, unbelievably). what the economy needs is more government intervention, more stimulus. it stopped the losses, and the recession "officially" ended in 09, but it wasn't big enough to provoke high enough hiring rates to bring down the unemployment level. so it feels like we're stuck in neutral, after before being in a freefall. and despite the positive growth we've had all year, it's just not enough to keep up with people entering the market, on top of everyone who lost their jobs. that's the recipe for more spending, if jobs are what's most important, but the political will isn't there to do it. the GOP has painted the spending process as having "failed" even though it unequivocally DID stop the freefall and prevented another Depression.

Despite the economy, the democrats have passed two major bills in this congress, health care reform and wall street reform. these are two HUGE progressive achievements, even if it didn't have everything a lot of liberals wanted. even without a public option and the breaking up of the big banks, the stuff that both bills do is on the level with anything the democrats have passed since the era of FDR and LBJ. social security wasn't perfect at first, it didn't include african-americans or farm workers in the original legislation, believe it or not. but big social legislation like health care tends to be improved over time, once it's established that everyone has a RIGHT to healthcare (which is a major thing the bill did), that will not be taken away. when entitlements are written, they never are. so i think the base really should come out and vote this year, and not be apathetic because of the economy. we're moving in the right direction and 20 months just isn't enough time to completely turn things around. if the financial crisis had happened a year before the election and not basically during bush's lame-duck session, i think obama could be blamed more for the status of the economy, but this mess that we're currently sitting in is NOT their fault, and that have taken steps to get us out. they just need more time. the republicans had 8 years to fuck up the country, i think the dems deserve more than 20 months to get us out of their shit. and why would you ever want back what put us here in the first place? not to mention these guys now are actually WORSE than what put us here, when you look at how radical the right has become. they're just insane now, with these teabagger people? i mean come on! you can't put into office as a protest vote, people who dabbled in witchcraft and oppose masturbation! or more seriously, have zero policy solutions and spout just complete and total nonsense, like saying they're for cutting the deficit but wanting to add 3 trillion dollars to it by giving tax cuts to rich people. that makes NO sense. these people are hypocrites and frauds.

you may not be happy with where we're at right now, but do the country a favor and vote democratic anyway. staying home allows the teabagger idiots to take over and stifle ANY chance at improvement. we have to give them more time, at least as much as the other side got to run things into the ground.

Glee

Glee premieres pretty soon, and i think i need to say- and i say this as a fan of the show, i actually watch it- but it is VASTLY overrated, in my opinion. i was glad Jane Lynch was the only person to win an emmy for it- she's deserving, but the show itself did NOT deserve those 18 other nominations it got. it's really not THAT good. in fact, to me it's sort of a guilty pleasure, because what i think is good about it is the singing. that's fun and i like hearing the covers of songs i know and everything, and Jane Lynch IS hilarious.....but the rest of it (meaning the acting and the storylines) kind of sucks. seriously, i have big problems with almost everything ASIDE from the singing. i think the majority of the students are terrible actors (not to mention that they look about 30) and while that could be forgiven on a show where most of the time is spent singing, what is NOT acceptable is for them to also be terrible singers. and they kind of are. the main girl (Lea Michele, who plays Rachel) came from broadway and she's great, along with the coach Mathew Morrison, but everybody else really isn't. and they get a lot of solos. and i have to say this, because it drives me absolutely nuts, more than anything else on this show. EVERY SINGLE EPISODE ends with a moral lesson to be dispatched to the kids and thereby, the audience. something along the lines of "you're beautiful as you are" or "be nice to disabled people" or "don't do drugs." it reminds me of those old "very special episodes" they would do on bad sitcoms in the 80s and 90s, in order to try to teach teens a lesson. i was horrified when i began to realize that's what they're doing, because it's AWFUL. i thought TV was past that kind of preachy phoniness, and this show is corny enough as it is with all the singing! but the singing is a good kind of corny, basically like American Idol-type cheesiness. why in the world do they need to push it even further with these horrible morality pleas without a hint of irony, when the show itself is perfectly capable of ironic jokes in a given episode. it'll spend an episode being funny and savaging pop culture and then turn around and preach this fake "lesson" at the end (and it's sincere i think, which makes it worse). it's so uneven in tone sometimes and the awful phoniness just makes me cringe in anticipation.

so, yeah it's not nearly as good as everyone thinks it is. i couldn't even recommend it to people, it's like my secret guilty pleasure (on the basis of the songs only). but they really need to quit that preachy bullshit and i fear it's only going to get worse because i hear they're cutting down the songs from 8 per episode to 5, in order to "focus on the storylines and characters." wonderful. the storylines and characters SUCK so they really shouldn't do that. unless they're going to completely change the tone of the show and get some better actors, which i doubt. they should get rid of all sincerity whatsoever and keep the whole thing completely ironic. that's when it's the best anyway. sincerity just makes it unbearable. and pair up lea michele with a better singer, the guy (Cory Monteith) who's her main love interest and partner is a triple threat FAIL. he can't sing, he can't act, and he looks 35. they brought in a guest star actor to pair with her for a few episodes (who also happened to be from broadway) and the difference in quality was just painfully obvious. get rid of Monteith, for the love of god.

Top 5 Film Noir

Mildred Pierce (1945)

Joan Crawford's greatest role, and the one she won Best Actress for. she plays a doting mother who's willing to do anything for her daughter, even murder. this film also sports one of the greatest villains in film history, i won't spoil it by telling you who it is. i first saw this movie in a film history class- it was used as the example for the whole genre of film noir, and it has all the classic elements. the story in narrative flashback, the dark shadows with all scenes set at night, the mystery. it's a great movie and i cannot WAIT to see the HBO miniseries remake next year, with Kate Winslet in the title role.

Double Indemnity (1944)

This is a close second for the best example of a film noir. the same history class showed clips from this one as well. Fred MacMurray is an insurance salesman who falls for classic femme fatale Barbara Stanwyck (from The Lady Eve). together, they conspire to murder her husband. the plotline is probably the template for every similar film that came after, and this shows why Barbara Stanwyck was one of my favorite golden age movie stars. she could do everything, from screwball comedy to melodrama to murder mystery, and all with ease. 

The Big Sleep (1946)

My personal favorite Bogie-Bacall pairing, this is the classic detective noir. Bogie is private eye Philip Marlowe, hired by a rich family to find a blackmailer, but drawn into an infinitely tangled mystery involving murder, drugs, money, and adultery. this movie famously has one of the most complicated plots of all time, and you really do have to pay attention to all the twists and turns, but it has a great climax and i'd say it's Humphrey Bogart's second best show of his classic "persona," after Casablanca of course.

The Postman Always Rings Twice (1946)

I love this movie and i'd say it was another perfect example of a noir, because it's structured in voiceover narrative again, this time from the guy's point of view. John Garfield is a drifter who has an affair with Lana Turner, the wife of a diner owner. this may have been the first film to take off of Double Indemnity, because again they're plotting to get rid of her husband, but the story takes it a bit further in this one. Garfield and Turner have great chemistry, which is probably why this was remade in 1981 with Jack Nicholson and Jessica Lange, a version that included a ton of graphic sex scenes.

Sunset Boulevard (1950)

William Holden stars as a man who gets involved with Gloria Swanson, an aged movie star from the silent era, who lives in a creepy old mansion and draws him into her web. this is the one with the famous opening of him lying dead in the pool, while beginning to narrate the story from beyond the grave. Billy Wilder wrote and directed this one, one of many in his resume of great films (he also did Double Indemnity, Some Like it Hot, Sabrina, and The Apartment, to name some of my favorites).

*I have to put a disclaimer here that this entry might change, because i haven't quite seen every film noir i need to yet. i still have to see The Third Man, Laura, Out of the Past, and Pick-Up on South Street.

Mad Men

Mad Men just won its third straight Emmy for Best Drama Series, but this was also its third year in a row where none of the actors won.  every year more of the actors from the show are nominated, yet they never win. why is that? this year they had Jon Hamm, John Slattery, January Jones, Christina Hendricks, Elisabeth Moss, and Robert Morse up for individual acting awards, but they all went home empty-handed. trust me, i think this show deserves to win the Best Drama award every year but none of it would work if they didn't have good acting. Jon Hamm in particular was born for the role of Don Draper and has dominated every episode since the first season. he should have definitely won by now.

MM continues to be on a role midway through its fourth season, as the show progresses into 1965 and starts to get into the period most people tend to think of as "the 60's." it was wondered how the show was going to handle the transition into this much parodied (and much filmed) era, because it's so drastically different from the late 50s, early 60s time period that it encapsulates so perfectly right now. that remains to be seen for me. how realistic would it be to turn one of these established characters into a hippie or an activist for example? and i've waited years now for them to introduce a minority character for even a guest starring role, in order to note the civil rights progression, which by now is in full effect. so far, nothing. actually, i've suspected that the lack of attention paid to those major changes is due to a lack of any black writers behind the scenes. they have plenty of female writers though, which is why gender issues has always been a huge theme of the show and has been done so well. i wonder if they're just afraid of somehow "doing it wrong" in the area of civil rights, so they stay away from it completely. occasionally i have wondered if the show should have just been set in the late 50s to begin with, that way it could end its run in the same era, but i have to think the reason they've skipped so much time in the first place was because they wanted to show the characters go through that major social change. so we'll see how they handle it (and i've been SEVERELY disappointed in the lack of Beatles references, come on people!)

Top 5 Screwball Comedies

The Lady Eve (1941)

This is an amazing movie, one of my all time favorites. Barbara Stanwyck is a con artist and card shark, trained by her father to rob rich guys out of their money. She targets adorably naive and gullible Henry Fonda for her next scam, and ends up falling for him for real. Writer-director Preston Sturges only did a handful of movies in the 40's, over a span of 5 years. He burned out quick and died penniless, but the films he left behind showcase what a true talent he was. The screenplay is perfection, with an absolutely perfect semi-twist ending that i NEVER saw coming. 

His Girl Friday (1940)

Probably the fastest spoken dialogue in the history of movies, it still amazes me to see how they did it. It's hard to pick between this and The Lady Eve for my favorite, but i'd have to say this one is probably funnier but less romantic (hence, why Eve just edges it out for me). Still, this movie is HILARIOUS, i don't think i stopped laughing the entire way through it. Cary Grant has his funniest role ever here, as a newspaper editor who tricks his ex-wife Rosalind Russell into sticking around for a murder case story in order to stop her from getting remarried.  Love this one.

It Happened One Night (1934)

 One of the earliest screwball comedies ever made, and one of the best. I think it's actually Frank Capra's least sentimental work as well. Clark Gable and Claudette Colbert are on the road, running from society girl Colbert's father, who's forcing her to marry a guy she doesn't love. Gable is secretly a journalist out for the story (kind of a precursor to Roman Holiday). This also has one of the most famous and influential runaway bride scenes of all time, you'll know it when you see it. Swept the Oscars in 1934, winning Best Picture, Director, Actor and Actress.

Bringing Up Baby (1938)

This is usually the one people reference when they're trying to come up with an example for the definition of a "screwball comedy." Ridiculous plot, rapid-fire dialogue, absurd situations, fast pace, etc. In my opinion it's not as funny as His Girl Friday, but you should definitely see it anyway. Cary Grant is lampooning Harold Lloyd with his nerdy paleontologist, and this is definitely one of Katharine Hepburn's best and most different performances.

My Man Godfrey (1936)

Starring William Powell (from The Thin Man, one of my favorite movies ever) and Carole Lombard (one of the few star comediennes in all of film history), this is a great one just as much for its snapshot of America right in the midst of the Great Depression. Carole Lombard is a rich airhead who picks up a homeless bum to come home and be the butler for her insane family. There are quite a few movies in the 30's that loved making fun of the wealthy, showing them off as buffoons and crooks who don't deserve what they have. (It's a theme that's brought up in The Lady Eve as well).