response 211 of 327:

Feb 11 06:20 UTC 2003

re: a few items back-- Clees, "Gangs of New York" is about a very violent
time in New York City's history, the mid 19th century.  Basically the old
protestant/catholic conflict taking place over in England and Ireland came
over to NYC along with the new immigrants.  The old line protestants,
primarily descendants of British settlers, took exception to the great
wave of new Irish immigrants.  They saw the new Irish immigrants coming
over on boat after boat as lower class, and unwelcome.  And particularly
the Irish catholics.  The establishment at the time, embodied in the movie
by Daniel Day Lewis, saw America as the great protestant land, and did not
want catholics coming over to even have rights.  

The conflicts between the old guard, and people of other faiths, races,
and countries coming to this country and trying to gain acceptance and
freedom, defines the history of the U.S.  And New York City, by virtue of
its being the largest city and the arrival point for most immigrants from
Europe, was at the center of that struggle.  The struggle, as shown, was
in some ways more violent and pronounced in New York City than anywhere.
New York City was torn apart in the 18th and early 19th century with
battles, corruption, crime and bigotry brought over from Europe.  The city
was torched and much of it burned down more than once in that era.

But the point Scorcese is trying to make in the movie, and I think he
makes it well, is that the Civil War changed everything.  After the war,
everything changed.  Suddenly, everyone in New York City-- and the
country-- who had been feuding, had a common history.  Everyone had blood
shed now, people had died across all social, racial, ethnic, religious
barriers.  Finally, what everyone in this country had in common could
start to become more important than whatever differences they had.  Day
Lewis and DiCaprio are shown at the end ultimately realizing the futility
of their battle, that time was passing them by.  DiCaprio is shown in the
final scene at his father's grave, in the same cemetary as Day Lewis's
grave, and lamenting that nobody was going to remember who they were.  And
the final shot is the skyline of New York City, which from the civil war
forward changed forever, as people of the various classes/sects that had
been feuding finally started working together.  You see the NYC skyline
changing as that feuding, bitterly divided town became the greatest city
in the world, with diversity as it strength.  

response 213 of 327:

Feb 11 19:11 UTC 2003

Hell, the Irish are no longer mainstream - they are cool as hell at this
point.

response 217 of 327:

Feb 14 20:54 UTC 2003

Under the bold assumption that seeing a movie on TV "counts", IWLTA that I
recently saw on either FX or SciFi (I forget which) a 1979 release entitled
"Meteor".  Think "Armaggedon" with 1970's technological effects (although Star
Wars had much, much more than this).  Meteor had an "all-star" line up of
actors:

-Sean Connery: The "save earth from meteors" scientist.
-Carl Malden: A cabinet science advisor or something.
-Martin Landau: The military guy who had made SC's device into a weapon.
-Henry Fonda: The US prez
-Brian Keith: SC's Russian counterpart
-Natalie Wood: BK's English-Russian interpreter

The story line was a rogue comet collided with a "giant" asteroid and sent
it on a collision course with earth.  Earth could only be saved if the US and
the Russians cooperated to launch their orbiting nuclear warheads in concert
to explode that nasty ole asteroid cum meteor.

response 219 of 327:

Feb 16 15:03 UTC 2003

admordeo lingua?

response 221 of 327:

Feb 18 16:19 UTC 2003

I should really watch some more Almodovar movies; the only one I've
ever seen was "Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown."
The movie rcsa cites is now playing the USA under the title "Talk to Her."

response 223 of 327:

Feb 19 16:16 UTC 2003

I saw (thanks to the snowstorm):

"American History X" - One of hte greatest movies on hatred I have ever seen.
A tremendous acting turn by some great actors, Edward Norton being number one,
but Ed Furlong, Stacy Keach and Beverly D'Angelo were amazing as well.  Keach
creeped me out, that's for sure.

"Monsoon Wedding" - I liked this movie - I liked how there were about 15
different stories going on.  I had been led to believe that it was very funny
- which was not true, but it was good none the less.

"Bourne Identity" - Eh.  Matt Damon is hot?

"Sweet Home Alabama" - Eh.  Ethan Embry and the guy playing her husband is
hot?

"About A Boy" - Good good movie.  Loved Hugh Grant and Toni Collette - the
kid playing Marcus was amazing.  Not as good as the book, but it was still
a great movie.

"Dare Devil" - Eh.  Some great effects.  Colin Farrel is hot.

response 225 of 327:

Feb 19 16:53 UTC 2003

If you've read "About a Boy", you might appreciate it more.

response 227 of 327:

Feb 19 17:43 UTC 2003

I found "Monsoon Wedding" fascinating for the glimpse it provided
into an unfamiliar culture.  But I'm a Westerner.  Someone who's
part of the culture and who's seen lots of similar movies would no
doubt have a different perspective.

response 229 of 327:

Feb 19 19:36 UTC 2003

American History X is awesome.