I couldn't write this any better:

Friends,

Monday marked the day that we had been in Iraq longer than we were in all of World War II.

That's right. We were able to defeat all of Nazi Germany, Mussolini, and the entire Japanese empire in LESS time than it's taken the world's only superpower to secure the road from the airport to downtown Baghdad.

And we haven't even done THAT. After 1,347 days, in the same time it took us to took us to sweep across North Africa, storm the beaches of Italy, conquer the South Pacific, and liberate all of Western Europe, we cannot, after over 3 and 1/2 years, even take over a single highway and protect ourselves from a homemade device of two tin cans placed in a pothole. No wonder the cab fare from the airport into Baghdad is now running around $35,000 for the 25-minute ride. And that doesn't even include a friggin' helmet.

Is this utter failure the fault of our troops? Hardly. That's because no amount of troops or choppers or democracy shot out of the barrel of a gun is ever going to "win" the war in Iraq. It is a lost war, lost because it never had a right to be won, lost because it was started by men who have never been to war, men who hide behind others sent to fight and die.

Let's listen to what the Iraqi people are saying, according to a recent poll conducted by the University of Maryland:

** 71% of all Iraqis now want the U.S. out of Iraq.

** 61% of all Iraqis SUPPORT insurgent attacks on U.S. troops.

Yes, the vast majority of Iraqi citizens believe that our soldiers should be killed and maimed! So what the hell are we still doing there? Talk about not getting the hint.

There are many ways to liberate a country. Usually the residents of that country rise up and liberate themselves. That's how we did it. You can also do it through nonviolent, mass civil disobedience. That's how India did it. You can get the world to boycott a regime until they are so ostracized they capitulate. That's how South Africa did it. Or you can just wait them out and, sooner or later, the king's legions simply leave (sometimes just because they're too cold). That's how Canada did it.

The one way that DOESN'T work is to invade a country and tell the people, "We are here to liberate you!" -- when they have done NOTHING to liberate themselves. Where were all the suicide bombers when Saddam was oppressing them? Where were the insurgents planting bombs along the roadside as the evildoer Saddam's convoy passed them by? I guess ol' Saddam was a cruel despot -- but not cruel enough for thousands to risk their necks. "Oh no, Mike, they couldn't do that! Saddam would have had them killed!" Really? You don't think King George had any of the colonial insurgents killed? You don't think Patrick Henry or Tom Paine were afraid? That didn't stop them. When tens of thousands aren't willing to shed their own blood to remove a dictator, that should be the first clue that they aren't going to be willing participants when you decide you're going to do the liberating for them.

A country can HELP another people overthrow a tyrant (that's what the French did for us in our revolution), but after you help them, you leave. Immediately. The French didn't stay and tell us how to set up our government. They didn't say, "we're not leaving because we want your natural resources." They left us to our own devices and it took us six years before we had an election. And then we had a bloody civil war. That's what happens, and history is full of these examples. The French didn't say, "Oh, we better stay in America, otherwise they're going to kill each other over that slavery issue!"

The only way a war of liberation has a chance of succeeding is if the oppressed people being liberated have their own citizens behind them -- and a group of Washingtons, Jeffersons, Franklins, Gandhis and Mandellas leading them. Where are these beacons of liberty in Iraq? This is a joke and it's been a joke since the beginning. Yes, the joke's been on us, but with 655,000 Iraqis now dead as a result of our invasion (source: Johns Hopkins University), I guess the cruel joke is on them. At least they've been liberated, permanently.

So I don't want to hear another word about sending more troops (wake up, America, John McCain is bonkers), or "redeploying" them, or waiting four months to begin the "phase-out." There is only one solution and it is this: Leave. Now. Start tonight. Get out of there as fast as we can. As much as people of good heart and conscience don't want to believe this, as much as it kills us to accept defeat, there is nothing we can do to undo the damage we have done. What's happened has happened. If you were to drive drunk down the road and you killed a child, there would be nothing you could do to bring that child back to life. If you invade and destroy a country, plunging it into a civil war, there isn’t much you can do ‘til the smoke settles and blood is mopped up. Then maybe you can atone for the atrocity you have committed and help the living come back to a better life.

The Soviet Union got out of Afghanistan in 36 weeks. They did so and suffered hardly any losses as they left. They realized the mistake they had made and removed their troops. A civil war ensued. The bad guys won. Later, we overthrew the bad guys and everybody lived happily ever after. See! It all works out in the end!

The responsibility to end this war now falls upon the Democrats. Congress controls the purse strings and the Constitution says only Congress can declare war. Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi now hold the power to put an end to this madness. Failure to do so will bring the wrath of the voters. We aren't kidding around, Democrats, and if you don't believe us, just go ahead and continue this war another month. We will fight you harder than we did the Republicans. The opening page of my website has a photo of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, each made up by a collage of photos of the American soldiers who have died in Bush's War. But it is now about to become the Bush/Democratic Party War unless swift action is taken.

This is what we demand:

1. Bring the troops home now. Not six months from now. NOW. Quit looking for a way to win. We can't win. We've lost. Sometimes you lose. This is one of those times. Be brave and admit it.

2. Apologize to our soldiers and make amends. Tell them we are sorry they were used to fight a war that had NOTHING to do with our national security. We must commit to taking care of them so that they suffer as little as possible. The mentally and physically maimed must get the best care and significant financial compensation. The families of the deceased deserve the biggest apology and they must be taken care of for the rest of their lives.

3. We must atone for the atrocity we have perpetuated on the people of Iraq. There are few evils worse than waging a war based on a lie, invading another country because you want what they have buried under the ground. Now many more will die. Their blood is on our hands, regardless for whom we voted. If you pay taxes, you have contributed to the three billion dollars a week now being spent to drive Iraq into the hellhole it's become. When the civil war is over, we will have to help rebuild Iraq. We can receive no redemption until we have atoned.

In closing, there is one final thing I know. We Americans are better than what has been done in our name. A majority of us were upset and angry after 9/11 and we lost our minds. We didn't think straight and we never looked at a map. Because we are kept stupid through our pathetic education system and our lazy media, we knew nothing of history. We didn't know that WE were the ones funding and arming Saddam for many years, including those when he massacred the Kurds. He was our guy. We didn't know what a Sunni or a Shiite was, never even heard the words. Eighty percent of our young adults (according to National Geographic) were not able to find Iraq on the map. Our leaders played off our stupidity, manipulated us with lies, and scared us to death.

But at our core we are a good people. We may be slow learners, but that "Mission Accomplished" banner struck us as odd, and soon we began to ask some questions. Then we began to get smart. By this past November 7th, we got mad and tried to right our wrongs. The majority now know the truth. The majority now feel a deep sadness and guilt and a hope that somehow we can make make it all right again.

Unfortunately, we can't. So we will accept the consequences of our actions and do our best to be there should the Iraqi people ever dare to seek our help in the future. We ask for their forgiveness.

We demand the Democrats listen to us and get out of Iraq now.

Yours,

Michael Moore

After two cinematic masterpieces in a row (The Fountain and Children of Men), my friend gave me a DVD screener copy of Babel. To be honest, I HATED Iñárritu's last film, "21 Grams," despite Naomi Watts galvanic performance in that film, the stupid editing choices made it almost unbearable to watch. This is why I came into great hesitation when viewing Babel. Will it be just like the almost unwatchable "21 Grams" or like his first film (and masterpiece) "Amores Perros"? I found "Amores Perros" to be hugely enjoyable not just for entertainment's sake but for cinematic's sake as well. Despite the numerous characters and plotlines, the editing made everything flow succinctly into an explosive ending. As for Babel, you can say that I disliked it or you can say that I truly hated it. The fact is that there are moments of sheer brilliance in Babel but it's flaws tear through the film so much that most of that brilliance is diluted.



"Babel" starts in Morocco where a Moroccan hunter gives his neighbor a rifle to help kill the jackals that attack his goat herds. Two brothers are given this task but as always in movies, one of the kids always has to suck with the gun. The brother who is great with the gun tries to showoff and goes to shoot a bus. He shoots it and seconds later the bus stops and this leads to........



.....Susan (Cate Blanchett) getting shot in the shoulder. Chaos enters the film and it manages do to the same thing with the clarity of the film. There are four plotlines to the film. The Moroccan family and the rifle, Richard (Brad Pitt) and his wife in a little town in Morocco, Richard's kids being babysat by Amelia (Adriana Barraza) and their trials and tributions to get to her son's wedding with Santiago (Gael García Bernal), and finally a Japanese story about Chieko (Rinko Kikuchi), a deaf-mute who has trouble communicating that she's just lonely.



Throughout the film, Iñárritu tries to get these four stories to mesh clearly but again like "21 Grams" he fails. The problem is that there are too many stories to be told. If the film is about communication and the lack thereof, then he has already failed. There are two stories that deal with this: the Japanese story and the Moroccan family story and the connection the Japanese story has with the others is so tacked on it's unbelieveable (even the picture that connects the stories is laughable). The story with Richard and Susan fails miserably due to the fact that they have a Morrocan translator with them. How can there be any miscommunication if you have someone you can speak for you? The babysitter story goes nowhere and ends with the subject of deportation. If there is only one great story here it's about the Moroccan family. The story is edited clearly, all of the characters are strongly developed, and most of all, the subject of miscommunication is present throughout the entire plotline.



Another underlying problem with the film is the lack of realism. Iñárritu wanted to make a picture close to realism as clearly as possible but he fails with his screenwriter, Guillermo Arriaga, in constructing realistic ways in concluding the 3 of the 4 plotlines.

I'm sorry but Babel is again a failure for Iñárritu. "Amores Perros" had a personal vision from Iñárritu and I'm sad to say that it isn't in "Babel" at all. Every scene in "Amores Perros" was intense and electrifying, in "Babel" most of the scenes start with a thud and end the same way.

I find it funny that films like this are being highly regarded because they are "important". The thing is that because it is "important" they fail to see it's true flaws.

When Darren Aronofsky's "The Fountain" finished, I didn't know what the hell I just saw. I felt confused but exhilarated. The beautiful piano music that was on myspace was being played during the end credits (thankfully, the humming is gone). Almost the entire audience sat there in disbelief for about 30 seconds. I went home, feeling disappointed that I didn't understand the film. That is, until, I began reading Devin Faraci notes on the film. Faraci is a film critic for chud.com and he was the first one to champion this film. As I read his notes, everything from the film began to get clearer. What details that were fuzzy were now crystalline, the narrative that felt all over the place had begun fitting itself perfectly.



This is not a film to be just seen, it has to be experienced. It is not a commercially made film about love but it is a true art film ahead of its time. Most film critics hated the film and felt that it was pretentious. I think that they use the word "pretentious" because they don't know what they dislike about it. Richard Roeper, Ebert's sidekick, called the film "one of the worst of the year." I believe that many critics disliked the film because of one reason: it is different. It has to be absorbed through the mind to be made sense of, it doesn't take one viewing to fully appreciate its message and narrative.



Is the film perfect? No, there is no such thing as a perfect film. There are a few flaws, there are some scenes that characters repeat the same actions and there are some scenes that feel shockingly mediocre. Aside from these flaws, Aronofsky's direction is still breathtaking, magnificent, and glorious. But the film would be nothing without Clint Mansell's powerful, minimalistic, and during the finale, bombastic score. This score is deserving of the best score at the Academy Awards, it is that good. The final musical piece is just so goddamn beautiful.

I thought "Children of Men" was the best film of the year. I was wrong.

"The Fountain" is the true best film of the year.

Alfonso Cuarón's "Children of Men" may be the best film I have seen, hands down, all year. Clive Owen's performance is quite amazing. There are two scenes where he breaks down and all you can do is shed a tear with him. But the credit has to go to Cuarón and his cinematographer, Emmanuel Lubezki. Using Lubezki's way to manipulating natural light, Cuarón presents us a vision of the future so shitty that they even sell suicidal drugs over the counter. There is also one amazing scene that is seen in one complete unbroken shot so phenomenal it has to be seen to be believed.



-----------------------------

Saw Casino Royale last Saturday. It's the best Bond film since 1995's "Goldeneye" (I think I'm biased because of the fucking N64 game, gotta love the Facility level) and I think Daniel Craig is a much better Bond than Pierce Brosnan. I didn't give a shit about Brosnan in the Bond films he starred in. Here Craig is punched, kicked, slashed at, drugged, and tortured so much his balls got itchy. You actually give a shit about him. Eva Green was hot as always and there's one thing I noticed about her. She looks amazingly hot but hotter WITHOUT makeup. I thought I was looking at a different person during the scene where she's putting her makeup on. It was like she was putting on a mask over her beautiful face where she was putting on some makeup. But for all its positives, there's only one negative. When Bond gets some deserved R&R, the film does the same thing as well and the film drags at that point.

-----------------------------

It looks like I was wrong. Pacquiao did win. In mind-blowingly fashion no less. I was right, someone did get knocked out in the 3rd round. I just chose the wrong guy, that's all. I hope that the Pacman goes against Edwin Valero next and knocks his ass out. Oh yeah, the fight looks fucking amazing is high-definition.

-----------------------------

The Philippines may have some of the worst movies ever made (c'mon, the movies are shot on video NOT film) but man, one advertisement on anti-hunger just blew my mind. You can see it here.

-----------------------------

My final project shoot went pretty well. The shoot was pretty fast (about 5 hours) and the actor I recruited (Ben Castro, Jorge's cousin) was pretty cool with what I gave him. I put bologna on his face, I made him chow down a shitload of bologna, I made him look like a pussy, and all other stuff. I just hope that the film gets exposed properly. I was just kinda disappointed that Jorge wasn't there to act as the third roommate. I had to act as the third roommate and Wency hasn't used a Bolex camera before so I hope the shot didn't turn out to be shit.

-----------------------------

I've listened to Incubus' new album (I downloaded it OKAY!) and I'm pretty disappointed. I think I just need to listen to it more but what the fuck happened to the diversity that was in their 2001 album, "Morning View"?

It's Pacquiao vs. Morales III on Saturday and I'm pretty excited. I do have some doubt though that Pacquiao is going to have an easy time with Morales. I had a dream of Pacquiao being knocked out somewhere between the 3rd and 5th rounds sometime last week and that got me pretty scared. I usually have dreams where things are so normal that they happen in real life sometimes a couple of days later or even months later. I hope this is an all-out war because Morales isn't that proficient in wars. What Morales excels is that he's a great boxer but never a great puncher. He's excellent at strategy and the first Pac-Morales fight is an example of this.

If Morales does transform into a strategist throughout the entire fight, Pacquiao MUST come forward but also doing a little boxing as well. I've heard that Pac has included a massive right hook as well as some body shots to his arsenal apart from his magnificent left hand. I really hope that Pacquiao knocks out Morales on Saturday. Not some sissy TKO but a real knockout.

In other notes....
I just saw the new Incubus video and man, their new song "Anna-Molly" is in my head and it doesn't want to get out. I'm definitely buying the new album "Light Grenades" when it's released on November 28th.

After watching that trailer for the upcoming Simpsons movie I wondered, "What the hell happened to the Simpsons?" It is no longer funny, the characters no longer engaging, and the stories are no longer humorous. Homer is now really really stupid, Bart is just an average rebel, Lisa is an overachiever who lectures, and Marge just tells everyone to be good. One person wrote in a forum, "A true fan wouldn't hate the Simpsons. I still love the episodes today." The problem is that not of the wit, originality, and most of all comedy is gone from the Simpsons.

Let's compare some quotes:
Pre-Season 10 Simpsons:

Homer: Are you saying you're never going to eat any animal again? What about bacon?
Lisa: No.
Homer: Ham?
Lisa: No.
Homer: Pork chops?
Lisa: Dad, those all come from the same animal.
Homer: Heh heh heh. Ooh, yeah, right, Lisa. A wonderful, magical animal.

Post-season 10 Simpsons:

Fat Tony: Welcome to my home
Marge: [gasps] Must have cost a fortune
Fat Tony: Actually, you can really keep costs down when you don't pay for materials, or labor, or permits or...land.
Homer: Wow, your paintings have brush marks. And your statues have weiners.
Fat Tony: Your words honor my family.

Comments?

This is what the Spider-Man 3 trailer should have been.

Man, I was so sick this morning. My shit was absolute water, my stomach felt so bad, I was so cold, and my muscles really hurt. Took some Tylenol Flu but that only helped a little bit. Before I went to class, I took a shower and what do you know....it helped....a lot. I still felt kinda sick during class but at least I wasn't puking my guts out (I wanted to puke so bad this morning). I was kinda disappointed in my film teacher today. She lost my second treatment for my final project. So now I'll have to e-mail her another one. But that's not a big problem.

I saw a television spot of Darren Aronofsky's "The Fountain" and man, one frame just blew me away. The frame is composed of Rachel Weisz's face in a overly high key light that makes her face look angelic. She says softly, "Together we will live forever," then a tear streams down her cheek. I just got chills watching that. Man, I can't wait for this movie.

Borat: OH. MY. GOD. This film give me lot of good time! One of best movie film of year!

Jesus. I have never laughed at any other movie harder than this. YES, even more than 40-Year-Old Virgin. So many great scenes. There are so many scenes that so funny that I didn't even get to watch a couple of scenes because I was laughing so hard at the scenes before. Yes, this movie will offend you but it will make you laugh. HARD.

GIVE ME SEXYTIME!

After Saw III, I wanted to watch a good movie. Fortunately, Perfume: The Story of a Murderer is that movie and then some. You can say I loved this movie but that would be an understatement. This is sublime, magical filmmaking. Tom Tywker (Run Lola Run) has fashioned a period film where the main character has a nose for everything. When I mean everything, it is really everything.

The movie is spectacular in a way other movies haven't dared to do.....visualizing the smell of scents. Using close-ups, crosscuts, matchcuts, visual effects, Tywker uses everything in his command to show the viewer what smells can do to a person. Apart from the amazing performances of Alan Rickman and Dustin Hoffman, the standout here is newcomer Ben Whishaw who plays Jean-Baptiste Grenouille. His performance is nothing short of stunning. He isn't an out and out villain but more of a misunderstood character that relies on his olfactory talents to feel the world. The line "follow your nose" has never met a character more than Grenouille.

Apart from the great adapted storyline (which was said to be unfilmable) and great performances, the cinematography here is gorgeous. Instead of using green screens or computer graphics to fill his canvas, Tywker uses actual people and sets and here it is a great advantage. The places we see feel bigger, the people we see feel real, and most of all it has a sense of gravity that lends itself to something bigger, palpable reality.

Because of the dedicated reality that Tywker places his characters, it's as if that the story actually happened (despite it being fiction). From the muddy, disgusting images of Paris to the limitless motivation that Whishaw brings to his character, this is absolutely one of the best films of the year.