what does scorcese have to do?

at our oscar gathering the consensus was that his best shot will be to make a holocaust movie about a black paraplegic who survives the camps and then single-handedly de-segregates alabama (jamie foxx wins best supporting actor as martin luther king). that or maybe a mussolini biopic.

not that any of us (at the gathering) have actually seen “the aviator”.

and oh, in your face, rwanda!

i like huckabees

just finished watching. why did this get savaged by so many people? i thought it was pretty good. in fact until the 1 hour 10 minute mark i thought it was really, really good. then it got stupid for a while, but the last 10 minutes were pretty good again. it is a genuinely quirky film, one that comes by its quirks honestly, through asking questions it sincerely means (even if the answers don’t end up being very interesting)–unlike, say, via formal whiz-bangery like so much charlie kaufman. (actually this film reminded me of my favorite kaufman written film, “human nature”.) and some really good performances too: jason schwartzmann (looking like someone shrank luke wilson) and mark wahlberg in particular.

anyone else seen it? i recommend it.