New Coen Brothers Film!

Holy dear god, does this look like it's going to ROCK!



Coen Brothers dramas are great. Coen Brothers comedies are the BEST, though!

The Candidates and How They Will Affect Your Taxes

An article popped up on my iGoogle page a few days ago, titled "How McCain and Obama Will Change Your Tax Bill" I'm instantly interested, because the main argument of conservatives is that they don't want another "tax and spend Democrat" stealing all the money from their pockets. Yet, from what I understood of the candidates tax policies, it sounds to me like Obama will benefit 98% or the population, while McCains will only really benefit the top 2%. It turns out that isn't far from the truth.

The most intriguing aspects of the plans are clearly laid out in the table to the right. I don't understand how the American public has fallen for the claims of the conservatives. Everyone below $112,000 per year will do better under the Obama plan than under McCain plan. That's around 90% of the US. Those who would benefit the most are those below $66,000 dollars...those who need that money the most.

The Republicans can't even use the argument that the Democratic plan will increase the deficit...true, Barack's plan will increase the national debt by $3.3 trillion over ten years. But McCain's will increase the debt by $4.5 trillion. All so that the members of our society who need the money the least won't have to pay as much each year.

I don't understand the logic. Is this simply pandering to those in our society who hold the most power? Do the Republicans get something in return for what appears to be such selfish and elitist tax policies?

I understand that this study is fairly simple, in terms of overall economic policy in each campaign. McCain's camp claims that his fight against earmarks and rampant government spending will reign in the deficit numbers. Yet, that still doesn't explain how giving money back to the people who need it least will improve the economy. I'm sorry, I just don't see the gains claimed by trickle-down economics. (Maybe someone can show me a site that refutes that?)

The Incredible Hulk Movie Review

So...THAT is how you make a HULK movie!

Wow. Marvel is on fire. This is the movie that the Hulk deserves...huge, loud, violent and totally fun.

I find it interesting that instead of continuing with the story set up in Ang Lee's flaccid 2003 movie, they instead seem to have embraced the old Bill Bixby TV show. We've got a Bruce Banner on the run, trying to find a cure, and keep from hurting those around him.

The acting is all stellar. Ed Norton does his usually fantastic job as Bruce Banner. Liv Tyler is good as well. I like that she wasn't just a damsel in distress in this film, though she did play that part as well, but her Betty Ross helped move the story along. (Though, I wish we could have had someone who had a bit more of a bookish quality about them...she IS supposed to be a scientist in this, after all!) Still, she and Norton seemed to have some real chemistry between them, and you bought that they were in love. Then, there was Tim Roth. God, he was just creepy in this. Genius casting as the big villain of the film, and he was a great foil to Ed Norton.

As for the Hulk himself, there were a few problems. Outside of Gollum, I've never bought a CGI character in a live action film. It almost always pulls me from the story, and this Hulk was no different. He didn't seem quite real, though the decision to make him look not just solid but hard was a good one...much better than the squishy Hulk of the Ang Lee film. However, he did suffer from not looking quite real enough in many shots, not to mention the fact that his size relative to everyone else changed throughout the film (sometimes he looked 10 feet tall, others, around 7 feet tall)

Still, overall, the movie was great. It's a good time to be a superhero fan.