For the English version of this article click here.
Votul uninominal. Ce a inteles tata si ma gandesc ca poate si altii: "astia ma obliga sa aleg un singur om". Mi-a placut perspectiva si mi-am dat seama de doua lucruri, pe care poate le-as fi stiut dinainte, daca as fi avut un pic de vreme sa cuget asupra acestor alegeri:
1. nu ai de unde alege - lu' tata nu-i placea niciunul dintre canditatii din colegiul unde vota. Pe multi dintre ei nici nu ii stia din doua motive: campanii electorale proaste si o oarecare lipsa de interes din partea votantului (tata se uita doar la stiri si dezbateri, nu se da pe internet si nici nu citeste ziare). Tata ar fi vrut sa aiba o lista cu mai multi candidati din acelasi partid si acolo sa puna votul pe cel pe care il considera demn de votul lui. Adica dorea partidul, dar si un candidat bun. Prin urmare, cauza votului uninominal nu e pierduta, dar sa nu fim "obligati".
2. oamenii nu sunt pregatiti sa voteze persoane - tata il vrea pe Stolojan ca prim-ministru si sa ii fie bine in Cluj, deci vrea PDL-ul la putere. Trebuie sa mai treaca multi ani si candidatii sa fie oameni "vizibili", pentru ca ei sa fie mai importanti decat partidul, iar faptele/planurile lor mai importante decat asa-zisa doctrina.
2008/11/30
Voting with my father
Vote people, and not parties. Here is what my father understood and what probably others think about this new voting system: "they make me to choose only one person; they did not give me any choice". I liked the perspective and I suddenly realized two things that probably I would have known before, if I had had some time to think about these elections:
1. there is no choice - my dad did not like any of the candidates proposed for our neighborhood. Moreover, he did not know most of them for two reasons: bad electoral campaigns, and lack of interest from his part (he only watches the news and some talk-shows, and he does not read any newspapers and he does not go online). My dad wished to have a list with more candidates from the same party and to have the chance to choose the "right" person. In other words, he wanted one specific party, but also a good candidate. So, the new system will still have some chances to be implemented, if it does not force people to vote one man.
2. the Romanians are not ready to vote "people". My dad wants Stolojan as prime minister and he wants to have a good life in Cluj, so he wants the Democrat-Liberal Party to win these elections. But we need more time and more visible candidates, so that they will be considered more important than their party, and their actions/plans - more important than the party's fake"doctrine".
1. there is no choice - my dad did not like any of the candidates proposed for our neighborhood. Moreover, he did not know most of them for two reasons: bad electoral campaigns, and lack of interest from his part (he only watches the news and some talk-shows, and he does not read any newspapers and he does not go online). My dad wished to have a list with more candidates from the same party and to have the chance to choose the "right" person. In other words, he wanted one specific party, but also a good candidate. So, the new system will still have some chances to be implemented, if it does not force people to vote one man.
2. the Romanians are not ready to vote "people". My dad wants Stolojan as prime minister and he wants to have a good life in Cluj, so he wants the Democrat-Liberal Party to win these elections. But we need more time and more visible candidates, so that they will be considered more important than their party, and their actions/plans - more important than the party's fake"doctrine".
2008/11/20
You make me feel like I can fly!
Listen to it! It's incredible. The Edge and Bono drive me crazy (in a positive way). :D They prolong the beginning of the song, and make me (as a person who already knows the song) to "beg" for the "drums", to make Larry to play. They prepare me step by step for... elevation! Listen to it on high volume, even if your doctor and your friends say that you will become deaf. :) I recommend you the entire concert from Chicago or U23D.
Note: Pause the playlist from the right column of this blog, before playing this video (or you are going to have some noise instead of real music).;)
This is a special gift for you my friend, for your birthday - Happy Birthday!
Note: Pause the playlist from the right column of this blog, before playing this video (or you are going to have some noise instead of real music).;)
This is a special gift for you my friend, for your birthday - Happy Birthday!
2008/11/15
Ce se intampla, doctore?
For the English version of this article click here.
Argentina, Australia, Brazilia, Canada, China, Franta, Germania, India, Indonezia, Italia, Japonia, Mexic, Rusia, Arabia Saudita, Africa de Sud, Coreea de Sud, Turcia, Marea Britanie, Statele Unite si Uniunea Europeana fac parte din G20 si detin 85% din economia lumii. Liderii acestora (inca nu stiu cum sa le numesc si o sa explic confuzia la final) s-au intalnit la Washington sa puna lumea la cale. Sincer, nu am fost acolo si nu pricep exact de ce s-au intalnit. Ori se tem sa spuna ca s-au intalnit sa vada cum iesim din criza financiara si din foamea care ne paste, ori nu asta e scopul intalnirii lor. Ori nu am citit eu articolele care trebuie.
De cateva zile citesc articole despre acest summit si imi dau seama ca "situatiunea" e mult prea complexa pentru mine si chiar si pentru cei care s-au intalnit. Tarile vest-europene au convocat intalnirea si vor standarde si mai multa strictete. SUA a acceptat intalnirea si vrea in continuare piata libera si crede in capitalism. China comunista are banii si economia ei e inca infloritoare. Brazilia si alte "emerging economies", care pot da bani, vor mai multa putere in FMI si World Bank si vin cu ideea "geniala" la care, daaaah, nu s-a gandit nimeni pana acum: in toiul globalizarii, avem nevoie de o miscare la fel de globala pentru a iesi din criza. Deci nu va mai jucati cu lopatica, fiecare separat, in nisipul lui si ganditi global pentru tot Pamantul asta. Ok. Inteles. Discutat.
Si cu noi cum ramane? Nici concluziile nu le-am inteles. Dupa o intalnire similara din '44 (la care au participat 44 de tari, nu 20 de puteri!!!) lucrurile au fost mult mai clare, iar rezultatele concrete: s-a infiintat UN, FMI, World Bank, planul Marshall, iar economiile au crescut ca niste feti-frumosi. Dupa intalnirea din aceste zile, cele 20 de puteri s-au hotarat sa readuca lumea pe valul cresterii economice (poftim??? atat???) si sa faca un nou "trade deal" in cateva saptamani (cand? cine? ce? de ce? cum?).
Daca dupa aceeasi intalnire din '44 lumea a inceput sa creada cu adevarat in acei lideri si in planurile lor, dupa summitul de acum, eu (voi?) nu cred nimic si in nimeni. Mai tare ma inspaimant. Piata financiara, dar si viata de zi cu zi, in mintea mea, se bazeaza pe incredere si mutualitate. Astea au cam disparut si sunt greu de refacut la orice nivel. Arunc cuvinte, idei, imi pare rau, dar nu am nici o solutie decat sa incerc sa ma "incred" in cei care ar putea gasi o solutie. Astept.
Si iata aici si confuzia mea de inceput: printre puteri apar mentionate separat de UE, asa cum poate ati observat si voi deja, Franta, Germania, Italia si Marea Britanie. Fac parte din UE tarile astea, nu? Sau au iesit si nu mi-au spus mie? Deci cand pe jos, cand in caruta? Cam ciudata atitudine cand vrei sau cel putin declari ca vrei sa creezi o Europa puternica si unita, ca de aia se cheama Uniune!
Argentina, Australia, Brazilia, Canada, China, Franta, Germania, India, Indonezia, Italia, Japonia, Mexic, Rusia, Arabia Saudita, Africa de Sud, Coreea de Sud, Turcia, Marea Britanie, Statele Unite si Uniunea Europeana fac parte din G20 si detin 85% din economia lumii. Liderii acestora (inca nu stiu cum sa le numesc si o sa explic confuzia la final) s-au intalnit la Washington sa puna lumea la cale. Sincer, nu am fost acolo si nu pricep exact de ce s-au intalnit. Ori se tem sa spuna ca s-au intalnit sa vada cum iesim din criza financiara si din foamea care ne paste, ori nu asta e scopul intalnirii lor. Ori nu am citit eu articolele care trebuie.
De cateva zile citesc articole despre acest summit si imi dau seama ca "situatiunea" e mult prea complexa pentru mine si chiar si pentru cei care s-au intalnit. Tarile vest-europene au convocat intalnirea si vor standarde si mai multa strictete. SUA a acceptat intalnirea si vrea in continuare piata libera si crede in capitalism. China comunista are banii si economia ei e inca infloritoare. Brazilia si alte "emerging economies", care pot da bani, vor mai multa putere in FMI si World Bank si vin cu ideea "geniala" la care, daaaah, nu s-a gandit nimeni pana acum: in toiul globalizarii, avem nevoie de o miscare la fel de globala pentru a iesi din criza. Deci nu va mai jucati cu lopatica, fiecare separat, in nisipul lui si ganditi global pentru tot Pamantul asta. Ok. Inteles. Discutat.
Si cu noi cum ramane? Nici concluziile nu le-am inteles. Dupa o intalnire similara din '44 (la care au participat 44 de tari, nu 20 de puteri!!!) lucrurile au fost mult mai clare, iar rezultatele concrete: s-a infiintat UN, FMI, World Bank, planul Marshall, iar economiile au crescut ca niste feti-frumosi. Dupa intalnirea din aceste zile, cele 20 de puteri s-au hotarat sa readuca lumea pe valul cresterii economice (poftim??? atat???) si sa faca un nou "trade deal" in cateva saptamani (cand? cine? ce? de ce? cum?).
Daca dupa aceeasi intalnire din '44 lumea a inceput sa creada cu adevarat in acei lideri si in planurile lor, dupa summitul de acum, eu (voi?) nu cred nimic si in nimeni. Mai tare ma inspaimant. Piata financiara, dar si viata de zi cu zi, in mintea mea, se bazeaza pe incredere si mutualitate. Astea au cam disparut si sunt greu de refacut la orice nivel. Arunc cuvinte, idei, imi pare rau, dar nu am nici o solutie decat sa incerc sa ma "incred" in cei care ar putea gasi o solutie. Astept.
Si iata aici si confuzia mea de inceput: printre puteri apar mentionate separat de UE, asa cum poate ati observat si voi deja, Franta, Germania, Italia si Marea Britanie. Fac parte din UE tarile astea, nu? Sau au iesit si nu mi-au spus mie? Deci cand pe jos, cand in caruta? Cam ciudata atitudine cand vrei sau cel putin declari ca vrei sa creezi o Europa puternica si unita, ca de aia se cheama Uniune!
What's up, doc?
Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, the United Kingdom, the US and the EU are members of G20 and represent 85% of world's economy. G20 leaders met in Washington to plan the future for this world. Honestly, I wasn't there and I am not able to understand WHY they actually met. They might be afraid to say that they met to find a solution to get out from the financial crisis, or probably that's not the real reason of the summit. Or I didn't read the right articles. Who knows?!
Few days ago I started to read intensively about the summit and now I can say that the situation is too complex for me and even for those leaders who met in Washington. The Western European countries asked for the meeting, and they want "standards" and more control over the market. US accepted the "date" and they still love the free market and the capitalism. The communist China has the money and its economy is still growing. Brazil and other "emerging economies", which can "deliver" the money to the others, want more power and control over IMF and World Bank, and these countries come with a brilliant idea (daaah, nobody thought about it before - ironic): in the time of globalization, we need a global movement to get out from this crisis. In other words, don't play by yourself in your own backyard, and think globally for all this planet. Ok. Got it.
What about us? I didn't get the end, the conclusions of the summit. In '44, after a similar meeting (between 44 countries, and not 20 "powers") the things were clearer, and the results - obvious: UN, IMF, World Bank, Marshall plan were established, and the world's economy started to grow as in a fairy-tale. After these days summit, the 20 leaders "pledge to restore the growth" (what? that's all?) and to make a new "trade deal" within weeks (when? who? what? why? how?).
After the same meeting from '44, the people started to believe/trust those leaders and their plans. After this summit, I (what about you?) don't trust anything and anyone. Moreover, I am more and more concerned. The financial world, and the everyday life (in my opinion) are based on trust and reciprocity. These two disappeared and it's hard to recover them at any level. I write words, and manage ideas. I'm sorry, I don't have any solution. All I can do is to try to put my trust in those who should find a solution for this situation. I'm waiting.
P.S. As you probably observed, in G20 there are some European countries mentioned separately from EU: France, Germany, Italy and UK. Aren't these EU members anymore? Did they get out from EU and they didn't tell me a thing? With or without EU? They should decide what they want, because I consider this attitude to be a weird one in a context in which these countries support or, at least, they say they support a strong and unified Europe called European UNION.
Few days ago I started to read intensively about the summit and now I can say that the situation is too complex for me and even for those leaders who met in Washington. The Western European countries asked for the meeting, and they want "standards" and more control over the market. US accepted the "date" and they still love the free market and the capitalism. The communist China has the money and its economy is still growing. Brazil and other "emerging economies", which can "deliver" the money to the others, want more power and control over IMF and World Bank, and these countries come with a brilliant idea (daaah, nobody thought about it before - ironic): in the time of globalization, we need a global movement to get out from this crisis. In other words, don't play by yourself in your own backyard, and think globally for all this planet. Ok. Got it.
What about us? I didn't get the end, the conclusions of the summit. In '44, after a similar meeting (between 44 countries, and not 20 "powers") the things were clearer, and the results - obvious: UN, IMF, World Bank, Marshall plan were established, and the world's economy started to grow as in a fairy-tale. After these days summit, the 20 leaders "pledge to restore the growth" (what? that's all?) and to make a new "trade deal" within weeks (when? who? what? why? how?).
After the same meeting from '44, the people started to believe/trust those leaders and their plans. After this summit, I (what about you?) don't trust anything and anyone. Moreover, I am more and more concerned. The financial world, and the everyday life (in my opinion) are based on trust and reciprocity. These two disappeared and it's hard to recover them at any level. I write words, and manage ideas. I'm sorry, I don't have any solution. All I can do is to try to put my trust in those who should find a solution for this situation. I'm waiting.
P.S. As you probably observed, in G20 there are some European countries mentioned separately from EU: France, Germany, Italy and UK. Aren't these EU members anymore? Did they get out from EU and they didn't tell me a thing? With or without EU? They should decide what they want, because I consider this attitude to be a weird one in a context in which these countries support or, at least, they say they support a strong and unified Europe called European UNION.
2008/11/09
Mi-e dor de mine si de galben
For the English version of this article click here.
Mi-e dor de mine. Nu m-am vazut demult. Mi-e dor de ochii ce l-au privit pe Toulouse Lautrec intr-un muzeu din Paris. Mi-e dor de 27 decembrie 2007. Mi-e dor de frigul de pe riverfront-ul din Wilmington din 1 ianuarie 2008. Mi-e dor de picioarele care s-au scaldat in Sena. Mi-e dor de mana pe care i-am intins-o unui prieten trecand strada spre agentia CFR. Mi-e dor de siguranta de la 24 de ani. Mi-e dor de sora care eram pentru un prieten. Mi-e dor de energia care ma tinea in picioare 48 de ore, cu sau fara ciocolata. Mi-e dor de picioarele care dansau o noapte intreaga, de ochii care se inchideau pe ritmul muzicii si ignorau realitatea. Mi-e dor de pensulele mele si de degetele care se murdareau constant cu galben. Mi-e dor de U2 - Unforgettable Fire si de privelistea de la etajul 5 al unui camin studentesc din Nantes, camera 1001. Mi-e dor de sandalele pe care le-am purtat cand scriam primul articol de ziar. Mi-e dor de balbaielile mele de la radio. Mi-e dor de aerul rece de la ora 5 dimineata de pe Eroilor. Mi-e dor de Zaraza, mi-e dor de confuzie si de ora de SPSS. Mi-e dor de discutiile din Maharaja, de datul cu masina pe fundal de David Cook. Mi-e dor de sufletul pus la bataie in Quo Vadis, la fiecare intalnire sau eveniment. Mi-e dor sa nu imi fie dor.
Mi-e dor de mine. Nu m-am vazut demult. Mi-e dor de ochii ce l-au privit pe Toulouse Lautrec intr-un muzeu din Paris. Mi-e dor de 27 decembrie 2007. Mi-e dor de frigul de pe riverfront-ul din Wilmington din 1 ianuarie 2008. Mi-e dor de picioarele care s-au scaldat in Sena. Mi-e dor de mana pe care i-am intins-o unui prieten trecand strada spre agentia CFR. Mi-e dor de siguranta de la 24 de ani. Mi-e dor de sora care eram pentru un prieten. Mi-e dor de energia care ma tinea in picioare 48 de ore, cu sau fara ciocolata. Mi-e dor de picioarele care dansau o noapte intreaga, de ochii care se inchideau pe ritmul muzicii si ignorau realitatea. Mi-e dor de pensulele mele si de degetele care se murdareau constant cu galben. Mi-e dor de U2 - Unforgettable Fire si de privelistea de la etajul 5 al unui camin studentesc din Nantes, camera 1001. Mi-e dor de sandalele pe care le-am purtat cand scriam primul articol de ziar. Mi-e dor de balbaielile mele de la radio. Mi-e dor de aerul rece de la ora 5 dimineata de pe Eroilor. Mi-e dor de Zaraza, mi-e dor de confuzie si de ora de SPSS. Mi-e dor de discutiile din Maharaja, de datul cu masina pe fundal de David Cook. Mi-e dor de sufletul pus la bataie in Quo Vadis, la fiecare intalnire sau eveniment. Mi-e dor sa nu imi fie dor.
I miss myself and yellow
I miss myself. I didn't see me for a while. I miss the eyes that stared at a Toulouse Lautrec work of art in a museum from Paris. I miss December 27th 2007. I miss the cold air from Wilmington riverfront, January 1st 2008. I miss the feet which got wet in Seine. I miss the hand I gave to one of my friends on our way to the travel agency. I miss the toughness I had when I was 24. I miss the sister I was for one my friends. I miss the energy that was keeping me awake for 48 hours, with or without chocolate. I miss the feet which were dancing all night long, the eyes ignoring the surrounding reality. I miss the painting stuff and my fingers getting dirty from yellow. I miss U2 - the Unforgettable Fire, and the 5th floor view I had in the dorm from Nantes (room 1001). I miss the sandals I was wearing when I wrote my first article in a newspaper. I miss the mistakes I made "on air", broadcasting the news in a local radio. I miss the 5am cold air from Eroilor Boulevard. I miss Zaraza, I miss my confusion and the SPSS classes. I miss the talks from Maharaja, the driving around with David Cook in the background. I miss the soul that I opened, trained and used for every single meeting or event from Quo Vadis Cafe. I miss not to miss anything/anyone anymore.
2008/11/05
Azi a castigat! V-am zis eu ca va castiga ;) / He won. I told you so ;)
Asta e ce am scris in februarie cand l-am vazut pe Obama :) Un om care intra in scena pe U2 nu putea decat sa castige! Sunt bucuroasa pentru prietenii mei care l-au sustinut! / That's what I wrote when I saw Obama in February. ;) A man who get up on the stage on U2 background must win. I'm happy for my friends who supported him!
Azi, l-am vazut pe sot! / Today, I saw the husband!
Cu sotia inainte! / The wife rules
Azi, l-am vazut pe sot! / Today, I saw the husband!
Cu sotia inainte! / The wife rules
2008/11/02
Burn your brain reading this!
For the English version of this article, click here.
"Ce ..... (bip) de film!". "Moroons!!!" Asta le-as fi raspuns celor din dreapta mea care probabil ca au venit la film pentru ca i-au vazut pe Clooney si pe Pitt pe afis sau ca voiau sa incerce noul cinema din mall. N-ati priceput nimic! Intorcandu-ma la film (Burn after reading) - e destept! Bine jucat! Incepe ca un film serios, ca sa le dea apa la moara celor amintiti in primele randuri, dar de indata ce il vezi pe Pitt jucandu-l pe Chad te prinzi ca e ironic, ca e haz de necaz.
Mor oameni, "agentia" se agita si nu pricepe nimic, dar ascunde cadavre, ca asta stie sa faca... pentru patru operatii estetice. Si nu e despre politica, rusii inca mai vor informatii, dar nu mai vaneaza orice si stau cuminti in cladirea lor imensa, ca americanii sunt capabili sa se impuste intre ei si singuri. Si da, e vorba de vicii. Agentul e dat afara din cauza bauturii, si nu a rusilor, iar celalalt ii ia doar sotia, nu si informatiile. Iar spionii sunt detectivi ce strang dovezi pentru divorturi sau isi aduna tot armamentul sa aresteze o blonda intr-o masina rosie. Si intre timp Putin vegheaza din poza de la Ambasada "Mickey Mouse".
Clooney si Swinton, inamici seriosi si dramatici in Michael Clayton, vor sa iti joace si ei o farsa si sa iti spuna ca si filmul asta e treaba serioasa... dar Swinton nu e decat o doctorita care isi insala sotul (cu Clooney) si ii fura banii lui Malkovich (sotul, bineinteles), iar Clooney - un aventurier dependent de sex si "exercise".
In rest, vreme buna in Washington. Nu se aud mai mult de doua impuscaturi, iar televiziunea vorbeste doar despre Oliver, motanul erou al copiilor. Intre timp, agentia trece la secret dosarul fara sa inteleaga ce e secret si ce nu trebuie sa mai faca, dar important este ca nu mai stie nimeni despre treaba asta: ultimul martor colaboreaza pentru a primi cele patru operatii estetice.
N-ati priceput nimic din ce am scris. Stiu! Mergeti la film, atunci!
"Ce ..... (bip) de film!". "Moroons!!!" Asta le-as fi raspuns celor din dreapta mea care probabil ca au venit la film pentru ca i-au vazut pe Clooney si pe Pitt pe afis sau ca voiau sa incerce noul cinema din mall. N-ati priceput nimic! Intorcandu-ma la film (Burn after reading) - e destept! Bine jucat! Incepe ca un film serios, ca sa le dea apa la moara celor amintiti in primele randuri, dar de indata ce il vezi pe Pitt jucandu-l pe Chad te prinzi ca e ironic, ca e haz de necaz.
Mor oameni, "agentia" se agita si nu pricepe nimic, dar ascunde cadavre, ca asta stie sa faca... pentru patru operatii estetice. Si nu e despre politica, rusii inca mai vor informatii, dar nu mai vaneaza orice si stau cuminti in cladirea lor imensa, ca americanii sunt capabili sa se impuste intre ei si singuri. Si da, e vorba de vicii. Agentul e dat afara din cauza bauturii, si nu a rusilor, iar celalalt ii ia doar sotia, nu si informatiile. Iar spionii sunt detectivi ce strang dovezi pentru divorturi sau isi aduna tot armamentul sa aresteze o blonda intr-o masina rosie. Si intre timp Putin vegheaza din poza de la Ambasada "Mickey Mouse".
Clooney si Swinton, inamici seriosi si dramatici in Michael Clayton, vor sa iti joace si ei o farsa si sa iti spuna ca si filmul asta e treaba serioasa... dar Swinton nu e decat o doctorita care isi insala sotul (cu Clooney) si ii fura banii lui Malkovich (sotul, bineinteles), iar Clooney - un aventurier dependent de sex si "exercise".
In rest, vreme buna in Washington. Nu se aud mai mult de doua impuscaturi, iar televiziunea vorbeste doar despre Oliver, motanul erou al copiilor. Intre timp, agentia trece la secret dosarul fara sa inteleaga ce e secret si ce nu trebuie sa mai faca, dar important este ca nu mai stie nimeni despre treaba asta: ultimul martor colaboreaza pentru a primi cele patru operatii estetice.
N-ati priceput nimic din ce am scris. Stiu! Mergeti la film, atunci!
Burn your brain reading this!
"What a crap!".,, "Moroons!!!" That's I would have replied to the people sitting next to me who probably came to the movie only because they saw Clooney and Pitt on the poster or because they wanted to try the new theater from the mall. "You didn't get a thing!" Back to the movie (Burn after reading) - it was a smart one! Well done and played! It starts as a serious movie to satisfy my neighbors, but as soon as you see Pitt playing Chad you get it. It's an ironic movie, it's a good and smart comedy.
There are people dying, "the agency" works without understanding what it's doing, but it gets rid of dead bodies, only because it has the know-how on that.... and all these happen because of four cosmetic surgeries. And it's not about politics; the Russians still need information, but they don't chase it in the way they did before, and they stay quietly in their huge building from DC, meanwhile Americans kill each other. And yes, it's about weaknesses. The fired agent is terminated because he has an alcohol problem, and not because of the Russians, and the other public worker steals the first agent's wife, and not secret information. And the spies are private detectives that try to get information for divorce trials or guys "in black" who get all together to arrest one blond lady driving a red car. Meanwhile, Putin is watching everything from the picture hanged on the walls of the "Mickey Mouse" Embassy.
Clooney and Swinton, serious and dramatic enemies in Michael Clayton, want to play around with you and to convince you that this movie is serious staff too, but Swinton is just a physician who cheats her husband (with Clooney) and steals money from Malkovich (the husband). Clooney is a handsome guy, he looks for adventures and he is addicted to sex and "exercise".
Otherwise, there is good weather in Washington DC. There are only two shooting sounds, and the TV stations talk about Oliver - the kids' hero-cat. Meanwhile, the agency classifies the file without understanding what secrets they classify and what they shouldn't do "next time". But the most important thing is that everyone was eliminated: the last witness chose to collaborate, so that she could get those four cosmetic surgeries.
I know. You didn't get a thing from what I wrote. Then, go and see the movie! ;)
There are people dying, "the agency" works without understanding what it's doing, but it gets rid of dead bodies, only because it has the know-how on that.... and all these happen because of four cosmetic surgeries. And it's not about politics; the Russians still need information, but they don't chase it in the way they did before, and they stay quietly in their huge building from DC, meanwhile Americans kill each other. And yes, it's about weaknesses. The fired agent is terminated because he has an alcohol problem, and not because of the Russians, and the other public worker steals the first agent's wife, and not secret information. And the spies are private detectives that try to get information for divorce trials or guys "in black" who get all together to arrest one blond lady driving a red car. Meanwhile, Putin is watching everything from the picture hanged on the walls of the "Mickey Mouse" Embassy.
Clooney and Swinton, serious and dramatic enemies in Michael Clayton, want to play around with you and to convince you that this movie is serious staff too, but Swinton is just a physician who cheats her husband (with Clooney) and steals money from Malkovich (the husband). Clooney is a handsome guy, he looks for adventures and he is addicted to sex and "exercise".
Otherwise, there is good weather in Washington DC. There are only two shooting sounds, and the TV stations talk about Oliver - the kids' hero-cat. Meanwhile, the agency classifies the file without understanding what secrets they classify and what they shouldn't do "next time". But the most important thing is that everyone was eliminated: the last witness chose to collaborate, so that she could get those four cosmetic surgeries.
I know. You didn't get a thing from what I wrote. Then, go and see the movie! ;)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)