Another Top 50 Films of the 2000s List: 40-36.

Quickly, before we start this up again: I was reading through my progress, and I really haven't put much thought into the bottom 25. I know I already said as much in the introduction, but it's incredibly obvious when one reads through the list. No. 38 should be lower. Hell, so should No. 37. I should have already included an entry on "Fulltime Killer." Alright, onward.

No. 40 - “The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring” (2001)

Peter Jackson's adaptation of Tolkien's book is superior to his next two films, “The Two Towers” and “The Return of the King.” The main reason is that "The Fellowship of the Ring" carefully balances large-scale battles with character-based moments, whereas the other two movies are too hung up on CGI carnage to tell a great story. Moreover, “Fellowship” is not as fucking long and has more meaningful character deaths. And is Viggo Mortensen ever more interesting in the series? Hell, no. Honestly, you could probably strike this movie off the list, but I feel it deserves a place somewhere. (I'm not a Tolkien enthusiast, by the way. Some of his ideas were really dumb, like Sauron being nothing more than a big eye on fire, and I generally don't care for his slow writing.)

No. 39 - “The Pledge” (2001)

I have a strange opinion about Sean Penn. I think he should stick behind the camera. Jack Nicholson gives one of his most nuanced performances as a detective who puts solving a case for a mourning mother above everything else. Penn builds suspense and even throws in one of the scariest moments of the decade. The script is the movie's greatest weapon, though, offering a sobering ending and a theme involving chance (a precursor to what “Match Point” and “No Country For Old Men” would go on to do).

No. 38 - “JCVD” (2008)

Hell, I never thought I would be able to say a Jean-Claude Van Damme movie is great. You might have to watch “Bloodsport,” “Lionheart,” and “Kickboxer” to appreciate everything this film is about, but Van Damme's ability to make you feel for him is impressive, the script is funny and original, and director/writer Mabrouk El Mechri (let me know if you know the pronunciation) keeps the pacing tight. The surreality kicks into overdrive with a pleading monologue from Van Damme, a risk that seems pretty lame in theory, but the martial artist and Mechri pull it off.

No. 37 - “The Aristocrats” (2005)

There are two things I appreciate about this documentary. First, it's hilarious. George Carlin, Stephen Wright, the Smothers Brothers, Sarah Silverman, Jon Stewart, and dozens of other comedians share their thoughts and takes on a dirty inside joke about show biz. The joke in question is described as a jazz riff in the film, where a comedian takes the structure of the joke but makes the middle his or her own creation, whether improvised or planned. Second, it doesn't overstay its raunchy welcome, so if you have the sensibility for this type of humor, you're laughing for about 70 straight minutes. Admittedly, a few of the selected comedians are kinda shitty, but you can see how the joke evolves and devolves by teller, which serves the purpose of the film. I've watched “The Aristocrats” several times and still find its honesty refreshing.

No. 36 - “WALL-E” (2008)

This entry is bitchier than others, but the truth is I'm a bit disappointed I can't put this film higher on the list. The last 25 minutes or so of “WALL-E” aren't a complete disgrace, but they're nothing to be proud of, either. Pixar needed a hero, and a dumb fucking character inexplicably saves the day during a trite action sequence, complete with shit sliding down an unstable ship floor. Everyone soon cheers on Earth because humankind rules!

I wouldn't be as harsh on the final third of this film if the first hour hadn't snatched me by the balls. I remember seeing the previews at home and telling people the picture looked like a lame R2-D2 fantasy, but when the opening of “WALL-E” hit me with imagery and dissolves that evoke John Ford, I couldn't believe it. Wow. And the greatness didn't stop. The movie dares to go the route of little to no dialogue for quite a stretch. Not only did Pixar pull this off, but the studio was jeopardizing the commercial viability of the film … no talking isn't what you usually try to sell in a modern movie for the family, but Pixar keeps the kids entertained with the best sound effects since, fuck, a long time ago, and adults could chew on the eternal human theme of loneliness and brutally honest commentary on the environment of the planet. And I'm just now mentioning that the titular character is a visual masterpiece by itself that anyone of any age can appreciate.

The first hour or so was a jaw-dropping mixture of science fiction, romantic comedy, and satire, and I was in total shock. Was I watching one of the greatest movies of all time? Yes!

So while I'm still disappointed with Pixar eventually taking the familiar route, I am thankful for “WALL-E.” Besides being a masterpiece for about two-thirds of its running time, the movie showed me—more than any other—that my intuition can be embarrassingly off the mark.

Another Top 50 Films of the 2000s List: 45-41.

No. 45 - "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang" (2005)

Robert Downey Jr.

I could leave the entry at that, given Downey Jr.'s mostly must-watch record. He is the protagonist and narrator, kinda dimwitted but strangely capable. He's trying to be a detective with the help of … a gay Val Kilmer. This idea could have been a disaster, but it is Kilmer's best role since he played Doc Holiday perfectly in “Tombstone.” And that's because Kilmer is allowed to be funny, seemingly instructed to stop taking himself seriously. As a result, his character is the intelligence among all the idiocy.

But what the hell is this movie trying to accomplish? A satirical commentary on film noir that is both caustic and sentimental about the classic genre. The film succeeds brilliantly, thanks to daring swipes at “Chinatown,” “L.A. Confidential,” and anything with a narrator. The plot is convoluted to the point of absurdity, and women are used and abused so much you can't help but shake your head (though actress Michelle Monaghan plays a good heroine). “Kiss Kiss Bang Bang” has a funny point. Surprisingly, it's written and directed by Shane Black, the guy who wrote “Lethal Weapon.”

No. 44 - “Brick” (2006)

“Kiss Kiss Bang Bang” is a great modern satire on film noir. “Brick” is just creative modern film noir. Director/writer Rian Johnson's detective story involves high schoolers. The coolest one is the gumshoe, of course, played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt, who has quietly turned into a damn good actor. While many viewers and critics are dreaming of Shia LeBeouf and Ryan Gosling, Gordon-Levitt is acting very well, and he has screen presence to spare. Hell, I even liked the campy shit he did in “G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra.” If you find me especially nonsober, you might even hear me say I thought he was alright in “10 Things I Hate About You,” right before I commit suicide because of snobby principles. Dear God I've ruined this entry. I'll just end it quickly by saying this movie has its own language, like those Humphrey Bogart pictures, and a cool footchase.

No. 43 - “Team America: World Police” (2004)

Some would consider this a belligerent choice on my part. “Team America” is indeed belligerent itself, but it's also funny and intelligent as hell. Any movie with puppets doing graphic sex scenes and puking their guts out during a dramatic moment deserves a lot of credit. And there's the political commentary one can appreciate in a drunken analogy involving dicks, pussies, and assholes. Alright, I'm a deranged person, and that's why this movie made the list. Before I leave this disgraceful choice behind, the soundtrack is undeniably hilarious with its sledgehammer approach.

No. 42 - “Adaptation” (2002)

Let's get a few things straight. This movie contains the two best performances by Nicholas Cage. That alone is one helluva accomplishment. But look at the other solid performances: Meryl Streep, Brian Cox, Tilda Swinton, and Cara Seymour. Oh yeah, I almost forgot Chris Cooper, who upstages everyone, even Streep. The screenplay by the Kaufman brothers is one that literally juxtaposes the two screenwriters and their styles. Finally, director Spike Jonze makes this weird shit understandable, and the movie doesn't drag ass like Charlie Kaufman's somewhat enjoyable wankfest, “Synedoche, New York.”

I know a question might remain. What's the point? Allow me to share a rule about movie lists I forgot to include in my flawed introduction: Every movie list requires a self-referential, humorous but touching movie about filmmaking (think “8 1/2” by Federico Fellini). So we should just accept that and move on with Our Lives.

No. 41 - “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” (2000)

Chow Yun-Fatt looks awesome sword fighting with one hand behind his back. As much as I would like to leave the entry at that … actually, I think I will.

Nah, I would never betray you, Dear Reader! Ang Lee, known for drama, directs a slew of incredible fight scenes, including a savage duel between Michelle Yeoh and Zhang Ziyi. Story-wise, “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” is a soap opera about a sword, only this soap opera has good actors. I find myself not only waiting for the next battle but for, uh, love stuff. This choice is undoubtedly obvious considering how much praise the film receives, but not everyone talks about the less obvious parts of this movie, like Chang Chen's bandit, that add up to make a satisfying martial arts romance, unless your idea of “satisfying” must include nipples.

I suppose I should address the wire work a lot of people criticize. Lee, like Akira Kurosawa, is interested in melding the theatrical with the cinematic. He's not going for realism. If you don't dig that, there's nothing I can do to convince you that the movie is worthwhile.

Another Top 50 Films of the 2000s List.

What makes a good movie list? Well, it must include obvious choices, or you will be berated for oversight. It must also include odd choices, or you will be criticized for sticking to the obvious. I realize this balance is almost impossible to maintain, but in all seriousness, I just want to share what I love about 2000s filmmaking. In no way can this list be considered definitive, unless you limit the analysis to films I've been exposed to. At the same time, I try to give equal footing to those obvious and odd choices.

(Speaking of being criticized for sticking to the obvious, you should check out the Five Favorite Films features at Rotten Tomatoes. If a director, actor, or whoever cites “The Godfather” as a favorite film, the commenters go after that person like rabid badgers. This is Really Questionable to me. The implication is that someone is a hack for liking “The Godfather” a lot, so I suppose Stanley Kubrick was a fucking hack.)

After reading this list, you will have a good idea of what I have been exploring and what I prefer. You might detest a choice. You might think a choice is placed too high in general or peculiarly sandwiched between two superior movies. You might discern that I enjoy the Coen brothers stuff too much.

Fine. I want discussion. That's really it.

I want to be as upfront as possible about my limitations. While I am quite aware of South Korea's recent output, I don't know much about contemporary Iranian filmmaking, other than the greater attention it has received over the last few years. In other cases, my knowledge is limited as opposed to rich or nonexistent. Brazilian filmmaking? Big fucking surprise, “City of God” makes my list. But that's the only Brazilian movie I've seen. Thankfully, I know more about French and German films of the 2000s, but I probably look ignorant in these areas compared to other people. You can tell I live in the United States.

I also haven't seen every movie of every great filmmaker. Johnny To is the John Woo of the 2000s, but I've only seen two of his movies, “Exiled” and “Fulltime Killer.” The former was disappointing, but the latter makes my list. Does that mean “Fulltime Killer” is To's best film? Does that mean I wouldn't have put another one of his movies over “Fulltime Killer” if I had seen his complete body of work? No. But To is an important action director, and action movies often get the shaft in these lists, and “Fulltime Killer” is a great action movie.

I want my reasoning to be clear to you. With each entry, I am trying to put you in my head for a minute. These brief visits to my cranium might not be Pleasant every time, but I want them to be understandable and interesting. So let's start with the bottom five.

(Note: Choices 50-26 are negotiable. I didn’t spend much time ordering them, and I consider these choices to be of similar overall quality. Choices 25-1, however, are movies I won't budge on and will be more rigorously placed.)

No. 50 - “Casino Royale” (2006)

All I can say is “Well, fuck” if I blow my credibility here. It is true that the artistic merit of “Casino Royale” is dubious, but … wait, did I just use “artistic merit” and reference a James Bond film in the same sentence? Well, fuck.

It's a great action movie. The brutal, black-and-white opening scene is evidence of Martin Campbell's—who also directed the more traditional Bond film, “Goldeneye”--impressive sense for action directing. And then you have the boggling footchase, the hilarious airport explosion, the brief but memorable stair brawl, the PG-13 torture scene that makes me cringe more than usual. An action movie is supposed to keep you on your toes in a baffling fashion, and I think this one does. Some say the movie is too long, but its final action scene, which I wouldn't spoil for anyone, is more than enough payoff (OK, technically, I'm talking about the penultimate action scene that is much bigger than the very last action scene, which was a nice touch).

Last but not least, Daniel Craig is fantastic. He's badass, but he also makes Bond a more interesting character. The one-liners have less charm but more punch, the suave bullshit is gone, and he's a frighteningly effective killer on-screen. It's just refreshing that Craig and Campbell aim higher than everyone before them in terms of characterization and story without sacrificing the action. Too bad Campbell's steady hand couldn't have directed the sequel, “Quantum of Solace,” where Marc Forster shakes the camera so much you can't enjoy Craig doing what he does best. The greatest action movies—“Dirty Harry,” “The Killer, “Die Hard,” etc.—don't spare you the details of violence, and “Casino Royale” follows this formula with its own twists.

No. 49 – “Burn After Reading” (2008)

I thought this was a lesser effort from the Coens initially, but having watched it three times since, I deem my original conclusion lacking (you can read more about that here and here). The Coens are well-known for writing stupid characters to make us laugh, but there is something different about “Burn After Reading.” The film's characters are moronic as usual, but this time they are heavily associated with current American fads (excessive fitness, appearance-altering surgery, online dating, etc.).

Ray R., a friend at Comic Book Resources and no stranger to Washington, has an enlightening perspective: “it struck me by how quintessentially Washingtonian it is, where the terminally stupid mingle with those who think they're actually powerful, when in reality, who cares. Plus, true pragmatists like J.K. Simmons, who know where the bodies are buried, but don't care as long as the file gets closed.”

“Burn After Reading” also has the most outrageous MacGuffin in film history, hysterical disdain for movie trends (for example, overly dramatic music), deft physical humor, and a perfect deadpan ending thanks to the delivery of character actor J.K. Simmons. As a creator, God has a sense of humor (if he exists), and the same can be said about the Coens (they do exist). Only now they're meaner. Quite the sight, really.

No. 48 - “Save the Green Planet!” (2003)

My masturbation to South Korean cinema begins here. A good friend and I see this comedic film as one that pulls the rug out from under you. (In fact, I believe my friend first wrote that, bugging me incessantly to watch the movie, and I finally bought the fucking thing years ago, so I have to mention my friend or this is all Plagiarism.) However, whereas many movies only pull the rug once or twice, “Save the Green Planet!” is an entire movie of vicious and, if I could be allowed to write libelously, criminally insane rug pulling. Like other recent South Korean films, it is not shy about borrowing ideas from multiple genres—in this case, martial arts, science fiction, horror, crime, and comedies of all stripes. The film is the giddy work of a Whackjob, from the Far East rock rendition of “Somewhere Over the Rainbow” to the downright ridiculous bee scene that gets me every time. The brief social commentary and tragedy really have no place, but it's hard not to appreciate a unique misstep. More rug pulling, in other words.

No. 47 - “The Descent” (2005)

I was tempted to include “Dog Soldiers” in this list, as it is very enjoyable. Director/writer Neil Marshall's other horror movie, “The Descent,” makes the list without question. But this is important: Fuck the American theatrical version, which butchers the character-based and psychological ending of the uncut British version that you should get on DVD if you care to watch this movie. The American version has a stupid peek-a-boo ending that is intended to be shocking. It comes across as something I could have written when I was 10 years old, only I would have written something better as a child.

Now that I've got that Nasty Bile out of the way, I like how every main character is female. Interestingly, the movie doesn't exploit their sexuality but rather utilizes them as personalities that bash into each other for disturbing consequences. The film is every bit a tragedy as it is a weird-creatures-that-kill-shit-in-the-cave flick. Marshall puts the camera in the most claustrophobic places I can remember. “The Descent” isn't just voyeuristic, it’s suffocating.

No. 46 - “Forty Shades of Blue” (2005)

Clearly inspired by 1970s filmmaking. Clearly pretentious (maybe a little too pretentious during certain scenes). Clearly the craft of a gifted director, Ira Sachs, who knows how to use space between characters to create moodiness. What makes the film, however, is the acting. Rip Torn is savage without going over the top. But actress Dina Korzun claims the screen in a fantastic ending that makes this otherwise depressing movie worth the trouble and, because of its strong but justified feminist tone, one of the more memorable dramas of the decade.

As an aside, I wouldn't have watched "Forty Shades of Blue" if I hadn't been working in a video store when it came out on DVD.

Defending and Attacking Larry Clark's 'Kids'

I watched a slew of movies last week, but I'm writing about one I didn't enjoy as much as the others: "Kids." The film is a great example of uncompromising vision. Whether it's good or bad, people talk about and remember this shit.

If you look through the reviews on "Kids," you're going to find a lot of people calling the movie pornographic. I knew about the movie's controversial reputation, so I was expecting something truly fucked up last week. Well, I got something truly fucked up but not because of the reasons everyone had proposed.

"Kids" features teenage actors and actresses having simulated sex. While these scenes can't be ignored, they are still restrained in that there isn't much nudity or anything arousing about the circumstances of these scenes ... I don't see how a boy giving a girl HIV could be that arousing to many people, and the scumsuckers who might find this arousing are probably too busy with their sick routines. In other words, pornography is designed with an audience in mind, so I don't get the argument that director Larry Clark was disguising child pornography as art when he made "Kids."

Indeed, while watching "Kids" I could not divorce the thought that Clark considers himself a very serious artist (check out this interview for evidence that supports my theory). The film obviously has a message: kids are, quite frankly, fucked up. And Clark uses a documentary style in an attempt to give his message levity. Whereas pornography is, by definition, something with no message other than "Jerk off to this" or "Finger yourself" or ...

But some might still ask, "Would you consider it borderline child pornography [and therefore irresponsible]?" My serious answer is I don't know because I can't define "borderline child pornography." I don't watch child pornography and therefore have no idea where the line is drawn. Now, if you had asked me whether Stanley Kubrick's "Eyes Wide Shut" is borderline titty porn, I could respond because I have watched ...

This entry is probably making everyone uncomfortable at this point, but I'm almost finished. "Kids" is not pornography from my perspective, but it is troubling, and I mean outside of what the filmmakers wanted me to feel. Chloe Sevigny's character Jennie, for instance, doesn't seem to have much of a purpose other than being a punching bag. First, she learns she has HIV even though she's had sex only once. Before the film ends, she is raped. After the rape, you don't see her again.

It's a cold movie, and it's cold because Larry Clark and screenwriter Harmony Korine care. They want us to see how kids really are. But wait a minute. Not every kid is this fucked up.

And that's why I don't get "Kids." I was supposed to have my eyes opened, but:

1. I already knew this shit happens because I was a kid. Duh.

2. Reality isn't this bleak.

On the other hand, any film that provokes as much thought deserves a chance. Try it if you haven't.

(Another criticism against "Kids" is that Clark was exploiting his young cast. Yeah, I'm sure Clark was thinking about the big bucks he was going to make off his Hollywood blockbuster, "NC-17 Teen Drama with Rape Scene.")

'Zombieland': Did it need the damn Twinkie jokes?

Fuck, I know. It looks like I'm about to take a big piss all over everyone's Fun. But that's not what I'm trying to do. I'll start by saying "Zombieland" is a decent comedy/family lesson/action film. I enjoyed it, and I wouldn't mind watching it again. My three favorite scenes:

3. The scene where Woody Harrelson (he pretty much outclasses the remaining cast members), Jesse Eisenberg, Emma Stone, and Abigail Breslin are taking turns talking in the front seat. Well-directed comedy.

2. The Zombie Kill of the Week. Or whatever the hell it was. It reminded me of Quentin Tarantino. By the way, Ruben Fleischer directed "Zombieland." Yeah, there is no wikipedia article on Fleischer, so don't even try now.

1. The scene where Woody is on a rollercoaster shooting shit. Great action directing.

Honorable mention to the slow-mo opening credits.

Were these scenes worth $8? I don't know, but the movie didn't completely shit the bed. But goddamn it, I despise advertising. When commercials come on, I stop paying attention. When people ask me if I've seen a particular "funny commercial," I have no idea what they're talking about. Total ignorance. And in this case, it makes me feel good.

On the other hand, it's hard for me to ignore a commercial when the product plays a central motherfucking role in the motivation of a character played by Woody Harrelson. Yeah, he really likes Twinkies, and just in case you can't remember, Twinkies are made by Hostess. Yes, he loves Twinkies.

The last two sentences are the summarized messages I received from "Zombieland," and the kinky part is that the movie wanted me to laugh at these messages. Honestly, it made me uncomfortable. For one thing, it wasn't funny to me in the slightest. I'm not unflexible on product placement or questionable advertising, either. "It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia" is one of the few television shows I enjoy. One episode from its fifth season featured quite a bit of questionable advertising (the show was clearly sucking off Dave & Buster's), but I didn't mind because I laughed at the show's jokes. Maybe I need to see "Zombieland" again to get the elusive Twinkie humor, but it sure as hell didn't work on me the first time. And the number of Twinkie jokes was too much. I could have casually forgotten about one comedic misfire.

I would like a Twinkie right now, but that's not a good idea at the moment. So there you go. I'm not going to bitch about how lame Jesse Eisenberg's voice-over was or anything else, just offering a simple question:

Did "Zombieland" need the damn Twinkie jokes? Surely something funnier could have motivated Harrelson's character. Something that wouldn't resemble a commercial at all. Something that wouldn't make me hungry.

Everyone Should Be Required to Watch the Last 15 Minutes of Cronenberg's 'The Brood.'

I should explain myself. I used to write this blog. My last entry was more than three months ago. I kept telling people I would update. I kept telling them I would write about "Inglourious Basterds."

Well, I'm a fucking liar. I'm not writing about "Inglourious Basterds" now, but when the DVD comes out in December, I hope to get an entry for it.

Enough sincere apologies, I want to talk about watching movies for Halloween. I'm three days too late, but I don't think anyone has read The Truth about Halloween movie watching--assuming you've been reading the same stuff I've been reading.

You only need about 15 minutes, perhaps less, and a DVD of David Cronenberg's "The Brood." Unless you want to risk boredom or dissatisfaction, do not attempt to watch this film in its entirety. It has really shitty dialogue and acting. Alright, you got the DVD already? Skip to the scene where a man is confronting a woman and start watching. You may stop the movie when you see enough.

I realize not everyone will be inspired to find "The Brood," so I'll motivate you with these three words about the film's climax: bloody fetus licking.

So the next time someone recommends you a "great horror film you have never seen," remember this. The ending of the "The Brood" is probably more disturbing, and you only need about 15 minutes to fuck your sensibilities.

'Bruno': Relevant or Irreverent?

Before I attempt to answer the question posed in the title, I want to shoot down a comparison people have been making.

The comparison is Tom Green and Sasha Baron Cohen. City Pulse writer Cole Smithey said, "Sasha Baron Coen picks up where Tom Green left off as cinema's most cunning agent provocateur." Smithey's misspelling is fun to point out, but more importantly, how the fuck was "Freddy Got Fingered" cunning? How was Green an agent in that film? It is important to make a distinction between Green's television and film work.

Google around and you'll find more comparisons. Even though I should be a douchebag for the sake of entertainment, I'll be fair. You could describe both Green and Cohen as obnoxious. And their comedy involves interacting with real people beyond a controlled setting for wild results. That's where the comparison ends. And with those two criteria, you could bring in other names, like Triumph and Dave Attell.

Just as it doesn't make sense to say Triumph is influenced by the work of Tom Green, it doesn't make sense to state, in any way, that Cohen is continuing Green's work. Green is himself; Cohen plays characters. Green's comedy has no underlying social commentary; Cohen is a satirist.

There are two potential reasons why someone would make such a limited comparison. First, the person doesn't know what the hell he or she is talking about. Second, the person doesn't find Cohen funny or insightful and either wants to use Green's name as an easy way to discredit Cohen or lumps all unfunny comics--from his or her perspective--into the same category (which doesn't necessarily make sense--for example, I don't like Carrot Top or Steve Carell for very different reasons). It's fine to think Cohen is a comedic failure, but it's a mistake to suggest he's not putting as much on the line as Green. And it's also a mistake to dismiss him with a simple "Well, he's so obnoxious" line. No, he plays obnoxious characters, and he does so for a reason. Instead, explain why his characters fail to deliver the satire.

With this logic in mind, I want to briefly analyze Cohen's newest film, "Bruno," and answer a question: Is it relevant or just irreverant? (I'm loosely defining "relevant" as an action that brings about social commentary or satire and "irreverent" as an action that just pisses people off.)

The answer is both. When Bruno pulls his pants down in front of politician Ron Paul, it's irreverent. I can't find any meaningful commentary in this scene other than Paul handling the situation about as well as you can expect.

However, when a disguised Bruno pleases a crowd by chanting ridiculous shit like "Straight Pride" before sending it into a frenzy--complete with a thrown chair and laughable expressions of disappointment--by stripping and kissing another man, it's relevant (and funny). An American crowd cheers when he champions heterosexuality but would have injured or killed the same bastard for stripping and kissing a man if a cage didn't separate spectacle from audience.

Bruno revealing that some parents will put their children through any horrible thing to make money: relevant.

Bruno showing a tape to a focus group that features a penis swinging around and yelling his name: irreverent.

Bruno taking his clothes off and trying to get into a tent with a hunter: irreverent.

Bruno convincing a karate instructor that a homosexual is going to attack him in a number of improbable ways (the last example involves a homosexual attacking him with two dildos and an exposed penis): relevant.

And sometimes an action is both relevant and irreverent. For example, a television audience commends Bruno for being a parent until he mentions that he's gay. This is relevant until Bruno goes out of his way to piss the audience off, with pictures of the baby in a pool with him and other men.

My message here is simple. You don't have to like "Bruno," but approach the material for what it is. It doesn't resemble Tom Green anymore than Triumph the Insult Comic Dog. (Granted, the dog is a puppet, but he is always irreverent, like Green.)

One more thing. While I watched "Bruno," a couple behind me said "That's it" and began to walk out when Bruno dropped his pants in front of Ron Paul. I laughed at them of course, but they soon disturbed me. Halfway down the steps, they called to another party, "Let's go." First, a girl stood up. She looked about 17. Then a shorter boy stood up. OK, he was probably only 13 or 14, but that's not too bad. Then an even shorter boy stood up, perhaps as young as 10. An important thing to keep in mind is that the parents didn't walk out when a penis was talking on the screen.

I'm sure that family has a fascinating future.

(By the way, Cohen's work is most reminiscent of Peter Sellers. The physical comedy [especially the velcro suit scene in "Bruno"]. The multiple accents. The satire. This is what you call solid intel, Mr. President.)