I have watched about a thousand movies in the last couple of weeks. I was going to write mini-reviews for all of them and note whether I would recommend them or not, but I decided this one deserved a separate post. I am not sure whether I would recommend Nanette Burstein's documentary about Indiana high school seniors, American Teen, or not. I really can't say objectively if it's a good movie. I know it sucked me in like nothing else, but that was entirely because I had the craziest experience of feeling like I was literally watching my high school self on the big screen. I know they picked the main characters to be representative of various high school "types," and much of the movie was filmed through Hannah Bailey's eyes, so I am sure I'm not the only person to have had this kind of experience. But I bet I felt it to a much, much higher degree. The similarities were astounding: the look, the mannerisms, the best friend (even the tearful goodbye was pretty much word-for-word with mine), the boyfriend and corresponding heartbreak, the depression, the raging need to get the fuck out of town. Of course, Hannah seems much more bold and directed than I was at that age, and I felt a twinge of jealousy when I saw she was now studying film in New York City. I could only have dreamed of that when I was her age. Until I read a review that mentioned she was actually studying film at SUNY Purchase, which is, of course, my alma mater and therefore does not inspire any jealousy but rather a kind of freaky . . . whoa feeling. I don't think I could handle watching it again, because parts of it were so cringeworthy (I really do not miss high school. Or college, for that matter. Late twenties is where its at, for me). But if anyone ever asks me what I was like in high school, I will immediately direct them to Hannah Bailey in American Teen.

You have to see this movie. It is amazing. I saw a sneak preview last night and was prepared to be totally unimpressed. I don't usually like Michael Moore's movies because I find them long and meandering. It frustrates me when he weakens his legitimate criticisms by going on some crazy tangent. Also, I don't really care for the way his movies are usually revolve around him and his stunts. I can see that he serves a purpose with his badgering, but I don't want to watch it. This has nothing to do with politics — I just think he's obnoxious. I say all this because if you were thinking about not seeing Sicko because you don't like Michael Moore — see it anyway. He hit the nail on the head with this one. This movie is not about him, it's about regular people. Chances are you can relate: you probably haven't been involved in a shooting or terrorist attack, but I bet you've been screwed by the insurance industry. Regardless of politics, there is no denying the fundamental truth that our health care system is terrible and something needs to change.

As a movie, this one is great: it didn't feel too long to me; in fact, I could have watched more of these stories. It's genuinely funny and charming, and Moore's trademark stunts are kept to a minimum (one, as far as I could tell). It's also truly heartbreaking — there were lots of sniffles and tears in the theater last night. The story that affected me the most was the woman whose husband died from cancer after her insurance company wouldn't approve a bone marrow transplant on the grounds that it was "experimental." It just broke my heart. There are lots of other heartbreaking moments in the film, as well as a ton of what the hell? moments — such as the scene where the man explains how he had to choose which fingertip to reattach after an accident, or the scene where the 9/11 rescue worker finds out her $120 breathing treatment is available in Cuba for 5 cents. Actually, that was kind of heartbreaking as well. At a couple of points during the movie, the theater broke out in applause. By far the biggest round occurred when a former member of British Parliament said: "If you can find money to kill people, you can find money to help people."

Some of the criticisms I've read about this movie is that Moore paints too glowing a picture of the health care systems in Canada, Great Britain and France. This is probably true — surely there are flaws in these systems. I've read horror stories about people having to wait forever for medical care in both Canada and Great Britain. However, I have never read a horror story in which someone in one of these countries had to wait forever and then got charged thousands of dollars. That happens all the time here. Some people don't like these health care systems because they don't like paying high taxes. Well, I relate. I hate paying taxes. Particularly since I pay federal income tax, state income tax, and two different types of city income tax and on top of that, I pay for my health insurance out of pocket (since my employer finds it easier to classify me as an independent contractor instead of an employee, hence my two types of city tax) while I accrue interest on my massive school loans. I bought the insurance, using my school loan, because I could not afford to buy my medication otherwise. I pay well over half my salary in taxes and insurance and then I pay copays for doctor visits and medication (plus I have a huge book stating exactly which tests and procedures I am not entitled to get). So, yeah. People in other countries have to pay a lot in taxes for healthcare, and people in the U.S. have to pay a lot in other ways. Many of us are just one accident or serious illness away from bankruptcy.

I have been comparatively lucky when it comes to insurance, but I am not without complaints. After college, I spent about a year working for a health insurance sub-contractor. I was a temp worker, and therefore did not have health insurance. Neither did a lot of people I worked with. And we were the people who decided whether or not treatments were approved (well, not me — I just typed up the data). We weren't doctors. We never saw the people who needed treatment. We didn't even work directly for an insurance company. During this time, since I didn't have health insurance, I was prepared to go without, like all of my recent college grad friends (two of whom scored really great jobs, with benefits, and were let go just before the benefits were about to kick in). My parents thought this was a bad idea and generously offered to pay for a COBRA to extend my health coverage. My COBRA application was denied because it was discovered that I had seen a counselor when I was in college. Now, I went to college in New York, from 1999-2003. A lot of people needed counseling at this time. I can't tell you how embarrassed I felt when I received the denial letter stating my "pre-existing mental illness" prevented me from receiving coverage. I didn't know I was "mentally ill." I thought I was a confused college student finding my identity in a particularly turbulent time and place. I told the insurance company as much and was eventually approved.

I was also without dental insurance for a very long time. I first discovered I was a teeth grinder when I went away to college (probably part of my severe "mental illness"). I found out, very soon after, that it would cost about $400 dollars for a custom mouth guard. Since I didn't have $400, I decided I would live with the consequences of grinding. Now, I have dental insurance, but I need about $6,000 worth of dental work which is not covered. Yes, I was stupid, but $400 is a lot of money to a 18-year-old on work study who knows nothing about teeth. This is a financial burden, but luckily it is not a medical crisis. I'm sure there are people all over America going without treatment for severe medical problems that are just going to get worse and worse (and more expensive).

One of the things about Sicko that surprised me (but shouldn't have) was hearing the British doctor describe the measures taken for preventative care. For example, British doctors are actually encouraged to have their patients undergo mental health screenings. Imagine that.

My favorite reviews of Sicko so far are here and here.

During busy times like now, I actually watch more TV than usual, because instead of watching shows that I planned to watch, I will just turn on the TV when I am exhausted and flip around and zone out in front of any dumb-ass program out there. Here's a sampling of all the dumb-assery I've been absorbing lately:

While flipping through the channels last week, I saw a promo for a crappy looking drama One Tree Hill on the new! CW! Philly! and thought the creepy English teacher sleeping with his student looked familiar. It was my old roommate, Reynaldo! The summer before I turned 21, I took a chance and moved into an apartment over a welding shop that was inhabited by a revolving cast of extreme characters. I thought Rey was a no-good womanizer until one night when we rented Crossroads and drunkenly performed the karaoke songs on the Extras DVD. Soon, we were sharing a mattress on the bedroom floor of two gay opera singers. One thing that's cool about going to art school is that sometimes when you flip channels, you see your old friends.

The other day, I caught the movie Election on E. I loved it. I am normally not a fan of Chris Klein, but he rocked that dumb-but-nice jock role hard. I also have only recently begun to warm up to Reese Witherspoon, but I think I would have liked her a lot sooner if I had seen this movie earlier.

I'm digging the new season of The Office. I don't know how I feel about all the new characters, but I like watching the love triangle stuff. What I do not love, however, is the blantant Staples product placement. Even if this show can get kind of goofy at times, I think the acting is spectacular.

For some reason, I still tune into America's Next Top Model even though I can't actively care about anyone on the show. It's not even like past seasons, where the contestants were so distasteful it was worth tuning in. These girls are just, you know, okay. And the shoots are getting more and more ridiculous. Float in a wind tunnel wearing a spaceman suit? I don't get it. I also don't get Miss J. S/he is so annoying, and never has anything at all constructive to say. Also, I have gotten so familiar with Tyra's weird logic that I can accurately predict the exact order of the line-up at the end. I don't know what that says about me.

I also caught, for the first time, The Biggest Loser. I was pretty much horrified. Although I can see how it could be inspiring to watch people lose weight, why does this show have to be filmed in such a way that makes it look like people lose 15 pounds in a week? That is not healthy. I guess it's not fun to watch people gradually lose weight in a realistic manner with the loving support of the people around them. Instead this show has all this drama and manipulation. It's like watching the Real World/Road Rules Challenge, which I really do not like but will sometimes watch just to see catty bitches fall into water, which seems to happen all the time.

I have been tuning into Countdown with Keith Olbermann more and more. I dig him, but I don't dig all his weird graphics and commercial interruptions.

I am not liking Paula's Party. I am a huuuuuuugge Paula Dean fan, but I don't think she's so good in this kind of live-audience settings. It breaks the intimacy of her whole "from my kitchen to yours" schtick. Plus, Paula, God, enough with the sexual innuedo. Um, hello, TMI! Yuck.

I like watching Little People, Big World, but this season seems to be all about taking extravagent trips and buying expensive stuff. Yeah, I can't relate. The first season was a lot better, in my opinion.

I'm embarrassed to say that I really like Gene Simmons' Family Jewels. I am especially sorry to say that I particularly enjoy Gene Simmons. I like how loving and open the family is, and how well adjusted (and good lookin') the kids are. And the joke is on Gene Simmons most of the time, but he still comes off as a sort of sympathetic character.

I have never laughed so hard at TV as I did at last night's Celebrity Jeopardy! featuring Martin Short, Joely Fischer and Mario Cantone. I didn't find the guests particularly funny, but the whole thing was just uncannily like one of those Will Ferrel SNL skits. The questions were easy as hell; Martin Short kept buzzing in with totally ridiculous answers; at one point, Mario Cantone ran out from behind his podium and did a little dance. . . It was just out-of-control. The whole time, Alex Trebec was trying to play it cool and not become a parody of himself, but you could tell he thought they were total dipshits. Oh man, was it funny.

Now, if you'll excuse me, it's Saturday morning, and I'm watching. . . Clean Sweep.

I finally saw the end of School Ties. Now I never have to sit through that again.

Last night, I decided to rent to movies I have seen a billion times but never all the way through: Scent of a Woman and Rainman. Guess what? I still have not seen them all the way through! I fell asleep somewhere towards the end of Rainman, but I woke up in time to see the actual end, so now I will just count it as something I have seen all the way through, because I don't think I care to watch it again. I am getting perturbed thinking about all the movies I think I've seen, but can't remember. Maybe there's a reason why I can't remember them: I don't really care.

Wow, this movie was really interesting. I never gave a whole lot of thought to the MPAA, the clandestine organization that is solely responsible for rating films in the U.S. This movie rips away some of the veil of secrecy and exposes just how arbitrary the ratings process is. Ever wonder why some movies are rated R while others, with seemingly more controversial content, are P-13? Well, the answer is that the ratings are decided by a small group of people, including two clergy members, with no clear-cut system for determining ratings. About the only thing you can count on is that sex is earns a more restrictive rating than violence.

What I found to be the most provocative part of the film is the discussion of actual terrible events that go on in the world. How do you "rate" reality? Are Iraq War photos an R image? An NC-17 image? PG? What? It's really going on — whose to say who is allowed to see it?

Here's what one reader over at the New York Times had to say about it:

When I was a teenager, the Catholic Church's Legion of Decency published a classification that determined whether or not a "true Catholic" could watch a particular movie. No one knew who rated these movies. No one knew what standards were used. All anyone really knew was that the Legion's decisions were final and mortal sins would be levied on those foolish enough to attend condemned films. Guess what? The Legion of Decency–isn't that a marvelous name for censorship?–has gone. But fear not. The Motion Pictures Association of Arts & Sciences–or some such name–has boldly held the Legion's banner high and it has supplanted the Catholic hierarchy as our current, secretive and punitive censors of current cinema. They decide for you and me whether a film rates an NC-17–which basically condemns it to never be released. Who are those that rate the worthiness of movies to be seen by today's public? No one knows. What standards are used? Diddo [sic]. How can films that have been given a failing grade–NC-17–correct their works? Not a chance. Go see "This Film is Not Yet Rated"…while you have the opportunity of doing so. We owe a debt of gratitude to those brave souls who produced it. And you owe it to yourself to see how the major studios are manipulating your movie viewing.

Really, go see it.

I have been waiting to write about Spike Lee's documentary about Hurricane Katrina because I thought I would have something prolific to say about it. I don't. The documentary says it all. It's four hours long, but after sitting through the four hours, I felt like there were still so many other stories to hear. What stuck with me the most about the film was when someone — I forget who — is talking about the lack of governmental response and all the red tape that prevented people from getting help, etc. He says something like, "When the government wants to do something, we find a way to pay for it. We want to put a man on the moon, we find the money. We want to start a war in Iraq, we find the money." So true. I think this is true on an individual level as well. I never really have any extra money. I would never, for example, make plans to visit my best friend or my sister in San Francisco, because I can't afford it. But if either of them got in an accident or really needed me in some way, I would put the flight on a credit card and figure out how to pay for it later. Because people that I love are that important. The people that I don't know are important, too, and I have not prioritized them very highly. Like many people, I give small charitible donations every month (I sponsor a child in Chile), and I make sure to kick in larger donations after a major disaster. Then, I keep living my life. This month, I took a bunch of cash that I would normally spend on things that are not necessities and donating it to causes that benefit residents of the Gulf Coast. It still seems rather trivial, but it is a start.

The first thing I did was throw in a couple of extra books for The Dewey Donation System while I was buying my school books. This is an absolutely great way to help Gulf Coast libraries rebuild their collections. Just browse their Amazon wishlists and send a few books their way. For every book that's ordered this way, a small donation is sent to the Dewey Donation System. It's a cool way to know exactly what you're sending.

Say what you will about Oprah (and I have a lot to say about her) she really put her money where her mouth is this time. Her online registry has lots of fun choices for the houses her Angel Network is building.

I never heard of global green.org until I saw Brad Pitt talking about it on TV the other night, so I guess there is something to say about star power. I thought it was worth $50 to join and try to bring sustainable development to the Gulf Coast.

I didn't give to Habitat for Humanity this time, but I would strongly recommend other people to do so. I worked with Habitat in the past building houses in Hartford, CT, and the experience really taught me that everyone can do something. I have no carpentry experience (and questionable motor skills in every sense) yet I was able to help with all kinds of tasks, like sanding, dusting, and serving food to other volunteers. I know faith-based charities turn a lot of people off, but I have had first hand experience with Habitat as a non-organized religion person and it's an organization that I recommend supporting.

Roger and Me is one of those movies that I had seen bits and pieces of, but never the whole thing all the way through. In fact, it's one of those movies that I always think I've seen all the way through, because I can certainly carry on a conversation about it, but like Scent of a Woman and Rain Man, I could quote scenes but not tell you exactly how the thing ends.

So I finally saw it the other night, and I didn't think it was especially great. I agree with much of Michael Moore's politics, but I find his techniques pretty obnoxious and his documentaries to be somewhat meandering. I really liked the Awful Truth TV show, because I can take him much better in small doses and I have to admit, he is quite creative. As annoying as I find him, I still have to respect his persistance. I am always so afraid of bothering people, he has pretty much made a career out of badgering people. So good for him, there's a place for that. Anyway, I think my new project is going to be watching all of the movies that I think I've seen, but I really haven't. I have seen the first two thirds of Rain Man about 57 times, but I've never seen the end. I would never think to rent it, because it's always on TV. And whenever it's on TV, stretched out to 38 hours with commercial breaks, I stop watching at some point because I have other things to do.

I just have one thing to add to my review of Invincible:

I read that Vince Papale didn't meet his wife until after his time with the Eagles was finished. I honestly don't understand why every single freaking movie must include a love story. I'm all about love, but I find most movie love relationships trite, predicatable and boring. And in cases of movies that are based on real lives, it kind of sends the message that it's not enough to have some really awesome accomplishment, unless you have a partner. Well, not everyone has a partner at every single stage of their life. Some people are trapped in awful relationships and they would be much better off living independently [not "alone" because most of the single people I know have vibrant communities of friends and family]. It is wonderful when people who are really compatible find each other, but, it is no less meaningful to celebrate achievements with friends and family by your side. I don't think the three-date love story arc (from teasing banter to generic wedding) needs to be an integral part of so many movies . . . I can't be the only one who finds it terribly boring.

So I saw this movie last night, and, for the record, I would never have seen it if it wasn't a Philadelphia story. I love Philadelphia, and I watched my first full length football game when the Eagles made the Superbowl. . . but, in general, I do not care for football.

This movie was a lot better than I thought it would be, considering Disney made it. I have only two major complaints. First of all, a lot of the movie took place in a South Philly bar, and there was no smoke to be seen anywhere. I understand Disney does not want to promote smoking in a PG movie, but come on, that is totally unrealistic. There is a way to include realistic smoking in an unglamorous way — this just seemed too sanitized. They didn't mind showing all that drinking, after all. My other complaint is the complete lack of accurate Philly accents in the movie. The Philadelphia accent is a tricky hybrid of New York, Midwest and a teeny bit of the South. But anyone who's been here for a little bit knows it's not hard to imitate. Most obviously, the Philadelphia "o" in words like "home" or "phone" generally sounds kind of like an "ew" sound, as in "hoewme." Right in the beginning of the movie, Marky Mark turns refers to his friend Tommy as "Tawmy" and I'm sorry, Boston, but we don't do that here. The only time I hear Philadelphians put an "aw" in place of an "o" is in the word "on" which generally rhymes with "dawn" instead of "don." I did hear someone say "youse" (as in "youse guys") in the film once, and I appreciate that minor effort, but if this movie took place in another city with a regional accent, I bet they'd make more pains to get it right.

All in all, if you don't care about Philadelphia or football, don't see this movie. If you care about football and historical accuracy, don't see this movie. I'm told the football stuff is innacurate, but what do I know?