You had me at . . .

. . . “Lots of financial skullduggery and a sensational shoot-out in the Guggenheim Museum.”

Seriously, I knew next to nothing about “The International” prior to reading my RSS Reader’s short blurb from Roger Ebert, but the above sentence, by Mr. Ebert, is enough to make me interested.  Skullduggery?  Shoot-outs in the Guggenheim?  What more could I ask for?  I mean, in less you can slip some good old zombies in there somewhere, this movie sounds like it already has what any thinking person could possibly ask for.

You know it is kind of sad, but I feel that society of late has been lacking in an overall sense of skullduggery.  Probably this is in part because said skullduggery has been replaced by villainy, which, after a conversation with Bear some weeks back, on the nature of villains, I have concluded is quite prevalent in the modern day and age.  According to the good ol’ Merriam-Webster dictionary skullduggery is “underhanded or unscrupulous behavior.”  Whereas villainy is along the lines of having the characteristics of an evil or depraved person (aka a Villain).  I guess the thing about skullduggery is it isn’t quite so serious as villainy.  Somebody can skulldugger around, and we all might be like “Oh you, and your unscrupulous behavior . . . don’t do that, that’s bad.” But chances are that we don’t take them too seriously, partially because they may (of may not) be wearing a top hat and cape and look kind of or look kind of like this guy:

Look at that unscrupulous expression . . . via The Adventures Dr. McNinja

Look at that unscrupulous expression . . . via The Adventures of Dr. McNinja


A villain on the other hand is just bad news and kind of gets everybody down.  You have to react to their evil whims with a kind of “oh fuck, that villain sure fucked shit up again . . . look at this mess.”  Personally I think Wall Street and the banking system is populated by a large number of villains, which means that “The International” is probably kind of innacurate because villains don’t waste time on simple skullduggery, but get right down to acts of evil and malice.

Whatever, shoot-outs in the Guggenheim . . . that is genius.

~ by Nathaniel on February 13, 2009.

2 Responses to “You had me at . . .”

  1. Of course, having only read the RSS blurb, I missed that Ebert actually starts his review off by saying “Not since the days of silent movies have bankers as a group been cast so ruthlessly as villains.” This of course means that “The International” may be more accurate than I previously assumed.

    Though sadly I think Ebert has attributed skullduggery to villains which I just can’t quite accept.

  2. certainely a nice move – would like to see Die Hard 5 set in a museum, that would be good, John McLean battling against post modernism


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: