There’s something about Emma Watson‘s accent that’s just…I don’t know, perfect. It sorta does something to me. And last night’s deadpan delivery of “I hate it” wasn’t half bad. She should consider playing an adult one of these days. “Hey Paul…the kid just gunned me!” “Put that in your little liberal arts program.” “I don’t know what happened.”

We all need to at least half-salute the people who cut the trailer for I Love You, Beth Cooper (20th Century Fox, 7.10) because (a) they make it seem like a grotesquely unfunny, off-the-charts high-school relationship farce and (b) to judge from the reviews so far the movie pretty much is that, so in a way they’re doing people a favor by not concealing anything. They’re saying, “Do you like comedies that are aimed at dumb beasts ? Do you want to be tortured? Do you want to experience the sensation of life itself draining out of you? Then you definitely want to catch Beth Cooper.”

The review quotes so far are so bad they’re thrilling. “If watching this makes you want to be young again you probably grew up in an Algerian prison.” — IE’s Amy Nicholson. “Usually the quality gap between okay and movie isn’t the size of Texas.” — Matt Pais, Metromix. “Did erstwhile John Hughes protege and Harry Potter progenitor Chris Columbus fall behind on his payments on a sub-prime mortgage? Even if so, I’m not sure it fully excuses this joyless, offensively stupid end-of-high-school farce, which is about as funny as a hit-and-run.” — Scott Foundas, Village Voice.

Why does I Love You, Beth Cooper currently have a 34% positive Metacritic rating instead of a seemingly more fitting zero rating, which is what it has right now on Rotten Tomatoes? Because Entertainment Weekly‘s Lisa Schwarzbaum gave it a B plus.

My original trailer take was that it “suggests that the film is coarse and vulgar and way overcranked. A ludicrous teenaged horndog wish-fulfillment plot, gross stupidity, a hissing raccoon, insanely overdone foley effects, every cliche out of the tits-and-zits high-school handbook. Truly repellent. An unfortunate comedown for Chris Columbus, whom I was starting to learn to like after the invigorating Rent. The screenplay is by Larry Doyle, based on his book. I mean, I wanted to throw up.”

I don’t know about all the blisters and leprosy-bubbles in Park Chan-wook‘s Thirst (Focus Features, 7.31), which I saw last night, but I know about Kim Ok-bin, who plays the lead. In my opinion she’s the true star of the film — the reason you need to see it. She actually is the star in that this Korean-made vampire film is based on Emile Zola ‘s Therese Raquin, with Ok-bin playing the Therese role.

In my head I’ve begun calling her the Korean Isabelle Huppert — the crazy Huppert, I mean, by way of My Mother and The Piano Teacher.

The actual lead — the part of a priest who becomes infected with vampire blood — is played by Song Kang-ho, who’s described in a line in the press notes as “the Korean Tom Hanks.” The story is about Song’s vampiric nature leading him into an affair with Kim’s character, who sees herself as trapped in a grotesque and confining relationship and dying for release.

To me, Kim (her first name is Ok-bin) is the stand-out because she completely gives herself over to the film’s mood of erotic insanity. Boiled down, Thirst is a grotesque and bloody love story with a lot of slurping and toe-sucking and two or three very hot love scenes. It’s not so much a vampire film as an “oh God, I can’t help myself” drama.

If I were marketing Thirst I would emphasize that these scenes have some of the panting urgency of the sex scenes in Last Tango in Paris and In The Realm of the Senses. And that Kim Ok-bin’s impish live-wire acting is something of a discovery in this context. In the early scenes her expressions of disgust (at her family situation) and hints of inner perversity are quite alluring. She ends up convincing you that her desire to escape on a wave of abandon has brought her to a state of ecstatic madness.

Kim Ok-bin

The Hurt Locker “is a great film, an intelligent film, a film shot clearly so that we know exactly who everybody is and where they are and what they’re doing and why,” says Roger Ebert in a 7.8. review. “The camera work is at the service of the story. [Director] Kathryn Bigelow knows, unlike the pathetic Michael Bay, that you can’t build suspense with shots lasting one or two seconds.

“Frankly, I wonder if a lot of Transformer lovers would even be able to take Bigelow’s film. They may not be accustomed to powerful films that pound on their imaginations instead of their ears.

“We live in a depressing time for American movies. Half the nation seems hellbent on throwing itself at the horrible Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. The movie’s fans inform me that I don’t ‘get it,’ that what they want is mindless violence and stuff blowing up real good. They like the explosions. It’s entertainment for the whole family. I get it all, all right. [Except] two years from now, no one will quite be able to remember its name.”

In his 7.8 Hurt Locker review, Roger Ebert writes that Jeremy Renner‘s Sgt. James — a Zen master at defusing IEDs — is who he is because of the following core beliefs: (1) bombs need to be defused; (2) nobody does it better than James; (3) he knows exactly how good he is, and (4) when he’s at work, an intensity of focus and exhilaration consumes him, and he’s in that heedless zone when an artist loses track of self and time.”

Bingo! There are dozens of columnists out there who can out-Sgt. James me with one tied behind their back, but I know the lay of the land. Every day I grapple with the upside of doing this column — the intensity of focus and the occasional exhilaration — as well as the downside of living in that “heedless zone,” which means putting off or forgetting to deal with necessary and rudimentary day-to-day stuff and having to constantly pay for these delays and omissions in small and large ways.

The essence of right-wing conservatism is an opportunistic social Darwinism. All righties believe, to quote an old barstool homily, that “the world is for the few.” It follows in their philosophy that capitalism — God’s chosen economic system — is hallowed and sacrosanct because it allows for society’s hungriest go-getters (i.e., the brightest entrepeneurs and most aggressive ladder-climbers) to live rich and abundant lives — to profit handsomely from the fruit of their talent, vision, inititative and opportunism.

This, many righties believe, is the natural order of things, which is why many of them (certainly the political righties) profess an affinity with God and Christianity. They see the Christian faith as a kind of moral/philosophical support system for free-market determinism, objectivism, laissez-faire capitalism, and constitutionally-limited government. For them it’s all about the goodies that God in His wisdom wants them to have — about their right to live flush and get richer and to help like-minded homies do the same. This is the view that binds Ayn Rand and Joe the Plumber and Sarah Palin and all the other buccaneers out there who believe in “me first and applications of socially progressive and compassionate policies second.”

And if anything gets in the way of this God-sanctified entitlement — anything, say, like the need to deal with global warming or develop green or non-polluting energy sources — conservatives will always stall, dispute, denounce, block, argue against, and generally do everything in their power to deny the communal reality of life on this planet. Because they don’t care about the communal reality of life on this planet. Because dealing with same tends to bring about regulations which, they believe, tend to mess with their freedom to romp around and profit handsomely and live lavishly.

Conservatives care about their own world and their own opportunities. They believe in their right to mine, exploit and profit from the backyard minerals that have always been and always will be “for the few.” That is who and what they are.

Capitalism: A Love Story — the just-announced title of Michael Moore‘s global financial meltdown doc — works for me. It’s a little beside-the-point, a little bit of a “come again?”…but it’s fine. I mean, why squawk about it? Why be a contrarian by suggesting that a more accurate (and arguably catchier title ) for Moore’s film would be Reagan: A Love Story?

The crisis that kicked in last fall and which will, in all likelihood, submerge this country in a Japanese-styled recession slumber for many years to come, is not, of course, a creation of capitalism per se. It’s a result of a pattern of free-for-all economic speculation and debt-splurging and wild-west profiteering that began with the policies of Ronald Reagan.

N.Y. Times columnist Paul Krugman explained it all on 5.31, in a piece called “Reagan Did It.” “The more one looks into the origins of the current disaster, the clearer it becomes that the key wrong turn — the turn that made crisis inevitable — took place in the early 1980s, during the Reagan years.

“Attacks on Reaganomics usually focus on rising inequality and fiscal irresponsibility. Indeed, Reagan ushered in an era in which a small minority grew vastly rich, while working families saw only meager gains. He also broke with longstanding rules of fiscal prudence.

“On the latter point: traditionally, the U.S. government ran significant budget deficits only in times of war or economic emergency. Federal debt as a percentage of G.D.P. fell steadily from the end of World War II until 1980. But indebtedness began rising under Reagan; it fell again in the Clinton years, but resumed its rise under the Bush administration, leaving us ill prepared for the emergency now upon us.

“The increase in public debt was, however, dwarfed by the rise in private debt, made possible by financial deregulation. The change in America’s financial rules was Reagan’s biggest legacy. And it’s the gift that keeps on taking.”

Moore said yesterday that Capitalism: A Love Story “will be the perfect date movie. It’s got it all — lust, passion, romance and 14,000 jobs being eliminated every day. It’s a forbidden love, one that dare not speak its name. Heck, let’s just say it: It’s capitalism.”

Heck, let’s just really say it: it’s unbridled yeehaw Reagan- and Dubya-styled deregulation . It’s “let’s make the opportunities as lavish and imperial as possible for our rich Wall Street buddies so they can take care of us while we wrap ourselves in the flag and old-style Christianity and family values and stir up the yahoos by railing against gay marriage and abortion, etc.”

Capitalism: A Love Story (Overture) will open on 10.2.09.

In a 6.13.09 posting called “Barnyard” I described a confrontation with an obnoxious popcorn muncher at Loews’ Lincoln Square during a first-anywhere showing of the trailer for Michael Moore‘s financial-meltdown doc (the title of which, Capitalism: A Love Story, has just been announced). This morning I found video footage on Moore’s site of crowd reactions to this very same first-anywhere viewing — including brief footage of myself and this guy. It begins around the 19-second mark and goes until 23 or 24.

You can see a blurry image of yours truly (wearing a white shirt) standing along the wall in the right-rear section, and you can see the ugly bald guy — glasses, white T-shirt — sitting in my immediate vicinity.

The 6.13 story read as follows: “Last night around 6:45 pm I walked into Leows Lincoln Square and a mid-sized theatre playing The Hangover to see the Michael Moore teaser. Except I made the mistake of sitting behind an ugly bald guy whose seat was leaning way back, in the same way that thoughtless people in coach lean their seats right into your face. He was short and bald and rocking in his seat as he stuffed his face with popcorn. It was like sitting behind a rambunctious seven year-old. I hated him on sight.

“The feeling was apparently mutual because he kept half-turning-around — i.e., the universal gesture that means ‘hey, quit what you’re doing because you’re bothering me.’ I crossed my leg to re-tie my shoe and this asshole turned around. He bounced his seat back and it hit my left knee and this asshole turned around. I was sitting behind him doing nothing (except thinking what an asshole he was) and this asshole turned around.

“After the fifth or sixth turn-around I said, ‘What…? What’s your problem?’ He said I was breathing on his head and it bothered him. Nostril breath, he meant. ‘Well, you’re gonna have to deal with it, pal, because I’m not gonna stop breathing,’ I said. ‘You wanna sit on my lap?’ he said. No, I said, and why don’t you try just sucking it in and shutting the fuck up? ‘Just go…just get outta here,’ he said. ‘I’m not going anywhere,’ I said. ‘Find a way to live with it.'”

With 2009 having just passed the six-month mark, here are HE’s Standouts of the Year in order of preference. Let’s restrict it to the Best and Worst features (foreign included), Best Docs, Most Over-Rated, ranks of the Decent and Entirely Decent, and the Most Underwhelming and Over-Rated. Let’s put aside the best performances for now. I’m doing this in haste so any and all additions or scoldings are welcome.

Best-So-Far Features of the Year (in order of preference): The Hurt Locker, An Education (Sundance ’09, opening in fall), In The Loop, Humpday, Public Enemies, Up, Sin Nombre, Adventureland, Three Monkeys, The Girlfriend Experience, Il Divo.

Best-So-Far Docs of the Year: The Cove, Tyson, Anvil! The Story of Anvil, Food, Inc, Of Time and the City.

Rousing, Perfectly Pleasing Popcorn: Star Trek.

Worst-So-Far Features of the Year: The Brothers Bloom, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, Year One, Knowing, The Girl From Monaco, The Answer Man, I Hate Valentine’s Day, Land of the Lost, Bride Wars, Ghost of Girlfiends Past, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, Lymelife, Mysteries of Pittsurgh, Sunshine Cleaning.

Entirely Decent: (500) Days of Summer, State of Play, The Taking of Pelham 123, Whatever Works, Coraline, A Woman in Berlin, Sleep Dealer.

Decent: The Stoning of Soraya M., Bruno, The International, Terminator Salvation, The Proposal, Killshot, Every Little Step, Taken.

Entirely Decent & First-Rate But Finally Too Intelligent, Tricky and Clever for B-Student Types Like Myself: Duplicity

Half Decent: The Soloist, Crossing Over, I Love You Man.

Integrity Award (for Sticking to Tough Material Without Kowtowing to Conventional Tastes): Watchmen.

Most Over-Rated Features of the Year: The Hangover, Observe and Report, Departures, Drag Me to Hell, Moon, Cheri.

Unseen: It Might Get Loud, The Cake Eaters, Paul Blart: Mall Cop, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Dead Snow, Goodbye Solo, Afghan Star, Tony Manero, My Sister’s Keeper.

Worst Unseen Movie of the Year (based on repellent trailer): I Love You, Beth Cooper.

Best Black-and-White Cinematography of the Year: Tetro.

Most Underwhelming Smart/Good Film of the Year: Away We Go.

Second Most Underwhelming Smart/Clever Film of the Year: Inglourious Basterds (seen in Cannes).

Those opening eight minutes from The Hurt Locker were legitimately posted on Hulu today. The clip was apparently stolen out of Hulu’s server and immediately posted by Trailer Addict two or three days ago. I said at the time that offering the clip was an astute marketing move by Summit. The reason is that people don’t trust trailers. Or rather they trust them only so far. A straight eight-minute segment from a film has no “slick sell” or bullshit in it. It is what it is, it gives you an honest taste. Marketers should sell other films this way.