The Polar Express

I have an opinion on this movie, and if you are one of the people raving about it in my Facebook feed, you may not want to continue.

I've been hearing about this movie for years - since it came out and definitely since I had kids and became more acquainted with all things for them and what other parent's think.  So you could say I had at least marginal expectations for this movie to be if not good, then at least enjoyable.  And given the fairly consistent airings on tv every year, I've had opportunity to see it.  I've never made it longer than ten minutes.  But we were gifted the dvd this year so I popped it in for the kids this afternoon planning to get some uninterrupted reading time (MOTY).


And Oh.  My.  God.

Where do I start with this movie?  The half realistic half bizarrely stiff animated people (with inexplicably wooden puppet hands)?  The SUPER annoying kid on the train who is have been given the voice of a 45 year old straight out of Woody Allen?  The ridiculous (and ENDLESS) subplot of the lost/found/lost/flying/hovering/ ad nauseam ticket?  The continually moronic choices made by each and every character?  The total inconclusiveness given the conductor character as to whether he is a good guy or a bad guy?  Santa's elves which are apparently Jewish given their liberal use of Yiddish? (I actually find this amusing, but it is still too random for comprehension.)  Basically I can sum up my opinion of this movie in one word:

Barf.

And yet.  My kids sat completely still, and silent, and enthralled by watching it.  So I have no doubt that it will enter into our yearly Christmas seasonal viewing rotation.  Which currently only consists of one video - and medley of Christmas carols accompanied by random Disney scenes.  So we are hardly bringing down the average here.  But whatever.  The kids love it, so that's fine by me.  I'll just try and find other things to do whenever it's on.

But really, would it kill someone to make a holiday movie for kids that maybe not only didn't suck but is actually charming and intelligent and fun?  That would be nice.

ps: anyone who loves it want to explain to me why?  because I really don't get it and I'd love to hear your opinion on it.

Hand Dance This, McDonalds

You may have seen a McDonalds commercial for their coffee drinks with a couple doing some brief hand dancing intermingled with drinking whipped cream coffee concoctions.  You may also have wondered WTF? when seeing this commercial, as it is weird at best, stupid and annoying at worst.  But don't blame the hand dancers - they are simply taking advantage of their super cool viral video which, in the hands of corporate marketers, of course turns lame and stupid and annoying.  But the original video is awesome and totally mesmerizing (plus great tune!)


Check out the real thing:




ps: McDonalds, here's a tip: not everyone drinks caffeine.  How about offering some decaf versions of those foofy drinks?

Kraken

Kraken by China Mieville

This book is hard to fall in to.  The plot starts off very intriguing, but the language is so dense and enigmatic that you can't just flow into it and get swept away by the story.  It is definitely on purpose - the author is clearly going for some sort of hard boiled literary style, but I always find that just makes it harder to really get into the world of the book.  And the constant metaphors combined with the fast paced stylistic dialogue and extremely arcane (when not totally made up) vocabulary, served to make it very difficult for me to really get a picture in my head of what was happening.  Which is not particularly a criticism of the book: this book is very much about the language of the story and setting a particular tone, which I found hard to adapt to.  There is no exposition.  There is no explanation, and there is hardly any description of anything or anyone in the book, at least, of any sort that might be understood.  And example of "description" in this book:

"In Spitalfields, where the financial buildings overspilt like vulgar magma onto the remnants of the market, a group of angry subroutines performed the equivalent of a chanting circle in their facety iteration of aether."

Yes.  That is what the entire book is like.  The story itself is engaging - a preserved giant squid is stolen from a museum, throwing the main character Billy Harrow into an underworld of magic and religion and criminals that he never knew existed.  I just need it translated into everyday English where there are perceptible moments of description cluing me in to what the characters are actually doing and where they are. And to be honest, the last 150-200 pages or so, when the plot is finally coming to a head, does away with a lot of the thick, confusing text and just propels the story along in a way that is engaging and fun.  But, man, those first 300-350 pages are like fighting through a bramble.

And maybe you like that.  I know all of the reviews I've seen have been super positive (which is why I bought the book) and many compliment the writing style.  So I could be outing myself as pedantic and slow for wanting it to be written in plainer English.  it's all a matter of preference I guess.  I personally am a very fast reader and I prefer books that allow me to really fly through them, totally absorbed in the action and this book didn't allow me to do that.  If you are someone who really delights in the language of a book as well as the plot, then you will probably enjoy Kraken more than I did.

Gettin' My Brown Coat On

Recently, through the wonder of Netflix instant viewing, I have been introducing my dad to Firefly.  When ever he comes to visit we will squeeze in as many episodes as we can, and because it only lasted one season, we are almost finished - his trip at Christmas should wrap it up.  And the more we watch, the more I am reminded how wonderful this show truly was, and the more bummed out I get about it having been canceled.

I'll admit, I did not watch this show when it was on originally.  I can't remember exactly why - there must have been some time issue (I worked two jobs and therefore nights a lot during this time), because I am a fan of Nathan Fillion, as well as a HUGE Buffy fan, and so would have flocked to anything Joss Whedon did like the true believer that I am.  I also remember reading all about the show when it was first on, how critics loved it but the audiences weren't there, and I remember that it sounded interesting (a space western, literally) so I don't actually know why I never ended up seeing it live.

But none of that really matters - eventually, see it I did, and love it I did.  I suppose that only ever seeing it after it had been canceled saved me from some of the disappointment of having it taken off the air while I was caught up in it.  I would have been really upset to have it drop out right from under me, but it also gives me a little bit of guilt - like if I had been watching maybe it wouldn't have been canceled, you know?  Oh for the days before we had DVR!! How did we survive?


Anyway, all of this is just to say that the series is excellent, and way too short.  As my dad and I come to the end of the 14 fabulous episodes I find myself getting sad that I know it is coming to an end - especially since the overarching grand scheme of things is just starting to come into play beyond the usual adventure of the week stories.  I'm sad that the series ended, and isn't ever likely to be resurrected, even as a sequel to the movie Serenity because they killed Wash the pilot and it wouldn't be the same without him.  Boo.

Oh well.  If you are ever looking for something to watch, and you like whip smart dialogue, by all means check out Firefly.

Fall Television Wrap Up

Now that the new TV season has gotten into full swing and I've had a chance to test the new shows a few times as well as get a feel for where my old favorites are going, I thought I'd give a wrap up of my impressions.

House:  I was totally skeptical about the House/Cuddy coupling this season, and I have to say I am more than pleasantly surprised.  The writers haven't just fallen into a relationship and made it so everything works - they really seem to be taking the time to make it realistic and show how two people would really go about working at creating a life together.  And I also love that the characters are taking it seriously - really trying to adjust their behavior and compromise on the issues of working and sleeping together so that they can make a go of it.  I feel the whole thing has been handled maturely and honestly, and I'm grateful.

Castle:  The best thing about Castle is the characters and their relationships - the best of these being between Castle and his daughter - and this season has kept up that tradition.  Basically my only response to the new season is HOORAY that Det. Beckett has finally got a good haircut!!  It was super cute short the first season, but last season her hair was majorly frumpadelic.  Glad to see the gorgeous Stana Katic finally has the do she deserves.

Glee: Are you going to hate me if I say that this season got off to a rocky start for me?  In my opinion, the best part about Glee is the way they tell some not so easy story lines within a framework of music that helps the plot hang together.  So far this season I have felt that the music has been more stunt driven (Britney Spears anyone?) rather than based on the plot - and what plot there is has been very thin.  They also seem to be moving into an "issue of the week" format, which is coming across as a little more heavy handed than their previous episodes.  This past week with the duets was a return to last season's form, so I hope this was only an awkward beginning to a great year.  I still love the show of course!

Running Wilde: I SOOOOOOO want to love this show.  Will Arnett is pretty much funny no matter what he does, and Keri Russell is so pretty I just want to stare at her for hours on end.  I do like how they have not only made the main character a rich doofus, but also made Emmy (the tree hugger bent on changing him) kind of a doofus too.  Like when she's being a martyr just to be a martyr rather than because it will actually achieve her goals or when they argue he points out the areas she is being a hypocrite.  It is very subtle sometimes, but I like that the writers have given both characters flaws - it could have very easily turned into a "the rich are bad and the poor are totally wholesome" type show (which is TOTALLY Emmy's ideal) and that would have turned it too preachy for me. I also think the daughter character, Puddle (and the actress playing her) is super adorable. That being said, the comedy is just... trying to hard.  They are trying so desperately to be random and quirky and funny, but only the desperation is coming across.  I hope they can find a gentler rhythm because this really could be a funny show, but I kind of feel it's heading for the chopping block.

Modern Family: Still pitch perfect, still hysterical, still LOVE it!

Fringe: While I like the new format of alternating between worlds, I am uncomfortable with Alternate Olivia being in our world with Peter and Walter.  Which I'm sure is totally the point, and I'm not sure how to fix it because I kind of like having Good Olivia in the alternate universe, unsure of who she is and unraveling the mysteries of what's going on over there.  I just really love Peter and Walter, and it's frustrating to me that they don't know they have the wrong Olivia - like my friends are being tricked, you know?  And I'm sure the producers would be thrilled to hear all of this because it's probably exactly what they are going for - we want our favorite characters reunited, but we also can't wait to see what mysteries they'll reveal while they are separated.  But overall I think the format is growing on me, especially as each story line develops, and in general I think the show has maintained quality and suspense very well.  So I'm not going anywhere.

Nikita:  I'm still not sure what I think about this show.  I definitely like it, but I'm not sure if that's just because this is the kind of thing I get sucked in to easily or because it's actually good.  From the first episode I felt like the tone could use a little bit of lightening up, but now that I've seen a few more episodes I understand the totally serious approach a little more.  But like I said, I love spy stuff, so this could be my own personal taste rather than actual judgment.  The best I can do is say that I am not entirely ashamed to be admitting I watch the show, so it can't be that awful.

The Good Guys:  I love this show, and I just want to mouth kiss whoever decided to put it on Friday nights!  okay, maybe only hug, but I am super grateful that they gave me a show I was going to watch anyway on a night when A) there are no competing shows on my DVR, and B) there was LITERALLY not a single other show I wanted to watch on.  Now we losers who stay home on weekends just need someone to start airing some decent programming on Saturdays and we're all set!

Well, that's it.  Anything I didn't mention has either been running smoothly and therefore not merited impression (ie, Bones, which is as awesome as ever), or I haven't seen it (ie, The Office, which  has fallen by the wayside due to DVR capacity and over scheduling on Thurs nights - I plan to catch up on Hulu).

What are you watching?

Hot Website: HauteLook

Have you heard about HauteLook.com yet? I forget the first time I heard about it, although there was a booth at the BlogHer Expo. It is a member's only website (free to sign up, they don't spam you at all) that offers great 48 hour sales on all kind of designer clothes, jewelry, home goods and kids stuff. I get an email once a day telling me what is on sale that day and I can click on the site and try and score 50% to 75% off. Pretty cool. They even have a new Sunday Farmer's Market feature for gourmet food items.

As a lover of designer clothes on a pauper budget I like getting a crack at great sales without having to spend hours scouring the internet on my own. So far I haven't bought anything through HauteLook, but I have been tempted several times. I also like that they send me one email a day letting me know about the latest brands on sale, and I can click or ignore as I choose. There has been no other spamming of any kind, so signing up didn't put my name on any kind of lists as far as I can tell.



Now, I'm going to be perfectly honest here, and tell you that if you click on this button and register for the site, I will get $3. I realize that this reads like a totally sponsored review, but I assure you, that $3 is the extent of my self interest in telling you about this site. The fact is I was a member of HauteLook long before I went to BlogHer and was given this offer, and I had planned to tell everyone about the site anyway.

Inception

I wanted to see it the moment I saw the poster with the tops of buildings spelling out he word Inception. The previews of buildings folding in on themselves added to my excitement, and seeing it was from Christopher Nolan, the genius behind Memento only sealed the deal.

I have been reluctant to write this review because frankly, there is little I can think of to say about this movie beyond "it was awesome." A spectacle of both visual art and mindbending storytelling, this is not a movie you go into to doze through. Inception requires focus, both from the characters trying to perform it on screen, and by the audience attempting to unravel the mysteries.

In the movie, Leonardo DiCaprio and his team of thieves use technology to go into people's dreams and unlock their deepest secrets - useful work for corporate espionage. The act of inception- planting an idea deep in someone's subconscious- is thought to be impossible, and known to be dangerous. The concepts of traveling through dreams and subconscious are not necessarily easily comprehended, but due to the ability of film to completely render different levels of dream as reality, the plot is not as complex to follow as it could be (this would NOT work as a book). As the characters move ever deeper through layers of dreams within dreams, the movie keeps pace with each layer, allowing for great clarification and reminder just exactly what is happening.

And the tension! You have truly not seen a thrilling conclusion until you have seen this movie, and the climactic scene which takes place simultaneously on several different dream levels moving at different speeds - the ticking time bomb qualities of the slow motion action is truly suspenseful.

The other thing I enjoyed about this movie is the fact that rather than relying on CGI, actual sets were built for even the most fantastical sequences (yes, an actual folding Paris set, although I'm going on a ledge and suggesting that was scale, haha). Because we are so used to digital effects (and they are SO good now), you don't realize what a difference this makes until you see tiny Ellen Page struggling to move enormous swinging mirrors, or the realism in the fight taking place in a hallway with ever changing gravity. The weight of these props adds such gravity (mind the pun) to what are literally fantastical dreamscapes, and just helps blur the line between reality and dream even further.

I cannot stress enough that this is movie that is worth your time and money to go see on the big screen. I have had the seed of desire to see this movie planted in my head ever since that first glance at a poster and the reality exceeded any expectations I might have had about this film.

ps: I totally called the ending.

Nookie

My husband was just gifted a Nook by his company, which in turn means I was gifted a Nook by my husband. I like that it is slim and sleek, although I wish it had a color screen because I think it might be best for magazine and newspaper reading since I love having a real book in my hands. I also think it is wonderful for travel since you can bring a ton of books without overloading your luggage - gone are the days of filling my suitcase with five novels only to be finished by day three of my vacation.

Upon using it, I was surprised to find that I didn't miss the tactile sense of having a book. I thought that pushing a button and waiting for the next page to load would be annoying, but it really wasn't, and it wasn't any more uncomfortable holding the nook than holding a book for hours at a time - and I could do it one handed WAY more easily. reading only one (small) page at a time did slow down my rate of speed somewhat (I typically read about 100 pages an hour), but not so much that I wasn't still able to finish a 322 page book in one day.

So far, there is only one aspect that bothers me about the nook. Typically, I just browse the book shelves for something that appeals to me and pick it up on a whim - usually in the chick lit or thriller categories. Sure, there are books with reviews so intriguing that I just have to read them for myself, but in general it is pretty random when I buy a book. And I know that after I read it, if it isn't something I see myself rereading over and over, I can sell it back to the half price bookstore, or share it with family if it is good enough. I can't do that with the Nook. Sure, there is a program where you can lend the downloads for two weeks or so, but you don't have anything physical to lend, and you definitely can't sell it back and get money to buy a new book. Which means that the money I spend on ebooks is literally only for the WORDS of the book. Which means I better be damn sure I want to read that book, because I'm not "investing" in anything physical that I can maybe recoup some of my expense from. And that level of pressure has made it very hard to choose what to download. I don't plan of ever giving up real books, so when browsing the ebooks I find myself thinking, "no, not that one, my dad will want to read that too" or "that one is too frivolous and stupid to merit a download." It seems like only the most important and personal of books are going to fall into the slim category of being download worthy, and that is really not how I read.

Although, I am admiring the fact that nobody can see what it is I'm reading. Maybe I'll take up romance novels.

So You Think You Can Dance Season 7

I'm not going to talk about what you think I'm going to talk about. Ok, I'll mention it: The shake up this season, pairing contestants with "all stars" from past seasons. Doesn't bother me. I kind of like that they have decided to showcase the contestants on their own paired with people who are not also competitors - allows focus on who you really want to vote for, and eliminates the risk of any contestant being unfairly paired with an anchor that brings them down. I think they still could have had a top 20 - it is a really a shame that more talented dancers couldn't have been included and showcased within this season, but whatever. Just keep the talent and amazing choreography coming and I'm happy.

No. What I want to talk about is that stage. It is awful. Fox are you .listening to me? IT IS AWFUL! The back wall is all lit, making it VERY hard to see the dancers at times (which, um, hello? is kind of the point), and I apologize to whatever theater it is and whoever chose the location, but every piece performed on that stage, no matter how intricate the costumes and intense the dancing, looks like a really expensive, super fancy high school talent show. Bad bad bad. I get that this stage is bigger than the old one, but honestly, all that does is make the contestants look small and inadequate because no matter how they try they cannot fill the space.

The old stage could be viewed from all angles - allowing the television viewer to see each piece from the most important angle, and as a result feel like a much more intimate part of the show. With this new stage we only get to see from the front (and blinded by lights half the time), which limits our involvement in the dance. before it was special to see it at home - we got a better look than the studio audience. Now we are relegated to the cheap seats. The old stage allowed the dancers to enter from all angles - down stairs in the back, up from the audience in the front, making each piece exciting and interactive. Now we have stage left and stage right; pedantic and predictable, and it cripples the creativity of the choreographers. The old stage had versatile, but subtle lighting, and a lighter colored floor. as a result you could see each dancer and each movement perfectly for the brilliance it was. This stage has blinding back lighting that causes glare in the camera ALL THE TIME, and a black floor which disguises the dancers' movements if they are in any dark costumes. Tonight Alex Wong did an amazing leap front and center stage that was almost completely obscured by the camera angle and his black pants blending into the floor. Criminal. And shame on the producers/directors/set designer/location scouts/whoever is responsible for this travesty of a stage. You want to perk things up after season 6 ratings were low? Don't worry about the format. Worry about the stage you are putting your dancers on. Go back to the old set and let them shine.

The Ghost Writer

This movie could have been really great. Nice cast (Ewan McGregor, Pierce Brosnan, Olivia Williams) decent plot (a ghostwriter for the former British Prime Minister gets caught up in intrigue) - it could have been a nice bit of thriller. But instead it just kind of settled for going nowhere. There were no clues, no unraveling of secrets or twists, just lots of bleak, colorless scenery which was meant to be sinister but struck me more as morose.

Did the movies suck? No. I certainly did not spend the two hours in the theater wishing I was elsewhere, but neither was I riveted and energized by the snail's pace of the story telling and the depressed, introverted characters.

Best line of the movie: "They can't drown two ghost writers. They're not kittens."

Best scene in the movie: the very. last. one. And honestly, that scene alone is worth watching the whole movie for because while I may have not felt excited or enthralled during the movie, I sure felt that way leaving. (because of the last scene, not because it was finally over, haha)

Basically, it was a movie with a lot of potential that someone just got lazy about. I would imagine that it is hard to write a good twisty, thrilling screenplay, and clearly the people involved in this film not only agreed, but found it unnecessary. It's too bad.

ps: this film is by Roman Polanski, so if you do want to see it, please try your best to do it for free. That depraved fugitive doesn't deserve a single red cent or glimmer of recognition as anything other than a criminal and pervert. Hollywood should be ashamed that they continue to work with him or recognize his work in anyway, but then they never have been too big on morality. As for me, I am embarrassed to say I paid $2 to see this movie in a theater. I can only hope that the theater owners get most of that rather than it contributing to a child molester's evasion of justice.

Book Club Book Four

A Reliable Wife by Robert Goolrick

This was an interesting book. The story and the characters were so full of sadness hopelessness and isolation. Lonely in personal prisons of their own mistakes and pasts, and not interested in redemption or happiness. And yet the book itself I didn't find sad. The writing was so stylized and beautiful that it kept the reader at a distance from the characters - they were more like a beautiful picture full of sorrow that you might look upon with interest and detachment rather than friends you might suffer and grieve with.

This can serve as either a condemnation or recommendation of the book, I suppose, depending on how you look at it. On the one hand, I don't feel like it is generally a good idea to keep the reader at a distance from the characters and story of a book because it doesn't serve to keep them interested and motivated to see it through to the finish. On the other hand, in this instance I think if you truly empathized with the people in this book you would be too depressed to finish the book - these characters have given up on themselves in so many ways.

I have a hard time deciding what I want to say about this book - the writing is so elegant and lovely; the story so dark and somewhat uneventful. I think if the writing hadn't been so enchanting, the characters so damaged that I kept hoping for some happiness for them, I would have been bored to tears and unable to finish. As it was I breezed through with my hope for their hopelessness and the rhythm of the words.


Up Next: Nada. The book club has been canceled due to only 4 people showing up (2 of whom hadn't even read the book). So I guess I'll just try to review anything I read that is worthy of it - which won't be much since I revel in the quick, trashy read. Have any suggestions or books you'd like to see me review - send 'em to practicalpablum at gmail dot com.

SYTYCD vs DWTS Acronym Smackdown

In this week's Entertainment Weekly (or I guess it's last weeks, but I'm reading it this week), Ken Tucker does an article about The Dancing With The Stars finale airing the same week as the premier for So You Think You Can Dance. (I can't find the article online, but his tv blog is here). I'm not going to call it a review although that is ostensibly the space it occupies in the magazine, because instead of reviewing either show (which face it don't need it anyway) he decides to make commentary on how we can't go a single week without a dancing competition on tv. Because you see, Mr. Tucker doesn't see any difference between these two shows.

And that I take issue with.

Comparing DWTS and SYTYCD (I am SO not typing those names out each time!) is effectively the same as comparing Don't Forget The Lyrics and American Idol - and I think we can all agree those shows are highly different. Both involve singing, yes, but one casts regular people scorching our eardrums for cash prizes, while the other feature genuine talent stretching and applying their skills with the aim of an actual CAREER in the field.

It is much the same with these "dancing shows." Both have their respective charm and appeal, but that is where the similarities end. DWTS showcases washed up athletes and "celebrities" desperate to regain or maintain the slightest ray of the spotlight. As dancers they are competent AT BEST, and unwatchable at worst, and the entertainment value of the show revolves around the attitudes, costumes, and train wreck voyeurism of watching people we love or hate or forgot even existed stump around performing feats their bodies were never meant to do in a pathetic attempt to find that 16th minute of fame (or knock off a few pounds).

On the other hand, SYTYCD puts that spotlight on people with genuine talent. God given gifts and back-breakingly achieved technique in the dancers and choreographers who push the limits of creativity and physicality each and every week. These are not your average Joe off the street looking for a free ride through the tabloid papers. These are people who have dedicated their lives to improving their abilities and exploring the boundaries of what it means to dance. Every week they expose the millions of Americans who watch to talent and skill and originality that most of us will never posses in our wildest dreams.

The dancing on SYTYCD showcases passion and technique and culture and variety and emotion and every joy and pain and miracle the human body can achieve. The talent in each and every contestant in each and every top twenty is astonishing; the intelligence and power and creativity of every choreographer (many of whom are past contestants) is inspiring. SYTYCD pushes the envelope of what it means to dance - and they bring that experience and education into the homes of everyone who watches.

They are the REAL stars, and it demeans them to be lumped into the same category with any faux-lebrity who thinks they can dance.

It's Hard To Make A Title About Cox Cable Sucking That Doesn't Sound Dirty

Since we moved to Omaha we have had Cox Cable. We have HAD to have Cox Cable as it is the only choice here. And while I'm quite fond of Omaha and enjoy living here, I have to say I am honestly considering moving somewhere we can get different cable services because they suck so hard.

The problem is the DVR. We have lived here 9.5 months, and we are on our THIRD cable box. No wait, that's not right - second cable box. But we may be about to be on our third because this one isn't working either, although I think it is their signal and broadcasting rather than the device itself this time. The first one we had to get rid of because during playback of certain recorded shows it would just turn itself off. Super annoying. At the time I thought the entire issue was a glitch with the machine, but in light of our further problems I think the recording errors were broadcasting malfunctions, and the turning itself off was a machine glitch. Still pretty pathetic no matter how you figure it.

This second box has been no better. We have had to have the signal resent to it at least twice because of recording issues - you can check your DVR'd list, but you never actually know if a show is there or not. probably 30% of the time when you try to play a show everything just freezes up. Cause it didn't work. Awesome. It is also really special when it freezes up 5 or 10 minutes into the show - that isn't frustrating at all.

Monday night we were lucky enough that nothing froze up until the last five minutes of everything - so we got almost all of every show (except one which I only got 1/2 of), but when you are talking about season finales, missing that last 2 or 3 minutes is kind of important. By the way, can anyone tell me what happened between House and Cuddy? Missed it.

Last night we missed both Glee and NCIS all together, and all I can say is they are lucky Lost worked or their offices would have been firebombed. As it was all I could do was curse them out on Twitter - too bad I don't have a million followers.

And yes, it is in fact true that too much of my evenings revolve around the tv. But you know what? Who cares? I am home with 3 small kids all day every day. I don't drink, I don't do drugs or smoke, I'm trying to cut out overeating and I nver go shopping anymore. TV is all I have left vice wise and I'm NOT giving it up! I like, nay LOVE, my television and the cable just better start working properly because this is ridiculous.

Book Club Book Three

The Happiness Project by Gretchen Rubin

I really enjoyed this book, although I would recommend that it be read a chapter at a time with time spent thinking before starting a new chapter, rather than all at once like a novel. I read it all in a couple of days, and while it was a fast read and easy to get through (and certainly pulled me through because I was interested to see the progression of her journey) I would have preferred to take a little more time to get something out of it for myself. but I can always re-read for that.

In general this book is about one woman's year long experiment trying to make herself happier within her own life. She set out to give herself goals and resolutions to follow, with the goal of increasing her own personal happiness while also not changing anything about her life in general. She acknowledged that her life was already happy and fulfilling, but she wanted to see if it could be even happier. Each month she focused on a different aspect of her life (marriage, parenting, spiritual, money, etc), and worked to find ways to make those areas of her life happier. Now, her choices and methodology are certainly not going to apply to everyone - she admits that from the beginning. But she isn't setting out to write a book telling people how they can become happier, she is setting out to explain how she became happier.

Certainly, there were things she focused on or chose to do (or stop doing), that I didn't agree with, or wouldn't really apply to my life. But there were also several revelations that really resonated with me. The first was that, while we can choose what we do, we can't choose what we like to do. I moved to Steamboat because the idea of being someone who hikes and skis, and enjoys being out in nature being active and healthy really appealed to me. But after several years of forcing myself to hit the slopes, of feeling guilty when I wasn't out enjoying the lifestyle available to me, and miserable when I was, I had to accept that no matter how much I want to be that person, I am not. And that is a hard thing to admit - that our dreams for who we could be are not always in sync with who we actually are. But as disappointing as it was to realize I was never going to be flying down the slopes with my husband loving life, I am happier fr having accepted that aspect of my personality, and now I am free to explore activities that I truly do enjoy.

The other thing that made the biggest impact on me was her theory that what we admire most in others is often something that has waiting potential in ourselves. For example, admiring a friend's fashion sense might indicate that you wish to spend some time exploring your own fashion sense. This hit a chord with me because I often find myself admiring people on the street or other bloggers, but I don't often take the time to evaluate what it is about them I am most drawn to, and how I might apply that interest towards my own personal growth.

In general, while I feel that this book could be interesting and helpful to almost anyone, I will admit that it probably rang truer for me because I see many similarities between myself and the author. One of her biggest sources of happiness was eliminating clutter in her home, and even becoming a bit of a crusader about clearing the clutter out of her friends' home as well. For some people this might come across as excessive or irritating or unnecessary - what does having a place for everything have to do with happiness?- but for me it was an absolute truth because clutter really does play a part in my own mental clarity and ability to relax and be happy.

I don't know that I will be embarking on my own Happiness Project having read this book. But I do feel I have some new tools to apply to the job of living; thoughts that have consolidated things I've been dancing around for a while, and ideas for moving forward in my own life with happiness and calm. One of her conclusions at the end of the book was that in general she didn't find herself with more of the positive happy feelings than she had in the beginning. But she found herself with less of the bad feelings. Less guilt, regrets, resentment. And that is something I could live with. Or without. you know what I mean.

next month: The Reliable Wife by Robert Goolrick


ps: I do have one bone to pick - the subtitle of this book is: Or, Why I Spent a Year Trying to Sing in the Morning, Clean My Closets, Fight Right, Read Aristotle, and Generally Have More Fun . And indeed, she sings in the morning, cleans her closets, learns to fight right and generally has more fun. Never once does she mention actually reading Aristotle. Irrelevant and yet it irks me.

Idol Gives Bleck

I am glad that American Idol has decided to utilize its ratings for charity. I think the idea of Idol Gives back is a great idea. But I have to admit that I hate how they do it. I do not want to see a bunch or celebrities stumping for charity. I have said it before so I won't waste time saying it again, but I find sickeningly wealthy people asking us regular folks for money supremely distasteful. I also do not in the slightest enjoy watching live music performances and random awkward comedy routines. Especially not while a credit card donation hotline number flashes before my eyes. It is boring, and self indulgent and in general I feel it is done not to actually help people, but so that everyone can later go home, revel in the luxury their grandiose paychecks have afforded them, and feel good about themselves.

But I have a DVR, so what do I care, right? I can just zip through the whole thing or delete it completely - who cares what celebrity said what for which charity? Doesn't matter to me, I'm already on to my other recorded shows.

But isn't that kind of the point? Aren't they trying to reach all their millions of viewers in order to raise awareness and money and donations? Kind of defeats the purpose if we aren't watching. Not to mention - how much money did it cost to put on this whole production? I bet that could have fed some kids.

I wish they would just put aside this whole self serving rigamarole and start charging for votes. believe me, it isn't going to cut down on the number of people voting by that much if it only costs $.10 or even $.05 per call. And every votes every week the entire season? That is hundreds of millions of votes - which would be millions of dollars raised without doing a single thing differently. They could find a way to shorten (or dear god, please get rid of) those horrible Ford videos and show a few minutes of one of the various charities being benefited through the whole season's accumulated donations.

It would all be simple, straightforward and behind the scenes - everything Hollywood hates.

So I won't hold my breath. But I will hold down my FFWD.

iPhone Therefore I Am

I think I am probably the only person (my age) who did not want an iphone when they came out. I mean, sure, they are super cool and all, but I like, nay LOVE my Blackberry and all of its tiny buttons. Buttons make me happy. Add in my lifelong issue with touch screens (they tend to not "see" me, just like automatic doors used to never open for me), and not wanting to switch to AT&T (actually, I couldn't even if I had wanted to - they don't cover Steamboat) and I was firmly in the no-iphone-no problem camp.

But now I'm on Twitter, seeing all of these people playing games together bceaue they all have iphones and I want to play.

I'm seeing all these super cool photo apps that let people take awesome pictures with their cell phones, and I want to take cool pictures too.

I'm constantly seeing newer, cooler apps, and I want those apps (some of them anyway).

And now I'm hearing that the iphone will be available on Verizon sometime soon? Huh.

I will most likely still stick with my Blackberry (I REALLY love buttons), but the decision is getting harder. I never thought I'd say it, but *whispering* I kind of want an iphone now.

How To Train Your Dragon

How wonderful is this movie? Well, I've seen it twice, in the theater, and it is an animated children's movie, so that should tell you something. Granted, I saw it twice because I have two kids to take and couldn't take them at the same time due to nap schedules and cousin accompaniment, but still. It was magical enough to make it my son's very first movie theater movie, so that's saying something.

Charming, funny, enchanting, How To Train You Dragon is the story of a boy who doesn't fit in with his tribe finding and befriending a dragon. The characters are very funny (Vikings with Scottish accents for whatever reason), the dialogue continues the Pixar tradition of offering something for the adults in the audience as well as the kids, and the whole story is just has heartwarming as you would expect from this type of film. But no sap or treacle. The animation is wonderful, and there are some super dreamy scenes of flying on the dragons that will have you swooning.

I'm not so great at the whole spoiler things so I don't want to get into plot or details because you never know what might ruin it for someone else and I tend more towards over-sharing than secrecy in all things. So just go see it for yourself - I guarantee you'll like it.

Book Club Book Two

The Glass Castle by Jeannette Walls

This book was great and this book was terrible. The story, about a girl growing up in less than optimal circumstances (to put it lightly), was engrossing and so wonderfully written that you just didn't want to put it down. The details of the story - four children under 9 (including a 3 month old baby!) forced to ride in the back of a moving truck for 14+ hours (not counting scenic stops, wtf) because there wasn't enough room for them upfront with their parents. Living in a three room shack with no plumbing or heat but plenty of holes in the roof, scrounging for food in garbage cans at school just to have something to eat, while their father drinks and their teaching licensed mother refuses to work and instead paints at home. Having every effort to improve their situation thwarted by the very people whose job it was to provide for them - these details made you want to put it down. At least for a quick breath to calm your anger and soften your pain at the terrible ordeal of just growing up those children were put through.

In many ways this is the ultimate fairytale - after all, the author conquered a childhood most of us can not even imagine to become a successful writer. She got out. But you can never really leave behind a past like that, and while the book had very little in it about the later, adult years of her life, the little glimpses that were shared hinted at long held, justifiable and probably insurmountable resentment.

One thing I liked most about the book was that it was written from the point of view of the author as she lived through each incident. The situation was never colored by reflection or adult understanding and experience. So as the reader we were able to feel not only the child's naive perception of the occurance, but also our own understanding of her true vulnerability. As a parent, it was harrowing to read about the neglect, deprivation and downright danger inflicted upon those children by these self-absorbed, delusional people. But it was also somewhat reassuring to see that even when the parents are too lazy to repair holes in the floor, so selfish they can't bear to part with their archery set (yes. ARCHERY) or painting supplies but will force their children to leave behind all of their toys, and so out of touch with reality that they insist on leaving the doors open over night despite lecherous bums entering the house, the children will persevere. The children will learn to take care of themselves - to work hard and be smart and resilient. Makes me think nothing I do can possibly ruin my kids the way these parents should have ruined theirs.

All in all, I definitely recommend reading this book. It may not be a skip in the park, but despite the heavy subject matter it is written so beautifully that you will enjoy every minute of this terrible story. And it will make you feel A LOT better about anything going on in your life.

Up next: The Happiness Project

Push vs. Precious

First of all, I would like to reiterate what my husband said repeatedly during the Oscar telecast: having the movie Precious constantly introduced as "Precious, based on the novel Push by Sapphire" was extremely tedious and annoying. Oh my god, we get it, it's based on a book. Sapphire wrote it. Whatever move on! So annoying.

Anyway, it was with great humor that I noticed the book at Target - notably saying "Precious, based on the novel Push by Sapphire" right on the cover, along with "now a major motion picture. but then I noticed something - right next to it was the book Push. by Sapphire. Now the major motion picture Precious.


WTF?

Aren't these the same story? Is one just a book of the screenplay or what? if I was Sapphire, and I had negotiated such a great deal that my name was mentioned literally EVERY TIME the mention the movie, I think I could have managed to get a deal in there that they couldn't print a different version of my book under the film's name. Um, hello? Most books just issue a reprint with the movie pictures as a new cover - are these actually different books? If I never wanted to read them before, I'm almost tempted to now to see if they are different at all.

Almost.

American I Don't Know Why I'm Still Watching

So, is it just me or can we all agree that the competition is WEAK this year on American Idol? I cannot see any clear stand outs among this crop of contestants at all. Ok, that's not true, there are a few who are clearly better than the rest (Crystal Bowersox), but I don't feel like that is really saying much this season. Saying you are a stand out this year is kind of like saying you got the highest failing grade - whoop de doo. No one's really bringing all that much to the table, so being the best isn't the same as it might have been in past seasons.

It is kind of interesting that no one is quite as polished or professional as they have been recently. The contestants have been getting more and more polished every year - people who have worked as professional singers just don't bring the same sense of discovery and "chance of a lifetime" to the show as true amateurs. So it is kind of fun watching these contestants because they really have ALOT of room to grow - seeing the transformations and who can really build a persona and find their style and rhythm is part of the fun of the show. When everyone starts out super great, there is less room for improvement and the competition factor just turns into a popularity contest. Now there is actual risk involved because they need to improve and develop and learn how to choose the right song and sing it stronger, as well as be charming and popular.

That being said, I really hope they do it quickly - this endless bad karaoke feel is getting a little hard to listen to each week.

I Like My Expectations Low

The Hurt Locker won best Picture this year, and for that reason I will probably never see it. Okay, also because it doesn't really interest me, but also because of the Oscar. Because pretty much everytime I see a best Picture winner that I hadn't seen before the Oscars were awarded, I hate it. Crash? Blech. A Beautiful Mind? Barf. The English Patient? Gag me. (the one exception to this rule is Slumdog Millionaire which I saw after it won, and still loved. Because it was awesome). I'm sure that a lot of this is based on the fact that these movies never really appealed to me in the first place or I would have seen them before hand, but also, if they win, they should be so super awesome that they triumph over personal taste and preference at least a little. Maybe I never love them, but I should at least be able to recognize why they won; why they were considered the very best film released all year. Being an Oscar winner gives the movie prestige, and as such I fully expect it to amaze me. Which of course means I'm almost always disappointed.

On the other hand, you can pretty much always get me to watch anything that got bad reviews. Is there a movie that might have slightly appealed to me before it was released and totally trashed in the reviews? I will still totally see it. Because how bad can it really be? And honestly, I find that I usually end up enjoying these movies just fine - low expectations lead to a decent time at the movies in my book. If I'm expecting the movie to be awful, I'm usually pleasantly surprised.

Plus, it is always fun to hold any new bad movie up against the benchmark - Ghost Rider.

Have you seen Ghost Rider? You must. I don't care if you don't want to, I don't care if you aren't interested in throwing two hours of your life away on a terrible flick - YOU MUST SEE IT. There must be a ruler against all future bad movies can be measured; and Ghost Rider is it. the absolute worst movie I have ever seen - the writing is bad, the acting is bad, the effects are bad, the directing is bad. The whole thing is a giant clusterfuck of ineptitude, laziness and failure to such a degree that it is really quite impressive. Expecially given the caliber and scope of people involved. This is not The Room (considered by Hollywood to be the actual true worst film ever made), done by unknowns with no budget. Ghost Rider is big budget with big names - it should not suck this hard.

With all that said, this weekend we rented The Box. When it first came out i thought it looked interesting - you are given a box with a button. If you press the button, someone you don't know will be killed, and you will get a million dollars. Neat premise. And then it came out. And got straight F reviews across the board. Universally panned and reviled. well, now I must see what the big deal was. How bad could it possibly be?

The answer is not that bad at all. The idea is still good - interesting and if handled well could have been really provocative about exploring the human condition. Especially with the twist-ish at the end - could have raised some really interesting questions and discussion. And while they missed the mark on making as truly clever and intellectual a thriller as they could have, they didn't completely fail.

Was there some subplot that was unecessary? Yes. Were there scenes that seemed as though they were meant to explain, but instead didn't relate to anything at all and only mdae it more confusing? Yes. Were the characters in those scenes never introduced so you didn't know who the heck they were or how they related to the plot? Yes. Were there times where we went to a new scene and the main character was somewhere totally new with no explanation as to how or why they got there? Heck yes.

Did you spend the whole movie finally feeling you were getting the hang of it only to have some random unrelated scene confuse you all over again? Yes. Did you spend the whole movie wanting to beat someone over the head for making you watch it? No.

It is hard to pinpoint just exactly who dropped the ball here. The script and acting were pretty hacky, but in themselves probably not totally at fault. the director certainly has some explaining to do, and I'm sure the editor could take some of the blame for the continuity jumps. But all in all it was certainly not as bad as everyone made it out to be. Or maybe that was just the low expectations talking.

Don't get me wrong, it was pretty bad. But it was no Ghost Rider.

How Do You Like Me Now?

I love this ad for the Kia Sorento:



I know that it is supposed to just be a daydream for the toys, but I like thinking that after we are all asleep the toys go out and live it up. Imagining some wild, seedy nightlife for the sock monkeys out there to engage in in the wee hours of the night amuses me. Which is probably sick (these are children's toys after all, shouldn't they be nurturing and wholesome?), but I find it funny.*

It's kind of how I picture all the adults who are on children's shows acting after work. They spend all day being supernaturally erky and chipper, so afterwards I always figure they hit the dirtiest bar they can find in their goth makeup and spend the next five hours cussing and drinkng and generally engaging in any no perky, non chipper debauchery they can find. Just to balance it all out you know? Otherwise don't know how they don't crack under the pressure of those false smiles.

So I'm cool with my kids' toys hitting the town after lights out - they deserve a little fun too.

*Oh, and the music is good. I like that too. (How Do You Like Me Now, by The Heavys)

LOMGST*

Almost four years ago my husband and I decided that since we were going to be home every night with a baby, we might as well find out what the big deal was about this show called Lost. Why was it such a big deal? Why was everybody talking about it?

We rented the first season on DVD and popped one in. And we were hooked. We watched the entire first season in just a few days, watching episode after episode until we couldn't stay awake any longer. It was awesome. Season 2 quickly followed and then, BAM! We were stuck, waiting and watching as the story unfolded in tiny snippets one week at a time.

That sucked. The cliffhangers! The teasers! Such frustration and demand for more more more!

Of any show, Lost is definitely meant to be viewed on DVD in marathon sessions when every nuance and secret and foreshadow can be retained in our all to brief and cluttered memories. But we stuck with it - all through seasons 3 and 4. The addiction and curiosity of where it was all going and how it could possibly wrap up were too strong to wait months and months for the DVDs to be released when we could at least get our fix on a weekly basis.

But then, in the fall of 2008 my husband up and moved away (yeah it was for a job and to start making us a bette rlife, whatever). And it just didn't feel right watching alone. So the episodes stacked up on my DVR, waiting hopefully for a weekend visit when we could sit down and watch an episode or two or five. Never happened.

So I put it on our Netflix queue,and because I never pay any attention to what is coming up, the first two discs arrived in the mail.

Months ago.

And they sat, neglected once more, until Saturday night when we finally had the urge to put one in. One episode later, my husband was headed to bed.

But I'll tell you, never underestimate the power of the magnetism of Lost. I was immediately sucked back in to the addiction, and full speed ahead I plowed through the first and second disc, and then joyfully discovered that the remaingin three discs were available for instant viewing online so my thirst for all things Lost would not have to wait for anything so silly as the postal service.

By Sunday night I had watched all of season 5.

I got caught up on the first four episodes of season 6 this afternoon, and now I sit. Waiting for the next episode to air, live, in 20 minutes.

Once again I am forced to wait while the network doles out my weekly hit in carefully measured, calculated doses.

But I don't care. I must know what happens. I must know how this all turns out, what the endgame is, how the writers have planned to end this ever since they started 6 years ago. And I am kind of glad I get to experience it live now. In real time with the rest of the world (all of whom are discussing it on Twitter every Tues - if nothing else I'm eliminating the risk of spoilers). I'm all caught up and I've been sucked back in.

I'm Lost.

*title is a commonly seen Twitter hashtag on Tuesday nights. Contraction of OMG Lost!!!**

**my bet is the only person who cares about the first * note is my mom

Oh Curling, How I Wish I Knew Ye

To say the coverage of curling at these Olympics has been extensive would be an understatement in my opinion. Every day and seemingly everytime, curling has been on. And while it is a mesmerizing sport (admit it- when you turn it on you can't look away), it is also a very confusing and mysterious sport as far as we Americans go. my husband and I have just spent over ann hour watching the women's gold medal match and we have no idea a) how it is scored, b) any of the rules or c) what they are even trying to do with each stone.

And the network does nothing to enlighten us.

This sport is weird. It is not popular here, it is barely even played here. But it is still kind of fun to watch. I for one think the gliding back and forth on their shoes looks like great fun (even though that isn't a part of the actual game), and it is interesting how they strategize and position their stones. Or it would be if I could strategize along with them.

When you watch figure skating, a sport that is super popular, super mainstream and very well uderstood by most Americans at least in the basics, you still hear Scott Hamilton explaining every little thing. Why every jump or turn or toe pick was good or how it was flawed; why the judges may have taken deductions (what those deductions would be) and where difficulty might lend extra point value. Every aspect is broken down and explained to us like we are children who have never seen the sport before whether or not that is true.

Well, with curling, it is. With curling we are all basically children who have never seen this sport before. Drooling idiots with not even the basic understanding of the rules, strategies and score keeping. I never thought I would ask for a network to dumb anything down further, but c'mon NBC, give me an explanation. Give me commentary that is actually useful and give me one of those stupid, annoying interruptions where some out of shape former athlete explains the bare bones of the sport. PLEASE.

I have no explanation for why they would have chosen to air curling so extensively without making any effort whatsoever towards helping the greater audience understand what they were watching. In every other sport (and indeed all aspects of media and news coverage on any subject) we are talked at constantly. Given excessive, detailed analysis of even the most obvious action. Why not now? I find it hard to believe they couldn't find an expert to take five minutes to explain the game on camera. But they didn't.

Instead they found commentators who spoke to each other like they were the only two in the room, and millions of people weren't listening in. They spoke with foreknowledge of the game, the players, the teams histories and the strategies that would be employed. And because they both had all of that knowledge they FAILED TO SHARE ANYTHING OF VALUE to those watching at home. They might as well have been speaking french.

It was insulting, and it was disappointing, to watch something so captivating and not be offered even a glimpse of insight into what was truly happening.

I feel like an anthropologist.

Book Club- Book One(ish): The Girls From Ames

So, I joined a book club a month ago, and this week as I was procrastinating about reading this month's book I thought to myself: "if I'm going to go to all the trouble of reading a book and really holding it in my mind for discussion, then I should at least get some blog entires out of it." After all, it is clear that this poor neglected blog is not going to write itself.

Now, I'm going to say this is book one, because it is the first one I'm writing about and so that will make sense to you. It is actually the SECOND book we've read, but since that one will probably never show up here because I don't have a time machine and don't feel like goig back and revisiting a book I read like 10 books ago, it is just going to fade into oblivion in terms of my review. For the record the first book was The Last Lecture by Randy Pausch, and it was good, not great, interesting, but not nearly as mind opening or life changing as I had hoped it would be. Still, super quick read so if you are so inclined take a gander - he was a remarkable guy.

Now, onto Book One as pertains to THIS blog (which of course is all that matters).

The Girls From Ames by Jeffrey Zaslow


This book chronicles the 40 year friendship of ten women from Ames, Iowa. I have to say, as someone without a single long term friendship, I was hesitant to start this book. I worried that it might be painful for me, or rub in all the things I don't have by not having girlfriends. and certianly there were spots where I wished I had more of what these women have, but in general the story was so compelling, and it was so specifically about THESE women, that I didn't feel that loneliness or sense of isolation.

The way it starts out, there is a chapter devoted to one woman at a time; offering important glimpses and anecdotes about their lives or childhoods so that we really deepen our understanding of each character on her own. However their stories are so intertwined (some of these women have literally known each ither since birth - having been born days apart in the same hospital) that as you are really getting to know each woman in each chapter youa re also seeing how they relate to one another. The only problem is this only continues for four chapters, so seven women (in case you are quesitoning my math 10-4=7 say what?- one died in her early twenties [not a spoiler!] so there were really 11 to start) get short changed. A few of the girls (they are called this by themselves and throughout the book) are so integral in everyone's lives that we get a really good sense of who they are anyway, but in the end I was left really not knowing who a few of these characters were at all. Maybe they didn't have as compelling anecdotes, maybe they couldn't participate as openly in the process of this book, who knows? I just wish each woman had gotten her own separate focus so that I could have gotten to know them all a little better. Further chapters seemed to focus more on themes - how they've dealt together with grief for example, and I just didn't feel these chapters hung together as well as the ones within the one woman per chapter framework.

Overall however, I thoroughly enjoyed this book. The writing was conversational and easy to fly through, and despite the "plot" basically being teh life stories of regular women, it was engrossing. Each has had a vibrant and interesting life, and despite no classical heroics or epic adventure, this book holds your attention with the tragedies and triumphs of everday life, and these 10 women who have a bond that transcends time, distance, heartache and joy.


Next month: The Glass Castle by Jeannette Walls

Look Down, Look Up, I'm On A Horse

I really have nothing to say about this ad except that I freaking love it and have watched it about ten times already on youtube.

American Idol - The Boys

Well, last night certainly wasn't very good - no clear winners and or truly stand out performances. I think any front runners are currently leading the pack based on personality, looks and or previous audition performances; last night was kind of a bust. So let's hope the boys do a little better, shall we? My run down:

Todrick Hall - I love that this guy was a dancer and just kind of thought "hey, I'll audition for American idol" and here he is. That's just raw talent right there. Plus, his gray eyes are SO super cool - lady killer for sure. That being said, his performance was meh. Kind of a neat bluesy/R&B arrangement of Since You Been Gone (which is not to say I really liked it since I HATE R&B), but his pitch was iffy and the arrangement really didn't do much to emphasize any vocal strengths. So that doesn't help.

Aaron Kelly - This little guy is just so cute - he's like some puppy you see at the shelter and just have to take home with you. He's so young but he can really sing. And he owned the stage much better tonight. There was no sign of the intense nerves that made him forget the lyrics Hollywood week. He seemed fully confident and in control of his voice. Imagine how good he'll get if he stays around a few weeks.

Jermaine Sellers - was he quiet on anyone else's tv? I could barely hear this guy, even when I jacked up the volume on my set (I could hear all the previous guys fine). So, with my volume issues I can't be sure, but he seemed super screechy to me. I also got a bad "I'm such hot shit" vibe off him which put me on edge, and of course, remember how I said I hate R&B? Yeah. So I didn't like that song AT ALL.

Tim Urban - I don't think I've ever seen this guy before tonight - which is usually the kiss of death in a vote driven show like this (oh, I see from Simon's comments that he was originally not out through - I missed his intro, so that explains that). However, he is probably dreamy enough to the teen audience to squeak through. And he had such an earnest look on his face whenever he looked right in the camera - it was actually kind of funny. Like he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar. And I didn't think he was nearly as bad as the judges seemed to, althought it certainly wasn't awesome.

Joe Munoz - Good performance, nice steady tone and consistently on pitch. And yet I had to rewind to watch it twice bceause the first time I totally wasn't paying attention. And the second time I got sucked back into the computer again. So not great in terms of focus grabbing. Bad sign for garnering votes.

Tyler Grady - This guy is oushing the whole 70's thing WAY too far. I get it. Stuff was cool then. I like Hazed and Confused too. But he better rejoin this century toot sweet or the whole one trick pony act is going to kill him. He looks like he's in perpetual period costume, and while fashion recycles with the best of them, right now we are in a revamp of the 80's. There is a lot to be said about coming across as current in terms of winning this contest, and he has none of that. If he figures out how to rework the 70's style and music in terms 2010, then he could be a really strong contender.

Lee Dewyze - Bad arrangement, bad vocals, boring performance. Honestly watching this the only thought through my head was "he's going home." Ouch. But yay that he's from Chicago! (wow, Simon loved it. Interesting)

John Park - From Northbrook, IL - practically my parent's backyard! This guy does NOT look like hs voice at all. Is that because he's Asian? I can't think of any Asian singers, so I think that could be what's weird. But he is really good - I think he did a great job tonight - really solid performance.

Michael Lynche - How can you not love this guy? He seems like a giant teddy bear, I just want to hug him. And the whole baby girl born during auditions thing is just too cute. I just really like how authentic and genuine he seems at all times - there is no perception of working the media machine at all and that's so refreshing. and of course, he sings pretty darn good too.

Alex Lambert - Mullet alert! And he definitely proves that no matter how cute you are otherwise, you will still look terrible in a mullet. Started out pretty rough - I though, oh, here I am criticizing this guy's hair when he's totally sucking on stage too. But he got a little better. on pitch at least, which is always nicer to listen to. But still not that good. Lacking in charisma onstage big time.

Casey James - I think short of throwing up onstage or leaping into a racist rant this guy is safe. He's just too good looking, his singing almost doesn't even matter. The fact that he sings well is just icing on the himbo. Although I do have to request that he go back to the ponytail - WAY better.

Andrew Garcia - Loved the dweeby bookworm vibe he had going with his thick glasses, and how he just accompanied himself on the guitar instead of having the full band cover whether or not he could really play. He sounded pretty good too I thought. Although I think he's going to have a hard time ever living up to his cover of Straight Up from Hollywood week (which totally rocked). But I still think he's safe this week.

Okay, that's it for this week. And maybe this whole season who knows? I tend to lose interest and drift away which affects how well I can write about any given subject. But only a little. HA!

American Idol- The Girls

First thing I want to say about American Idol this season is that I don't even notice Paula is gone. I don't know if that means I never really liked her as much as I thought, or that she wasn't really an important part of the show, that they've just done a great job transistioning to new judges and increasing focus on Kara which I think works, or that the show is just an entity in itself and no one person's presence can change it. Whatever. I just know that I don't even notice it's been changed (and I expected to at least a little), which is a great sign that the right decision was made. And of course, I LOOOOOVE Ellen DeGeneres in all instances so that doesn't hurt.

Paige Miles - Didn't sound too good - especially after that video of her final performance in Hollywood week. She also has some really bad pale lipstick on, and her hair looks weird and flat and stringy. Meh. Also, if you're going to get sewn into an outfit, at least pick something flattering.

Ashley Rodriguez - Awful awful awful song. Awful, semi on-tune-ish rendition. Awful, too tight, too casual white t-shirt. Other than that I kind of like her. Which I guess says something about her "it" factor. Cause I really hated her performance.

Janell Wheeler - Had some iffy moments, but she did alright. And damn, were her pants tight! Some sort of weird, shiny, jeans/lycra combo thing that was just good (Although at least she had the legs to pull them off). But she definitely had a rough time - very inconsistent with pitch.

Lilly Scott - Quirky, in a really nice accessible way. And while I didn't totally love her song, at one point I got chills. And that is never a bad sign.

Katelyn Epperley - During her performance I was mainly thinking "why did they frizz out her pretty curly hair like it's the 80's and FrizzEase hasn't been invented yet?" So I don't know what that says about her singing. It seemed fine but was overshadowed by the poor styling.

Haeley Vaughn - This girl sufferes from some severe prejudice on my part because I don't like her teeth. Or the way her name is spelled. And yes, these are irrelevant, irrational, stupid things, but they totally bug me for some reason. That said, she can really sing, and I liked her red guitar, although her outfit was too juvenile - like a 5 year old.

Lacey Brown - Jeez, tonight is really sucking. I think this girl is cute (I love anyone in a short funky hairstyle) and has a neat, unique voice. But she was not veyr good tonight, just like the last six before her weren't very good. Where is the showstopping performance of the night?

Michelle Delamor - Oh. here it is. Okay, maybe not showstopping, but pretty darn good. Very pretty girl, normalish looking outfit, good song with a decent arrangement, and strong solid vocals without any off notes. Well done. Finally

Didi Benami - I love this girl. I loved the song by Kara that she sang at Hollywood week (wish someone would record THAT), and I love the song she sang tonight. It was a perfect song for her, she sang it beautifully, and her quirky macrame vest somehow managed to be a) and macrame vest, and b) flattering. Wicked good.

Siobhan Magnus - Can I just say that I totally love the name Siobhan? So exotic and pretty, but then you have the whole SYobHan pronounciation issue (sounds like Shavonne people) which is why none of my kids were given a moniker such as this. Ah, thoes tricky Celtic names. That being said, she sang beautifully, even though I don't really like that song at all. Her hairdo needed work though.

Crystal Bowersox - Oh how I wish this girl didn't have dreadlocks. So pretty, so talented, with such a cute little boy. but dreadlocks make me think of bugs crawling around on my scalp. Dirty dirty dirty, ick.

Katie Stevens - I can't believe she's only 16 (from her voice, the dancing and outfit was junior prom all the way). But she was great vocally.

Ok, that's my wrap up on the girls. Tune in tomorrow for the boys. And then I'll probably never say another thing about this season cause, gosh, this was a lot of work!

Superbowl Ad Wrap Up

So, I had big plans this year. A full wrap up of all the best and worst Superbowl commercials, with video links for the top contenders. But then the day approached, and you know what? I just really didn't care. Nothing was awesome. Nothing was totally atrocious (actually not true, this was horrific). But basically, nothing at the end of the day was worth my precious attention and the effort it would take to write about it. So I'll just leave you with a few impressions*:

Bud light had the usual stupid laughs (and of course the obligatory Budweiser Clydesdales ad that made me tear up - I am a pathetic sap), although Doritos gave them a run for their money. Both companies did a decent job with their spots, but I don't think the entire first quarter had ads by anyone else and it got really annoying seeing the same two things over and over. Yeah. We get it, beer and chips. wheee. Also, Budlight? Your Lost spoof ad was funny - people choosing beer over rescue, haha - but shouldn't it have aired like, 5 years ago? Right after they crashed and everyone was all still into the plane crash scenario and not in the time travel, topsy turvy we've been rescued or not or whatever final season? Yeah. I thought so.

I did like the Bridgestone commerical where three guys rush towards the ocean with a killer whale in the car, and do some fancy manuevering to fling it off end of dock. but it was also so transparently "hey The Hangover was popular, let's do an ad like that" that it took away some of the funny. And of course, did nothing to sell tires, but that isn't really the point of Superbowl ads, is it?

The Dove men ad was amusing (although it ripped off Anita Renfro), and it got my husband to say "oooh, I may have to try that." So I call that good advertising.

The Man's Last Stand commercial was also greatness. I will watch your vampire tv shows with you - haha!

The CareerBuilder.com commercial about casual fridays = funny. The Dockers "I wear no pants" ad = not funny. Unless it was a comment on the infantilizing of the country and people who never want to "wear the pants" and take responsibility for themselves. in which case it was a very witty and biting social commentary. But still, not funny.

Loved the flotv commercial injury report about "Jason" and how his girlfriend removed his spine. Change out of that skirt Jason- very amusing. Also, a live mobile television doohicky? I want.

In the WTF category I definitely have to award Carmax and their dramatically smart animals. What was going on there? As runner up I nominate the fiddling Beaver for Monster.com . Why a beaver?

As for CBS- I think their commercials were actually pretty good. The one where the "NCIS head slap" is replacing the handshake was pretty amusing (love the bride slapping granny). But the one that got my attention the most (obviously) was the ad for The Late Show featuring Oprah, David Letterman and Jay Leno all sitting on a couch together. I'm sure the intent was to show no hard feelings or grudges or whatever, but I thought it was in very bad taste for Leno to participate in that ad. Here's a tip - when you've just gotten hundreds of people FIRED so your spoiled ass can have your old job back, advertising for the competitor is pretty tacky.

My only other comment about the night (because let's face it, I didn't really watch the game at all) was the halftime performance by The Who. Because I'm pretty sure Nigel Tufnel was playing the drums. And I find this surprising not only because he was a guitarist, but you’d expect with his band's history that he’d stay away from drums.


*no, I'm not touching the whole Tim Tebow commercial controversy. To be honest, the whole ad was like "that's it? Really. This is the super controversial pro-life ad? Huh." But I guess the intial discussion and attention and controversy was enough to serve their point and get their message out there. Whatever. I don't argue with people too close minded to listen.

Modern Family

Because it was mentioned in the comments of this post, I wanted to talk about Modern Family. Do I think it is funny? Yes. Do I enjoy every episode and the cast of characters? Fo shizzle. Do I think it is the revolutionary, earth shattering revival of the sitcom? I don't know about that.

I have to say that I really don't get all the hoopla surrounding Modern Family. I keep seeing all of these reviews and articles and whatnot declaring it the best sitcom in ages and it is changing the face of television and on and on, and I can't help but think "really?" I mean, don't get me wrong - I really like the show. I think it is great, and funny and everyone on it is fantastic and I hope it succeeds and lasts a good long time. But is it really that dramatic a departure from other shows? Is it really singlehandedly reviving the sitcom?

I don't know. I don't watch that many sitcoms so I don't know if this one is drastically (little, yellow) different and better (hahaha I am such a dork). Maybe everything else that has come out recently has blown. Maybe NOTHING in the sitcom genre has come out recently. I jsut don't know.

I do know that comparing this to something like Cheers or Seinfeld or Friends, or any of the other few and might sitcoms that manage to retain their humor and heart and appeal years and decades later seems a bit premature. Even in the beginning those probably didn't seem like the yardsticks all future shows would be measured against.

But who knows?

I suppose the fact that it is the ONLY sitcom I watch (and my DVR tapes over 40 shows a week *cringe*) says enough. Time will tell.

Yeah, I've Seen Some Movies. Not that I'm Going to Tell You About It

I have seen several movies lately (and by lately I mean in the last few months). however I haven't written any reviews. And while my legendary laziness has surely played some small role in this oversight, it is more because I'm just so exicted to get out into a theater that my judgement is likey flawed. When you only get out once a month, those two precious hours spent in the dark with movie magic and a box of candy (junior mints, mmmmm) are so super wonderful that pretty much anything can be happening onscreen. 2012? Awesome spectacle. Book of Eli? Oooh, neat apocalypse imagery and twist - hooray! (ps - totally wanted to be a warrior during the end of days after I saw that movie). Sherlock Holmes? Fun, witty banter. And fighting. And explosions. More yay!

See what I mean? I like it all just by virtue of the fact that I'm out seeing it - I LOOOVE going to the movies!

And I think my favorite part is the coming attractions. They are the perfect entertainment. Fast paced, with great music and perfect sound bites. By definition they leav you wanting more. there is never the whole "oh, so that's how it ends" let down that even the greatest movie can give you jsut because you wnt it to keep going and never stop and then it does. Unless you have to pee (which I invariably do) and spend the last 20 minutes of every movie praying for it to end so you can race to the restroom. But that mars the movie too, since it means you aren't really paying attention the the ending, and therefore once you leave the theater you find that what you remember most is how badly you had to pee rather than the plot or acting.

Anyway. This is why I haven't written any reviews: they would all be good, and I'm not sure they all deserve good reviews. Did I enjoy them? Sure. But I'm pretty easy to please in that department as long as there are no glaring inconsistencies/errors and something gets blowed up.

Also, i totally think they should do movie length "features" of just previews. Not for full price, but maybe for like $5? I would totally go sit in a theater and watch exciting, tantalizing teasers for two hours.

That may make me lame. Oh who am I kidding? That isn't why I'm lame.

I Heart Pixar

For making movies for children, while also keeping in mind that their PARENTS watch them - honestly, I think some studios think three year olds go to movies alone. Most likely they just figure parents HAVE to go so whether they enjoy it doesn't matter, but let me tell you - I won't take my kids to a movie that doesn't appeal to me (see: why my husband took Izzy to Princess and the Frog), and I DEFINITELY won't buy the DVD for repeated viewing.

For taking groundbreaking animation, and coupling it with A STORY - we just got the original Snow White on DVD, and holy smokes is it boring. I realize that it was a huge deal at the time bceause the animation was so amazing (and indeed it is beautiful), but would it have killed them to work the plot a little better? I mean, it's a classic for a reason, and that reason ain't Snow White dancing around with the dwarves. They waste all this time on nothing scenes, and then it's like, BOOM, the queen falls off a cliff (?), and BOOM Snow White is in her glass coffin and BOOM, the prince shows up kisses her (how'd he know to do that?) ands whisks her away with nary a word of thanks. Way to stretch out the inanity and skip all the action, Disney. Plus, Snow White never even MEETS the prince in the beginning! She's out washing rocks and he comes by and she runs away. I don't think he even saw her which makes the whole, looking and looking for her until he finds her in the glass coffin (not covered in the movie BTW) somewhat less plausible.

For giving the characters the voices that suit them, whether it is a big name or not- did Craig T nelson put butts in the seats for the Incredibles? Probably not. but he was perfection. Whoever did Snow White's voice (sooooo, too lazy to look that up) was screechy beyond tolerance. And Sleeping Beauty sounds 45 when she sings. Which is creepy seeing as she's repeatedly announced to be 16 (and getting married, ick).

For always making your DVDs available for sale (although this will probably change since Disney owns you now) - Disney movies are kept in a "vault" and only released every few years. Supposedly this makes them collectors items or something, but really it is just a reason to charge $30 for them. And while typically I can't argue with the Disney machine's business acumen, this one if a real mistake, and I'll tell you why. The first reason is, my kids are into these movies NOW. And if i want to buy them, I'm going to - whether that ir through an established vendor or a used version off Ebay. If they are for sale now, Disney gets my money - if they're not, Disney doesn't. Cause I'm not buying those movies later - once my kids are over, we're over it. Delaying release just means you miss the boat on my cash. 2) when my kids love a movie we watch it. DAILY. And often break it or wear it out or lose it or need an extra copy for grandma's house. Which means, that even if a movie had been out in special release, once it's gone I can't replace it if needed. Again, missed revenue, Disney. We have so far bought two copies of The Incredibles (maybe 3, can't remember), and we need a new copy of Ratatouille. And probably Cars pretty soon given the current watch rate. That is money that is spent in my mind (nothing like a distraught kid demanding a movie you know is broken), and if they aren't available, do you know how upset I my kids will be? nothing pisses off mama bear like not being able to provide for her cubs (and yes, I am aware of the ridiculousnes of comparing a DVD to basic necessities. We can discuss materialism later). In short, Disney, you better rethink your "vault" strategy, because the way I figure it, if I could have I'd already have bought Beauty and the Beast, Cinderella, Aladdin (which I had to buy at Timeless Disney because it wasn't available), Mulan and Fantasia. That's over $100 at the prices you charge that you have missed out on. By contrast, we have bought every single Pixar movie (sometimes twice). And that's just our family. There are a million other little boys and girls out there who, by the time you decide to honor us with the ability to purchase your classics, will have grown up and out of even wanting them. Something to think about.

So keep up the good work, Pixar! Try to shake off the shackles of Disney DVD release rules, and maintain your current level of wonderous achievement. We'll be in line for every movie and each new title will be added to our collection poste haste.

ps: yay for Toy Story 3! Now please make a sequel to The Incredibles!

I'm Gonna Need My Left Handed Scissors

These people are funny in everything they do (especially Jennifer Coolidge). These ads are no exception.



ps: if you go to the video on YouTube, and read some of the comments criticizing this campaign and the whole down-with-personal-privacy idea of a census, blah diddy blah de blah, that is pretty funny too.

Human Target

You know what I don't need? Another show to watch every week. And to that end I try not to pay too much attention to the ads for new shows lest they suck me in. But add a night with not much on (ironic in light of my previous post) and my mom telling me something wasn't too bad, and I find myself watching Human Target. And liking it.

Dammit.

Pleasing actors, cool Bondsian opening credits (although the music was bad), and an exciting story line - this show isn't half bad. I don't think it's going to become my new favorite or anything, but I have definitely spent a worse hour watching tv. My only issue (and this bugged me just from the ads) is the name. This show is about a guy who protects other people. Sure, various bad guys are after the people he is protecting, but no one is really after him. So shouldn't the name be Human SHIELD? In one scene the woman being protected sees him pulling off a bullet proof vest and asks where hers is. He replies "I'm your vest."

Yep. Definitely Human Shield. Although admittedly that doesn't have as nice a ring to it.

It's Showtime!

Can I please ask why the hell every network schedules their shows for the same freaking times? The week nights are like the most ridiculous jackpots in terms of the shows I want to see (Wednesday and Thursday especially), and then the weekends are just pffft. Nothing. It was going all right - my DVR was maxxed out at two shows per time slot, but everything was handled until this week. When some of the USA original shows are coming back on. And instead of Fridays they are now during the week. When other stuff is on.

WHY DO THEY DO THIS?

Let me tell you, Assface Network Dipshits: there are people who stay home on Friday and Saturday nights. Did you hear me? They STAY AT HOME. And WATCH TELEVISION.

Call me lame, call me a loser, call me old, I don't care. The fact is I have three small children, an empty bank account, and a fat ass that couldn't squeeze into anything other than my sweat pants even if I wanted it to. I'm not going anywhere any time, pick a night of the week. And judging by the conversations and sheer volume that happens on Twitter on several of these nights, I'm thinking I'm not alone at home. So please, put something on for me to watch. Advertisers have taken into account the whole DVR time shift thing with product placement, so that cannot be what is driving these ridiculous decisions to put everything on at the same time. I get it, you're fighting for your market share. What I don't get is how you haven't figured out that you will get a bigger piece of the pie on a night when there is nothing else on. Duh. Go up against American Idol, the Biggest Loser and NCIS? No thanks. Go up against the reruns of weekly shows and various lame sporting events? Bring it on.

The way people view television is changing - ratings are vastly effected by time shifting and people watching shows on DVR at times other than when they originally aired. But DVRs are still limited - as far as I know most only tape two shows at one time - and you can't watch a third as those two are taping. So spread the wealth, networks - you have started airing original programming year round (remember the eternal rerun summer seasons of yore?) - so why not all week?

This is neither the coherent nor the empassioned argument I was hoping for when I sat down to write. But you cannot expect eloquence from an addict all worked up about disruptions in her supply stream. the best you can hope for is a rambling, confused missive, which is what you got.

The best I can hope for is to pester my husband until he breaks down and gets me a second DVR so I can have the majesty of taping/watching FOUR shows at once. Until then I'll hunch on my bed and suffer through commercials to watch the third show in any given timeslot.

The trials I bear, I tell you.

2010 Reading List

Why hello, there! Thought I forgot about you didn't ya? No, that could never happen! I've just been lacking topics, but hopefully with the return of new shows will come new commercials and movies to see and this blog will be bursting at the seams with entries! Here's one now:

in 2009 I read 50 books. And granted, I had three kids to take care of (totally alone for the first 6 months), as well as moving part way across the country, but considering how many of those books were super fast breeze reads, it is a pretty lame number. I had plenty of time to watch rerun tv and mass around online, so there should have been more books on that list. So this year I'm trying to set a goal of reading 100 books. That may prove way too ambitious given my schedule (and I'm already behind, haha), but I'm going to give it a go.

I've already read The Gathering Storm by Brandon Sanderson continuing Robert Jordan's work), which at almost 800 pages is a pretty good start.

Here's what I have stacked up to read next (not necessarily in this order):

The Glass Castle - Jeannette Walls
The Last Lecture - Randy Pausch
The Lovely Bones - Alice Sebold
The Time Traveller's Wife - Audrey Niffenegger
The Poisonwood Bible - Barbara Kingsolver
The Kingdoms of Thorne and Bone (a four book series) - Greg Keyes
Winterbirth (and sequel, which I can't remember the title of) - Brian Ruckley
about 5-7 various other random thriller books

I have a bunch more on my list that I haven't gotten yet. Any suggestions on what I should add?

What are you reading?