Lawrencing Around

Drive

2011-10-11T15:38:00.000-07:00

I actually saw this movie a few weeks ago, but I have been putting of writing my review because I have no idea what to say. This is a movie that completely defies description - no matter what you think it will be about, you are wrong. Yes, it is about a Hollywood stunt driver (Ryan Gosling) who also works as a wheel man for the criminal element. Yes, there is a hit put on him after a job gone wrong, and yes, he has a relationship with his married neighbor (Carey Mulligan). But none of that is the movie.

The movie itself is almost like being in a trance. Imagine driving along the highway with your favorite song on the radio and the perfect breeze blowing through the window; when you just lose yourself in the rhythm of the road, and your mind goes blank as if you were flying, no worries, no thoughts of your destination. That is how this movie captivates you. There is very little dialogue, especially by the main character, and while you never get to know him, you are still drawn to his magnetism and confidence. The love story features no witty banter, or sizzling sex scenes, and yet with only a few bittersweet glances and a single kiss manages to be more about love and romance than most movies.

Now imagine your perfect Sunday drive interrupted by a tractor trailer plowing into a guardrail in front of you. the violence in this film is sudden, shocking, and incredibly realistic (read: graphic). It is not overtly gory for the sake of titillation, but the raw intensity coming after such silence is incredibly powerful.

The acting in the movie is really good - Bryant Cranston and Albert Brooks round out the cast as a washed up driver trying to get back in the game and a criminal kingpin respectively, but in truth the emotional center of the movie lies with Gosling and Mulligan. I can't think of another actor that can as effectively manifest internal emotions without externally revealing a thing. These two are true talents, and without them this exceptional, indescribable film just wouldn't have been the same.

I don't know if you'll like it, but without a doubt you should go see Drive. I loved it. (and the music is great)

Drive 1hr 40 min R

Reel Steel

2011-10-10T14:29:00.000-07:00

Reel Steel is pretty much everything you'd expect from the previews: absentee father reluctantly connecting with his smartass, but sweet kid. Uplifting underdog story a la the little engine that could. Giant robots smashing each other to bits. But formulaic or predictable as it might be, that isn't to say it isn't highly enjoyable fun. After all, these are formulas Hollywood is pretty good at. You may have your doubts, but I guarantee that you'll find yourself verklempt a time or two, and damn if you won't be on the edge of your seat hoping for the little guy to win the big fight.

Hugh Jackman is pitch perfect as always - although his character is such a jerk and it's kind of hard to see him as a total ass because come on, we all know the guy has a heart of gold. Dakota Goyo is great as the son, bonding with a father he's never met as well as a 10 foot tall metal robot. Over all, highly enjoyable film that will hit your soft spots and leave you cheering.

here's a little clip:

Reel Steel 2hr 7min PG-13*

*The movie is rated PG-13, but I think it could have easily been a PG, and younger kids shouldn't have any problem seeing it. Except for one short scene where a few punches are thrown, there is no violence (other than the boxing robots of course), and no bad language that I remember. My theater had tons of little kids, and none of them left emotionally scarred. I'd probably let my kids see it on DVD when it comes out.

The Ides Of March

2011-10-09T14:46:00.000-07:00

There are a lot of directions this movie could have taken as a political drama. It could have explored the climate of modern day politics and how even the most sincere, straightforward candidate is forced to continually make compromises until they no longer recognize themselves. It could have focused on the campaign managers, for whom the candidate and the platform hardly even matter as anything other than leverage to win votes. Or it could have followed the disillusionment of a seasoned campaign manager, who has finally found a candidate he believes in, only to discover he is as black hearted as the rest of them. Any of these story lines could have pulled us in to The Ides of March, and delivered us an emotional, thoughtful film. Instead we get all three.

Unfortunately, in some ways this spreads the focus of the film too thin. We have a young political up and comer (Ryan Gosling), who thinks he can finally leave the usual dirty dealing behind because he has found a truly deserving candidate to lift into office, only to find himself caught in a maelstrom of double crosses and cover ups. We have a candidate (George Clooney who also directed) learning that the compromises required to win are slowly chipping away at every principle he promised to stand on. We have two campaign managers (Philip Seymour Hoffman and Paul Giamatti) who care nothing for the truth, or ethics, or the people trampled underfoot on the race for the win. Each and every character arc is riveting, and unfortunately under explored. There is so much drama just ripe for the picking here in each man's personal struggle with morality (or lack there of) and the eternal question of the ends justifying the means - if you do whatever it takes just to win, can you ever regain your sense of right and wrong?

This movie could have easily plumbed these depths and been twice as long, and just as riveting. Unfortunately, the story line itself was entirely predictable, and severely undercut the skill of the cast (seriously - phenomenal cast) as well as the richness of the characters. I wish the script had served the people involved (both real and fictional) a little better, because this would have been an exceptional vehicle for discussion on power, ambition, loyalty and black vs white. Instead we are shown no surprises, taught no lessons, and everyone is painted the same shade of gray.

Worth seeing for the tremendous cast and fine acting, this is a case of a fine movie that nonetheless disappoints because it could have been great.

The Ides Of March 1hr 41 min R

The Debt

2011-09-12T16:46:00.000-07:00

The Debt tells the story of three Mossad agents, and their mission to bring a Nazi war criminal out of East Berlin and to Israel for justice. Taking place both in 1965 and 1997, we see the events of the mission, as well as the fallout for the agents 30 years later as result of those events. The cast is impressive, Helen Mirren, Ciaran Hinds and Tom Wilkinson play the agents in 1997, and they do an fine job of looking world weary and beaten down by the pressure of the secrets they keep. But it is the scenes set in 1965 that truly bring the film alive. The agents in their youth are played by Jessica Chastain, Sam Worthington and Marton Csokas, and their scenes practically vibrate with all the tension and anxiety of inexperienced field officers in over their heads. The man they are sent to capture is played by Jesper Christensen with a casual malice and lack of fear, and we watch as the agents become captives of a situation spiraling out of control. They grow moe and more brittle, haunted by unspoken personal demons as well as the man they have been hunting, and the final fracture is the secret they spend the next 30 years trying to forget.

I loved the movie that took place in 1965. As can be expected, the mission naturally lends itself to more excitement and tension, propelling the story along because we can't wait to figure out what really happened. But the scenes set in 1997 should have been riveting as well. Three people, who have suffered their regrets differently for all these years, struggling with heavy secrets and the question of justice and redemption as they grow older, are characters ripe for exploration and drama. And yet I felt the modern portion of the movie fell flat, not enough ambivalence, or regret was communicated, and the ending itself bordered on preposterous. I appreciate what the filmmakers were trying to do, but I wish they had simply made a movie about the mission itself and given the three newcomers even more time to shine.

The Debt 1hr 53 min R

Warrior

2011-09-11T10:46:00.000-07:00

A lot of people probably aren't going to be interested in seeing Warrior because of the basic premise - two brothers training and fighting in a mixed martial arts tournament. One is an ex-marine war hero, the other a physics teacher father of two. Both are desperate, angry, damaged men with painful pasts and family history. And while the focus is on the tournament, and the fighting, the movie is neither glorifying nor glossing over the brutality of the sport.

And the beauty of the movie is that all of the training, and fighting are the only way these two men know how to survive. Tom Hardy plays Tommy Conlon, the ex-marine younger brother who is carrying around so much anger and resentment that you can see getting in the ring is the only thing keeping him from burning to a cinder on his rage. Hardy barely speaks during the movie, and yet we understand completely the fury and guilt driving his every punch. Joel Edgerton plays the older brother Brendan Conlon, a retired UFC fighter drawn back in to the ring in a desperate attempt to hold on to his house and the quiet family life he first left it for. He has the thick facial structure of someone capable of taking any hit thrown his way, but his eyes betray pain and feelings of inadequacy he carries from a childhood playing second fiddle to his brother. Both brothers (and their father, played by Nick Nolte) are estranged, caught up in a fractured family dynamic with edges still too sharp to smooth over. The details of the past are rarely mentioned, and yet body language and facial expressions communicate exactly what happened in a way no words could.

Despite previews revealing that the final match is between the brothers, each victory in the tournament is as nail biting and triumphant as if we were unaware of the outcome, and the final bout takes such an emotional toll that the audience feels almost as battered as the fighters. I expected this movie to be exhilarating and exciting; I didn't expect it to be heartbreaking as well. If you can stand the violence (there is no overt blood or shattering of bones, but it is still men beating each other senseless) then this is a definite must see. An expertly crafted story enhanced by acting from two men we will no doubt be seeing a lot in the future.

Warrior 2hrs PG-13

Contagion

2011-09-11T10:12:00.000-07:00

The first minutes of Contagion are truly harrowing; we see sick people, out in public, interacting and moving through the population before being found dead. The illness spreads quickly, and as the audience we are given that special advantage of knowing more than the characters in the movie. We know that the sickness in London and Chicago and Hong Kong and Tokyo are all related, and we know that it is going to spread. We are treated to numerous shots of hands touching subway railings, and drinking glasses and other innocuous items, knowing that a killer lurks on these surfaces unseen. And when Gwyneth Paltrow's character dies (not a spoiler - this fact is in the previews) we are caught between sympathizing with Matt Damon's disbelief and shock and the frustration of wanting to shout "your son is sick too!" and the screen.

It is incredibly interesting and tense watching the characters in the movie trying to figure out this disease and fighting against the clock of the rapid spread and the dying. I've always loved that peculiar sensation of knowing more than the people on screen - it is a sort of delicious anxiety as they travel towards their doom and you, the viewer, can warn them. But after the initial break out and discovery of the virus, the movie loses a little of it's emotional heft. The movie focuses on the CDC scientists fighting for containment and to find a vaccination (Kate Winslet, Laurence Fishburne), a blogger with typical anti-governmental conspiracy who may be using his immense reach to help his audience or for his own personal gain (Jude Law), A WHO worker trying to trace the origin of the disease (Marillon Cotillard), and the husband of the index patient (Matt Damon) who has proven immune, but who is left fighting to keep his daughter from exposure.

And yet the second half of the film lacks emotional connection. There are a few scenes depicting the fear and panic of the general population: rioting over limited food supplies and available medicine, but a kidnapping for vaccine subplot goes nowhere, and the scope of the global devastation is offered with numbers and brief shots of deserted city streets littered with garbage. I'm certainly not suggesting that the filmmakers should have chosen to focus on the gore of mass graves and rampant death, but simply mentioning 25 million dead doesn't even begin to fully represent the actual horror of that type of situation. There are moments when the hopelessness of fighting an enemy we cannot see and barely understand come through, but all too often the movie seems more like it is in shock itself, with all the attendant muting of emotional resonance. Everyone seems to be dealing with the situation a little too calmly. Where is the terror? Where is the grief?

All that said, this movie is enjoyable, provided you aren't already a germaphobe, and it has a cast to die for. Definitely recommended viewing, although you may want to watch it at home with a year's worth of canned goods and hand sanitizer.

Contagion 1hr 45 min PG-13

fun fact: Matt Damon and Gwyneth Paltrow's house in the movie is not in suburban Minneapolis, but actually suburban Chicago, a block away from my parents'. You better believe that I was totally jealous that my mom was that close to all the action instead of me. She didn't even hide in the bushes and try and get any photos!

Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows Part 2

2011-07-16T19:04:00.000-07:00

What can I say? Honestly, if you are AT ALL interested in this movie, you are already planning to go see it (or maybe already have). And unless you live under a rock or are so uninterested that you haven't read even one book (in which case why are you reading this review?) you know the story. So there is not much point in recaps or plot summaries. Which just leaves us with one question: Did they do it justice? And the answer is a resounding Y. E. S!

This movie ends an unprecedented series of films, which have broken all box office records, and entertained millions of people, and yet stayed faithful to a series of books that have shattered publishing records and literally changed fiction forever. And it does it honestly, loyally, and epically. The movie is heartbreaking, exciting, joyful and exhilarating all at once, and it concludes the beloved story with the respect and faithfulness it deserves. I guarantee that (if you are a fan) you will leave the theater feeling happy about the resolution, satisfied with the adaptation, and maybe a little bit sad about our glimpse into the world of Harry Potter coming to an end.

However...

that is not to say that this movie is a tour de force of film making. The director/writer/editor/whoever may have done a great job winnowing the incredibly packed final half of the book into a concise storyline, but they did NOT make a particularly adept stand alone film.

The movie starts as though we are coming into the very middle of an existing conversation, rather than simply beginning a new chapter in a much longer story, which even for a "part 2" sets a strange tone. Yes, we all know what happened in part 1, and yes, we are probably familiar enough with what will happen in part 2 to keep up with what is happening and why, but that doesn't mean it isn't jarring to just sort of start right in the middle of all the action rather than taking the time to set the stage and reintroduce us to the current mood and situation. The filmmakers have said that they wanted to do away with exposition and explanation and kind of reward fans for their loyalty (not to mention save time no doubt) by just jumping in to the story and assuming we will know what is going on. And while I applaud that approach, there is something to be said for at least attempting cohesive storytelling. Just because we know that an epic battle is about to begin when Harry and his friends return to Hogwarts doesn't mean it isn't still abrupt to have the fighting just begin. When a character says "he knows we're here" to me that implies 'he knows we're here and he will be here soon' not, 'he knows we're here and so is he with a whole giant army.' Everyone (characters and audience) may be well aware that the war to end all wars is on the brink doesn't mean we can forgo all the dread and tension of the buildup to that final moment when the first shots are fired. Without the pressure of increased suspense, the eventual explosion of violence loses its urgency and emotional impact.

And there was time to include it. At 2 hours 10 min the movie could easily have handled another 10 or even 20 minutes without feeling bloated or leaving viewers squirming in their seats, and those precious minutes could have gone a long way towards smoothing the pacing and knitting together crucial scenes into a meaningful whole. And they could have done even more towards heightening the emotional impact. I was glad to see that the pivotal moment involving Harry's long time nemesis Snape was given just attention, but seeing other beloved characters fight and die loses resonance when they have little or no screen time before hand. The final showdown between Harry and Voldemort was also changed from the book, most likely to make it more action-y for film (and 3D), but in actuality all it did was sacrifice some of the triumph. All in all, this movie was an excellent last chapter in a remarkable series, but failed at the one thing any film should hope to achieve which is to stand alone on its own merits.

Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows Part 2: 2 hrs 10 min PG-13

ps: just in case you read this entire review while also being somewhat on the fence about seeing the movie, let me add this: this movie contains the greatest, most realistic dragon I have ever seen. That alone is worth the price of admission. Seeing one of the world's most beloved characters grow up and kick some ass is just icing

So You Think You Can Dance Season 8: Top 20

2011-06-15T19:20:00.000-07:00

So, is it just me or did basically everyone get their own genre (or close to it) this week? I personally think this is a good decision as it gives all of the contestants a chance to be seen in the best positive light as we are all still getting to know them before they are thrown to the wolves with a quick step or something.

Also - the competition this year is fierce! usually I have a couple of favorites, and some others I like just fine, but this year I feel like every couple that came on I was going "oh, yeah! I love her!," "oh, that guy! I love him!" That's going to make for some rough eliminations. And I'm sorry that Mia Michaels is not working with the show anymore (unless I'm wrong about that? fingers crossed), but I think I'll live as long as Travis Wall keeps choreographing. That kid is a freaking genius.

this made me cry from perfection (I'll try to find a better clip):

If there is a better piece than this one all season we can all consider ourselves lucky indeed.

Super 8

2011-06-14T16:24:00.000-07:00

I think all you probably need to know about this film is right up there above the title: Abrams and Spielberg. That's a pretty good movie pedigree, and Super 8 does not fail to live up to its creators names. This movie really has a little bit of everything: father son tension, forbidden (young) love/friendship, precocious kids, vast government conspiracy, monsters and retro nostalgia. And it all hangs together beautifully.

Super 8 is the story of a group of friends making a zombie movie on their super 8 camera (in the 70s), who happen to witness a train crash that may or may not be an accident. It is also the story of the strained relationship between a young boy and his father after the mother's death, and the growing friendship between that same boy and a girl with an equally troubled paternal relationship. Strange things start to happen after the crash, including an invasion by tight lipped Air Force soldiers, and while we are given bits and pieces into the mystery, our viewpoint of the events is distinctly that of the kids - who are intrigued but also more consumed by their own personal dramas and utilizing the town excitement for their film.

The monster-movie portion of the film is a little under served - spooky, unseen tentacles grab people occasionally, but the tone remains firmly in the sweet/sour personal story vein until the final climax. The invading soldiers aren't even that big of a part of the movie for all of their omnipresence in the town, and I was pleased that the resulting eruption into all out war was given a plausible explanation rather than just being the typical Hollywood depiction of the military as total jagoffs looking for any excuse to blow shit up.

The kids, led by Joel Courtney and Elle Fanning (who is SO much better than her sister Dakota who I admit is talented but I just always kind of want to punch), were fantastic, as of course were the adults - most notably Kyle Chandler as the beleaguered town deputy/ unprepared single father. The writing was good, the cinematography beautiful, and if the ending was a little too perfect, well, who doesn't like their endings wrapped up in a bow? This was one "event" film that has so much going for it beyond the explosions and mystery and hype - it has a heart. And yes, sappy cinematic music that totally made me cry. When you see it (and you should see it) make sure you watch the credits too - the finished "film" the kids made is included, and it is pretty amusing.

Super 8 1 hr 52 min PG-13

X-Men First Class

2011-06-05T15:18:00.000-07:00

Can I just say first off that I wrote a fabulous review of this movie in my head on the way home from the theater, but stops at Target and the grocery store have completely erased it from my mind so this will no doubt be a far more mediocre summary of the things I wanted to say.

X-Men First Class is an origin story of how Professor Charles Xavier (James McAvoy) and Magneto (Michael Fassbender) first met and became friends, and then enemies. Both actors are superb, although Fassbender manages to steal the show due to a meatier character dealing with his growing powers and tragic back story of abuse at the hands of the Nazis in World War II Germany. McAvoy plays Xavier equally well, except he is given less to do besides touch his temple to demonstrate his telepathy and expound with wisdom and superiority towards all of the other characters. Apparently professor X was always a straitlaced know-it-all, despite an early, pointless scene trying to show him as a bit of a skirt chasing cad. Jennifer Lawrence gives a decent performance as Mystique, and while her eventual decision to join forces with Magneto as opposed to her pseudo-brother Xavier feels natural and right for the character, it might have benefited from a few additional scenes demonstrating her inner struggle to accept her outward appearance.

The action of the movie takes place against the backdrop of the Cuban Missile Crisis in the 60's, which turns out to have actually been the work of a manipulative mutant with the power to absorb all kinds of energy, played by Kevin Bacon. In the introductory scenes Bacon exhibits a kind of uber-villain glee (and really good german), but in the rest of the film his bad guy kind of loses his sparkle as well as any sense of actual evil. Even when he is absorbing the explosion of a grenade or gunfire and then sending it back in all its destructive glory he kind of just seems to be going through the motions.

The whole "let's get the regular humans to kill themselves so mutants can rule the world" focus seems like an after thought as well - merely a vehicle to explore the friendship between the two protagonists and eventually set them at odds. Which is where the movie fails. There are too few arguments between the two friends where they hash out their different ideologies: Professor X wants to show the normal humans that mutants are people too so we can all live together happily - Magneto fully believes in mutant superiority and intends to hold mutants above and apart all the lesser gifted. These differences of opinion form the basis of all the previous X-men movies, and the backbone of the X-Men universe - is there anyway mutants can live alongside humans peacefully, or are they destined to always fight for acceptance and survival?- and as such I would think they would play a larger role in the friendship of these two men both as it develops and as it dissolves. Instead, we get chummy pals and then one angry moment when everything changes abruptly. it's not entirely out of the blue or unrealistic, I just think it could have benefited from a little bit more exploration throughout the film instead of relying on hints and the fact that we are already familiar with who these characters become.

There is also a weird montage section with a very retro split screen thing going on - which I'm assuming is meant to sort of reference the fact that the movie takes place in the 60's, but instead just comes across as random and not at all in concert with the general mood of the movie. And to clarify - its only the split screen effect that is offputting - the scenes in the montage itself are just fine. But by far the worst thing in the movie is the character of Emma Frost. First off, she is a telepath, which is kind of redundant since we already have a telepath, but she can also turn herself into diamond, which doesn't really seem to offer any advantage except that no one else can read her mind while she is in diamond form, and she can use her sharo diamond fingers to cut ice and glass. Great? It is kind of a stupid power, and the fact that both the good guys and the bad guys have a telepath is completely under utilized, so that basically makes her a totally unnecessary character. Also, she is played by January Jones, who is the stiffest, worst actress I can currently think of. I have no clue why she is so popular, except that I guess her character on Mad Men is kind of an ice princess and so her natural disability to act with even the slightest inflection or emotion probably plays into that nicely. And she certainly is pretty. But seriously Hollywood, stop casting her in other things because the girl is about as lively (and likeable) as a petrified tree trunk. She shows more depth and emotion when she is CGI'd into sparkly diamond.

All in all, I think X-men First Class is a decent effort at the origin of these characters. Certainly most of the acting is top notch, and the areas where the movie suffers seem to primarily be writing - or possibly editing. The types of explanations that would have given the extra needed depth could certainly have been in the original script and tossed in favor of time or flashier action scenes. But aside from Miss Jones, there wasn't anything remarkably bad - and overall it was a highly enjoyable combination of action and acting (with two wink wink cameos).

X-Men First Class 2hr 12 min PG-13

The Hangover Part II

2011-05-28T19:55:00.000-07:00

What to say about this movie? Was it as good as the original? Probably not. Did it live up to expectations? Pretty well. Was it damn funny? Hell yes!

Obviously this movie had all kinds of pressure on it to deliver on the surprise success of the original. And while you could argue they played it safe by sticking to the same formula as the first movie, they certainly raised the bar. The set up may remain the same, but the stakes are higher, the exploits gorier and the disbelief that this is happening AGAIN manages to be plausible. The first movie found the guys searching for a lost groom in Las Vegas, and while they may have been desperate to get home without getting caught, the only thing in danger was their relationships to the women at home. Here they are lost in Bangkok, and the damage moves way beyond a possible canceled wedding and a missing tooth; we've got severed fingers, gunshot wounds, and the ever looming threat of being lost to the city, which I'm assuming means getting sucked into the delights of the sex trade and human trafficking. Not to mention any chances of being thrown into a Thai prison, which given the drugs, dead bodies and destruction the characters leave in their wake must be an all too real possibility as well. Fun stuff.

Aside from increasing the horror in the details of the main characters' forgotten evening, the filmmakers have left all the other details the same, which is where the biggest stumbles happen. There is still a wedding in two days (the lucky groom is dentist Stu, played by Ed Helms), and they still have to find their lost companion (this time the bride's 16 year old brother) in time to get back for the wedding. Only instead of being righteously pissed off like the bride in the original, Jamie Chung plays the bride all smiles and cheer, like it's really no big deal her groom lost her brother and vanished for two entire days right before the wedding and returned rocking a facial tattoo. Methinks that highly unlikely. The 'aw shucks' exclamations made by Zach Galifianakis' Alan also rang a little forced to me most of the time, which is a shame because that character is really the best part of the first movie.

Basically it comes down to this: there is pretty much no way any movie can ever live up to the expectations everyone had going into this movie. The FIRST one wouldn't have done so well if we all expected it to be the funniest thing we'd ever seen, so how can the sequel? But that doesn't mean it isn't still incredibly funny - I laughed pretty much the entire time with varying degrees of hilarity, and that's probably all any comedy can aim for. There is drug use, death and dismemberment, f-bombs galore, stolen monks, a drug dealing monkey, and plentiful full-frontal nudity (unfortunately not by Bradley Cooper), so maybe don't take your grandma, but by all means, if you liked the first one, go see the second.

The Hangover Part II 1hr 42 min R

Pirates Of The Caribbean: On Stranger Tides 3D

2011-05-20T13:36:00.000-07:00

Let me just say that I did not intend to see this in 3D, nor do I particularly suggest you do so. I try to avoid 3D whenever possible, but because of technical difficulties at the theater that resulted in all of us lowly 2D seekers getting to see the movie in 3D for free I really had no choice. Now, since I don't really ever go to 3D movies because I think it's just stupid and distracting and I never feel like I can properly focus on the screen, I'm just going to comment on the movie itself and not the 3D effects because I don't know how they compare to others and if they were really good or not. I do know there were some pretty cool shots that the 3D captured beautifully (a neat stone arch, a view up through the rigging of a ship), but I certainly wouldn't pay extra money for those shots.
Anyway, after the first couple of minutes when the movie got going and the screen stopped looking all squiggly through the 3D glasses (without making me either nauseated or giving me a headache) I could finally relax and enjoy myself.

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides (to be called just Pirates 4 from now on, because jeez that's a long title) starts out with Captain Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) up to his usual tricks to save an old friend from a trial, in which he is accused of being... Captain Jack Sparrow. And there is apparently another Captain Jack Sparrow out there trying to find a crew. None of this is really addressed or explained, but it also doesn't really matter too much as it is basically only a conceit to reintroduce all of the characters and set them upon the main adventure. There is action right from the start, accompanied by the fabulous Pirates theme music which serves to make every stunt seem that much more daring, and Depp's Sparrow swaggers with such floppy confidence that he somehow manages to turn his exceedingly poncy gait into something to be admired.

The movie takes place an unknown number of years after the previous 3 movies, and while we see a few familiar faces (most prominently Geoffrey Rush as Jack's nemesis Barbossa), most of the main characters from the earlier films are nowhere to be found. And that's not all that's different. Pirates 4 has also trimmed the fat from the plot lines, leaving the main story of the various characters' search for the Fountain of Youth. Gone are any random subplots and the twisty turning abandonment of all logic or coherence or explanation that drowned Pirates 2 and 3. Seriously - I've seen both of those movies several times (they're always showing up on cable somewhere) and I don't think I could tell you what happens in them if my life depended on it. I'm not even sure, if you put one of them on right now, if I could tell whether it was #2 or #3. So the streamlining of storytelling in #4 was more than welcome.

The other big difference from the first three movies, is that Jack Sparrow falls squarely into the side of the good guy. Whereas before he wasn't necessarily evil, if always only looking towards his own desires, in this movie he is definitely less selfish. I mean, in the very first scene he is rescuing an old shipmate which is not something we would have seen before, unless perhaps that shipmate owed him money. I find the loss of the ambivalence in Sparrow's character (will he or won't he betray them?) a perfectly fine development, because honestly we always knew he'd never do anything truly terrible to anyone else. And although the writers did try to hold on to it, showing him playing all sides against each other, there is less a feeling that he is doing it for amusement as opposed as strictly a way to survive.

And that could be because the bad guy in this movie is truly bad - Ian McShane plays Blackbeard with zero sense of humor and less patience. Personally, I think a little bit more fun can be had in playing a villain, but he gets the point across that joking around with Blackbeard will only lead to a quick and even more quickly forgotten, death. The final player in this outing is Blackbeard's daughter (Penelope Cruz), who is the least developed character. She was supposedly about to become a nun when Sparrow seduced and fell in love with her. This all makes sense then that her basic trust in faith would lead her to try and redeem her father with the fountain of youth - except I'm not really sure I would have known this back story if I hadn't read about it in advance reviews. It was only referred to ever so subtly in the movie, and as such her insistence on saving her father rang a little hollow. Plus, it seems such a shame to cast such a bombshell in a movie and not use her sex appeal even once (although understandable because I believe Cruz was pregnant during filming).

All in all this was a fun trip back into the fantastical world of Pirates of the Caribbean, and one I'd recommend. And as usual, there is a little tidbit post credits if you feel like staying for it. I will warn you that it is literally after the ENTIRE credits, so you'll be waiting for several minutes for about 30 seconds of scene which isn't really anything more than a wink. No big secrets revealed or sequels hinted at, so decide on your own whether staying is worth it.

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides 2 hrs 17 min PG-13

Bridesmaids

2011-05-13T16:50:00.000-07:00

Let me just say, that with a title like "Bridesmaids," and a poster like that ^, this movie should have had a lot more wedding mania related hijinks. Not that I would have necessarily preferred that - thw whole bridezilla thing has been done - badly by Hollywood (Bride Wars), and even worse by reality tv. So it's cool that this wasn't your typical chick flick catfight type movie, but still - expectations people.

Instead this movie is more about the implosion of one woman's life as her best friend is preparing to get married. Which is fine and all, except that most of the implosions come as the result of her own pathetic, self sabotaging, woe is me behavior. Not that Annie (played by Kristin Wiig with all kind of SNL character traits peeking through her body language) is a completely unlikeable character, it's just that because we are left never knowing why she has totally given up on trying at life we are left sort of thinking she should stop feeling so sorry for herself.

The relationship between Annie and Lillian (Maya Rudolph) is joy to watch, because the actresses are real life best friends, and their scenes pop with the chemistry of people who truly enjoy each others company. But the true stars of the movie are Melissa McCarthy, who is by far the funniest thing in the movie, and Chris O'Dowd, who manages to be a truly dreamy romantic lead despite looking basically like a basset hound (I attribute this to his Irish accent). Rose Byrne was well cast as the gorgeous, perfect wanna be maid of honor, trying to usurp Annie's spot as BFF, and Jill Clayburgh is ideal to play Kristin Wiig's mom; but Ellie Kemper and Wendi McLendon-Covey were sorely underutilized as a stereotypical naive newlywed and foul mouthed suburban mom.

This movie wasn't as funny as I had hoped, which isn't really saying much because my expectations were pretty unrealistically high. To be completely honest, the movie was really funny- there were many times when I (and everyone else in the theater) laughed out loud. This movie has been hailed as the female version of The Hangover, and while I don't know if it is going to have the shelf of life (or spawn the catchphrases) of that film, I do know that it is a really funny, and fun way to spend a couple of hours.

Bridesmaids 2hrs 5 min R

Priest

2011-05-13T16:09:00.000-07:00

This movie was a real disappointment. Not because it was particularly awful, but because it could have been so much better. It had a cool premise - some dystopian future/otherworld where history has been filled with an endless war between man and vampire (NOT regular, Dracula/Twilight vampires, but a whole different species of animal). The church has become the safeguard of humankind, partially in thanks to super warriors called priests who were strong enough and fast enough to fight the vampires. At the time of the movie, the vampires have been locked away on "reservations" and the priests have been left on the outskirts of society, unable to be accepted because of the powers they are no longer able to use.

Unrequited love, corrupt government/religious figures denying the truth in favor of blind faith and self interest in power, the purpose and existence of warriors in a culture once there is no more war; these are all themes that were introduced and summarily ignored by this movie. They also had the unique premise of a sci-fi horror western mashup, which was basically used for costuming only and not explored further. Oh, and the eyeless vampires (which look exactly like something from another movie - but I totally can't think of what) made for some pretty badass creepies - too bad they didn't get much screen time either.

Instead we were treated to numerous shots of high tech, high speed motorcycles racing across the barren wastelands (a great image, but seriously, once or twice paints the picture just fine, thanks), and a climactic battle where never once did we question the good guys' ability to win, and that was over almost before it started. if anything, the big climactic battle of this movie played out like the initial fight scene in a normal action movie. You know the formula: movie intro, set up, fight scene where the good guy prevails, twist where the good guy gets his ass kicked or learns it goings to be way harder than he thought, climax where he wins by the skin of his teeth, most likely after being severely wounded. This movie threw out that formula, but not in favor of originality- instead it was more like someone said "okay, this is great, but let's edit out anything that seems like it might cause hardship for our hero." So we're just left with a battle that is entirely too easy to win, and a victory that seems that much more hollow for it.

The cast (lead by Paul Bettany and Karl Urban) was good, even with the sparse dialogue and limitations they were given - look serious and tough and world weary seem to be the main acting directions- and the special effects were fine, if a little derivative - super high, slow motion jumping are great to demonstrate super fight skills, but feel a little thin in the absence of real tension. This movie is based on a comic, and I'm wondering if the director was a little ambitious when adapting this movie, because it has a real serial feel to it. To be honest, the lack of emotional depth and serious drama wouldn't have felt as gaping if this were the pilot to a tv show or something. The ending clearly sets up future action as the world of the movie seems to be headed back into war - and if the closing credits had rolled over a "to be continued...." I would feel invigorated and excited about the next installment. As it is, the movie may have been hoping for a sequel, but they seem to have misunderstood that to leave 'em wanting more you have to give them something to want first. Nobody likes a story if they only hear the first chapter, and nobody is going to greenlight a sequel to a movie no one liked.

And seriously, what is the point of having a whole army of vampires if we never see them in action?

Final verdict: if the previews have tempted you in anyway, it is worth a rental. But not really worthy the cash for feature film, and definitely not worth 3D (I'm assuming, I never see 3D). And somebody should really get on the idea of using this as the launch for a tv series or miniseries at least. Four or five little segments like this and we could have a pretty satisfying story. Which of course, is the problem.

Priest 1hr 27min PG-13

ps: if you like the whole combo of western and graphic novel type sci-fi (this time with ninjas!), check out: The Warrior's Way

pps: the best line in the whole movie - after one character has let loose with his shotgun at a horde of vampires "you'd have made a good priest." Heh.

Fast Five

2011-04-29T11:58:00.000-07:00

Let's face it: if this movie appeals to you, you are probably already planning to see it, and if it doesn't, then nothing I say is going to sway you. And that's cool- obviously, this is not really a franchise that is seeking to expand it's audience across all demographics. So I'll just tell you what I thought about the film (oh let's face it - this ain't no film, it's a MOVIE).

I have seen every installment of the Fast and Furious franchise (although I can't remember the last installment at all), so I feel confident saying that this is, if not the best one, at least a return to the glory days on the first movie. Is it high art? Of course, not. But it is super fun, and what it lacks in depth it sure makes up for in flash. The plot is thin, but also a little more coherent than some of the other movies - seriously, what the hell was going on in the first sequel?- and slightly more than just an excuse to have the characters drive around in wicked cool cars. In essence this is actually a heist movie, with a cast of characters from all of the other sequels popping up to fill the various roles of gadget guy, master of disguise, bickering brothers, etc. as dictated by the new modern heist. Never mind that why these people fit into these various roles is unclear - they are never really asked to do anything to fill them anyway. I mean, the chick that is supposed to be a weapons expert never does anything with any weapons except for clean them in one scene. Basically, the writers tried a little something to echo the cool cast of characters intro in movies such as Ocean's Eleven, and it didn't quite work. They would have been better off just being like "hey, let's call some people we know who can drive super well and know random stuff about safe cracking and whatnot, and that will be our team." But none of that really matters, because once the team gets together it is clear they work well as a cohesive unit, so stereotypical movie characterizations be damned.

The biggest draw for this movie is the long awaited match up between Vin Diesel and Dwayne Johnson (forever The Rock). And while it is a great fight scene, let me just say that it is only in the movies! The real life toughness of Dwayne Johnson shines through so strongly against the false actory bravado of Vin Diesel, that the fact that the fight is a fairly even match kind of comes across as a joke. If there is any way The Rock wouldn't completely wipe the floor with Vin, then I fill out a bikini like one of the girls in this movie. I also found it a wee bit difficult to root against The Rock - after all, Vin and Paul Walker are the heroes of this film, so we don't want the big bad Fed on their tail to catch up; but it's kind of hard not to want Dwayne to get his guy. Of course, as is typical of this kind of movie, everything works out in the end, so no real worries there.

Despite the draw of two big screen macho men duking it out, the real highlight of this movie is of course the driving stunts. The climactic chase involves two identical black cars (yes, that is as detailed as you are going to get out of me, a total car dunce), speeding in unison through the streets of Rio, trailing a giant bank vault. The sight of that thing swinging through turns like an enormous wrecking ball was great fun, especially since the characters apparently are such skilled drivers that, with no practice whatsoever, they are able to accurately swerve to crash it into police cars at will. Ridiculous? Yes. But still thrilling as hell.

Basically, this movie is everything you would expect, or hope it to be. It may not be your cup of tea, but it is one hell of a ride. Oh, and heads up - if you do go see it, stay through at least the first few minutes of the end credits.

Fast Five 2hr 10min PG-13

SuperBowl Ads Psuedo Wrap Up

2011-02-07T11:53:00.000-08:00

I am not doing my usual analysis of the Super Bowl commercials this year, a decision I made a while ago based on the fact that it takes me several hours to do (I can't do it live because there are kids around here), meaning I am often up until Midnight or so watching my DVR of the game, making notes and blogging my opinions. I just didn't feel like making that kind of effort this year, plus I'm a little under the weather and in general I'm trying to get to bed at an earlier time anyway. So I was just going to watch as a spectator.

And then of course, I SAW the commercials, and wow am I ever glad I didn't devote a ton of time to analyzing this crap. Was it just me or was this year especially lame in terms of the commercials? I realize that a large portion of my disappointment is most likely due to the general increase in good commercials year round - overall ads have gotten funnier and more unpredictable in an attempt to fight the ever dominant DVR system. But apparently that means ad companies have used up all of their creativity and wit before ever getting to the Super Bowl, because this year's crop was LAME. Nothing especially clever, nothing especially funny, and there wasn't even a classic Budweiser Clydesdale commercial to make me cry (at least, there wasn't in the first 2/3 of the game before I went to bed). Blah de blah blah. So I am truly grateful that I didn't waste my considerable talent (heh) on any of these poor excuses for Super Bowl ads. Let's do better next year, ok folks*?

I hereby present you with my favorite ad of the night:

And the runner up:

*also the Bears. No losing to the Packers next year!

Fairly Legal

2011-02-06T19:29:00.000-08:00

So, I've watched Fairly Legal a two times now (with a third episode sitting on my DVR), and I like it okay. Of course, I've pretty much watched every original show on USA since Silk Stalkings (ha! remember that show?) so it's fair to say I am biased. But all in all, it's a decent show - which is not to say there aren't a few things that need tweaked:

First: lose the weird random references to the Wizard of Oz. What is that even about? I think she could keep the wicked witch of the west ring tone on her cell when her stepmother calls, because that is amusing and actually sort of realistic - but having everyone in her life linked to characters from Oz is just plain bizarre.

Second: Drop the whole she's right outside her office building, making someone wait, lying on the phone about where she is and hopping in a cab thing. I get it. She set her own priorities regardless of what else might be happening. But you know what? It doesn't come off as cute, it comes off a rude and self centered and obnoxious. Being terminally late, canceling appointments with no justifications, lying, and just generally treating everyone like they are less important than you are, are not endearing qualities. Plus, she does it like four times and episode, which is just overkill. The show is lucky Sarah Shahi is so charming (with such a megawatt smile) or these horrible personality traits would have left it stranded at the gate. Yes, she can be a free spirit who bucks the system. Doesn't mean she has to be a jerk.

Three: Either develop the other characters further, or show more of the stepmother character. The dignity and vulnerability she managed to convey with hardly any expression in the scene when she was faced with a client attempting to get her into bed in exchange for keeping his business is some of the most nuanced acting I've seen on tv in a long time. They have allowed her to move outside of the cookie cutter ice queen role and show hints of her struggle as she tries to hold on to her dead husband's law firm despite resentment from her stepkids and being judged as a trophy wife my the clients. More of this type of depth, please.

Which brings me to
Four: do something with the main character and her ex husband's relationship. I understand that it is supposed to be love/hate, where they are still very attracted to each other but have such different views of the law that they argue all the time. Except the ex husband is never on the right side of the argument. He is always a stick in the mud, by the book jack ass without any justification behind it. In order to make this kind of relationship pleasing to the viewer we have to like BOTH characters. We have to see the merit in both of their sides when they argue, and so far, that is not being achieved. Basically, as it is now, I'm just wondering what the hell she still sees in him, other than that he is a convenient source in the DA's office when she needs something done. Make them both equally right and equally wrong, and equally likable so we can root for the relationship the way it's intended to be.

So there you have it. I like the show, but it can be SO much better. Hopefully it will find a surer stride as the season progresses.

Black Swan

2011-01-13T07:52:00.000-08:00

I found this movie to be utterly captivating. The story of a ballerina slowly unraveling after being chosen to play the swan queen in a major production of Swan Lake, Black Swan manages to be creepy and elegant, tragic and inspiring all at once. Natalie Portman does an exceptional job in every aspect of her performance, from capturing the timid, fragility of a woman cracking under self applied pressure, to displaying skill worthy of any true ballerina. Much to do has been given to the fact that Portman trained 8 hours a day for a year to perfect her ballet technique, but not enough attention has been payed to the fact that she exhibits all evidence of true natural talent as well. As a dancer myself, I cannot understate the importance of having believable dancing in a film like this. Any actress given the time and resources, could train like Portman did - but hardly anyone would achieve such results. She worked for every ounce of it, but Portman is truly an exquisite dancer, which gave the movie such depth and resonance. There were no cut away shots to a dancing body double and then back to a close up of her head - the camera has the freedom to swing in and out capturing every movement and emotion because of her efforts and skill. The opening shots are of a ballerina's feet, dancing en pointe, and the technique is no wonderful, their arch so perfect, that years of history make you immediately assume it is a stunt double, so when the dancer lowers herself to the floor (without a cut in the shot) and you finally see that it has been Portman the whole time it comes as a revelation. probably not to other people, but to me at least.*

And the rest of the movie is just as intense. Delusions, paranoia, the movie crackles with suspense and trepidation as we watch the main character, Nina, buckle under the strain of perfection. She no longer knows what is real, and neither does the audience. The final performance is edited in such a way as to be so vibrant and thrilling and emotional; truly the culmination of everything Nina has worked and suffered for.

Many people I have heard have been confused by the movie, or at a loss what to think about the ending. I will leave all interpretation up to each individual viewer, but I will say, as someone who has been on stage, has been through that kind of intense pursuit of the perfect physical performance, I understood it perfectly. As a dancer, the best performance you will ever give is one you won't remember. When you are completely in sync, your body moves by memory and instinct alone; you do not have to think, you do not have to feel, you simply are. At that moment, there is no separation between yourself and the music and the movement and thought becomes impossible and irrelevant. There are no consequences; there is only dance.

Go see Black Swan. You may not love it like I did, but you won't regret it.

Black Swan 1hr 48min R

* update: obviously, much ado has been made about the fact that is was not in fact Portman dancing, but a body double. So this whole paragraph is basically wrong now. I'm not rewriting it because it is true to what I thought/believed at the time.

The Thousand

2011-01-11T07:17:00.000-08:00

The Thousand by Kevin Guilfoile

This was a much more enjoyable choice than my last book selection. Good plot: cult of Pythagorean follwers called The Thousand, are out to protect their secrets. Great main character: Canada Gold the daughter of a brilliant conductor who was murdered after being acquitted of murder himself, with cool powers: due to an implant in her brain that was meant to control her ADHD she know has superhuman powers of observation.

This book has everything I like in a novel - really quick pace, easy to fly through, and thoroughly engaging characters and action. I especially like that at no point do any of the characters know exactly what is going on - it is fun seeing their decisions based on assumptions that we as the reader know are wrong. Definitely a fun read - very much along the lines of The DaVinci Code in terms of a secret society being after an innocent person. If you like action and are just looking for a fun read, pick this up on your next trip to the bookstore.

True Grit

2011-01-10T06:59:00.000-08:00

SPOILER ALERT
******** I WILL MAINLY BE DISCUSSING THE ENDING*********
*DON"T READ THIS UNLESS YOU DON"T CARE WHAT HAPPENS*

True Grit is a good movie. Beautifully filmed, superbly acted; a fine Western tale. And yes, I would recommend seeing it. In fact, I ask that you go see it, because then maybe you can explain the ending to me.

The story revolves around a 14 year old girl who hires a US Marshall to help her hunt down the man that murdered her father. The resulting chase/journey is the meat of the movie, and I wouldn't dare give away how it unfolds. But the very ending has left me wondering what the intention was. I haven't seen the original, so perhpas this remake is only using what happened in the first movie, but that doesn't really make it any more logical.

You see, after the big climactic fight, the culmination of the hunt, where good guys and bad guys face off for the final time, the girl falls into a hole in the ground and gets bitten by a snake. She must be rushed off to the doctor or whatever. This is all fine and good, an emotional closing sentence to a brilliant story (with the exception of the drawn out focus on the poor horse being ridden to death, which I hated and felt gratuitous - I can't stand movies that torture animals). But then we have this little coda, showing the girl 25 years later all grown up. Again this would be just fine, showing us she survived and never married and how her life turned out. Wrapping things up so to speak and giving the audience a little breath after the intense action and emotion of the ending before they have to leave the theater and find their cars. But instead, it sends her on a little journey to visit the man who saved her, and then we find out he died 3 days before she got there. So the entire coda is completely futile. I just don't understand the purpose of this. If they had just wanted us to know that the one guy died, couldn't that just have been said in voice over: "oh, I wanted to see Rooster again, but he died before I could get there." Instead we see her heading to meet him, all interested in what he is doing know, and then it's all "oh, he died a few days ago." Random letdown. Instead of closure we are left with vague disappointment, which, following the brutality of the climax, results in quite the bummer ending.

Now, I'm not against a downer ending, per say, but it has to leave you with some sort of emotion or understanding you can take with you when you leave. Having the final notes of the film just be futility is so unsatisfying and really weakens the movie in my opinion. Instead of leaving exhilarated by the action and bolstered by the 'true grit' of the characters, I was just left confused and unfulfilled. Which is a failure of movie making, in my opinion.

Still. 99% of the movie was great, and you should definitely see it, especially in light of all the award nominations sure to come. But if you do see it, can you let me know why the ending was so deliberately lame?

House Party

2011-01-02T13:10:00.000-08:00

Have you seen this commercial?

It features people I am assuming are football players who have apparently not won a Superbowl, looking across an outdoor bar area at another cabana where various football players and coaches (ones I actually recognize, ha!) are having a WAY better time. The end tag line is "it's good to have a ring." Pretty funny, and I sort of get why usher is in the video because I think the song playing is one of his. But why is House there? Did Hugh Laurie win a Superbowl I am unaware of? Admittedly, I'm not as educated on football as I could be.

The Polar Express

2010-12-10T15:47:00.000-08:00

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

2010-12-07T17:47:00.000-08:00

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

2010-12-03T11:18:00.000-08:00

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

2010-12-02T15:50:00.000-08:00

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

2010-10-14T13:59:00.000-07:00

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

2010-08-21T07:24:00.001-07:00

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

2010-07-28T14:19:00.000-07:00

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

2010-06-25T07:09:00.000-07:00

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

2010-06-10T19:19:00.000-07:00

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

2010-06-05T19:24:00.000-07:00

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

2010-06-04T11:35:00.000-07:00

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

2010-05-28T20:15:00.001-07:00

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

2010-05-19T07:25:00.001-07:00

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

2010-04-28T11:39:00.000-07:00

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

2010-04-21T19:49:00.001-07:00

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

2010-04-08T18:00:00.000-07:00

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

2010-04-06T19:05:00.000-07:00

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

2010-03-23T16:31:00.000-07:00

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

2010-03-17T11:22:00.001-07:00

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

2010-03-10T18:58:00.000-08:00

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

2010-03-09T17:53:00.001-08:00

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?

2010-03-04T10:06:00.000-08:00

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*

2010-03-02T17:24:00.000-08:00

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

2010-02-26T18:07:00.000-08:00

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

2010-02-25T15:10:00.000-08:00

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

2010-02-25T05:32:00.000-08:00

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

2010-02-24T17:29:00.000-08:00

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

2010-02-23T17:02:00.000-08:00

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

2010-02-07T19:30:00.001-08:00

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

2010-02-03T20:08:00.000-08:00

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

2010-01-30T20:42:00.000-08:00

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

2010-01-29T10:03:00.000-08:00

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

2010-01-29T09:53:00.000-08:00

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

2010-01-20T11:28:00.000-08:00

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!

2010-01-19T13:22:00.001-08:00

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

2010-01-11T12:09:00.000-08:00

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?

Avatar

2009-12-22T11:18:00.001-08:00

I'm not even sure where to begin with in my review of this movie. Simply put, it was probably the most impressive, engaging, inventive pieces of entertainment I have ever seen. It was tremendous, and if you don't go see it you are missing out on something that will forever change the future of movies.

At the heart, Avatar is a great story. A crippled marine, given a chance to walk again through the use of an alien body (or avatar). One species, trying to overtake another in a perverted sense of entitlement and neverending greed. Another species, trying to live their lives and protect their homes. Emotional, exciting, heroic, eye opening - Avatar is a tale that will stay with you long after the credits roll.

But what about the blue people?

Well, I'll be honest, one thing I was really concerned about was watching a movie that was entirely CGI. I was very interested in seeing the results of this massive undertaking, but I was pretty sure that it would be vaguely uncomfortable the entire time, watching digitally rendered characters.

I didn't even notice.

Think about that. Think about watching an almost three hour movie (you won't notice the length either unless you drink an super large Coke), that contains no real locations or sets, and only a few human characters. Almost everything in this movie is created digitally, from the main characters to the landscapes and animals. And NOT EVEN NOTICING.

The true wonder of Avatar is that the CGI is so perfectly rendered, the characters so fully fleshed and expressive, that you never even realize you aren't watching real actors. It is possible this is a result of the new technology created for this film (real time digital effects allowed Cameron to see the completed CGI characters on play back even as the human actors were still performing in front of him). It is possible this is a result of the story being so engaging you become too engrossed to notice. it is possible this is simply a result of the incredible improvements made in CGI abilities. Regardless, it is amazing. You are watching digitally rendered 15 ft tall, blue people walking around, flying on giant dragon-birds, and all you see are people. Stunning.

Avatar may not appeal to everyone because of the obvious science fiction theme, and that is a shame. It is a masterpiece of filmmaking, and the message contained is one everyone should be exposed to. This movie will change the way you see science fiction, the way you view CGI, and every movie made from now on.

Go see it.

Just In Time For The Holidays Reebok Comes Up With A New Way To Call Your Woman Fat

2009-12-14T17:18:00.000-08:00

Reebok Easy Tone sneakers are built to work the muscles in your legs so you get extra toning from just walking around. They are also apparently meant to be bought by men, because this commercial is like an issue of Maxim. I don't get it: these are workout shoes for women, but this commercial is so oriented to the male consumer it's not even funny (literally, it is NOT funny). So is their goal to get men to buy their girlfriends/wives these shoes? Because men aren't really into giving gifts of shoes. And frankly, as much as I love shoes of all types (and I do, oh I do), I don't want anyone else to buy them for me. I highly doubt my husband even knows what size I wear. Maybe the plan is just to get men to RECOMMEND these shoes to their wives/girlfriends? Nothing says I love you like " you should buy these shoes to tone up your flat, flabby ass." Good luck with that.

I'd Rather Have Diamonds

2009-12-08T17:23:00.000-08:00

I'm not even sure what to say about this CBS Cares ad:

Seriously? I understand that you are trying to spread awareness or whatever, but gross. How do these guys even get through this without laughing? I know when I saw it I had a straight face, but that was in stunned shock; if I'd had to read those words and then actually SAY them, I would have wet myself in embarassment. And I actually have a pap to smear. Way to make health advocacy creepy, CBS. Note to everyone in my life: DO NOT GET ME A PAP SMEAR FOR CHRISTMAS! For real. Get me a card, or chocolates (or a Wii, wheee!), or nothing at all. Just stay away from my lady bits. Keeping your business out of my business will make for a Merry Christmas.

Jewish? Don't worry, it's a terrible Hannukah gift, too.

ps: Get a Pap Smear. Get a colonoscopy, mammogram and prostate exam, too. Do everything you can to screen for any preventable cancers. Just keep it away from the holiday festivities. Try February.

Imitation Is The Sincerest Form Of Flattery

2009-12-04T12:14:00.000-08:00

If you watched last night's episode of Bones, you really need to see The King of Kong. The story of a real life Donkey Kong rivalry, it is crazy, funny, sad and enfuriating all at once. You'll love it. The writers on Bones obviously did.

Why Do I want Their Help?

2009-12-03T08:21:00.001-08:00

There is a commercial airing for the Mastercard Priceless Gift finder, featuring Peyton Manning and Alyson Hannigan giving people terrible gifts. Taffy to an old man with no teeth, a mouth guard to an old lady whose tackling days are most likely behind her, etc. It is very funny and I enjoy watching it each time. but I think they may have shot themselves in teh foot a bit, because at the end it says you can win a chance for one of them to help you choose your Christmas gifts. And I can't help but wonder, after seeing how lousy they are at it, why I would want their help?

I Heart Sonya

2009-12-02T12:07:00.000-08:00

Last night's So You Think You Can Dance was interesting. It started off so fast - they totally skipped over all the usual filler showing people picking their new partners and working with the choreographers, and it was a bit jarring. I usually only pay all that stuff the most minor attention, but it does serve as a great intro and set up and after 5 years you get into a rhythm and a routine and begin to expect it. So when it was absent I was all flustered and felt like everything was going too fast, I don't know who is paired with who, what's happeneing they're just dancing already? Whoa. But then we had the first solo, and with it a little vignette on the dancer, and a new rhythm was restored. A much better rhythm. I love when we get to this poitn and there are still a lot of people in the competition, but they are all dancing two pieces together and a solo, because you lose the blah blah blabbing and have lots of great dancing. Last night was no exception. There were several pieces I really liked, but one stood apart, not only from last night's performances, but from all performances. Sonya is a choreographer that you either love or hate - her style is very unique. I happen to love her, but I think anyone can appreciate the artistry in this dance. Oh, and Ellenore and Jakob are no slouches either.

Perception*

2009-12-01T17:47:00.000-08:00

Washington, DC Metro Station on a cold January morning in 2007. The man with a violin played six Bach pieces for about 45 minutes. During that time approx. 2 thousand people went through the station, most of them on their way to work. After 3 minutes a middle aged man noticed there was a musician playing. He slowed his pace and stopped for a few seconds and then hurried to meet his schedule.

4 minutes later:
The violinist received his first dollar: a woman threw the money in the hat and, without stopping, continued to walk.

6 minutes:
A young man leaned against the wall to listen to him, then looked at his watch and started to walk again.

10 minutes:
A 3-year old boy stopped but his mother tugged him along hurriedly. The kid stopped to look at the violinist again, but the mother pushed hard and the child continued to walk, turning his head all the time. This action was repeated by several other children. Every parent, without exception, forced their children to move on quickly.

45 minutes:
The musician played continuously. Only 6 people stopped and listened for a short while. About 20 gave money but continued to walk at their normal pace. The man collected a total of $32.

1 hour:
He finished playing and silence took over. No one noticed. No one applauded, nor was there any recognition.
No one knew this, but the violinist was Joshua Bell, one of the greatest musicians in the world. He played one of the most intricate pieces ever written, with a violin worth $3.5 million dollars. Two days before Joshua Bell sold out a theater in Boston where the seats averaged $100.
This is a true story. Joshua Bell playing incognito in the metro station was organized by the Washington Post as part of a social experiment about perception, taste and people's priorities.

The questions raised:
*In a common place environment at an inappropriate hour, do we perceive beauty?
*Do we stop to appreciate it?
*Do we recognize talent in an unexpected context?

One possible conclusion reached from this experiment could be this:
If we do not have a moment to stop and listen to one of the best musicians in the world, playing some of the finest music ever written, with one of the most beautiful instruments ever made.
How many other things are we missing?

*I did not write this. It was sent to me as a viral email and it was so thought provoking I wanted to put it here. If you wrote it, or know who did, please let me know so I can give you proper credit.

Mission Accomplished

2009-11-30T19:27:00.000-08:00

One month, two blogs, posting everyday: check. Next time I'll try to actually have something to say in each post.

I May Have Already Talked About This

2009-11-29T17:09:00.000-08:00

You know how cordless phones have a button on the base that you can press to page the handset? And it beeps so you can find it in the couch cushions, or toaster or whatever? Well, TV remotes need this. Badly. My marriage is depending on it. Although, I think killing my husband because he is completely incapable of leaving the remote anywhere visible is a totally justifiable defense.

Wine, Mmmmm

2009-11-28T17:29:00.000-08:00

I have lately been enjoying Luccio Moscato d'Asti, a sweet, slightly sparkling, white wine. I discovered it on a night out to dinner, and have been buying it ever since. This is really not for you unless you love sweet wines - it almost doesn't taste alcoholic it's so sweet. like grape juice. But I love it, and I'm drinking a glass right now. After all, it's a holiday weekend. There's no making it through that without a little drinking, right?

Don't Take Chances. Take A Moment

2009-11-27T18:41:00.000-08:00

There is a American Express commercial currently airing that I love. Not because it is clever, or pretty or good, but because it features Bach's Prelude from Solo Cello Suite No. 1. I love this piece of music, and every time this commercial airs I stop and listen and just have a moment of peace.

Happy Thanksgiving

2009-11-26T10:54:00.000-08:00

May you all have a wonderful day full of good food, laughter and family. I know I will.

ps: want to know what I am thankful for?

Ellenore and Ryan Razzle Dazzle

2009-11-25T19:57:00.000-08:00

The Broadway style is not really my thing. But this is perfection.

The King Gets it Right

2009-11-24T11:11:00.000-08:00

Burger King has managed to provide and example of how cross promotion with Twilight can be done right. Their ads about Team Edward vs Team Jacob, and everyone coming together over burgers are hilarious to me. Maybe that is only because I'm totally not into the whole Twilight dealie so I don't get it, but I think they are clever. The ad adeptly advertises New Moon as well as Burger King, and it is clear in doing both. No confusion, no feeling of patronizing or pandering, just a clever ad for two products.

Yeah Yeah. But What Is Your Favorite Food?

2009-11-23T10:32:00.000-08:00

In the spirit of my favorite sports blog, Booleyan Theory, (and by favorite I mean the only one I read) I have a comment on the NFL. I really hate it when they introduce the players at the beginning of every game and they say where they went to college. As a viewer with zero sports knowledge, I don't see why this is relevant. And I totally find it boring and stupid that grown men with professional jobs still have to share where they went to college. I wish they would say something like, "my favorite color is," or their howmetown or something. I get that it matters in sports somehow (my husband explained it once but I don't remember), I just wish they could share something else of interest rather than where they went to college.

But What Does It Have To Do With Reading?

2009-11-22T11:27:00.000-08:00

So, have you seen the ads for the Kindle where the girl is in stop motion video and changing outfits and backgrounds and whatnot? (that's it down there if you haven't.) Can anyone explain to me what the heck this has to do with a Kindle? Is she acting out the stories? Is it trying to demonstrate the various situations where you can bring your Kindle? It is visually interesting and all, but I really don't understand what it has to do with an electronic reading device. It certainly doesn't make me want one, although to be honest, nothing short of a $1000 bonus would really make me want one. I like books. But that is irrelevant to this discussion. Which is about how the ad is stupid. Evertime it comes on the music grabs my attention and I look up to watch (good sign). And every time I get to the end and think: "that is so stupid, what does it even have to do with a Kindle?"(bad sign). I saw it five times before I even noticed there was even a Kindle in it (really bad sign). Bad advertising for a product that is really pretty neat and convenient. Assuming of course you are a total heathen and could ever bear to give up the wonder of turning pages.

Pizza Talk

2009-11-21T10:20:00.000-08:00

Papa Murphy's has a new Chicago Style stuffed pizza. I give you a moment to study:

Now, here is what a REAL Chicago stuffed pizza (a la Giordanos)looks like:

There is no comparison. In my opinion the first one looks like a taco or something - it bears no resmeblance to pizza at all, much less the delectable, cheesy goodness of an authentic Chicago style stuffed pizza. So there you have it. Papa Murphy's has neither Chicago style nor pizza. Discuss.

update 11/22/9: I have just seen this ad again, and am enraged anew. Why can you not just call it stuffed pizza? Why do you have to denigrate the name of Chicago style pizza with this travesty? I understand that a REAL Chicago style pizza is not conducive to the whole "take and bake" thing - it needs a special pan, it bakes for a really long time, etc. SO DON"T MAKE ONE. Jerks. On behalf of Chicago I want to sue Papa Murphy's for libel or defamation or whatever. False advertising at the very least. Grrrr

A Touch Of Salt, A Lot Of Yummy

2009-11-20T17:16:00.001-08:00

This chocolate bar caught my eye the other day:

I had a coupon, and I was intrigued, so I bought a bar. Wow. This is some yummy chocolate. There are definite salt crystals in it, but rather than feeling the grit or anything, you just get these little spots that seem meltier, and savorier than the rest. So good. If you like chocolate, I totally recommend this*. Or I recommend you stay away, depending on your willpower!

*I was not compensated in anyway for this post

Regarding Last Night's SYTYCD Decision: Baaaooooo!!*

2009-11-19T10:30:00.000-08:00

*must be uttered with the inflection of the old woman in Princess Bride**, calling Buttercup the Queen of Putrescence. Baaaoooo!

**if you don't know who that is, or haven't seen the movie, get thee to Netflix ASAP!!

Karen is NOT a star. She is a marginal dancer, and only slightly attractive girl that pervy old Nigel has glommed onto. She does not deserve to be there over Channing, who contrary to the judge's lame excuse, has done a fantastic job both technically AND with her personality. Karen's solo last night was execrable, and she should have been kicked off, rather than given a pat on the back and the allowance that dancing a solo is hard for ballroom dancers. So what? Heidi from season 2 did it fine. So have all the other ballroom contestants from previous seasons - Karen WALKED AROUND THE STAGE FOR HER ENTIRE PIECE. Oh, except for that one hideous jump that I could have bested any day of the week while 8 months pregnant. Inexcusable regardless of your genre.
The decision on the boys was also questionable - although dance wise I don't really have any issue. But Kevin was at least memorable - I am writing this as the credits roll and I literally can't remember the name of the guy they kept. Bad sign, Spinny Guy. No votes for you. My only consolation is that you will be paried with Karen next week, so your anonymity and her suckage can bring each other down.

Picture This

2009-11-18T11:43:00.000-08:00

I am tired of living in a house that is full of hand me down/cast off stuff, but of course, I can't afford to get anything new. But of course, I want my house to look like I chose all this stuff rather than "this is stuff no one else wanted/ all we could afford." Functionality is all well and good, but I'm sick of the eternal wait until we have money to make my house look nice. So I've been trying to think of ways to personalize my house and make it look "decorated" without really spending much money. I think if I put in a little thought and some time I can put a few things on the walls i cna make this place look really nice. So I have been exploring ideas and picturing how I would want things to be in here, and one thing I have come up with is the idea of printing some of our personal photos into big posters. There are literally a gazillion websites out there that you can upload a photo and they will print them into any size poster you want - some will even do canvas or wall stickers too. I haven't done enough looking around to really determine which sites are the cheapest so I'm not going to provide any links here - but I have seen 30"x40" prints for under $40. Not too bad (and of course, that is giant so a smaller size is even cheaper). And a lot of these sites have effects you can add to your photos, so you can turn them black and white or sepia or into a negative or whatever and get a neat effect that is a little fancier than just a giant snapshot on your wall. Also disguises less than stellar photgraphy! I am totally excited about this idea - now my only task is to narrow down exactly what I want to do- I have so many ideas! I definitely want to get some classic black and white shots, but it might be fun to get some done in the stranger effects like polarized and stuff. I have also thought about using one picture and getting it printed in several different effects so you have a grouping of the same picture in several different ways. That could be cool. Anyway, I feel totally excited about this idea, and I can't wait to spend so more time messing around online trying new things. I'll post a follow up if I ever actually get around to ordering anything.

Who Carries Around A Penny? Honestly

2009-11-17T11:38:00.000-08:00

Arby's has a new deal that I think involves a value meal of some sort, or maybe just a sandwich (Arby's is 'xspensive ya'll) or wahtever and it costs $5.01. And various people are saying oh the penny is for the cheese, or the roast beef or whatever blah ditty blah blah. It is a stupid premise and it bugs. Because it is obvious what the penny is for: to be a PAIN IN THE ASS. Seriously Arby's are you really doing us a favor by requiring that we have a SINGLE FREAKING PENNY? Just quit with the cute and make it $5, or if you have figured out that you need that penny to turn a profit or whatever go ahead and make it $5.25 or some other reasonable amount. Otherwise you can have my penny after I stick it where the sun don't shine. Um. On you. Not me. That was awkward. Whatever, you know what I meant. This whole idea is Lame (haha get it, with a capital L?). And while you're at it, lose the stupid commercial.

Organizational A-Ha

2009-11-16T11:31:00.000-08:00

Every holiday, when the decorations hit the stores, there will be large tupperware storage bins that echo the colors of the season. I have always wondered what kind of person needs storage boxesm and doesn't mind getting black and orange ones or red and green - having specific holiday colors for all my stuff would bug me. And then, last night I had a moment of insight - they aren't for everyday usage, they are for storing the decorations! Duh. These boxes are perfect for putting your holiday stuff in, perfectly color coordinated, so you can just see, oh the black and orange one is Halloween or the green is Christmas. I can't believe this never occured to me before. I've been taping and retaping the same cardboard boxes every year, marked ever so sloppily with Sharpie marker. Well, no more. this year I'll be picking up a nice tupperware bin to store my decor in - and at a glance I'll know what's inside because the stores have oh so thoughtfully provided color coordinated clues.

ps: this still does not explain those horrible hot pink tubs though.

What I Want Out of A Wireless Company Is To Not Be Treated Like An Idiot

2009-11-15T10:47:00.000-08:00

There is a Tmobile featuring different 'customers' saying what it is they are looking for out of a cellular plan. In general I don't mind it except for one little bit: on woman says "I want a plan that doesn't cost me one of these" and she holds up a mannequin arm and leg. I think this is kind of clever and amusing, because if you were someone who happened to be holding plastic body parts, you might do this - hold them up and make a funny pun. But then she goes on to say "an arm and a leg" and it ruins the whole thing. Because after that, instead of being vaguely witty, it is saying look, clearly we think you too stupid to get the joke, so we're going to repeat it in actualy words, taking all the wit out of it bcaue you, the veiwer have the brains of toast. And that pisses me off. If they thought we were to dumb to fill in the blanks ourselves when she just holds up the arm and leg, then she should have just said "arm and leg" as she held them up. Holding them up silently, waiting a pause (with a light eye roll indicating exasperation at a lack of understanding), and then essentially repeating herself, has no translation other than "you didn't get it the first time, so here's a replay." I hate being talked down to.

here's the ad, what do you think?

ps: I totally love the first girl's outfit

Seven

2009-11-14T11:18:00.000-08:00

There is a new movie coming out called Nine - you may have seen some trailers for it since it features a ton of big names in roles (Penelope Cruz, Judi Dench, Nicole Kidman, Daniel Day-Lewis). It is about a man and the SEVEN women in his life. And to that I just have to say WTF? Shouldn't there be nine women - could they really not come up with two more? or maybe we could just call it Seven (which I realize has been done before, but hey, there's a film in theaters right now called 9, so what's the difference?). I don't get it. Admittedly, I know next to nothing about this film, and i haven't been able to find much online in the way of synopsis since I keep getting results for "9" and of course I don't want to spend more than two minutes doing "research" anyway. I think there is something about the main guy workng on his ninth play or something, so I'm assuming that is where the title comes from, but seeing as the entire focus of the movie is his relationship with all the different women in his life, shouldn't the title reflect that a wee bit more? Ie, shouldn't there be nine freaking women? I find this an assault on my sens of logic and balance and will most likely not see the film because of it. ok, I probably wouldn't have seen it anyway, but this doesn't help.

This Week's Obsession

2009-11-13T10:37:00.000-08:00

I always have my nails painted. I feel like it just makes me look like I spend time on my ppearance when I usually don't haha. And while I have been working on a post featuring all my favorite shade, right now I am completely obsessed with this color:

Peacock Feathers by Nubar

From most angels it is a beautiful, rich, slightly metallic purple*:

But from other angles it is a deep emerald green*:

SO PRETTY! I have been showing these off to my husband all week (and tweeting it and sharing with anyone who will listen, ie my mom and 3yo daughter)-I am just mesmerized by the color change. you can get anlges where the nails are green and purple all at once, and even some flashed of gold. basically all the colors in a peacock feather, ala the name. My tip for painting them, since the formula is a little thin, is to use one coat of black polish as a base coat. This is a great tip anytime you are using a dark color because it helps with the opacity, and getting the truest deepest color, and it is expecially helpful here in getting the various colors to show up. I use OPI Black Onyx and have never had any staining problems on my nails. If you like the trendy dark polish trend and want an extra fancy kick, I definitely recommend Nubar Peacock Feathers

*I realize these photos are sucky, but it was really hard to get the right light/angle combination with the camera. I ended up using my blackberry cause that worked best for some reason. the color change is WAY easier to see in person

as usual, none of these comments were sponsored or compensated in any way. All products mentioned were purchased with my own money, unless they were purchased with my husband's money, haha!

How Does That Affect Resale?

2009-11-12T10:05:00.000-08:00

Tis the season when we begin to see all of teh ads for influenza vaccine - and this year there are understandably more than usual. I saw one the other day, and it was all about the highest risk people who should definitely be vaccinated. There were different actors "confessing" to why they are most a risk: chronic health condition, asthma, pregnant, etc. In one of the scenes, there was a family of a mom, dad and young boy. The mom said "we live with a baby under 6 months old" and it was totally weird. The three were standing together, with the baby in front of them like it was separate from the other family unit, and they way it was phrased sounded like the baby just also lived in their house. Like a roommate or special feature of their house. Not "we HAVE a baby under 6 months old", but "we LIVE WITH a baby under 6 months old." Don't you think that sounds like the baby just lives there too, even though they have nothing to do with it? And instead of being held by the mom, the baby was kind of separate from the whole family unit, further stressing the separate feeling. Very bizarre.
Man, you think you have a problem because your house has mice? Well, mine? Came with a BABY! At least you can call pest control.

So You Think You Can Go Back To The Old Set?

2009-11-11T11:13:00.001-08:00

So, there has been quite a revamp on SYTYCD this year. And I'm not entirely sure I love the changes made. First, they aren't switching up judge everyweek. On one hand I like it because it means Adam Shankman is on everyweek and I think he is funny and also offers good, helpful critiques to the dancers. But on the other hand, it means we don't get to see any of the other choreographers, and they have nice personalities and interesting opinions to add to the commentary as well. I think the best solution would be to continue having Adam as a permanent judge, but still have a rotating 4th judge. There's clearly a chair up there already - which reminds me: drop the whole Paula Abdul shtick. Blergh. Second issue - they have just had everyone dance and then kicked people off the first two weeks - no phone in voting for the bottom two couples. This satisfied my sense of immediate gratification since we didn't have to wait until the next night to see who was leaving. It also spared us sitting through the interminable musical guests on the results shows who are always terrible. But it also kind of took the whole point of the show away. If we don't even get to vote on who we like dleast, then just go ahead and pick a winner right now and just make it a dnace exhibition show rather than a contest. Thankfully this week it is going back to voting and the regular format. The third issue is the new stage. I absolutely HATE it. The screen behind the dancers is really distracting, and the neon lights on the sides look like some tacky Vegas review. Please, please, please bring back the old, round stage with the staircase! Watching the show on this new stage is really awful, and it is totally sapping my interest in the show. What do you think?

update 11/17/09- after watching tonight's show I have decided the biggest problem with the stage is that it is way too big for two dancers. No matter how great the dance, they cannot fill the stage and it makes the whole piece suffer. My husband says it looks like amateur night at the Apollo.

Vampires Are A Niche Market

2009-11-09T11:28:00.000-08:00

These Volvo/Twilight commericals make me want to barf. what are they advertising - cars? The New Moon movie? Stupid. Can we please leave the whole Twilight overexposure limited to things that are actuall relevant? They should really back off a bit or they are going to get a huge backlash before the final film. Plus? overexposure aside, I think this is taking product plcaement too far. i don't mind when real products are in tv or movies - having someone drinking a random "cola" can rather than Coke was always distracting to me. using real products makes it more realistic, and I find they fade into the background better than the mocked up fakes do. But doing tie ins with a movie and then bringing it into commercials that aren't even clear about what they are advertising is just annoying. And seriously? I don't care how dreamy and ethereal and shiny Robert Pattinson/Edward is. Somebody wash that jackass' hair!!!

What Makes A Good Ad Good?

2009-11-08T11:21:00.000-08:00

Stealth planes. Dropping unidentified pods into fields around the country. Curious witnesses creeping closer for a look. Smoke, a brief glimpse of... something, and the words "drops, 11-6-9." Maybe you think this is a lame commercial (my husband does) and maybe it is. But it has me intrigued. I can't wait to see what is "dropping" today (my guess the new Google phone since the words Google and Verizon appear in the fine print). And isn't interest in the product the biggest indicator of a successful advertisement? Or is it entertainment? Obviously, the best commercials do both - entertain, make you think or laugh or go huh?, and an ad that sticks with you isn't worth it if you only remember because you hated it. There are lots of commercials I think are great, but I can't say that I've ever seen one and thought "I really want that" unless it was something I'd have bought anyway. But there have been commercials that are so awful I have decided to never buy those products (not that I can think of a single example right now, but I know there have been some). So maybe aiming for the entertainment angle is not necessarily worth it for advertisers - go big and go risky and you may just alienate more potential customers than you gain.

My Linoleum Is Trying To Kill Me

2009-11-07T10:47:00.002-08:00

My bathroom has recently (as of Wednesday night) become a death trap. With zero explanation, and no cause that I can discern, the floor in the master bathroom in my house has suddenly become slicker than ice. perhaps Mr Clean, or wicked elves or particularly strange type of criminal (bizarro Monk?) has been breaking in while I sleep and buffing the floor. I don't know. All I know is that I have almost fallen down five times in the past three days - even knowing it is slippery I am slipping. In socks, shoes, bare feet I am slipping. My husband is slipping, too, so it is not just that I have lost all coordination either. I am totally confused - does anyone know of any reasons why a regular linoleum floor would suddenly get super slippery? If you don't hear from me for a few days, call the paramedics and tell them where to find me.

ps: I am totally aware that this doesn't really fall into the purview of this particular blog, being neither about commercials or tv or pop culture in anyway. But it is hard coming up with new ads to talk about every day, and I haven't read any books lately that bear discussion so pffft. And it's Saturday Say What over on my regular blog so I had to post here because you never know - I could fall and bump my head and forget all about it by tomorrow. but because you are sticklers who must be appeased, I will throw in a little product comentary here at the end. Putting on my concealer this morning I noticed that it is SPF 20. What is the purpose of putting SPF in something that doesn't go all over your face? Do my zits need extra sun protection? For a moment I was all paranoid I'm going to get a polka dot tan. And then I slipped.

Look! You Can See What I'm Talking About Right Here!

2009-11-07T10:46:00.000-08:00

So you probably haven't seen it, seeing as it is a loca commercial for our Cable service, cox cable, but it is great. take a moment to enjoy:

Now that I've had the wonderful idea to embed the ad I'm talking about in my blog, I find I have nothing else to say about it. You just watched it. Wasn't it funny? Hmm. I was thinking this was such a wonderful idea so people could refresh their memories about what I'm talking about (and I still think it is), but rewatching it right now has run me out of creative steam as far as further discussion goes. Maybe next time I'll write what I'm thinking about first, so I don't get all blanked out by the replay.

Flashforward

2009-11-06T12:00:00.000-08:00

I don't know about you, but I am enjoying this show. Not necessarily for the show itself (some of the characters are meh), but because of the questions it brings up. The quandaries the characters face because they know, or think they know, a piece of their future. Are they destined to be in those situations because of fate, or can they change it? If they change their behavior to avoid the future will they commit the very acts that bring about their fears, implying that had they never known at all they would have led different lives? It is all so interesting, and I am really enjoying wondering where the writers will bring these people and what the outcome will look like. And I am confident in the direction of the show because I have read that the writers have a whole arc mapped out. The writers of Lost did that - and while that show is totally confusing and mystifying, knowing they have a concrete resolution in mind, and now coming down to that resolution and seeing pieces fall in to place gives real satisfaction. It won't just end up mired in mythology and secrets and end with a lame explanation that never quite does the central mystery justice. Assuming of course that they really do have a plan (a good plan), and that they are competant enough to pull it off. For now, I'll stick with it, if only because pondering the mysteries of the space time continuum is kind of fun. Try saying that at your next cocktail party.

Now Spin Your partner Round And Round - Right back Into The Closet To Change

2009-11-05T08:06:00.000-08:00

What is the deal with square dancing? Well, not so much the dancing part, as the people involved and their costumes. It always seems to involve, shall we say, ladies of “a certain age.” And they are always dressed in what looks like a 6 year old’s best party dress. Don’t they know they look absolutely ridiculous? Grannies wearing above the knee flouncing skirts and petticoats look deranged. And also kind of like they are trying out for the Little Miss Sweet Potato pageant, 6-12 division. Can square dancing not be done unless wearing these (age)inappropriate garments? Do you not know how to do-si-do unless dressed like a child? Honestly, the costumes take away any possibility of credibility and respect you could possibly have for this activity. I don’t get it.

This Commercial Makes Your Brain Look Smaller

2009-11-04T13:37:00.000-08:00

So I'm sure you have seen the Burger King commercials featuring the guy with tiny hands, and while I do think this is an amusing idea (it always makes me think of Austin powers and carnies - smell of cabbage, very small hands, haha!), I do think they got it backwards. Isn't the point of the ad that the dollar burgers at the King are so much bigger than the dollar burgers everywhere else? So shouldn't it be someone with extra large hands and his friends say don't worry, eat this burger and they will look smaller? Or is it supposed to be that the burger is so big the tiny hands can't even hold it? I'm confused. And now I want a Whopper. Great.

You Know, The Ad For The Stuff

2009-11-03T11:06:00.000-08:00

I love the commercial for Chef Boyardee where the mom is trying to prevent the dad from saying it has a full serving of vegetables right in front of the kid so he won't stop eating. She keeps randomly going "psssst." to istrct him or banging pots and pans to cover the sound of his talking. And the whole time she has this intense look in her eyes at her husband, just trying to telepathically communicate the "shut up" message. It is awesome. Because as any parent knows, there is nothing worse that accidentally saying something you don't want your kids to hear, either because they love it or hate it. And of course, spelling only works for so long until they learn to still decipher what you are saying (B_A_T_H, anyone?). I personally have given my husband "the look" many times while saying cleverly disguised messages like "maybe later we can go to the place with the thing that the kids like, BUT DON"T SAY IT, because we might not be able to go, but let's plan on it for right now, BUT DON"T SAY IT, just in case because if they hear it then we have to go." Sometimes he gets it, but usually he just stares at me like the dad in the commercial like he has no idea why I've gone crazy or what I'm talking about and perhaps he should check me for stroke. Occassionally, he will say the forbidden word like I didn't just tell him not to say it a hundred times and shoot important sshhh daggers with my eyes, but that happened more in the beginning before we got to be so good at being parents and developed the super secret code I demonstrated above.

But WHY Is It Black?

2009-11-02T12:48:00.000-08:00

Can anyone clear up the confusion I am having about the Taco Bell Black Taco? Is it just a regular taco with a black shell or does it have a special flavor? Is it black for Halloween? I don't get it. The commercials are all about showing off the new black taco, but they are forgetting one crucial element - actually SELLING the taco. Why do we want it? Why do we need it? This, I believe, is a basic tenet of advertising; tell teh consumer about the product in such a way that they feel they cannot live without it. I can live without a black taco if it's only purpose is to prove you can dye the shit out of a taco shell. The ads are all "oooh, black taco" but they don't really make it seem interesting or appealing at all. It's just black. Whoop de freakin doo. So I don't get it. Stunt? New flavor? Either way, the ad is a huge FAIL.

Day One

2009-11-01T21:17:00.000-08:00

So, I have decided to give NaBloPoMo a go over on my "real" blog, and I thought it might be fun to give myself the extra challenge of trying to do it on both blogs at the same time. I don't know if this will generally be possible since this blog relates primarily to entertainment and commercials, and with the advent of the DVR I miss most commercials which severly limits my pool of inspiration (wow, that sounds New Agey - come, dangle your toes into the pool of inspiration and feel the ideas soothe away your aches while you listen to the twinkly twinkly music). Anyhoodle, I'm going to try and write here everyday - which may be possible because all of last week I had so many ideas for this blog, but I didn't want to write them all down at once - I thought I'd ration them out over time so they should be stored up for use now. Of course, at the moment, I can't recall a single one, so that plan may have backfired on me already.

Nobody NEEDS Someone Telling Them Their Perfect Wedding Is A Tacky Idea

2009-10-30T20:42:00.000-07:00

So there is some new show about weddings that I can't even be botered to remember the name of, but the ads are on CONSTANTLY, and it is all singing about how every bride needs David by her side. And the ads show this guy (presumably David) waving his arms and turning various brides and bridesmaids into nicer looking brides and bridesmaids. He changes Goth Bride and Country Bride and Ugly bridesmaids, and Cutesty Bridesmaids, etc, into much nicer and more bridal magaziney brides and bridesmaids. And in general, I don't object to this. After all, the world can use a whole lot less tacky in it. But honestly, who really cares what these women want to wear at their wedding? if they want to dress up like pirates or put their wedding party into hideous froofy lemon yello gowns, how does that affect me? Shouldn't they be allowed to have the wedding they want, even if it conflicts with the typical Today Show idea of wedding perfection? Basically what notice is that he is making everyone look the same -and that's no good. It's not like they are trying to fix how people dress every day - which is just publc service because we have to look at those people when they are out and about (and at Walmart- seriously what is up with that place?). A wedding is one day - if you want to live it up and do it in a tie-dyed dress and feather hair piece, whatever. Just don't dress that way everyday or we'll have to turn you in to What Not To Wear.

I Didn't Know People Actually Read This

2009-10-26T18:16:00.000-07:00

Hey there folks! I was totally unaware you were showing up! I am a total reject and didn't have my settings on to email me when you make your lovely comments - so I didn't know anyone was even reading! Except, my dad. I knew he was reading. but all of you others who have commented - hey there! Thanks so much! I hope you keep coming back - I'm going to try and write more and respond to comments more now that I've gotten everything straightened out.

Happy Feet

2009-10-25T16:04:00.000-07:00

Tonight Disney aired Happy Feet for like the thousandth time, and I was finally (been meaning to since it came out in 2006) able to sit down and articulate what it is that I hate about this movie. because make no mistake I HATE this movie. I so desperately want to love it too, which I think makes its dissappointment that much keener. I feel that they had such a fabulous idea (and built in blockbuster potential, obviously), but they handled it so badly, and really turned out a lame movie. People get all dazzled by the cute penguins and the vocal stylings of Robin Williams and they don't really pay attention to how lacking this movie really is. So here are my reasons for why it sucks (which also double as examples of how it could have been better):
1) The songs suck. A main feature of this movie is that the penguins sing to each other to find mates. That is why the main character is out of place bceause he can't sing and instead dances. So why aren't the congs better? There are a few modern songs used, and they are really catchy and cleverly done (great examples of the "mash-up" discussed on Glee each week), but the big moment where his love interest sings? Booooring. Whoever was in charge of music on this film really fell down on the job bceause they had the chance to either write some really great original music, or to incorporate popular songs in new and creative ways (ala Glee or Moulin Rouge) and they didn't do either. Bad choice.
2) The main character (mumbles) never gets older. What is up with that? Is he developmentally challenged as well as a terrible singer? I just don't understdand the purpose of having every other penguin transform from a baby to an adult, except for him. I suppose the idea was to maintain some of that extra cute baby fluffiness, but having him only halfway into adult feathers while everyone else is fully grown is just lame (nless you address is as yet another way he stands out which they never do). Okay, so maybe most people just didn't notice or care, but for super logic-minded (read: anal) folks like me, it is extremely annoying.
3) The heavy handed conservation message. I get it. Over fishing and our apparent disregard for the environment and the globes other inhabitants is an important message. But really, did it need to go in this film? The lack of food for teh penguins is presented the entire first half of the film as some sort of secondary subplot. There is no focus on the penguins really starving or being in danger, and then all of a sudden, Mumbels is off in the real world doing his little dance and all the humans think "oh, so cute, lets not eat fish anymore." I don't think so. If they really wanted to emphasize the importance of this issue, I think it would have been an excellent toipic for a sequel - Mumbles, having been finally accepted by his flock, goes off to save them and brings attention to the wonderful world down south and we all decide to be more gentle and compassionate and whatever. Awesome. Teaches kids (and their parents) an important lesson, and hey look, even more money for the studio because um, if the original won an Oscar and made a gazillion dollars, don't you think a sequel might be a good idea? Yeah, me too. Taking two hours to explore how our actions affect the environment while seeing even more cute dancing penguins sounds like fun to me. Tacking it on in a desperate attempt to add a little extra meaning onto your film just ends up being didactic preaching.
Which brings me to the biggest failure of the film:
4)They completely miss the main point. Mumbles is different. He cannot sing like everyone else, instead he dances. And instead of focusing on his attempts to fit in, followed by his self acceptance and finally his acceptance by everyone, the filmakers shortchange the most important lesson in their film. This movie was a perfect opportunity to really teach acceptance - everyone is different, and everyone has something special to offer. Kids can be so mean to anyone who is different. Society can be so mean to anyone who is different. This movie was a prime situation for teaching acceptance not only of those around you who make look or act differently, but of yourself for your uniqueness. Mumbles should have found that his dancing was wonderful and special and great not because it makes the humans stop stealing their fish, but because it was wonderful and special and great. He should have been welcomed home by his flock not bceause he saved them, but because they learned his value just for being himself. This is a lesson kids can learn in a 105 minute movie, and it is a lesson they need to learn (and that parents may need a refresher course on too). By trying to throw in conservation and adventure and comedy and the kitchen sink, the filmmakers missed out on an opportunity to make a truly great film (Or two truly great films if you like my idea for the sequel to focus on the over fishing subject matter). They tried to cram to much in and ended up losing the real messge in the movie. Which I think is really what I hate most about it. It could have been wonderful and fun and educational. Instead, it was uneven, heavy handed, and a little boring. I'm not going to shy away from a message in a film - in fact I think kids movies should have something to impart beyond dazzle. Just don't beat me over the head with it. After all, it still the movies. it should be fun.

A Few Of My Favorite Things*

2009-10-21T11:24:00.000-07:00

I may be a stay at home mom, and I may wear yoga pants a t-shirts all day long, but I still like to look nice, and so I pretty much always have on makeup. Seriously, I may not brush my hair, but you can bet I've got on my mascara! And I do feel a little silly applying foundation and the whole shebang on days when I don't even leave the house, but I have always been skeptical about that old fashion mag advice staple "just dot concealer on your trouble areas and go." For me, that seemed to just result in looking like I had small dots of makeup on my face - making me blotchier and weirder looking. I preferred using a light foundation (I use Chanel Teint Innocence in Cameo) to even everything out, and I never felt that I looked like I had "pancake face." but then I found:
Neutrogena Mineral Sheers Concealer w/ SPF 20 (Light)

This really works wonderfully. I just use a tiny brush to dot it on and then cover it with the included powder and it really works. It is weird having a totally naked face, but I really like it for days I'm not going anywhere but don't want to look so tired and blotchy when I catch sight of myself in the mirror. Anyway, I thought it was so awesome, I just had to tell everyone about it, and then I figured I should maybe let you know what other products I can't live without too.
To add to the whole "I just look this great even without makeup" illusion, I use this:
Tarte Cheek Stain (Blushing Bride)

Just dab it on, rub in a little bit and it looks like you are flushing naturally - not like wearing blush at all. Works really well on top of foundation or under powder too - I think it has the most natural, subtle finish to it. In the winter it adds a bit of dewiness to drier skin, and in the summer I just put a little powder on top in case it feels sticky. Plus, I've been using it daily for 5+ years and I'm still on my first tube!
My other mainstay is this lipstick:
Revlon ColoStay Overtime Lipcolor (Timeless Nude)

I feel there is such a difference in how polished you look wearing even a nude lipstick compared to totally bare lips, and I like how no fuss the long lasting lipsticks are. I drink water constantly, and I hate having gunky lipstick residue on my bottles - chapstick is bad ebough, but when it's colored too? Gross. I have tried all teh brands before and they all work about the same. I prefer this one because this shade is the best true nude I've found- it matches my lips perfectly, and it lasts all day so I can just apply it once and then I use chapstick or gloss on top the rest of the day to keep my lips moist (I like that slick feeling and am a total lipbalm addict. My old reliable is plain vaseline). With a slick of gloss (I like Dior Addict for a really glassy, not too sticky, shine) I get that perfect nude 'Victoria Beckham' lip, and it makes me feel all sophisticated and stylish, even though I'm totally not.
The only other thing I apply everyday is mascara. I like a really black mascara, and I stick with L'Oreal or Lancome, but honestly, I will wear almost any brand except Maybelline which I have had allergic reactions to. On days i'm feeling extra sassy I will also use this:
Stila Kajal Eyeliner (Onyx, Smokey Quartz, Sapphire, or Amethyst)

This is the smoothest eyeliner I have ever found, Super easy to apply (I like to do the inner rims of my lower eyelids and this does it without any tugging at all), and it blends really well. I've also found that it wears down during the day without running all over your face which is nice. The first time I wore it was actually the day I found out I had to put my cat to sleep, and through all that crying I never had tracks down my face. For my upper lids (which I almost never line) I prefer to use a longer lasting formula that doesn't smudge or rub off so easily, but for daily use and on the gentle inner rims this is perfect. It is also probably awesome for smudging into a classic smokey eye, but I have never perfected that technique so I don't know for sure.
The final product I can't live without is:
Eucerin Dry Skin Therapy Plus Intensive Repair Creme

This creme is so thick and moisturizing, and it has alpha hydroxy acids in it too, so it works as an exfoliator. I put it on my heels at night and it keeps them from getting dry and cracked and callousy. Saves time and money on pedicures! It also works really nicely the few times I have gotten eczema from allergic reactions - so far it is the only thing I have found I can apply to these rashes on my face without making it worse. It actually heal the spots faster and take the redness away.

*none of these comments were sponsored or compensated in anyway. Each of these items I found doing my own research (ie, seeing an ad, random guesswork and/or reading fashion magazines), and bought with my own money. And of course, you just have to take my word for it that they work great - for all you know I'm a hot mess. Infact, you may have seen photos, in which case you KNOW I'm a hot mess. hehe

Still Waiting For My Paycheck

2009-09-27T19:01:00.000-07:00

When did entertainment become a job? I have a stack of magazines four months thick with new ones coming in weekly, not to mention a constantly reloading DVR and a pile of books also awaiting my attention. And I'm wondering, why do I feel this pressure to keep up with it all? I think on average I read about 20 magazines a month, 60 books a year, and watch countless hours of "must see" tv. And none of it is necessary (other than for my enjoyment), but it all feels so important. I go through the Entertainment Weekly (pick your season) movie and tv preview editions with a pad of paper making lists of what I want to see. I have not missed a single issue of that magazine practically since it came out, which was in...1990. Crazy. For weeks I have had a stack of these magazines (dating back to the beginning of JULY when moving made me put them off until later) sitting on my counter causing me anxiety over when I could find the time to read them. After all, I had to use my available free time to keep up with my other weekly magazines (can't fall behind in teh celeb gossip)or to watch on of the three or four shows I tape every night. And yet, I couldn't just get rid of them and start fresh. Just like I could never bring myself to erase the Tin Man miniseries on my old DVR even though I knew that if I hadn't watched it in the two years since it had aired I was probably never going to. It's like a compulsion to never miss a single item of pop culture that might delight or otherwise entertain me. I make lists of the books I want to read, try and figure out a perfect schedule for taping television shows to maximize the number of things I can see, and always make time for my magazines, blogs, etc. But if it is causing me stress, no matter how little, isn't that kind of a problem? This is entertainment, not life or death. yes, I may think some of the previews or reviews sound intriguing and will tickle my fancy, but is anything going to happen if I DON"T see them? Something else great will always come along after all. There are always Netflick nights when nothing else can be found and I can go back to something that I may have missed the first time around. The world will keep turning and there will always be great entertainment to be found. But in the meantime, I'll be busy catching up.

ps: I just got done with all my back issues of EW today. This week I will be attempting tackle all the back issues of my fashion magazines.

VMA-gate: And We're Suprised Why?

2009-09-14T18:47:00.000-07:00

Okay. So you may or may not be aware of the brouhaha stemming from last nights' VMAs (since probably only my dad is reading this, that stands for video music awards. yeah, that's what I'm talking about here. Bye Dad). Basically, Kanye West acted like a dickhead and hijacked Taylor Swift's acceptance speech to say that Beyonce's video was the best one. Commence jaw dropping and much Tweeting/internet chaos. Truly, it was wonderful fodder. But basically, I just have to say, really? Are we THAT surprised that Kanye West acted like, um, Kanye West? The guy makes all the regular asshats out there seem like saints. Yes, it was amazingly rude, and yes, it was totally crazy that he actually got up and did that, but honestly, after watching the clip, the only thing that really surprised me was how polite he was when speaking. The overall message was unforgivable no doubt, but he was actually quite tame with the words coming out of his mouth. Which in itself should demonstrate the heights of douchbaggery he regularly attains, when something so heinous can come across as sort of civil. Dickweed. I would like to suggest that we all stop discussing such abominable behavior and giving the prick what he wants - attention. Don't tweet his name, don't write it on your blog. Make up some nickname (King Douche perhaps?) and use that. So that egomaniacal (and talentless, face it, anyone with his producers could do what he does) fame whore can't search for himself and revel in his controversy. The only thing his name should be used for now is as a verb to explain when someone steals your thunder and/or reaches new levels of wankosity.
ie: the best man totally KANYED their wedding when he got drunk and made out with the bride's dad