I was watching an episode of Clean House and eating my lunch, and before I knew it, I was picking things up during every commercial break.
It's when you look at one of your own rooms and realize it's very close to resembling one on an episode that spurs you to get moving. The last thing you want is to realize you're a 'before' picture instead of an 'after.'
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Sunday, December 21, 2008
The Lowly Lions
So I guess the Detroit Lions lost to the Saints today, dropping to 0-15. I say 'I guess' because I didn't watch it, I'm just relying on web reports. I think the game was blacked out because of poor ticket sales.
Um.....duh?
I don't want to say I've given up on the Lions forever. But I've given up on them now. Call me a fair weather fan of you want (which, I realize, makes no sense when the wind chill is -14 and it's snowing fit to beat the band) but I'm just bored with them. It's not worth watching.
See, the problem isn't that the Lions are bad. It's that they're always bad. They never show signs of life. The team is dismal, year after year after year. It's not like a good team that has to go through rebuilding phases. This team is trying to rebuild with substandard materials and getting nowhere fast, every freaking year. And I'd venture that a lot of promising players find their careers ruined by their time in Detroit. After all, if a guy can't make it in Detroit, why would anybody else take a chance on him? I'm sure the top draft pick this year is praying the Lions win the last game so that he doesn't have to go there.
I'm not saying all the players suck and it's all their fault. They've had a hand in it, sure, but the coaching is terrible and the ownership---!! There aren't enough expletives for the mess that is management of this team. Keeping Matt Millen as long as they did was bad enough, but why the NFL doesn't come in and throw William Clay Ford out is beyond me.
Until recently, Ford didn't have too much reason to worry. Lions games were still selling out, even when the team was pretty darn bad. But this season, it's gotten worse. Oh sure, I think you can also blame the country's economic woes and everything else too, but let's face it, if you're a die-hard football fan, you'll try to find the money somewhere. I just think that the fans are finally getting wise to the idea that when you keep filling the seats, nobody is under any pressure to make positive changes.
Let's look at how a bad football team has an impact. People aren't going to downtown Detroit to the games, so they're not paying for parking and food and maybe tailgating or after-game activities. That's hurting the city. People aren't buying Lions-related merchandise. That's hurting the team and the NFL. And Detroit is only getting more of the wrong kind of attention. After the Kwame Kilpatrick disaster and the Big Three's financial woes, do we really need more negative press?? That just makes us all look like morons.
Okay, granted, in the grand scheme of things, how bad a football team is, is really not life or death. I am well aware of that. I'm just speaking in the grand scheme of sports. And you might say, "Well, gee, it has to improve next year. You've only got one way to go - up." No, this is the Lions we're talking about. With their past records, its perfectly conceivable that they could go 0-16 for years on end.
Um.....duh?
I don't want to say I've given up on the Lions forever. But I've given up on them now. Call me a fair weather fan of you want (which, I realize, makes no sense when the wind chill is -14 and it's snowing fit to beat the band) but I'm just bored with them. It's not worth watching.
See, the problem isn't that the Lions are bad. It's that they're always bad. They never show signs of life. The team is dismal, year after year after year. It's not like a good team that has to go through rebuilding phases. This team is trying to rebuild with substandard materials and getting nowhere fast, every freaking year. And I'd venture that a lot of promising players find their careers ruined by their time in Detroit. After all, if a guy can't make it in Detroit, why would anybody else take a chance on him? I'm sure the top draft pick this year is praying the Lions win the last game so that he doesn't have to go there.
I'm not saying all the players suck and it's all their fault. They've had a hand in it, sure, but the coaching is terrible and the ownership---!! There aren't enough expletives for the mess that is management of this team. Keeping Matt Millen as long as they did was bad enough, but why the NFL doesn't come in and throw William Clay Ford out is beyond me.
Until recently, Ford didn't have too much reason to worry. Lions games were still selling out, even when the team was pretty darn bad. But this season, it's gotten worse. Oh sure, I think you can also blame the country's economic woes and everything else too, but let's face it, if you're a die-hard football fan, you'll try to find the money somewhere. I just think that the fans are finally getting wise to the idea that when you keep filling the seats, nobody is under any pressure to make positive changes.
Let's look at how a bad football team has an impact. People aren't going to downtown Detroit to the games, so they're not paying for parking and food and maybe tailgating or after-game activities. That's hurting the city. People aren't buying Lions-related merchandise. That's hurting the team and the NFL. And Detroit is only getting more of the wrong kind of attention. After the Kwame Kilpatrick disaster and the Big Three's financial woes, do we really need more negative press?? That just makes us all look like morons.
Okay, granted, in the grand scheme of things, how bad a football team is, is really not life or death. I am well aware of that. I'm just speaking in the grand scheme of sports. And you might say, "Well, gee, it has to improve next year. You've only got one way to go - up." No, this is the Lions we're talking about. With their past records, its perfectly conceivable that they could go 0-16 for years on end.
Sunday, December 14, 2008
My New Holiday Wish
Please, God, stop the madness! No more "Every Kiss begins with K" or "He went to Jared!" commercials! No more "beautiful diamond necklaces" and "half-carat engagement rings"! No more "Show her you love her all over again!" PLEASE, SOMEONE, MAKE IT STOP!!!
Aren't the holidays stressful enough? I have to buy presents for up to 20 people (counting friends and work), mail out well over 40 Christmas cards, put up and take down decorations, deal with my crazy great aunt (not killing her each year should earn each of us in the family a Nobel Peace Prize), travel in bad weather, cook, clean, wrap, unwrap, pack, unpack - do I need to be reminded that I am appallingly jewelry-free every time I turn on the television or the radio??
At the very least, can't there be an ad that says, "Just because you're single doesn't mean YOU don't deserve a rock the size of Gibraltar!"? How about, "Remember, her fancy new engagement ring also comes with obnoxious in-laws - buy yourself these diamond-stud earrings, free of baggage!"? Or "Wearing our diamond-drop necklace nestled right above your cleavage makes you the biggest hit at the office holiday party! Remind that obnoxious jerk in accounting exactly what he ISN'T getting for Christmas this year!"?
That does it. I'm going shopping. Dammit.
*collapses from rant exhaustion*
Aren't the holidays stressful enough? I have to buy presents for up to 20 people (counting friends and work), mail out well over 40 Christmas cards, put up and take down decorations, deal with my crazy great aunt (not killing her each year should earn each of us in the family a Nobel Peace Prize), travel in bad weather, cook, clean, wrap, unwrap, pack, unpack - do I need to be reminded that I am appallingly jewelry-free every time I turn on the television or the radio??
At the very least, can't there be an ad that says, "Just because you're single doesn't mean YOU don't deserve a rock the size of Gibraltar!"? How about, "Remember, her fancy new engagement ring also comes with obnoxious in-laws - buy yourself these diamond-stud earrings, free of baggage!"? Or "Wearing our diamond-drop necklace nestled right above your cleavage makes you the biggest hit at the office holiday party! Remind that obnoxious jerk in accounting exactly what he ISN'T getting for Christmas this year!"?
That does it. I'm going shopping. Dammit.
*collapses from rant exhaustion*
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Fan Fiction Frenzy
With the advent of the internet, I've noticed that what used to get people all in a tizzy is now accepted as normal. We used to call it plagiarism. Now we call it fan fiction.
All over the Web, you can find stories involving television, movie and book characters in brand new stories, not written by the original authors, creators or writers. And nobody minds. In fact, they have great followings.
I'm glad about that, actually. Nobody's trying to make any money off of it (which is probably why nobody objects) and it gives people a chance to try on pre-created characters and settings. Sometimes it can give you a better idea of where the original writers are going. Other times it points out where a show could or should be headed, especially when it comes to character development (Oh the frustration when you know you've come up with a cleaner way to explain something than the show actually uses!). I've even dabbled in it a little myself. And I've actually seen some elements of fan fiction stories I've read suddenly turn up in the show itself. In many cases, it was probably a coincidence, but sometimes, well, it's just eerie.
If I were in one of these shows, I would find it weird to surf the internet and find stories involving my character, some verging on pornography and some with relationships not intended by the writers. (Somebody out there has written something kinky involving Fred and George Weasley. Never mind that they're brothers.) I know of some actors who read the stories and crack up laughing, which is very generous considering some of the plots I've heard. But other times the intention is just to put the writer into something they really enjoy and want to emulate.
After all, they do say that imitation is the finest form of flattery. If that's the case, a lot of people should feel immensely flattered.
All over the Web, you can find stories involving television, movie and book characters in brand new stories, not written by the original authors, creators or writers. And nobody minds. In fact, they have great followings.
I'm glad about that, actually. Nobody's trying to make any money off of it (which is probably why nobody objects) and it gives people a chance to try on pre-created characters and settings. Sometimes it can give you a better idea of where the original writers are going. Other times it points out where a show could or should be headed, especially when it comes to character development (Oh the frustration when you know you've come up with a cleaner way to explain something than the show actually uses!). I've even dabbled in it a little myself. And I've actually seen some elements of fan fiction stories I've read suddenly turn up in the show itself. In many cases, it was probably a coincidence, but sometimes, well, it's just eerie.
If I were in one of these shows, I would find it weird to surf the internet and find stories involving my character, some verging on pornography and some with relationships not intended by the writers. (Somebody out there has written something kinky involving Fred and George Weasley. Never mind that they're brothers.) I know of some actors who read the stories and crack up laughing, which is very generous considering some of the plots I've heard. But other times the intention is just to put the writer into something they really enjoy and want to emulate.
After all, they do say that imitation is the finest form of flattery. If that's the case, a lot of people should feel immensely flattered.
Sunday, November 09, 2008
DVD Review: The Matrix Trilogy
Full disclosure: I saw The Matrix on video, Reloaded in the theater and Revolutions on DVD. It wasn't until recently that I saw all three of them fairly close together.
But let's back up. When I first saw the Matrix, I was blown away by the concept but not just that - by the visuals. Forget bullet time. Sure, that's cool. But what I love about these movies is the glossy sharply defined Matrix world, filled with martial arts, sassy clothing, and a patina of richness in the color that seems almost far too real. It's overlaid with a green gloss that sharpens and defines every frame of film. And there's a fantasy element to it. Who do you want to be? What would you learn if it was only as easy as downloading it straight into your brain? How would you live if you could create your own view of yourself? It's a thinker's ass-kicking movie. Sure, some of the computer stuff passed me by, but I could really follow the film's plot.
By the time I saw Reloaded, I was excited to see what happened next. But Reloaded left me befuddled. Who was the Architect and what was he talking about? If the Ghost Brothers are programs and so is the Merovingian, how exactly do they work? What was the point of Perseophone wanting to liplock Neo? (Keanu Reeves is attractive, but he does nothing for me.) What's this about Zion and the people and ... huh??? (But I will take some of that special cake the Merovingian made.) Other than that I felt like I'd gotten left behind by some deeply philosophical computer geek's dream.
So I didn't go see Revolutions when it came out a few months later. I was just too lost. Even though people raved about the whole series, I wasn't sure I wanted to bother. After much persuasion, I finally sat down to see all three, and with the help of Wikipedia, it all began to make a lot more sense. I still don't get all the details, but I don't feel like I'm missing as much as before.
The Matrix, obviously, was meant to stand alone, and in that way it's the crown jewel of all three films because it's a complete story, even if the humans aren't freed from the Matrix as yet. Reloaded is a likeable, even though confusing, middle story that further expands upon the gloss. Revolutions spends far too much time - of necessity - in the drab real world, infested by these machines that are a cross between a spider and a malevolent octopus that just give me the heebie-jeebies. Everybody wears hand knitted sweaters and eats goo. Give me the leather body suits, fast cars, and ass-kicking maneuvers of the Matrix anyday. So I found the third installment a necessary piece but not nearly as visually pleasing as the first two.
The highlight of all three films, in terms of action sequences, has to be the freeway chase scene in Reloaded. What an amazing achievement, and if you watch the DVD extras, it's even more incredible for what WASN'T computer generated. Hydraulics launching cars, stunt doubles leaping motorcycles off semis, you name it. That's edge of your seat action. I could watch that scene over and over and marvel at the mastery involved.
Let's say a few things about the casting: Keanu Reeves is good for these roles, but he's just not much for emoting. Still, his fight scenes are well done and he looks good doing them. Carrie Anne Moss is quietly understated but rock solid, and the only time she's overlooked is when she's next to Monica Belluci's Persephone, who is far sexier than Moss's earthy beauty. Laurence Fishburne was the only choice, in my opinion, for Morpheus. He not only rocks the gear (those nose-pinching round lensed sunglasses - awesome!), but he's got that voice that both whispers and roars with authority. (Plus he looks good bald.) Jada Pinkett Smith is fun as the pilot Niobe. And Hugo Weaving is just brilliant as Agent Smith. We knew the guy could act, but seriously, he's the shit. (Plus the guy who plays Bane does a dead-on Agent Smith in Revolutions and it's really well done and creepy as hell.) The entire supporting cast is really well done and diverse too, which is a nice change from most blockbusters.
I realize this isn't really a 'review' per se, just some thoughts about this movie trilogy. I still like the original the best, and I could watch that one over and over. I could watch parts of Reloaded, but probably wouldn't sit through Revolutions again. I liked it well enough, but I'd rather hang out in the Matrix, where everybody is cool.
DVD: There are tons of extras. I couldn't even get into them all. Leave yourself an extra viewing day for each movie's extras.
Animals: None. I don't even think there are animals in the real world. I think the only one we see is the deja vu cat in the Matrix at the Oracle's apartment.
Overall: The best part of the films is the visual effects, hands down. As an overarching story, I give all three films together three and a half roses out of five, carried by the visuals and the first movie's storyline.
But let's back up. When I first saw the Matrix, I was blown away by the concept but not just that - by the visuals. Forget bullet time. Sure, that's cool. But what I love about these movies is the glossy sharply defined Matrix world, filled with martial arts, sassy clothing, and a patina of richness in the color that seems almost far too real. It's overlaid with a green gloss that sharpens and defines every frame of film. And there's a fantasy element to it. Who do you want to be? What would you learn if it was only as easy as downloading it straight into your brain? How would you live if you could create your own view of yourself? It's a thinker's ass-kicking movie. Sure, some of the computer stuff passed me by, but I could really follow the film's plot.
By the time I saw Reloaded, I was excited to see what happened next. But Reloaded left me befuddled. Who was the Architect and what was he talking about? If the Ghost Brothers are programs and so is the Merovingian, how exactly do they work? What was the point of Perseophone wanting to liplock Neo? (Keanu Reeves is attractive, but he does nothing for me.) What's this about Zion and the people and ... huh??? (But I will take some of that special cake the Merovingian made.) Other than that I felt like I'd gotten left behind by some deeply philosophical computer geek's dream.
So I didn't go see Revolutions when it came out a few months later. I was just too lost. Even though people raved about the whole series, I wasn't sure I wanted to bother. After much persuasion, I finally sat down to see all three, and with the help of Wikipedia, it all began to make a lot more sense. I still don't get all the details, but I don't feel like I'm missing as much as before.
The Matrix, obviously, was meant to stand alone, and in that way it's the crown jewel of all three films because it's a complete story, even if the humans aren't freed from the Matrix as yet. Reloaded is a likeable, even though confusing, middle story that further expands upon the gloss. Revolutions spends far too much time - of necessity - in the drab real world, infested by these machines that are a cross between a spider and a malevolent octopus that just give me the heebie-jeebies. Everybody wears hand knitted sweaters and eats goo. Give me the leather body suits, fast cars, and ass-kicking maneuvers of the Matrix anyday. So I found the third installment a necessary piece but not nearly as visually pleasing as the first two.
The highlight of all three films, in terms of action sequences, has to be the freeway chase scene in Reloaded. What an amazing achievement, and if you watch the DVD extras, it's even more incredible for what WASN'T computer generated. Hydraulics launching cars, stunt doubles leaping motorcycles off semis, you name it. That's edge of your seat action. I could watch that scene over and over and marvel at the mastery involved.
Let's say a few things about the casting: Keanu Reeves is good for these roles, but he's just not much for emoting. Still, his fight scenes are well done and he looks good doing them. Carrie Anne Moss is quietly understated but rock solid, and the only time she's overlooked is when she's next to Monica Belluci's Persephone, who is far sexier than Moss's earthy beauty. Laurence Fishburne was the only choice, in my opinion, for Morpheus. He not only rocks the gear (those nose-pinching round lensed sunglasses - awesome!), but he's got that voice that both whispers and roars with authority. (Plus he looks good bald.) Jada Pinkett Smith is fun as the pilot Niobe. And Hugo Weaving is just brilliant as Agent Smith. We knew the guy could act, but seriously, he's the shit. (Plus the guy who plays Bane does a dead-on Agent Smith in Revolutions and it's really well done and creepy as hell.) The entire supporting cast is really well done and diverse too, which is a nice change from most blockbusters.
I realize this isn't really a 'review' per se, just some thoughts about this movie trilogy. I still like the original the best, and I could watch that one over and over. I could watch parts of Reloaded, but probably wouldn't sit through Revolutions again. I liked it well enough, but I'd rather hang out in the Matrix, where everybody is cool.
DVD: There are tons of extras. I couldn't even get into them all. Leave yourself an extra viewing day for each movie's extras.
Animals: None. I don't even think there are animals in the real world. I think the only one we see is the deja vu cat in the Matrix at the Oracle's apartment.
Overall: The best part of the films is the visual effects, hands down. As an overarching story, I give all three films together three and a half roses out of five, carried by the visuals and the first movie's storyline.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Passing on the High Heels
It's a mainstay of Dos and Don'ts pages in women's magazines everywhere - the photo of the downtown worker in suit and tennis shoes, usually with a black bar across her eyes and some sort of horrified exclamation underneath her picture.
But recently a writer to a women's magazine - might have been Glamour, I'm not sure - brought up a good point. Why, exactly, is this a Don't?
Oh, sure, it's not a look. I get that. But that writer said these same magazines encourage women to use public transportation to be environmentally friendly. She said these women are probably taking the bus or subway in to town, and have to walk a long way from that station to their offices. So of course, any smart woman is going to do that walk in comfortable shoes, not three-inch Christian Louboutins. Besides, you can't tell me you get as quick or smooth a stride in heels as you will in a pair of Nikes.
Here's the other point. These same magazines talk extensively about squeezing in exercise wherever you can. Ten minutes at a time is just as good as doing it all at once, they always say. Who's to say that these women, like many I see every day, aren't squeezing in a brisk ten minutes on the way to work and ten on the way back to the subway at night? Or how about taking that walk at lunch? They may be fitting in that recommended exercise in the way that works best for them, and end up as a Don't in the process.
Well, then, I'm quite happy to be a Don't. I may not look pretty on my lunchtime walk or to and from my car, but it counts toward my exercise goal.
But recently a writer to a women's magazine - might have been Glamour, I'm not sure - brought up a good point. Why, exactly, is this a Don't?
Oh, sure, it's not a look. I get that. But that writer said these same magazines encourage women to use public transportation to be environmentally friendly. She said these women are probably taking the bus or subway in to town, and have to walk a long way from that station to their offices. So of course, any smart woman is going to do that walk in comfortable shoes, not three-inch Christian Louboutins. Besides, you can't tell me you get as quick or smooth a stride in heels as you will in a pair of Nikes.
Here's the other point. These same magazines talk extensively about squeezing in exercise wherever you can. Ten minutes at a time is just as good as doing it all at once, they always say. Who's to say that these women, like many I see every day, aren't squeezing in a brisk ten minutes on the way to work and ten on the way back to the subway at night? Or how about taking that walk at lunch? They may be fitting in that recommended exercise in the way that works best for them, and end up as a Don't in the process.
Well, then, I'm quite happy to be a Don't. I may not look pretty on my lunchtime walk or to and from my car, but it counts toward my exercise goal.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
A Brief Breeders Cup Observation
I know it's supposed to be really cool to have celebs call out, "Ladies and gentlemen, riders up" before each race.
But honestly, it's just not the same as, "Ladies and gentlemen, START YOUR ENGINES!"
But honestly, it's just not the same as, "Ladies and gentlemen, START YOUR ENGINES!"
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Am I Allowed to have Values as a Liberal?
It struck me today that a lot of conservatives talk about having 'conservative values' or 'family values.' And by saying that, I'm not denigrating their value system (even if I might not agree with everything they believe in). I just started wondering - does anybody say they have liberal values? Without it being a cussword...?
I consider myself pretty liberal. What are my values?
- I believe that a family is made up of the people you love who love you and care about you and have your best interests at heart. Gender and DNA aren't everything in terms of who can be 'family.' So when I hear 'family values' I think, well, gee, doesn't everybody have family values? It's just the makeup of that family that's the issue. I also believe that sometimes even your own flesh and blood can be cut out of your life. If someone in your family is abusive or hurtful or dangerous, you're under no obligation to keep in contact with them just because you share the same genes. If you have a partner of the same gender and want to adopt a child, go for it. What counts is the love in the home. And friends can be family just like family can be friends.
- I believe as a woman I have as much worth as a man and should have as much control over my reproductive system as a man. That means I should get equal pay for equal work and be held to the same standards professionally. And I believe prescription drug plans that cover Viagra should also cover birth control, regardless of what the Right to Life position is. ("Viagra fixes something that's broken. Birth control breaks something that works." So, if my significant other wants sex, I have to live with the repercussions, and he can bail whenever he wants? I don't think so.) I respect people's pro-life opinions because I understand where they're coming from, even though I may disagree. I happen to be pro-choice because I don't want a bunch of people I don't know making those tough decisions for me or deciding what I can and can't do with my own body.
- I believe people should as groups be treated equally but as individuals treated for their personal behaviors. So if you're another race or sexual orientation or whatever, you should get the same rights as me. But if you do something illegal you should be punished just like everybody else. Individual circumstances should count for something, sure, but so should personal responsibility. Blaming everybody else for your life is just plain bullshit.
- I believe corporations should be held responsible for their actions regardless of tax breaks and lobbyists and corporate perks. Golden parachutes should be disbanded and the money given to the lowest paid employees who suffer the most when a company goes under. The average resident, who did not cause this problem, should not suffer from either the problem or the solution. (Don't get me started on blaming the housing crisis on homebuyers.)
- I believe environmental impact should always be considered. I'm not trying to stop companies from growing, but 'building the tax base' is a great buzzword for 'we're going to plow under all those forests and wetlands.' Brownfield rehabilitation, building on land already developed and abandoned, and avoiding all forms of pollution should be built in to every contract. We have one earth. If we mess it up, uh, where are we gonna go? Maybe Al Gore is wrong. But what if he isn't?
There are others - things like dealing with the role of government and the like - that I don't have such strong opinions on. What to do about socialized medicine? Jury's still out. Welfare reform? I'm sure it probably needs it, but I'm not sure what that solution is. Same thing with Medicare. Health care needs a freakin' overhaul, but I don't know how it should be done. My point is, liberals aren't valueless, they have values too. Maybe you don't agree with them, but rest assured, liberals care as much as conservatives - they just don't see eye to eye on what to do.
I consider myself pretty liberal. What are my values?
- I believe that a family is made up of the people you love who love you and care about you and have your best interests at heart. Gender and DNA aren't everything in terms of who can be 'family.' So when I hear 'family values' I think, well, gee, doesn't everybody have family values? It's just the makeup of that family that's the issue. I also believe that sometimes even your own flesh and blood can be cut out of your life. If someone in your family is abusive or hurtful or dangerous, you're under no obligation to keep in contact with them just because you share the same genes. If you have a partner of the same gender and want to adopt a child, go for it. What counts is the love in the home. And friends can be family just like family can be friends.
- I believe as a woman I have as much worth as a man and should have as much control over my reproductive system as a man. That means I should get equal pay for equal work and be held to the same standards professionally. And I believe prescription drug plans that cover Viagra should also cover birth control, regardless of what the Right to Life position is. ("Viagra fixes something that's broken. Birth control breaks something that works." So, if my significant other wants sex, I have to live with the repercussions, and he can bail whenever he wants? I don't think so.) I respect people's pro-life opinions because I understand where they're coming from, even though I may disagree. I happen to be pro-choice because I don't want a bunch of people I don't know making those tough decisions for me or deciding what I can and can't do with my own body.
- I believe people should as groups be treated equally but as individuals treated for their personal behaviors. So if you're another race or sexual orientation or whatever, you should get the same rights as me. But if you do something illegal you should be punished just like everybody else. Individual circumstances should count for something, sure, but so should personal responsibility. Blaming everybody else for your life is just plain bullshit.
- I believe corporations should be held responsible for their actions regardless of tax breaks and lobbyists and corporate perks. Golden parachutes should be disbanded and the money given to the lowest paid employees who suffer the most when a company goes under. The average resident, who did not cause this problem, should not suffer from either the problem or the solution. (Don't get me started on blaming the housing crisis on homebuyers.)
- I believe environmental impact should always be considered. I'm not trying to stop companies from growing, but 'building the tax base' is a great buzzword for 'we're going to plow under all those forests and wetlands.' Brownfield rehabilitation, building on land already developed and abandoned, and avoiding all forms of pollution should be built in to every contract. We have one earth. If we mess it up, uh, where are we gonna go? Maybe Al Gore is wrong. But what if he isn't?
There are others - things like dealing with the role of government and the like - that I don't have such strong opinions on. What to do about socialized medicine? Jury's still out. Welfare reform? I'm sure it probably needs it, but I'm not sure what that solution is. Same thing with Medicare. Health care needs a freakin' overhaul, but I don't know how it should be done. My point is, liberals aren't valueless, they have values too. Maybe you don't agree with them, but rest assured, liberals care as much as conservatives - they just don't see eye to eye on what to do.
Monday, October 20, 2008
What Took Them So Long?
Last week the National Thoroughbred Racing Association (NTRA) announced the creation of a Safety and Integrity Alliance to help clean up horse racing. This Alliance vows to get standardized medication laws in each state, ban steroids from racing altogether, improve safety and security measures for horse and jockey, and treat racehorses better post-racing career.
Sounds great, right? Well, of course.
So how come this measure doesn't yet have any teeth?
Right now the Alliance is a purely voluntary organization. Racetracks vow to follow the measures set forth by the Alliance and are recognized as doing such, but from what I can gather, there is no penalty - so far - to not following these rules. Former WI governor Tommy Thompson and his law firm are there to oversee the Alliance and call it on its foibles. So what's to stop a chastised racetrack from dropping out of the Alliance altogether and going back to letting its horses use steroids?
The Alliance, of course, hopes to get state legislatures on board. Well, sure. But here's yet another hole in the plan. You've got to get those legislatures to all agree. Do you really think you're going to get 50 states' worth of agreement? There aren't even specifics available yet except for following something general called 'House Rules' - and I'm not even sure what that means. I'm listening to a podcast from NTRA on this very issue, and all I can gather is, there are several areas they want to fix in thoroughbred racing, but they don't have the specifics yet. In short, they're telling us what they're going to do, not what they have done.
Great. Then tell me how you're going to accomplish this. They wouldn't even go into how this is going to be paid for. Since NTRA is not a governing body (like, say Major League Baseball or the NFL) it has no real authority. It's a figurehead, of sorts. It's relying on the individual states - indeed, the individual tracks - to follow these rules, even if there's an initial cost to doing so. Racetracks are seeing a drop in the amount of money bet, in a downturn economy, in a sport that has suffered for years from hardly any promotion and lots of tragedy. Curlin should be on the cover of Sports Illustrated. But ask the average sportsfan who he is, and you'd get blank stares. So what makes this group think racetracks, hurting to stay open as it is, are going to do anything without the promise it's going to make them money? Are they simply relying on racing fans who say they'll show up if the horses are treated more humanely?
Look, let's call a spade a spade. Racing slowly sputtered to awareness after the deaths of Barbaro and Eight Belles only because the public became vocally pissed off. Really, it hadn't done much following Barbaro's death (although synthetic tracks were, to be fair, being studied). It was Eight Belle's purely accidental death in the Kentucky Derby that got fans and others in a howl of rage - one that was long in coming. NTRA's announcing this ahead of the first Breeders Cup to be steroid free on an artificial surface (untested, no less, at Santa Anita) is no coincidence, despite what the conference call says. Otherwise they wouldn't come running to us to say, "Look at how thoughtful we're being!"
All of these changes are vastly overdue. And while I'm encouraged that this group exists and several tracks - including Michigan's own Pinnacle - have signed on, I don't see details. I don't see enforceable rules with penalties. I don't even see specific guidelines, merely areas to be explored. Maybe there are specifics but I don't see them posted on NTRA.com, which is where members of the media were told to go if they hadn't gotten the release sent to them. If there were more specifics available, they haven't been posted or I can't find them.
I know how touchy our state legislature is and how tight the budget is. I don't see the Agriculture budget being raised just for one racetrack for an ambiguous goal without any benchmarks or penalties. I see it being ignored. Heck, the state racing commissioner's office hasn't even commented yet.
I'm, to be sure, happy that these topics are being addressed. Fact is, they should have been addressed 30 years ago, but racing was happy enough not to rock the boat if nobody was complaining. It took righteous outrage, PETA protests, and lots of negative media coverage for the racing body to pick up its head and realize there was trouble in the paddock.
So here's what I say. Okay, NTRA. It's time for you to step up to the starting gate to show us whether you've got any real influence at all. It's time to show us you're the stallion in the barn and get those uniform rules drafted and proposed and implemented. Otherwise, frankly, you're just a gelding who long ago should have been put out to pasture.
Sounds great, right? Well, of course.
So how come this measure doesn't yet have any teeth?
Right now the Alliance is a purely voluntary organization. Racetracks vow to follow the measures set forth by the Alliance and are recognized as doing such, but from what I can gather, there is no penalty - so far - to not following these rules. Former WI governor Tommy Thompson and his law firm are there to oversee the Alliance and call it on its foibles. So what's to stop a chastised racetrack from dropping out of the Alliance altogether and going back to letting its horses use steroids?
The Alliance, of course, hopes to get state legislatures on board. Well, sure. But here's yet another hole in the plan. You've got to get those legislatures to all agree. Do you really think you're going to get 50 states' worth of agreement? There aren't even specifics available yet except for following something general called 'House Rules' - and I'm not even sure what that means. I'm listening to a podcast from NTRA on this very issue, and all I can gather is, there are several areas they want to fix in thoroughbred racing, but they don't have the specifics yet. In short, they're telling us what they're going to do, not what they have done.
Great. Then tell me how you're going to accomplish this. They wouldn't even go into how this is going to be paid for. Since NTRA is not a governing body (like, say Major League Baseball or the NFL) it has no real authority. It's a figurehead, of sorts. It's relying on the individual states - indeed, the individual tracks - to follow these rules, even if there's an initial cost to doing so. Racetracks are seeing a drop in the amount of money bet, in a downturn economy, in a sport that has suffered for years from hardly any promotion and lots of tragedy. Curlin should be on the cover of Sports Illustrated. But ask the average sportsfan who he is, and you'd get blank stares. So what makes this group think racetracks, hurting to stay open as it is, are going to do anything without the promise it's going to make them money? Are they simply relying on racing fans who say they'll show up if the horses are treated more humanely?
Look, let's call a spade a spade. Racing slowly sputtered to awareness after the deaths of Barbaro and Eight Belles only because the public became vocally pissed off. Really, it hadn't done much following Barbaro's death (although synthetic tracks were, to be fair, being studied). It was Eight Belle's purely accidental death in the Kentucky Derby that got fans and others in a howl of rage - one that was long in coming. NTRA's announcing this ahead of the first Breeders Cup to be steroid free on an artificial surface (untested, no less, at Santa Anita) is no coincidence, despite what the conference call says. Otherwise they wouldn't come running to us to say, "Look at how thoughtful we're being!"
All of these changes are vastly overdue. And while I'm encouraged that this group exists and several tracks - including Michigan's own Pinnacle - have signed on, I don't see details. I don't see enforceable rules with penalties. I don't even see specific guidelines, merely areas to be explored. Maybe there are specifics but I don't see them posted on NTRA.com, which is where members of the media were told to go if they hadn't gotten the release sent to them. If there were more specifics available, they haven't been posted or I can't find them.
I know how touchy our state legislature is and how tight the budget is. I don't see the Agriculture budget being raised just for one racetrack for an ambiguous goal without any benchmarks or penalties. I see it being ignored. Heck, the state racing commissioner's office hasn't even commented yet.
I'm, to be sure, happy that these topics are being addressed. Fact is, they should have been addressed 30 years ago, but racing was happy enough not to rock the boat if nobody was complaining. It took righteous outrage, PETA protests, and lots of negative media coverage for the racing body to pick up its head and realize there was trouble in the paddock.
So here's what I say. Okay, NTRA. It's time for you to step up to the starting gate to show us whether you've got any real influence at all. It's time to show us you're the stallion in the barn and get those uniform rules drafted and proposed and implemented. Otherwise, frankly, you're just a gelding who long ago should have been put out to pasture.
Thursday, October 09, 2008
I Just Don't Get It - What Women See In...
John Mayer - Some of his music is pretty good. I have "Bigger Than My Body" and "Why Georgia" on my iPod. He's a pretty good guitar player. And you could say he's not unattractive, even though he doesn't do much for me. But why do celebrity women just flock to this guy? (They did it to dreadlocked Adam Duritz of Counting Crows once upon a time too. I didn't get that either.) He's a serial dater. Are they really expecting anything more than to be serially dated??
Adam Levine - I have nothing against Maroon 5 either. I love several of their songs. But what's the big deal with this guy? Again, not unattractive, but he seems in his videos to have the personality of a stick. Watch "If I Never See Your Face Again" with Rihanna. She fairly smokes off the screen. She's sassy and sexy (and I'm straight and I say this). He looks like he'd rather be home washing his socks.
Zac Efron - This is merely a product of my age. He's cute, with those big dimples and that sweet smile. I want to pat him on the head and tell him, no, he can't have the car keys and he's too young to shave.
Hugh Hefner - One of his girlfriends broke up with him because (so the story goes anyway) they would never get married and have kids. Um, sweetie? Whatever makes you think this guy is going to marry??? He's Hugh Hefner. Come on! Now I'm sure there's a LOT more to the story than what we're getting in the media, and I know they're getting a lot of exposure being one of his girlfriends, but expecting the smoking-jacket-wearing founder of Playboy is going to marry you and settle down is, to say the least, delusional.
Plus he's old and creepy.
Who am I missing?
Adam Levine - I have nothing against Maroon 5 either. I love several of their songs. But what's the big deal with this guy? Again, not unattractive, but he seems in his videos to have the personality of a stick. Watch "If I Never See Your Face Again" with Rihanna. She fairly smokes off the screen. She's sassy and sexy (and I'm straight and I say this). He looks like he'd rather be home washing his socks.
Zac Efron - This is merely a product of my age. He's cute, with those big dimples and that sweet smile. I want to pat him on the head and tell him, no, he can't have the car keys and he's too young to shave.
Hugh Hefner - One of his girlfriends broke up with him because (so the story goes anyway) they would never get married and have kids. Um, sweetie? Whatever makes you think this guy is going to marry??? He's Hugh Hefner. Come on! Now I'm sure there's a LOT more to the story than what we're getting in the media, and I know they're getting a lot of exposure being one of his girlfriends, but expecting the smoking-jacket-wearing founder of Playboy is going to marry you and settle down is, to say the least, delusional.
Plus he's old and creepy.
Who am I missing?
Sunday, September 07, 2008
I Just Don't Get It - Anime
Welcome to the first installment of "I Just Don't Get It" - where I freely admit that I just don't see what other people in a certain item, be it reality television, snub-toed pumps or Honda Element SUVs (which I have dubbed, 'The Element of Ugly').
Today's subject is Anime. I know this form of Japanese animation has devoted followers, who can talk endlessly about the joys of Sailor Moon (sorry, it's the only one I know). They love the detail, the expression, the style.
I find it creepy.
Anime, in my limited experience, tends to be bloody and graphic. I'm watching the segments of The Animatrix, which features robots tearing apart human soldiers. This is supposed to be essential viewing for the Matrix fan, but even in the parts where nobody dies, there's always blood. I get that it's the leadup to the movies and explains how the machines subjugated the humans, but do I have to hear the screaming?
It also tends to feature emaciated or bug-eyed girls wearing revealing clothing, yet looking just-this-side of jailbait. Childish, yet heavily sexualized, in little panties and barely-there tops, but with wide eyes and pointed chins, faces unlined. I understand what men might see in a Wonder Woman or some other comic book heroine - she at least looks old enough to vote. (Even if, let's face it, no crime fighter would RUN in thigh-high stilettos with Double-Ds bouncing in the breeze and supported by only the most meager of fabric. Come on. That HURTS. )
I do agree that sometimes the animation is quite detailed and in its own way reflecting of realism. I also realize that there are different kinds of anime - at least from my limited experience - some more childlike cartoonish, others with humans drawn to look like real actual people. And some of these Animatrix shorts feature some great music. And I'm willing to say, if you're a big fan and want to explain to me the lure of this grown-up animation, I'm all ears.
But I think when it comes down to it, I want my cartoons to be innocent, childlike and not quite real - and blood-free.
I think I should just stick to Scooby-Doo.
Today's subject is Anime. I know this form of Japanese animation has devoted followers, who can talk endlessly about the joys of Sailor Moon (sorry, it's the only one I know). They love the detail, the expression, the style.
I find it creepy.
Anime, in my limited experience, tends to be bloody and graphic. I'm watching the segments of The Animatrix, which features robots tearing apart human soldiers. This is supposed to be essential viewing for the Matrix fan, but even in the parts where nobody dies, there's always blood. I get that it's the leadup to the movies and explains how the machines subjugated the humans, but do I have to hear the screaming?
It also tends to feature emaciated or bug-eyed girls wearing revealing clothing, yet looking just-this-side of jailbait. Childish, yet heavily sexualized, in little panties and barely-there tops, but with wide eyes and pointed chins, faces unlined. I understand what men might see in a Wonder Woman or some other comic book heroine - she at least looks old enough to vote. (Even if, let's face it, no crime fighter would RUN in thigh-high stilettos with Double-Ds bouncing in the breeze and supported by only the most meager of fabric. Come on. That HURTS. )
I do agree that sometimes the animation is quite detailed and in its own way reflecting of realism. I also realize that there are different kinds of anime - at least from my limited experience - some more childlike cartoonish, others with humans drawn to look like real actual people. And some of these Animatrix shorts feature some great music. And I'm willing to say, if you're a big fan and want to explain to me the lure of this grown-up animation, I'm all ears.
But I think when it comes down to it, I want my cartoons to be innocent, childlike and not quite real - and blood-free.
I think I should just stick to Scooby-Doo.
Monday, September 01, 2008
The Facebook Conundrum
I've just signed up for Facebook - which I find very popular among my peers and former co-workers - but here's what I'm wondering:
Why do people want to 'friend' you on Facebook when you're pretty sure they don't really like you in person?
I assume it's just to boost their friend totals, pilfer from your friends list for anyone else they might actually like or to laugh at your profile. I don't know. Maybe I'm mistaken about their personal feelings, but I don't think so. Okay, they're probably doing it because we have friends in common, and why not, since we know each other?
Regardless, it seems like a fun way to connect with old friends - it appeals to an older set than MySpace - and I'll happily give it a try.
Why do people want to 'friend' you on Facebook when you're pretty sure they don't really like you in person?
I assume it's just to boost their friend totals, pilfer from your friends list for anyone else they might actually like or to laugh at your profile. I don't know. Maybe I'm mistaken about their personal feelings, but I don't think so. Okay, they're probably doing it because we have friends in common, and why not, since we know each other?
Regardless, it seems like a fun way to connect with old friends - it appeals to an older set than MySpace - and I'll happily give it a try.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
NASCAR Sulk
I'm in a full-blown NASCAR sulk this weekend. My driver lost his ride for next season. Patrick Carpentier is being replaced by Reed Sorenson. He'll be the third driver in the 10 car in three years.
If you sign an open-wheel specialist with a strength at road racing, and he doesn't immediately win on the ovals of NASCAR.....um...what were you expecting? And if he qualifies well, hangs with the big boys when he's running with them but loses track position in the pits....whose fault is that exactly?
*sigh*
We now return you to your regularly scheduled sulk-free day.
If you sign an open-wheel specialist with a strength at road racing, and he doesn't immediately win on the ovals of NASCAR.....um...what were you expecting? And if he qualifies well, hangs with the big boys when he's running with them but loses track position in the pits....whose fault is that exactly?
*sigh*
We now return you to your regularly scheduled sulk-free day.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Some Olympic Thoughts
Now that the Olympics are over, I'm feeling decidedly idealist.
What a joy they can be. We remember, again, every two years, that even though governments do their worst and sour us against our neighbors, people are people. They're always happy to show you their culture, their heritage, their heart. They want to show the best of who they are. Sure, it's different, but isn't that okay? And in a lot of ways, aren't we alike as well? I was reminded watching the Chinese pop singers, that we're not that different even if our languages are literally worlds apart. (They like their pop stars pretty and thin too. What a concept!) We get a chance to see the beauty of a new place, the old and new of a country we may never see with our own eyes.
For two weeks the world is literally a smaller, more intimate place. If we did this more often than every two years - including Winter and Summer Games - it wouldn't have the same impact. For two weeks we can leave politics at home, and be proud of who we are and where we came from, and be proud of those who make it this far, even if they never win a medal. Remember that guy who could hardly swim four years ago, much less compete against the Michael Phelpses of the world? Remember how everybody cheered him on? Who cares where he was from? We could all get behind him. He'd struggled to get this far and he might never see another pool ever again, but we were there, rooting for him all the way. I think even Michael would cheer for him.
That's the beauty of the fact that this ideal has survived so many years, so much chaos and war and political struggle. We can root for each other, even for a short time. I love seeing athletes from different countries talking, joking around, kissing each other on the cheek, and taking pictures together, even dancing. They almost always congratulate the winners with respect and sometimes even affection. (A lot of that may have to do with the fact that some athletes train here in the States, regardless of who they compete for.)
I'm thrilled to see some Middle Eastern countries allowing women to compete. I love seeing what people are wearing during the Opening and Closing Ceremonies and their pride for their country. I even love it when the US doesn't win everything. That's perfectly okay with me, even though I'm inclined to root for the US athlete even without knowing anything about him or her. But I honestly don't care if we win the medal race. What's the big deal? It's all down to the individual. That's what's important.
Admittedly, having the Olympic spotlight on your country shows its worst as well. But for two whole weeks, we may compete as a country, but aren't you upset when someone falls or fails? Regardless of where they're from? (I remember wincing and yelping when a Chinese gymnast fell off the rings, and I was glad he got up okay.)
This may be the closest we ever come to world peace. But for at least two weeks, it feels like it's truly possible.
What a joy they can be. We remember, again, every two years, that even though governments do their worst and sour us against our neighbors, people are people. They're always happy to show you their culture, their heritage, their heart. They want to show the best of who they are. Sure, it's different, but isn't that okay? And in a lot of ways, aren't we alike as well? I was reminded watching the Chinese pop singers, that we're not that different even if our languages are literally worlds apart. (They like their pop stars pretty and thin too. What a concept!) We get a chance to see the beauty of a new place, the old and new of a country we may never see with our own eyes.
For two weeks the world is literally a smaller, more intimate place. If we did this more often than every two years - including Winter and Summer Games - it wouldn't have the same impact. For two weeks we can leave politics at home, and be proud of who we are and where we came from, and be proud of those who make it this far, even if they never win a medal. Remember that guy who could hardly swim four years ago, much less compete against the Michael Phelpses of the world? Remember how everybody cheered him on? Who cares where he was from? We could all get behind him. He'd struggled to get this far and he might never see another pool ever again, but we were there, rooting for him all the way. I think even Michael would cheer for him.
That's the beauty of the fact that this ideal has survived so many years, so much chaos and war and political struggle. We can root for each other, even for a short time. I love seeing athletes from different countries talking, joking around, kissing each other on the cheek, and taking pictures together, even dancing. They almost always congratulate the winners with respect and sometimes even affection. (A lot of that may have to do with the fact that some athletes train here in the States, regardless of who they compete for.)
I'm thrilled to see some Middle Eastern countries allowing women to compete. I love seeing what people are wearing during the Opening and Closing Ceremonies and their pride for their country. I even love it when the US doesn't win everything. That's perfectly okay with me, even though I'm inclined to root for the US athlete even without knowing anything about him or her. But I honestly don't care if we win the medal race. What's the big deal? It's all down to the individual. That's what's important.
Admittedly, having the Olympic spotlight on your country shows its worst as well. But for two whole weeks, we may compete as a country, but aren't you upset when someone falls or fails? Regardless of where they're from? (I remember wincing and yelping when a Chinese gymnast fell off the rings, and I was glad he got up okay.)
This may be the closest we ever come to world peace. But for at least two weeks, it feels like it's truly possible.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Thoughts on the Olympics
Random thoughts about the Olympics:
- The guy who announces the beach volleyball just slays me. I can't always understand everything he says, but he says it with such enthusiasm that it cracks me up. He's got that crowd hooting and hollering for their favorite team, probably in at least two languages, and he's so enthusiastic it's hilarious - he never wanes. Even in the pouring rain.
- Whenever somebody starts to cry, I get all sniffly. Whether it's gymnast Jonathan Horton's parents clutching at each other and sobbing happily at his medal or platform diver Haley Ishimatsu choking up when she didn't make it to the finals but still saying she'd had a lot of fun, I reach for tissue. I want to hug a lot of people. Even the sometimes bitter-faced Nastia Lukin. When she smiles and tears up, she's adorable. When she's got her game face on, you kind of expect her to sprinkle itching powder in your shorts.
- The parents are, in fact, some of the most fun. You can't tell me Michael Phelps' mom wasn't kind of hilarious in her own endearing way. Chris Collingsworth told Bob Costas about how during one of the races, she dug her hand into his leg so hard it hurt. She had a variety of facial expressions. I'm almost glad for her heart that his races are over; now she can relax.
- I've found it really hard to watch equestrian. Only a few events are on a TV station I get. Many are on Oxygen, which is not found on my cable network, and most of the rest are online only. Without verbal commentary. Sometimes there's a typed in commentary - complete with misspellings - and so that means you have to watch everything, lest you miss a rider you wanted to see. (Sometimes, if you're lucky, you can hear the on-course commentator, which makes things a little easier.) And you do get to hear the sounds of the game, including the riders making kissing noises to the horses over a fence. But you can't do a bunch of other things while it's on - if you want to follow it, you have to watch it. And sometimes the files are several hours long, so it's hard to keep up.
- Swimmers have no body fat and no body hair. I want one. Can I have one? Is there a spare male swimmer needing a home? I'd adopt one. I KNOW they're still in college and feeding one requires a semi truck making deliveries twice a week. I still want one.
- Nothing's creepier than realizing that had I become a teenage mother, I could have a child old enough to compete in Olympic gymnastics.
- The guy who announces the beach volleyball just slays me. I can't always understand everything he says, but he says it with such enthusiasm that it cracks me up. He's got that crowd hooting and hollering for their favorite team, probably in at least two languages, and he's so enthusiastic it's hilarious - he never wanes. Even in the pouring rain.
- Whenever somebody starts to cry, I get all sniffly. Whether it's gymnast Jonathan Horton's parents clutching at each other and sobbing happily at his medal or platform diver Haley Ishimatsu choking up when she didn't make it to the finals but still saying she'd had a lot of fun, I reach for tissue. I want to hug a lot of people. Even the sometimes bitter-faced Nastia Lukin. When she smiles and tears up, she's adorable. When she's got her game face on, you kind of expect her to sprinkle itching powder in your shorts.
- The parents are, in fact, some of the most fun. You can't tell me Michael Phelps' mom wasn't kind of hilarious in her own endearing way. Chris Collingsworth told Bob Costas about how during one of the races, she dug her hand into his leg so hard it hurt. She had a variety of facial expressions. I'm almost glad for her heart that his races are over; now she can relax.
- I've found it really hard to watch equestrian. Only a few events are on a TV station I get. Many are on Oxygen, which is not found on my cable network, and most of the rest are online only. Without verbal commentary. Sometimes there's a typed in commentary - complete with misspellings - and so that means you have to watch everything, lest you miss a rider you wanted to see. (Sometimes, if you're lucky, you can hear the on-course commentator, which makes things a little easier.) And you do get to hear the sounds of the game, including the riders making kissing noises to the horses over a fence. But you can't do a bunch of other things while it's on - if you want to follow it, you have to watch it. And sometimes the files are several hours long, so it's hard to keep up.
- Swimmers have no body fat and no body hair. I want one. Can I have one? Is there a spare male swimmer needing a home? I'd adopt one. I KNOW they're still in college and feeding one requires a semi truck making deliveries twice a week. I still want one.
- Nothing's creepier than realizing that had I become a teenage mother, I could have a child old enough to compete in Olympic gymnastics.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
The Successful Move
Over the years I've gotten good at this. I've moved people into dorms, into apartments and into houses. And out of houses into apartments. Here are my unscientific tips to a successful move after helping a friend today with a move that turned out great:
1. Hire movers. Oh wait. Not everybody can afford that or wants total strangers manhandling all their furniture. Okay, well, in the absence of 'Two Men and a Truck' here's what else I've learned.
2. Go through your stuff way ahead of time. If you can pare down the stuff, less stuff has to be hauled. You'd think this would be a big 'duh.' I can tell you I should have pared down some stuff a long time ago. But I hauled it from place to place. Ugh.
3. Have everything packed before people arrive. They are not going to pack up your stuff while it's going out the door. If it's not ready to go, they're not taking it and you'll have to take it later. I have done this on both ends - the mover and the movee. On both ends it's seriously annoying.
4. Label your boxes with the room of destination. That will really help when you have to find those cups. And it makes unpacking go much more smoothly. And it also saves your movers from stacking everything six boxes deep in what will eventually be your dining room.
5. Tell all your friends. Seriously, the more people you have to help, the quicker the whole move goes and the less exhausted all of your friends are at the end of the day. They might even stay to help you unpack. Today's move went great because a ton of people showed up. That really helped when a couple of the guys faced the dilemma of getting a huge sofa out of the house and then into the apartment. We had enough people that we got a lot done while they handled that sticky situation and we were done by 1:00. So if you can get a bunch of heavy lifters to take the big furniture, even better.
6. Have available at the old house and haul to the new house: ziploc baggies for nuts and bolts, duct tape, an entire and comprehensive tool kit with screwdrivers of all sizes, paper towels, and cleaning materials.
7. Make sure you have the following items at the new home: toilet paper in all bathrooms, bottled water in the fridge that is already ice cold, cups and plates and napkins, and something snacky.
8. Know where you want your furniture before it comes in the front door. Or expect to move it on your own later. Dithering about where something is going to go when it's heavy means your mover is going to set it down wherever and you're going to have to move it yourself. Today's move didn't face that at all - by the time the sofa arrived we knew where it was going to go.
9. Feed your movers. Beer and pizza are popular.
Anything I've missed? Any tips? Horror stories? Stories of success?
Now I'm going to take a nap.
1. Hire movers. Oh wait. Not everybody can afford that or wants total strangers manhandling all their furniture. Okay, well, in the absence of 'Two Men and a Truck' here's what else I've learned.
2. Go through your stuff way ahead of time. If you can pare down the stuff, less stuff has to be hauled. You'd think this would be a big 'duh.' I can tell you I should have pared down some stuff a long time ago. But I hauled it from place to place. Ugh.
3. Have everything packed before people arrive. They are not going to pack up your stuff while it's going out the door. If it's not ready to go, they're not taking it and you'll have to take it later. I have done this on both ends - the mover and the movee. On both ends it's seriously annoying.
4. Label your boxes with the room of destination. That will really help when you have to find those cups. And it makes unpacking go much more smoothly. And it also saves your movers from stacking everything six boxes deep in what will eventually be your dining room.
5. Tell all your friends. Seriously, the more people you have to help, the quicker the whole move goes and the less exhausted all of your friends are at the end of the day. They might even stay to help you unpack. Today's move went great because a ton of people showed up. That really helped when a couple of the guys faced the dilemma of getting a huge sofa out of the house and then into the apartment. We had enough people that we got a lot done while they handled that sticky situation and we were done by 1:00. So if you can get a bunch of heavy lifters to take the big furniture, even better.
6. Have available at the old house and haul to the new house: ziploc baggies for nuts and bolts, duct tape, an entire and comprehensive tool kit with screwdrivers of all sizes, paper towels, and cleaning materials.
7. Make sure you have the following items at the new home: toilet paper in all bathrooms, bottled water in the fridge that is already ice cold, cups and plates and napkins, and something snacky.
8. Know where you want your furniture before it comes in the front door. Or expect to move it on your own later. Dithering about where something is going to go when it's heavy means your mover is going to set it down wherever and you're going to have to move it yourself. Today's move didn't face that at all - by the time the sofa arrived we knew where it was going to go.
9. Feed your movers. Beer and pizza are popular.
Anything I've missed? Any tips? Horror stories? Stories of success?
Now I'm going to take a nap.
Saturday, August 09, 2008
Movie Review: X-Files: I Want to Believe
I wanted to like this movie. I really did. I gave it every opportunity to wow me, to bring on a sense of recollection, to slip me an in-joke. Instead, it just grossed me out and left me sorely disappointed.
When we rejoin our favorite FBI agents, Scully is working as a doctor in a Catholic hospital and clashing with one of the Fathers about the treatment of a dying boy (named Christian, in a obviously heavy metaphor). And Mulder is clipping articles from newspapers, tacking them up in a little room, and not shaving.
The FBI decides it wants Mulder back to help with an investigation into an agent's disappearance, and sends Agent Mosley Drummy (rapper/actor Xzibit) to seek out Scully. She's no longer working with Mulder or the FBI, but she dutifully tells Mulder that they need his help with a psychic priest (Billy Connolly) who claims to have visions of the missing agent and clues into a mutilated arm found in the snow. Mulder gets pulled into the case, which involves missing women, body parts, and Callum Keith Rennie doing his creepy best with a Russian accent.
This movie wants desperately to be a love story about Mulder and Scully, and it wants to be a story about faith and belief and reason. Instead, it comes off as a muddled mess. I never figured out if Mulder and Scully are actually living together - they're in a relationship, obviously, which also I find offputting, as I liked them better in their chaste courtship, but Scully walks into Mulder's house hesitantly. She doesn't knock, but she doesn't act like she lives there either. And while David Duchovny and Gillian Anderson are excellent in these worn old roles and both look great, the change in their relationship and the circumstances in which they find themselves seem strained. They have chemistry, but I don't need to see them making out or snuggling in bed. That's never what their relationship was about during the show. Mulder making dirty jokes at Scully feels awkward and a little surreal.
Scully is having an awkward crisis of faith and wants to condemn Father Crissman - the psychic priest - for his bad deeds; Mulder wants to believe him; Agent Dakota Whitney (Amanda Peet) doesn't know what to do. I never did figure out what her role was. Does she believe, like Mulder does? Or is she grasping at straws? Mulder and Scully have their old battle about belief and reason, and yet it feels stilted and old hat, like the characters should have moved beyond this, especially if they're sleeping together. (If they hadn't seen each other in a long time, then yes, I might have bought this. But none of this is ever clear, and it sure isn't the fault of any of the actors. Everyone cast does as good a job as they can. It's the script that fails them.)
This movie also wants desperately to appeal to those who don't know the show AND to those who do. But you have to pick one. Xzibit and Peet do the best they can with minimal roles - we could probably have done without both of them, honestly - but nothing really looks familiar to us. I don't recognize the halls Mulder and Scully walk at the FBI, or any of the agents. In fact, by the time we get one familiar face (and just one, if you don't count Rennie, who was originally up for the role of Krycek and later did two episodes of the show) it seems like the writers are pandering to the old Phile crowd. Like, look at this! You know this person!
That's the only in-joke we get. There's a reference to William, Scully and Mulder's son, and to Samantha, Mulder's sister, but the latter feels like a retread, because that issue felt resolved to me after the show had ended. To have it referenced in this movie felt like another moment to appease long-time fans, but instead it feels tacked on, to explain who Mulder is. But don't most people who would see this movie already know who he is and what spurs him? How many people are going to stumble into the theater without ever having seen the show?
Part of the problem is the fact that the show went on too long - probably two whole seasons - and killed off a lot of the charismatic characters we came to know and love or hate. The Lone Gunmen, Cancer Man, Krycek, Well-Manicured Man, Mr X, Deep Throat - all of them are missing. We don't even get Kersch. So the movie feels like a shadow of what the X-Files used to be.
And the story itself is gruesome and violent. I know the X-Files did some pretty horrific things over the course of the show, but this just seemed way too overdone - too slasher film. I covered my eyes several times and I found it uncomfortable in a way I couldn't easily put aside.
The movie also hands us a huge plot hole - Scully puts her faith in a science that the Catholic church has been vocal about rejecting in the real world. Yet in the movie that's not what the church is objecting to - it's upset that Scully wants to try to save this boy when they feel he should be left to die in peace. So we watch Scully wrestle with what she's doing - is she saving him? Is she making him into William? Is she causing him unnecessary pain? Does she believe in God or not? Her faith takes a beating but never feels real to me - it feels forced and heavy-handed from the beginning, when fans are used to a much more subtle treatment of her issues of faith (watch "Revelations" instead). In short, I missed the little green men.
Animals: Large dogs take a lot of abuse in the last third of this movie - they are shown mutilated in pictures and Mulder seriously wounds one who attacks him. I found this very disturbing on top of the violence done to the people. I actually considered walking out.
Overall: This movie felt like a X-Files film made by somebody who only knew a little bit about the show, and who wanted to gross us out with a slasher film. I was seriously disappointed, and while it was nice to see familiar characters, the plotline and the main characters' relationship has gone beyond the point of being either interesting or comfortable. I give it two roses out of five, and one of those roses is strictly because of the cast. Grab a DVD of Seasons Two or Three again and skip the film.
When we rejoin our favorite FBI agents, Scully is working as a doctor in a Catholic hospital and clashing with one of the Fathers about the treatment of a dying boy (named Christian, in a obviously heavy metaphor). And Mulder is clipping articles from newspapers, tacking them up in a little room, and not shaving.
The FBI decides it wants Mulder back to help with an investigation into an agent's disappearance, and sends Agent Mosley Drummy (rapper/actor Xzibit) to seek out Scully. She's no longer working with Mulder or the FBI, but she dutifully tells Mulder that they need his help with a psychic priest (Billy Connolly) who claims to have visions of the missing agent and clues into a mutilated arm found in the snow. Mulder gets pulled into the case, which involves missing women, body parts, and Callum Keith Rennie doing his creepy best with a Russian accent.
This movie wants desperately to be a love story about Mulder and Scully, and it wants to be a story about faith and belief and reason. Instead, it comes off as a muddled mess. I never figured out if Mulder and Scully are actually living together - they're in a relationship, obviously, which also I find offputting, as I liked them better in their chaste courtship, but Scully walks into Mulder's house hesitantly. She doesn't knock, but she doesn't act like she lives there either. And while David Duchovny and Gillian Anderson are excellent in these worn old roles and both look great, the change in their relationship and the circumstances in which they find themselves seem strained. They have chemistry, but I don't need to see them making out or snuggling in bed. That's never what their relationship was about during the show. Mulder making dirty jokes at Scully feels awkward and a little surreal.
Scully is having an awkward crisis of faith and wants to condemn Father Crissman - the psychic priest - for his bad deeds; Mulder wants to believe him; Agent Dakota Whitney (Amanda Peet) doesn't know what to do. I never did figure out what her role was. Does she believe, like Mulder does? Or is she grasping at straws? Mulder and Scully have their old battle about belief and reason, and yet it feels stilted and old hat, like the characters should have moved beyond this, especially if they're sleeping together. (If they hadn't seen each other in a long time, then yes, I might have bought this. But none of this is ever clear, and it sure isn't the fault of any of the actors. Everyone cast does as good a job as they can. It's the script that fails them.)
This movie also wants desperately to appeal to those who don't know the show AND to those who do. But you have to pick one. Xzibit and Peet do the best they can with minimal roles - we could probably have done without both of them, honestly - but nothing really looks familiar to us. I don't recognize the halls Mulder and Scully walk at the FBI, or any of the agents. In fact, by the time we get one familiar face (and just one, if you don't count Rennie, who was originally up for the role of Krycek and later did two episodes of the show) it seems like the writers are pandering to the old Phile crowd. Like, look at this! You know this person!
That's the only in-joke we get. There's a reference to William, Scully and Mulder's son, and to Samantha, Mulder's sister, but the latter feels like a retread, because that issue felt resolved to me after the show had ended. To have it referenced in this movie felt like another moment to appease long-time fans, but instead it feels tacked on, to explain who Mulder is. But don't most people who would see this movie already know who he is and what spurs him? How many people are going to stumble into the theater without ever having seen the show?
Part of the problem is the fact that the show went on too long - probably two whole seasons - and killed off a lot of the charismatic characters we came to know and love or hate. The Lone Gunmen, Cancer Man, Krycek, Well-Manicured Man, Mr X, Deep Throat - all of them are missing. We don't even get Kersch. So the movie feels like a shadow of what the X-Files used to be.
And the story itself is gruesome and violent. I know the X-Files did some pretty horrific things over the course of the show, but this just seemed way too overdone - too slasher film. I covered my eyes several times and I found it uncomfortable in a way I couldn't easily put aside.
The movie also hands us a huge plot hole - Scully puts her faith in a science that the Catholic church has been vocal about rejecting in the real world. Yet in the movie that's not what the church is objecting to - it's upset that Scully wants to try to save this boy when they feel he should be left to die in peace. So we watch Scully wrestle with what she's doing - is she saving him? Is she making him into William? Is she causing him unnecessary pain? Does she believe in God or not? Her faith takes a beating but never feels real to me - it feels forced and heavy-handed from the beginning, when fans are used to a much more subtle treatment of her issues of faith (watch "Revelations" instead). In short, I missed the little green men.
Animals: Large dogs take a lot of abuse in the last third of this movie - they are shown mutilated in pictures and Mulder seriously wounds one who attacks him. I found this very disturbing on top of the violence done to the people. I actually considered walking out.
Overall: This movie felt like a X-Files film made by somebody who only knew a little bit about the show, and who wanted to gross us out with a slasher film. I was seriously disappointed, and while it was nice to see familiar characters, the plotline and the main characters' relationship has gone beyond the point of being either interesting or comfortable. I give it two roses out of five, and one of those roses is strictly because of the cast. Grab a DVD of Seasons Two or Three again and skip the film.
Monday, July 28, 2008
In Driver News...
Patrick did especially well this past week at the Brickyard, finishing 18th. Hey, a top 20 finish is a great thing! AND that puts him in 36th position overall. One more move up and he doesn't have to qualify for races anymore, he's automatically in.
That of course assumes the races won't go to caution every ten laps for new tires.
In other racing news, I have to say I get less impressed with Danica Patrick's behavior almost every week. Her little spat with Milka Duno would have been funnier had Milka slugged her one, but at least Milka got to throw a towel.
I'm not really sure if Danica gets a pass because she's female or not. Male drivers confront each other all the time. Is she trying too hard to be one of the guys, feeling she can confront anybody who does her wrong? Does she think being female gives her a pass on jumping on the guys because she knows they really can't jump back at her? Because frankly, the more I hear of stuff like this, I think she's behaving like a brat. She has to know everybody's eyes are on her, and that includes all those little girls who look up to her.
She's not the friendliest person, so it appears - she comes off as a bit of a cold fish. Fine. I get that she's had a lot of sexism to deal with. And she's talented, for sure. But I can say that if she had Sarah Fisher's personality, or Sarah had her driving skills/ride, the tables would sure be turned and Sarah would be the most popular driver in the series, along the league of Helio Castroneves. Danica is hurting her own popularity by appearing standoffish.
And she's of course under lots of pressure. I get that too. But she has to learn to behave herself in the public eye with the panache of Lyn St. James or Dale Earnhardt Jr and remember that storming down pit road to snap at somebody just makes her look like a little kid who can't handle the pressure.
That of course assumes the races won't go to caution every ten laps for new tires.
In other racing news, I have to say I get less impressed with Danica Patrick's behavior almost every week. Her little spat with Milka Duno would have been funnier had Milka slugged her one, but at least Milka got to throw a towel.
I'm not really sure if Danica gets a pass because she's female or not. Male drivers confront each other all the time. Is she trying too hard to be one of the guys, feeling she can confront anybody who does her wrong? Does she think being female gives her a pass on jumping on the guys because she knows they really can't jump back at her? Because frankly, the more I hear of stuff like this, I think she's behaving like a brat. She has to know everybody's eyes are on her, and that includes all those little girls who look up to her.
She's not the friendliest person, so it appears - she comes off as a bit of a cold fish. Fine. I get that she's had a lot of sexism to deal with. And she's talented, for sure. But I can say that if she had Sarah Fisher's personality, or Sarah had her driving skills/ride, the tables would sure be turned and Sarah would be the most popular driver in the series, along the league of Helio Castroneves. Danica is hurting her own popularity by appearing standoffish.
And she's of course under lots of pressure. I get that too. But she has to learn to behave herself in the public eye with the panache of Lyn St. James or Dale Earnhardt Jr and remember that storming down pit road to snap at somebody just makes her look like a little kid who can't handle the pressure.
Sunday, July 06, 2008
Movie Review: The Good Shepherd
Pay attention. Brush up on your history. Take notes. Whatever you have to do to unravel this complicated plot, do it.
I like movies that don't pander to the lowest common denominator in the audience, and I like having to pay attention. And this movie definitely requires that level of concentration. With a running time of nearly three hours, flashbacks and historical references, it's difficult to follow what's going on without stopping the DVD and discussing the plot with your friends. You'll even want to dig out Wikipedia to get a historical brush up on WWII, Bay of Pigs, Cuba and other historical happenings that figure prominently into the plot.
Matt Damon stars as Edward Wilson. We see him performing in 'HMS Pinafore' before being inducted into Yale's Skull and Bones society, where he meets up with the slightly malevolent Richard Hayes (Lee Pace from TV's Pushing Daisies). They'll run into each other several times
over the next few years, as Wilson is pushed into a loveless marriage, loses the woman he does love, and ends up as a spy overseas. The whole movie is based on his rise into the CIA and how his duty to his country and the path he seems to have fallen into affect his life, his decisions and ultimately his happiness.
Damon plays this role without color. I suppose that's the point, but eventually you want to see him emote, show something, do anything. When he does unleash his giant boyish smile, it seems far too warm for the character. He's good at what he does, of course, but it's hard to feel anything for Edward, since he doesn't seem to feel anything for anyone else.
Angelina Jolie plays Clover (which, if you ask me, is a cow's name) the sister of a friend, and she comes on to Edward with very little subtlety. But I'm still not sure if we're supposed to see her as fast, too intrigued by Edward to be careful, or merely naive and reckless. You don't, after all, cast Jolie to be a virginal prude. That said, Jolie is a better actress than the material or her sex-bomb reputation have allowed her. But she doesn't have a lot to work with here. Despite that, she seems to age better than many actresses her actual chronological age do, and she wears the years with a heavy weariness that Damon's aging character can't match.
The cast is stellar - Michael Gambon, William Hurt, Billy Crudup, Robert De Niro, Joe Pesci, Alec Baldwin, Timothy Hutton, John Sessions and many more. That alone would make the movie interesting, if you could only figure out how they're all connected to Edward and the plot. That takes some real doing. It's nice to see all those familiar faces (although I didn't recognize Crudup at all) but getting their actual role in the film is easier said than done with many of them, especially since Edward meets up with some of them both socially and professionally. Hayes lurks, for example, in both realms, and it isn't until the end that you know for sure where he stands.
Among other notable characters, Tammy Blanchard plays Laura, Edwards' first love who has severe hearing loss. She drifts into and out of the story over the years, and Edward pines for her, we suppose, but he doesn't really show it much. Instead, we see time and time again how his job is the ultimate focal point of his life - less so, his family and friends, because he can no longer trust anyone. He doesn't trust women or treat any of them particularly well, and his fellow Skull-and-Bones friends seem not to affect him in any way, even when he's in his early years and supposed to be good friends with these men. In fact, he shows the most life while acting in drag, whatever that's supposed to tell us. When he's with Blanchard, the color comes from her; she blossoms under his affections.
And Tommy Nelson and Eddie Redmayne play Edward Jr. as both a boy and a young man, and both roles require him to be something of an odd duck. Both actors do well with that role; in particular young Tommy is actually rather creepy as he plays Edward Junior, that awkwardness due to his father's neglect.
This movie is at least 45 minutes too long. Some subplots could be excised; others take far too long to pay off; long before then I was fidgeting on the sofa, sleepy but wanting to figure out how it all ties together. When it was over, it was hard to say if I liked it. I'm still not really sure. I think it could have been brilliant, had somebody told Director De Niro that the story is bloated and hard to follow.
Animals: None that I recall.
Overall: An interesting complex plot becomes too complex, with far too many characters and threads to come to a conclusion that answers questions before it wears out the viewer. Because of the stellar cast and the intelligence the film assumes from the viewer, I give it three roses out of five.
I like movies that don't pander to the lowest common denominator in the audience, and I like having to pay attention. And this movie definitely requires that level of concentration. With a running time of nearly three hours, flashbacks and historical references, it's difficult to follow what's going on without stopping the DVD and discussing the plot with your friends. You'll even want to dig out Wikipedia to get a historical brush up on WWII, Bay of Pigs, Cuba and other historical happenings that figure prominently into the plot.
Matt Damon stars as Edward Wilson. We see him performing in 'HMS Pinafore' before being inducted into Yale's Skull and Bones society, where he meets up with the slightly malevolent Richard Hayes (Lee Pace from TV's Pushing Daisies). They'll run into each other several times
over the next few years, as Wilson is pushed into a loveless marriage, loses the woman he does love, and ends up as a spy overseas. The whole movie is based on his rise into the CIA and how his duty to his country and the path he seems to have fallen into affect his life, his decisions and ultimately his happiness.
Damon plays this role without color. I suppose that's the point, but eventually you want to see him emote, show something, do anything. When he does unleash his giant boyish smile, it seems far too warm for the character. He's good at what he does, of course, but it's hard to feel anything for Edward, since he doesn't seem to feel anything for anyone else.
Angelina Jolie plays Clover (which, if you ask me, is a cow's name) the sister of a friend, and she comes on to Edward with very little subtlety. But I'm still not sure if we're supposed to see her as fast, too intrigued by Edward to be careful, or merely naive and reckless. You don't, after all, cast Jolie to be a virginal prude. That said, Jolie is a better actress than the material or her sex-bomb reputation have allowed her. But she doesn't have a lot to work with here. Despite that, she seems to age better than many actresses her actual chronological age do, and she wears the years with a heavy weariness that Damon's aging character can't match.
The cast is stellar - Michael Gambon, William Hurt, Billy Crudup, Robert De Niro, Joe Pesci, Alec Baldwin, Timothy Hutton, John Sessions and many more. That alone would make the movie interesting, if you could only figure out how they're all connected to Edward and the plot. That takes some real doing. It's nice to see all those familiar faces (although I didn't recognize Crudup at all) but getting their actual role in the film is easier said than done with many of them, especially since Edward meets up with some of them both socially and professionally. Hayes lurks, for example, in both realms, and it isn't until the end that you know for sure where he stands.
Among other notable characters, Tammy Blanchard plays Laura, Edwards' first love who has severe hearing loss. She drifts into and out of the story over the years, and Edward pines for her, we suppose, but he doesn't really show it much. Instead, we see time and time again how his job is the ultimate focal point of his life - less so, his family and friends, because he can no longer trust anyone. He doesn't trust women or treat any of them particularly well, and his fellow Skull-and-Bones friends seem not to affect him in any way, even when he's in his early years and supposed to be good friends with these men. In fact, he shows the most life while acting in drag, whatever that's supposed to tell us. When he's with Blanchard, the color comes from her; she blossoms under his affections.
And Tommy Nelson and Eddie Redmayne play Edward Jr. as both a boy and a young man, and both roles require him to be something of an odd duck. Both actors do well with that role; in particular young Tommy is actually rather creepy as he plays Edward Junior, that awkwardness due to his father's neglect.
This movie is at least 45 minutes too long. Some subplots could be excised; others take far too long to pay off; long before then I was fidgeting on the sofa, sleepy but wanting to figure out how it all ties together. When it was over, it was hard to say if I liked it. I'm still not really sure. I think it could have been brilliant, had somebody told Director De Niro that the story is bloated and hard to follow.
Animals: None that I recall.
Overall: An interesting complex plot becomes too complex, with far too many characters and threads to come to a conclusion that answers questions before it wears out the viewer. Because of the stellar cast and the intelligence the film assumes from the viewer, I give it three roses out of five.
Sunday, June 29, 2008
Movie Review: Wall E
A cartoon should be goofy, larger than life, and full of chattery characters, right? The latest Pixar creation, Wall E, is none of these, and yet it's a deeply enjoyable layered ride.
You could subtitle this film "Robots In Love". There's a lot I don't want to say about the plot so that you're not spoiled, but I can tell you this: Wall E - Waste Allocation Load Lifter Earth-Class - appears to be the lone occupant of a wasted planet. Like a good worker, he takes his lunch cooler out to the piles and mounds of trash, and accompanied by his cockroach friend, uses his compactor insides to crush the trash into usable cubes. From there he builds skyscrapers of junk. He also keeps some of the treasures he finds - rubber duckies, light bulbs, a spork - and he happily cannibalizes other Wall Es that have stopped working to supplement his parts. He hardly makes any noises, but you understand him perfectly. The dialogue comes solely from a videotape of 'Hello Dolly' that Wall E is fascinated with.
Suffice it to say he meets other robots and has adventures. That may sound simplistic - on one level the story really is very simple - but it's better for you to come into the story like Wall E goes through his life and his adventures - with a sense of newness and wonder.
Wall E's beginnings on the wasted planet are drawn so intricately, with such detail, that you forget you're watching a cartoon. Wall E has so many human traits and movements (and occasionally he mimics a turtle, to funny effect) that you quickly pick up on the fact that he's just no ordinary robot. It may seem slow to the kiddies, but it takes its time to tell its story, while it gives you a chance to absorb Wall E's world and feel for him as strongly as if he was human.
The first half of the film is based on this home planet (our home planet as a matter of fact), and it feels incredibly different than any other Pixar film. It's quiet, introspective, detailed, calm, and funny. You will find yourself laughing at the robot pratfalls as though you'd never seen them before. You'll wince when he hits his head, 'aw' at his attempts to dance, feel sad with him when he feels alone.
The second half of the film is more typically Pixar - the action picks up and there is actual dialogue, but it's no less funny. Without spoiling too much, I can tell you that Fred Willard plays the President (yes, real live people in a Pixar film!), consumerism has taken over the world, and we've gotten so attached to our video screens that we forget everything else. I'll leave all the details out - you need to see it for yourself. I can say, however, that the adage about the eyes being the window to the soul is absolutely true, and a pair of blue eyes in this film tell us so much that I was just amazed at what we're able to learn from this simple device.
And this is one of those movies where there's a lot going on in the background, so I need to see it again to see everything I might have missed. So much is happening in the second half of the film that there are probably a ton of inside jokes and funny moments happening behind the action, and you'll only catch them on future viewings. That said, the kids will like the second half of the movie better, while adults will adore the first half. But everybody will go home happy.
This movie is proceeded by a hilarious short, 'Presto' that left me laughing so hard I was in tears. Just remember to feed your rabbit.
Animals: That cockroach is well-nigh indestructible, but no animals are harmed in the film. And after the movie's over, you'll feel like getting out to walk the dog, run a marathon, anything other than sit in front of a screen.
Overall: This introspective film with the eco-sensitive bent is gorgeous and makes you want to consider hugging your toaster. I give it four roses out of five.
You could subtitle this film "Robots In Love". There's a lot I don't want to say about the plot so that you're not spoiled, but I can tell you this: Wall E - Waste Allocation Load Lifter Earth-Class - appears to be the lone occupant of a wasted planet. Like a good worker, he takes his lunch cooler out to the piles and mounds of trash, and accompanied by his cockroach friend, uses his compactor insides to crush the trash into usable cubes. From there he builds skyscrapers of junk. He also keeps some of the treasures he finds - rubber duckies, light bulbs, a spork - and he happily cannibalizes other Wall Es that have stopped working to supplement his parts. He hardly makes any noises, but you understand him perfectly. The dialogue comes solely from a videotape of 'Hello Dolly' that Wall E is fascinated with.
Suffice it to say he meets other robots and has adventures. That may sound simplistic - on one level the story really is very simple - but it's better for you to come into the story like Wall E goes through his life and his adventures - with a sense of newness and wonder.
Wall E's beginnings on the wasted planet are drawn so intricately, with such detail, that you forget you're watching a cartoon. Wall E has so many human traits and movements (and occasionally he mimics a turtle, to funny effect) that you quickly pick up on the fact that he's just no ordinary robot. It may seem slow to the kiddies, but it takes its time to tell its story, while it gives you a chance to absorb Wall E's world and feel for him as strongly as if he was human.
The first half of the film is based on this home planet (our home planet as a matter of fact), and it feels incredibly different than any other Pixar film. It's quiet, introspective, detailed, calm, and funny. You will find yourself laughing at the robot pratfalls as though you'd never seen them before. You'll wince when he hits his head, 'aw' at his attempts to dance, feel sad with him when he feels alone.
The second half of the film is more typically Pixar - the action picks up and there is actual dialogue, but it's no less funny. Without spoiling too much, I can tell you that Fred Willard plays the President (yes, real live people in a Pixar film!), consumerism has taken over the world, and we've gotten so attached to our video screens that we forget everything else. I'll leave all the details out - you need to see it for yourself. I can say, however, that the adage about the eyes being the window to the soul is absolutely true, and a pair of blue eyes in this film tell us so much that I was just amazed at what we're able to learn from this simple device.
And this is one of those movies where there's a lot going on in the background, so I need to see it again to see everything I might have missed. So much is happening in the second half of the film that there are probably a ton of inside jokes and funny moments happening behind the action, and you'll only catch them on future viewings. That said, the kids will like the second half of the movie better, while adults will adore the first half. But everybody will go home happy.
This movie is proceeded by a hilarious short, 'Presto' that left me laughing so hard I was in tears. Just remember to feed your rabbit.
Animals: That cockroach is well-nigh indestructible, but no animals are harmed in the film. And after the movie's over, you'll feel like getting out to walk the dog, run a marathon, anything other than sit in front of a screen.
Overall: This introspective film with the eco-sensitive bent is gorgeous and makes you want to consider hugging your toaster. I give it four roses out of five.
Friday, June 27, 2008
Durned If You Do...
So let me get this straight. You are horrified by the high gas prices you're seeing every time you pass the local Citgo. So you make a few changes. You buy a more fuel-efficient vehicle, maybe even a hybrid. And then you cut back on your driving - you make all your trips at one time, you carpool to the office, you decide not to take a summer vacation. You even drive slower so you're not burning as much fuel. It's all to save your family money.
After a winter of driving over more potholes than you'd expect to see craters on the moon, you know MDOT and other road fixing folks get 19 cents per every gallon of gas sold - it's tax money. And you also know they rely on that money to fix the roads and bridges, because Michigan gets 92 cents of every dollar it sends to Washington, back for road repair and similar projects, making Michigan a 'donor state.'
Then you hear MDOT and friends say say, Gee, we're not getting nearly as much money from drivers because they're driving less and driving hybrids or more fuel-efficient cars, so they're not buying as much gasoline, and that means less gas tax money for us. But we really need money to fix those roads, otherwise you're going to run the risk of the Minnesota bridge disaster. So we need you to raise the tax on a gallon of gasoline to 28 cents on the gallon or more.
This article lays out all the facts and figures pretty well.
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080612/METRO05/806120380
Without doing a lot of fancy math, aren't you pretty much screwed either way?? You make the effort to be a more responsible citizen behind the wheel to save yourself money, and in the end, you're still going to pay out of pocket when gas prices go up yet again - only this time, it's tax money to pay for crumbling roads, which could be better funded by the federal government, if it would give Michigan a dollar in road money for every dollar it sends to Washington (and no, I don't really get how that works either). In short, no matter what you do to save money, it's going to be wrestled out of your pockets one way or another.
Does this make even the LEAST bit of sense to anyone else??
After a winter of driving over more potholes than you'd expect to see craters on the moon, you know MDOT and other road fixing folks get 19 cents per every gallon of gas sold - it's tax money. And you also know they rely on that money to fix the roads and bridges, because Michigan gets 92 cents of every dollar it sends to Washington, back for road repair and similar projects, making Michigan a 'donor state.'
Then you hear MDOT and friends say say, Gee, we're not getting nearly as much money from drivers because they're driving less and driving hybrids or more fuel-efficient cars, so they're not buying as much gasoline, and that means less gas tax money for us. But we really need money to fix those roads, otherwise you're going to run the risk of the Minnesota bridge disaster. So we need you to raise the tax on a gallon of gasoline to 28 cents on the gallon or more.
This article lays out all the facts and figures pretty well.
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080612/METRO05/806120380
Without doing a lot of fancy math, aren't you pretty much screwed either way?? You make the effort to be a more responsible citizen behind the wheel to save yourself money, and in the end, you're still going to pay out of pocket when gas prices go up yet again - only this time, it's tax money to pay for crumbling roads, which could be better funded by the federal government, if it would give Michigan a dollar in road money for every dollar it sends to Washington (and no, I don't really get how that works either). In short, no matter what you do to save money, it's going to be wrestled out of your pockets one way or another.
Does this make even the LEAST bit of sense to anyone else??
Monday, June 09, 2008
No Bridezillas Here
Since it's wedding month, I've been reading a lot online about crazed brides who insisted their bridesmaids buy $500 dresses, spend a fortune on shower gifts at multiple showers they're required to attend, and even dye their hair the same color as the bride's. One even kicked one gal off her wedding party (after she bought a $300 dress on a student budget) because she suggested a less-expensive bachelorette party package in Vegas. The bride said she wasn't 'dedicated enough to the wedding.'
Thank God I have never had to deal with a Bridezilla.
I've been in four weddings, and am getting ready for a fifth, and I have been lucky not only to have worn five beautiful dresses (no lie!), but to have dealt with five great brides. No bride has ever complained about what I did or didn't do for her. No bride has flipped out, lost her temper, or made unreasonable demands. One bride did have a minor meltdown during photography over her too-tight shoes, but that was quickly remedied by a pair of specially-decorated Keds, courtesy of her quick-thinking sister-in-law. I can't imagine I would be as calm as any of these women.
And I count my blessings every time I hear about a bride-gone-crazy financially. All five brides have been remarkably laid back, open to ideas, and willing to hear what my budget was, and thus willing to work with it. I've never felt pressured to spend money I didn't have, go somewhere I couldn't afford or do something completely unreasonable (the hair-dyeing counts). I just stated what I could and couldn't afford (politely, I mean) and they've all been willing to work with me.
And honestly, if I had been confronted with those demands, I would simply back out of the wedding party. Why do these gals put up with this kind of stuff from their 'friends' without speaking up? And why would a bride ever treat her friends like that anyway? I know it's 'her day' but that doesn't entitle her to become a raving bitch who has to be the center of attention for everything. Seriously, Disney may promote princesses, but grown women should have a little more perspective.
Yet some women get so caught up in the idea of it being all about them for not just one day but the entire run up to the big day (forgetting about the marriage in the process of planning for the wedding), that they ruin friendships in the process with their outrageous demands.
Is a poofy white dress really worth all that? I don't think so.
Thank God I have never had to deal with a Bridezilla.
I've been in four weddings, and am getting ready for a fifth, and I have been lucky not only to have worn five beautiful dresses (no lie!), but to have dealt with five great brides. No bride has ever complained about what I did or didn't do for her. No bride has flipped out, lost her temper, or made unreasonable demands. One bride did have a minor meltdown during photography over her too-tight shoes, but that was quickly remedied by a pair of specially-decorated Keds, courtesy of her quick-thinking sister-in-law. I can't imagine I would be as calm as any of these women.
And I count my blessings every time I hear about a bride-gone-crazy financially. All five brides have been remarkably laid back, open to ideas, and willing to hear what my budget was, and thus willing to work with it. I've never felt pressured to spend money I didn't have, go somewhere I couldn't afford or do something completely unreasonable (the hair-dyeing counts). I just stated what I could and couldn't afford (politely, I mean) and they've all been willing to work with me.
And honestly, if I had been confronted with those demands, I would simply back out of the wedding party. Why do these gals put up with this kind of stuff from their 'friends' without speaking up? And why would a bride ever treat her friends like that anyway? I know it's 'her day' but that doesn't entitle her to become a raving bitch who has to be the center of attention for everything. Seriously, Disney may promote princesses, but grown women should have a little more perspective.
Yet some women get so caught up in the idea of it being all about them for not just one day but the entire run up to the big day (forgetting about the marriage in the process of planning for the wedding), that they ruin friendships in the process with their outrageous demands.
Is a poofy white dress really worth all that? I don't think so.
Thursday, June 05, 2008
'Not Catching the Bouquet' Good
Can we start a new wedding reception rule? If you're 35 or over and still single, you do not have to stand up for the bouquet toss. No wildly amused family member or mischievous friend can drag you out to stand among the 17-year-olds in their sky-high pumps and short skirts to grab for a bedraggled bouquet that nobody actually really wants to catch. If you find out that's what's coming up next, you can - with your dignity perfectly intact - leave the dance floor, and hide in the bathroom if necessary without the DJ heckling you or sending the seven-year-old flower girl to peer under the door of your stall to pull you out of there.
Why is this rite of passage so entertaining for older married members of the crowd? Why do they think this is FUN? They cheer and clap as you're being dragged - and I mean physically dragged - onto the dance floor. They will actually put hands on you to shove you out there, even if you profess offense. Brides think this is hilarious. They're secretly thinking, "I don't have to do this anymore! But you do!"
You know what it says? LOSER. It says YOU SUCK. It says YOU SLEEP ALONE AND WE'RE RUBBING IT IN. So the fact that everybody else thinks it's HIGH-larious to force you to stand out on the dance floor behind the bridesmaids when you could easily have given birth to them is humiliating on a grand scale.
If you're in the wedding party, I get that that's part of the protocol. That, I wearily accept. But when you're the only bridesmaid still single, that adds to the humiliation. But there are means of coping. I've taken to standing behind somebody really tall who seems eager to catch the bouquet, even if it means some frightened lad or very drunk groomsman is later going to stuff the garter up her dress. I figure I might show my support for the bride by standing there in my bridesmaid dress, but I refuse to leap for the flowers.
But I've had about enough of this gross humiliation. I'm already the only singleton in the family and as time goes on, my friends quickly succumb too. Sooner or later their kids will be getting hitched, and I'll still be out there. So I'm taking action, and it isn't going to be pretty. I'm quickly getting to the point where I'm going to start telling people to shove the taffeta-wrapped, wilted-rose-and-baby's-breath concoction far up their asses, if they try to herd me onto the dance floor with kids half my age to catch a reminder of loneliness.
Why is this rite of passage so entertaining for older married members of the crowd? Why do they think this is FUN? They cheer and clap as you're being dragged - and I mean physically dragged - onto the dance floor. They will actually put hands on you to shove you out there, even if you profess offense. Brides think this is hilarious. They're secretly thinking, "I don't have to do this anymore! But you do!"
You know what it says? LOSER. It says YOU SUCK. It says YOU SLEEP ALONE AND WE'RE RUBBING IT IN. So the fact that everybody else thinks it's HIGH-larious to force you to stand out on the dance floor behind the bridesmaids when you could easily have given birth to them is humiliating on a grand scale.
If you're in the wedding party, I get that that's part of the protocol. That, I wearily accept. But when you're the only bridesmaid still single, that adds to the humiliation. But there are means of coping. I've taken to standing behind somebody really tall who seems eager to catch the bouquet, even if it means some frightened lad or very drunk groomsman is later going to stuff the garter up her dress. I figure I might show my support for the bride by standing there in my bridesmaid dress, but I refuse to leap for the flowers.
But I've had about enough of this gross humiliation. I'm already the only singleton in the family and as time goes on, my friends quickly succumb too. Sooner or later their kids will be getting hitched, and I'll still be out there. So I'm taking action, and it isn't going to be pretty. I'm quickly getting to the point where I'm going to start telling people to shove the taffeta-wrapped, wilted-rose-and-baby's-breath concoction far up their asses, if they try to herd me onto the dance floor with kids half my age to catch a reminder of loneliness.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
TV Land is a Small Place
If you were to learn everything you wanted to know about the US from television and movies, you'd think the country is made up of three cities: New York, Los Angeles, and Miami.
You might suspect there's a place called 'Vegas' and a place called 'Chicago' but you wouldn't see them very often. Occasionally you'd see a small town, unnamed and unplaced on any map. And if you watched the Simpsons, you'd know about Springfield, but you wouldn't know where to find it.
You would be shocked to learn there are so many other cities and places in the United States, which you never hear about. Let's not even get into Canada.
Which is why I was tickled to hear that the new USA series, "In Plain Sight" is going to be set in Albuquerque NM. How refreshing! There's a unique culture in New Mexico, and although I haven't seen the show yet, I'm excited about the idea of working that in to the series. It provides so many opportunities to show the world things it may have never seen.
I get why it's easy to set shows in NYC and LA. Filming is de rigeur there so everybody's used to it. The tax breaks are probably big. And that's where the actors are.
The actors are also in Vancouver, another big filming spot - but how many of the shows filmed there are actually set there? Why is there this assumption that we're only interested in how New Yorkers and Californians live their lives? Is it because they're more glamorous, exciting, rich?
I've been to NYC, and while I enjoyed it, it's far too crowded for me. Too many people and buildings and cars and noise. So I honestly don't get the passionate love affair people have with the city. I've never been to Vegas or LA or Miami, but I like Chicago and think more could be filmed there. I'd like to see a show filmed in Detroit (the state is working to attract filmmakers even as I write) so that people stop thinking of the city as a crime-infested rat hole. Maybe life would follow art, then.
In short, we're missing a lot of opportunities for diversity. Let's show the world that the country is made up of more than three whole cities, and work in fresh cultures and viewpoints and scenery.
Heck, even setting a show in Vancouver would be a good start.
You might suspect there's a place called 'Vegas' and a place called 'Chicago' but you wouldn't see them very often. Occasionally you'd see a small town, unnamed and unplaced on any map. And if you watched the Simpsons, you'd know about Springfield, but you wouldn't know where to find it.
You would be shocked to learn there are so many other cities and places in the United States, which you never hear about. Let's not even get into Canada.
Which is why I was tickled to hear that the new USA series, "In Plain Sight" is going to be set in Albuquerque NM. How refreshing! There's a unique culture in New Mexico, and although I haven't seen the show yet, I'm excited about the idea of working that in to the series. It provides so many opportunities to show the world things it may have never seen.
I get why it's easy to set shows in NYC and LA. Filming is de rigeur there so everybody's used to it. The tax breaks are probably big. And that's where the actors are.
The actors are also in Vancouver, another big filming spot - but how many of the shows filmed there are actually set there? Why is there this assumption that we're only interested in how New Yorkers and Californians live their lives? Is it because they're more glamorous, exciting, rich?
I've been to NYC, and while I enjoyed it, it's far too crowded for me. Too many people and buildings and cars and noise. So I honestly don't get the passionate love affair people have with the city. I've never been to Vegas or LA or Miami, but I like Chicago and think more could be filmed there. I'd like to see a show filmed in Detroit (the state is working to attract filmmakers even as I write) so that people stop thinking of the city as a crime-infested rat hole. Maybe life would follow art, then.
In short, we're missing a lot of opportunities for diversity. Let's show the world that the country is made up of more than three whole cities, and work in fresh cultures and viewpoints and scenery.
Heck, even setting a show in Vancouver would be a good start.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Movie Review: Iron Man
I decided, after months of not going to the theater, that I was going to use part of my gift card to go see this comic book adaptation, which had gotten rave reviews from some female friends - so I knew I wasn't dealing with strict fanboyism. Nor did any of them strike me as ragingly hot for Robert Downey Junior (who, I must admit, kind of surprises me that he's still alive, what with that druggy youth).
I wasn't disappointed.
Iron Man is, as you'd expect, your typical superhero genesis tale. Tony Stark (Downey Jr) is a rich playboy whose family money comes from manufacturing weapons. He gets a kick out of posh drinking and blowing things up. He flirts incorrigibly and sleeps around. He chats up the soldiers taking him to the demonstration site in Afghanistan, encouraging them to take pictures with him.
It's not spoiling a lot to tell you it all goes awry and he ends up captured by Afghani terrorists who want him to build a bomb. That part has been released in all the media. It's how he goes about building his supersuit and escaping that's worth letting you see for yourself.
Suffice it to say the CGI never takes over the movie. Maybe it's because the Iron Man suit itself is only somewhat humanoid, unlike, say, the Incredible Hulk, which was displayed in a trailer before this movie. For both this and the previous Hulk, I found the Hulk himself far too CGI for me to suspend disbelief. I don't have a problem with that in Iron Man. In fact, most of the CGI is done really well and in such a way as to not call attention to itself.
Downey Jr is right for this role. I've heard director Jon Favreau (who will always be "that guy" from PCU) encouraged ad-libbing, and it shows - in a good way. Downey Jr carries on a somewhat awkward conversation with the soldiers in his Humvee, but it all seems perfectly natural. He's got an endearingly boyish, rakish charm, and the goatee and sinewy arms sure don't hurt. Even despite his tendency to walk with his belly sticking out like a gangly toddler, he's got sex appeal. You might almost believe a Vanity Fair reporter (Leslie Bibb) writing a scathing piece on him would be tempted with just a few words to fall into bed with him, even if she thinks he's a scoundrel.
This isn't a serious role like Bruce Wayne in Batman. Christian Bale was right for that role (and hella sexy to boot) and Downey Jr is right for this one, juggling sardonic humor and grim shock easily. As a reporter you'd find him downright intriguing to cover because you'd never know what would come out of his mouth, but it would always be worth quoting.
I would be remiss without mentioning the supporting cast. Gwyneth Paltrow, fetching as usual, plays Stark's long-suffering assistant Pepper Potts, without seeming too smug, as she sometimes can. You can easily imagine she's been in love with her boss for years and so doesn't mind the way he goes about his daily business. I would have liked to have seen this role a bit more empowered for the times, but Paltrow doesn't really do shrinking violet anyway. (Plus it was nice to notice she has freckles and isn't ashamed of them.)
Terrance Howard is Col James Rhodes, Stark's best friend, and I always think Howard is grossly underused in his films. He's got a honey smooth voice, a nice-guy face, and of course he can act. I'd like to see him get a bigger role in any subsequent features. If you're a comic book geek, there's supposedly a moment where Rhodes hints at a crime fighting future, but it would have slipped by me had I not read about it elsewhere.
Jeff Bridges is Obadiah Stane, Downey's business partner, and Bridges revels in the vague cross of paternalism and malevolence that is Stane's stock in trade. You won't be surprised by what happens with Stane, but Bridges sells it. Keep an eye out for a purchase order Pepper's scanning about 2/3 of the way through the film. I swear it was made out to a Lebowski. That's an inside joke about a previous Bridges role. (The DUDE!)
Shaun Toub (who has been in a lot more shows that you've seen than you probably realize) is Stark's comrade in captivity Yinsen in a small, predictable role, but he handles it well. Faran Tahir is Raza, clearly the bad guy among bad guys because of his shaved head and haughty demeanor, but he too has an acting resume far more extensive than I'd expected. Both guys have one-note roles but they fill them as well as can be expected. It would have been nice to see those roles more layered.
And two items of note: actor Paul Bettany voices Jarvis, Stark's computer, and a fella I affectionately call Quo Vadimus (Clark Gregg) has a small role as Agent Phil Coulson. This nickname is a reference to his role on the ill-fated Sportsnight, and I've had a soft spot for him ever since. You'll recognize him; the soft-spoken mild-mannered actor pops up everywhere.
Animals: To the best of my recollection, no animals were harmed in this film, but if you like gorgeous cars, you might want to cover your eyes. WHY, oh WHY does Tony Stark practice flying in his GARAGE???
Overall: This movie is easy to plot ahead in your mind, so there are no surprises there. But the acting is solid, the special effects are never intrusive, and basically it's just a fun summer popcorn flick worth enjoying. Three and a half roses out of five.
PS Stick around after the credits for a short additional scene, aimed mostly at fanboys.
I wasn't disappointed.
Iron Man is, as you'd expect, your typical superhero genesis tale. Tony Stark (Downey Jr) is a rich playboy whose family money comes from manufacturing weapons. He gets a kick out of posh drinking and blowing things up. He flirts incorrigibly and sleeps around. He chats up the soldiers taking him to the demonstration site in Afghanistan, encouraging them to take pictures with him.
It's not spoiling a lot to tell you it all goes awry and he ends up captured by Afghani terrorists who want him to build a bomb. That part has been released in all the media. It's how he goes about building his supersuit and escaping that's worth letting you see for yourself.
Suffice it to say the CGI never takes over the movie. Maybe it's because the Iron Man suit itself is only somewhat humanoid, unlike, say, the Incredible Hulk, which was displayed in a trailer before this movie. For both this and the previous Hulk, I found the Hulk himself far too CGI for me to suspend disbelief. I don't have a problem with that in Iron Man. In fact, most of the CGI is done really well and in such a way as to not call attention to itself.
Downey Jr is right for this role. I've heard director Jon Favreau (who will always be "that guy" from PCU) encouraged ad-libbing, and it shows - in a good way. Downey Jr carries on a somewhat awkward conversation with the soldiers in his Humvee, but it all seems perfectly natural. He's got an endearingly boyish, rakish charm, and the goatee and sinewy arms sure don't hurt. Even despite his tendency to walk with his belly sticking out like a gangly toddler, he's got sex appeal. You might almost believe a Vanity Fair reporter (Leslie Bibb) writing a scathing piece on him would be tempted with just a few words to fall into bed with him, even if she thinks he's a scoundrel.
This isn't a serious role like Bruce Wayne in Batman. Christian Bale was right for that role (and hella sexy to boot) and Downey Jr is right for this one, juggling sardonic humor and grim shock easily. As a reporter you'd find him downright intriguing to cover because you'd never know what would come out of his mouth, but it would always be worth quoting.
I would be remiss without mentioning the supporting cast. Gwyneth Paltrow, fetching as usual, plays Stark's long-suffering assistant Pepper Potts, without seeming too smug, as she sometimes can. You can easily imagine she's been in love with her boss for years and so doesn't mind the way he goes about his daily business. I would have liked to have seen this role a bit more empowered for the times, but Paltrow doesn't really do shrinking violet anyway. (Plus it was nice to notice she has freckles and isn't ashamed of them.)
Terrance Howard is Col James Rhodes, Stark's best friend, and I always think Howard is grossly underused in his films. He's got a honey smooth voice, a nice-guy face, and of course he can act. I'd like to see him get a bigger role in any subsequent features. If you're a comic book geek, there's supposedly a moment where Rhodes hints at a crime fighting future, but it would have slipped by me had I not read about it elsewhere.
Jeff Bridges is Obadiah Stane, Downey's business partner, and Bridges revels in the vague cross of paternalism and malevolence that is Stane's stock in trade. You won't be surprised by what happens with Stane, but Bridges sells it. Keep an eye out for a purchase order Pepper's scanning about 2/3 of the way through the film. I swear it was made out to a Lebowski. That's an inside joke about a previous Bridges role. (The DUDE!)
Shaun Toub (who has been in a lot more shows that you've seen than you probably realize) is Stark's comrade in captivity Yinsen in a small, predictable role, but he handles it well. Faran Tahir is Raza, clearly the bad guy among bad guys because of his shaved head and haughty demeanor, but he too has an acting resume far more extensive than I'd expected. Both guys have one-note roles but they fill them as well as can be expected. It would have been nice to see those roles more layered.
And two items of note: actor Paul Bettany voices Jarvis, Stark's computer, and a fella I affectionately call Quo Vadimus (Clark Gregg) has a small role as Agent Phil Coulson. This nickname is a reference to his role on the ill-fated Sportsnight, and I've had a soft spot for him ever since. You'll recognize him; the soft-spoken mild-mannered actor pops up everywhere.
Animals: To the best of my recollection, no animals were harmed in this film, but if you like gorgeous cars, you might want to cover your eyes. WHY, oh WHY does Tony Stark practice flying in his GARAGE???
Overall: This movie is easy to plot ahead in your mind, so there are no surprises there. But the acting is solid, the special effects are never intrusive, and basically it's just a fun summer popcorn flick worth enjoying. Three and a half roses out of five.
PS Stick around after the credits for a short additional scene, aimed mostly at fanboys.
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Truth in Advertising or Just Advertising?
Last week's episode of CSI: NY used a prominently featured Fendi bag billboard in its plot and it got me to thinking about advertising and product placement on TV.
When I was a kid, I was irritated whenever a character opened a box of Loopy Fruits, which didn't really exist. It pulled me out of the realism of the story. What, didn't they eat Frosted Flakes like the rest of us? Drink Coke instead of Fizzy Soda? What were these fake brands?
Today we've gone the other way. Every TV show is an ad for Blackberry, Ford, Mac, or some other product. And it's gone beyond setting the realism of a scene, as you're well aware. CSI NY happens to be one of the worst about this. One episode a few years back had Danny getting a call from someone on his new phone, which he not only answered, but name-checked, complete with Coldplay ringtone. Since it didn't figure into the plot (even though I kept waiting for it to), it was grossly unnecessary.
So this is what it's come to. Since DVRs, VCRs and online viewing have changed the way people deal with commercials, shows are digging deep into obvious product placement to make money. It's no longer, "Get in the truck," It's, "Get in the Ford F-150." Really? Who talks like that?
Fact is, if you're gonna do it, can't you do it a little less obviously? Or do the advertisers pay for which star handles their product, whether they mention it by name or how long they discuss it? Can't the Ford just be parked in the scene? Or is that assuming that in this ADD world, we can't even focus long enough to pay attention?
When I was a kid, I was irritated whenever a character opened a box of Loopy Fruits, which didn't really exist. It pulled me out of the realism of the story. What, didn't they eat Frosted Flakes like the rest of us? Drink Coke instead of Fizzy Soda? What were these fake brands?
Today we've gone the other way. Every TV show is an ad for Blackberry, Ford, Mac, or some other product. And it's gone beyond setting the realism of a scene, as you're well aware. CSI NY happens to be one of the worst about this. One episode a few years back had Danny getting a call from someone on his new phone, which he not only answered, but name-checked, complete with Coldplay ringtone. Since it didn't figure into the plot (even though I kept waiting for it to), it was grossly unnecessary.
So this is what it's come to. Since DVRs, VCRs and online viewing have changed the way people deal with commercials, shows are digging deep into obvious product placement to make money. It's no longer, "Get in the truck," It's, "Get in the Ford F-150." Really? Who talks like that?
Fact is, if you're gonna do it, can't you do it a little less obviously? Or do the advertisers pay for which star handles their product, whether they mention it by name or how long they discuss it? Can't the Ford just be parked in the scene? Or is that assuming that in this ADD world, we can't even focus long enough to pay attention?
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Spring Cleaning
I'm once again reminded I have far too much stuff for one human being. I know my sister-in-law is having a garage sale in two weeks but I just don't have time to get everything together right now - but there are things I could definitely take to the sale. And I have a ton of scrapbook stuff that I haven't used - yet. Where does the time go? And how do we end up with so much stuff? And where do I put it??
I want to take a long weekend in June - originally I was going to travel but I just don't have the money for that - not with gas at $4 a gallon. (I got it for $3.88 yesterday in Kalamazoo and was thrilled!) Maybe it's time to pare down and do all those craft projects and home projects that I never seem to get around to. Do you have that list too? All those things you should do in the evenings after work but you don't have the energy? Or those things you should do on the weekends but you don't have the time?
I want to take a long weekend in June - originally I was going to travel but I just don't have the money for that - not with gas at $4 a gallon. (I got it for $3.88 yesterday in Kalamazoo and was thrilled!) Maybe it's time to pare down and do all those craft projects and home projects that I never seem to get around to. Do you have that list too? All those things you should do in the evenings after work but you don't have the energy? Or those things you should do on the weekends but you don't have the time?
Saturday, May 03, 2008
Derby Picks
I meant to post this last night, but circumstances prevented it. So here are my Derby picks:
As much as I like Big Brown and how he looks, how he trains, how much everyone is raving about him, I'm always leery about a Derby favorite. The Derby doesn't always go to the best horse, and with Big Brown's lack of seasoning and brittle feet, I'm concerned about him. That said, I'd be just as happy if he won. (In fact, I'm always happy if all the horses come through the race without injury.) But I'm going this way instead:
Win: Colonel John
Place: Pyro
Show: Eight Belles
If Colonel John likes the surface and can fend off Big Brown, he can do it. I still think Pyro is a better horse than the Blue Grass indicates and I think people overlook him to their peril. And in the era of Danica Patrick, even though she's never raced against the boys, I'm giving Eight Belles some love. (Great picture of her in the USA Today 'meet the entrants' slide show. I couldn't download it to show it here though.)
As much as I like Big Brown and how he looks, how he trains, how much everyone is raving about him, I'm always leery about a Derby favorite. The Derby doesn't always go to the best horse, and with Big Brown's lack of seasoning and brittle feet, I'm concerned about him. That said, I'd be just as happy if he won. (In fact, I'm always happy if all the horses come through the race without injury.) But I'm going this way instead:
Win: Colonel John
Place: Pyro
Show: Eight Belles
If Colonel John likes the surface and can fend off Big Brown, he can do it. I still think Pyro is a better horse than the Blue Grass indicates and I think people overlook him to their peril. And in the era of Danica Patrick, even though she's never raced against the boys, I'm giving Eight Belles some love. (Great picture of her in the USA Today 'meet the entrants' slide show. I couldn't download it to show it here though.)
Thursday, May 01, 2008
The Kentucky Derby Field Part 2
Z Humor 30-1
PP 11 Rene Douglas
In his most recent start, this stalking horse finished third in the Illinois Derby behind Recapturetheglory. In the Sam F Davis, he stayed just off the pace behind Smooth Air and then pounced on the backstretch, battling Fierce Wind for the lead, then falling off. He ended up finishing fifth. Then in the Fountain of Youth with several other
Smooth Air 20-1
PP 12 Manoel Cruz Bennie Stutts Jr.
Plus I just love those yellow 'socks'!!
Bob Black Jack 20-1
PP13 Richard Migliore James Kasparoff
Monba 15-1
PP14 Ramon Dominguez Todd Pletcher
Adriano 30-1
PP15 Edgar Prado Graham Motion
This beautiful chestnut won an allowance in January at Gulfstream on the turf. Then he sat well off the pace in the Fountain of Youth and never fired, finishing ninth. After that he charged up into view in the Lane’s End – sitting off the pace in fourth then taking the lead along the backstretch and winning impressively while fending off other challenges. That’s the last look we’ve had at him; he hasn’t run since mid-March and he hasn’t won on conventional dirt. Despite his excellent pedigree, ex jockey Gary Stevens thinks he’s a synthetic track runner, not dirt. He’s also known to be high-strung, and they’re schooling him with earplugs to keep him calm. That worries me more than anything else. It’s going to be noisy and busy – can he handle it? On the other hand, he’s experienced and he can definitely do the distance. Consider him for trifectas, superfectas and the like.
Denis of
PP16 Calvin Borel David Carroll
PP17 John Velazquez Todd Pletcher
While you probably haven’t heard a lot about this horse, he’s from the Todd Pletcher barn and he has John Velazquez aboard, and that’s a mighty duo. He’s got a lovely pedigree from
Recapturetheglory 20-1
PP18 E.T. Baird Louie Roussel III
He held on solidly throughout the Illinois Derby, holding off challenges from Atoned, Denis of Cork, Golden Spikes and Z Humor to win his first graded stakes race – the first he’d ever run in, as a matter of fact. His previous win was a maiden special weight last September at Hawthorne; in 2008 he finished third in an allowance at Churchill Downs, and reports say he ran very well in that race. While his Illinois Derby win was well done, he did have the rail there, and only two races prepping him for the
Gayego 15-1
PP19 Mike Smith Paulo Lobo
Big Brown 3-1
PP20
The Kentucky Derby favorite’s first win was on the turf, and his second two on the dirt, so he’s going into the
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
The Kentucky Derby Field Part 1
Here's the first half of the full field - the second half will come tomorrow. The notes are as follows: Horse's name, odds; second line is Post Position, Jockey, Trainer.
Cool Coal Man 20-1
PP1 Julien Leparoux Nick Zito
This son of former Horse of the Year Mineshaft and grandson of amazing sire AP Indy should have the pedigree and class to go the distance, and he’s got a few races under his saddle cloth to show for it. His last race wasn’t great – he finished ninth in the Blue Grass ahead of Pyro but behind winner Monba – maybe due to not liking the synthetic surface. Prior to that he won the Fountain of Youth at Gulfstream by hanging off the pace. He’s already won an allowance over the Churchill Downs track, but it was an allowance. The post position shouldn’t hurt him, and he beat quite a few of these other horses in the Fountain of Youth, so with his pedigree, connections, jockey and history, he’s a real threat.
Tale of Ekati 15-1
PP2 Eibar Coa Barclay Tagg
The Louisiana Derby – won by Pyro – was his 2008 debut. He started out dead last after a bad break and ended up sixth, not showing much at all. He settled into fourth at the start of the Wood Memorial behind the front-running
Anak Nakal 30-1
PP3 Rafael Bejarano Nick Zito
Court Vision 20-1
PP4 Garrett Gomez Bill Mott
Eight Belles 20-1
PP5 Gabriel Saez Larry Jones
Z Fortune 15-1
PP6 Robby Albarado Steve Asmussen
Big Truck 50-1
PP7 Javier Castellano Barclay Tagg
Visionaire 20-1
PP8 Jose Lezcano Michael Matz
Pyro 8-1
PP9 Shawn Bridgmohan Steve Asmussen
Pyro was the golden boy of the set after
Colonel John 4-1
PP10 Rafael Bejarano Eion Harty
The class of the West Coast, this son of two-time Breeders Cup Classic winner Tiznow has won four of six races and never finished worse than second. The big question is, is he just a synthetic surface horse? Three of those wins have come at Santa Anita, which is a synthetic surface, like most
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
